I'll be more than happy if someone with enough time is willing to spend it on my essay. Thanks in advance.
Prompt:
The large number of private cars on the roads in many parts of the world had led to serious problems of pollution and may contributes to global warming. Some people think that governments should spend money for the development of public transportation systems in order to help solve this problem. Others think it is better to spend money for the development of electric and other types of cars that may cause less pollution.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience.
So introduction is on point. It is good. Only thing I would suggest is that since this is a "discuss both sides" kind of essay before you give your opinion you can actually mention something about both sides. This would have been perfect intro in case the essay question just said give your opinion. Since the essay topic says discuss both sides a better introduction paragraph would be to have some indication of both sides. For example something like (There may still be better ways of doing this)
Essay:
Due to the high number of private cars in circulation across the world, the air contamination and the global warming have significantly worsened. It's (I have mentioned before, do not use contractions in formal essay. Write "It is" instead" it's a small thing to fix so just remember next time) believed by some that governments must allocate more budget to enhance public transportation system, while others bet for more innovating transportation alternatives as a solution. I firmly believe that governments should invest more funds in developing eco-friendly vehicles to tackle this issue.
Although investing in public transport has some benefits, I firmly believe that governments should invest more funds in developing eco-friendly vehicles to tackle this issue.
Overall the paragraph is good. I can see the idea. And I can see the idea flow and progression. Good!There is no denying that having a well-connected, safe and reliable public transportation system might have a deterrent effect on citizen to reduce the use of private cars, and therefore, the pollution would may decrease considerably. However, even in this scenario, most people will always prefer driving their own cars, because of the freedom of movement and choice a vehicle provided (provides). So the real benefits would be few. I think one more line here may have made the paragraph perfect.
A few things for improvement.
In line one ... the word deterrent is wrong choice. So I understand what you are trying to say but the way you wrote the next part of sentence it made it a double negative. It may be because you are translating from your language .. it happens ..
Let me explain .. now the sentence reads
deterrent .... to reduce use of private cars ... which means you are deterring the reduction in use of cars.
Correct use would be
public transportation would encourage people to reduce use of private cars .. You want to encourage people to use less cars.
or simply say
deterrent .... use of private cars . ... basically remove the word reduce from your sentence. Deter means you want people not to use their car.
I'm not sure if it makes sense to you. Sometimes it is difficult to explain on forum. May have been a 15 second explanation while talking.
Other than that good para but the end seemed a little abrupt. May be one more line to support why the benefits would be limited would have made it really good.
Good paragraph. Again the idea is clear. and there is a progression. But again I think if you added one more sentence it would have become even better. So here is what you arguedOn the other hand, environmentally friendly automobiles are the smarter solution to curb the air pollution. Hybrids vehicles or all electric vehicles consume in on average 35% less petrol and emit less dangerous emissions into the atmosphere. Moreover, these cars are cheaper than conventional ones. It is for all these reasons that the Spanish government, over the last five years, has encouraged and supported financially (financially supported) to the automotive industry to produce more less pollutant cars. (Ok so read this again. more "less pollutant cars" so I understand what you want to say. And may be it sounded correct in your language too but it sounds a little odd in English. I can't really fault the grammar or English here but it's just odd to read. may be say ... produce more environment friendly cars or produce more cars which emit less pollution)
Electric vehicles -> less emission hence government supporting automotive industry -> which means cheaper cars .. If you added just one more line saying cheaper electric cars will see wider adoption from people and hence will help more. It would help your argument even more.
But as it is the paragraph is logical to me. And idea is clear.
GoodTo sum up, although it is true that a high quality public transportation could reduce the use of particular (private) cars, and, to some extent, keep at bay (nice vocab) the contamination, but it also true that eco-friendly vehicles would definitively have a far reaching impact on reducing the emissions of pollutant gases, and therefore the environment would be less polluted and the climate warming controlled.
Word count: 265
Overall ... as I said in previous essays there is a marked improvement in the way you are now writing essays. Your ideas are clear .. the flow of ideas .. structure is better, logical and easy to read. In this essay I could see good use of vocab also. There are a few suggestions which you can take (if you like).
I think you are on the right track. Keep improving and I hope you will score really good on your IELTS. All the best!