1月12日雅思大作文真题回顾

Some cities have vehicle-free days when private cars, trucks and motorcycles are banned in city centers. People are encouraged to take a bus, ride a bike or travel by taxi instead. Do advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

又是一个老话题，但是完全一模一样的题并没有出现过。这要求我们灵活运用类似题目的观点，千万不要生搬硬套。跟"限制私家车"有关的题目比较有代表性的有：

Car owner ship has increased so rapidly over the past thirty years that many cities in the world are now "one big traffic jam". How true do you think this statement is? What measures can governments take to discourage people from using their cars?

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think are effective?

两道题都问到如何解决由于私家车太多所带来的交通拥堵和尾气污染的问题，两道题也肯定可以用到"政府通过改善公共交通，鼓励人们更多绿色出行"的观点。但是这个观点如何灵活运用到这次的雅思题目中来呢？仔细想想，题目给出解决问题的手段是强制人们不准开车；那么不难建立这么个逻辑关系：如果政府总是通过简单粗暴的行政手段来解决问题的话，他们也似乎免去了采用更积极手段来解决问题的责任。当然这个观点也许对很多没有社会经验的同学来说理解起来有些困难，所以我把它放在了最后一个主体段，作为一个optional的段落。本篇范文坚持的观点是弊大于利，主要围绕由于"强制"手段所带来的一系列副作用。希望同学们好好体会。

Traffic congestion and vehicle exhausts have been a major concern in many big cities across the world. While limiting the number of private vehicles could be a viable solution, taking administrative measures to achieve this will not necessarily generate positive results.

On the surface of the issue, when private cars are prohibited from entering the downtown areas, the traffic load will be significantly lightened especially during rush hours. The harmful emissions from vehicles will be reduced dramatically as well, leading to a better living environment for city dwellers. Under an ideal scenario, upon seeing the benefits of vehicle-free days, many people may voluntarily choose to leave their cars at home even when they are free to drive.

However, most people choose to drive private cars instead of taking public transport not just for comfort, but also for more practical reasons such as convenience and efficiency. So the limitation to private vehicles will be very unpopular among private car users even though it only happens on several days. The commuters who regularly take public transport will also be affected because there are a greater number of passengers, who will obviously make a bus or a train compartment much more crowded.

Further, people who have to suffer the restriction imposed on them may grow resentment toward the government because they feel that their freedom has been infringed upon. Some car owners may also feel deceived because they are not able to use their cars freely, while they were allowed or even encouraged to purchase vehicles to contribute to the economic growth. Such dissatisfaction may, in worst case, be maliciously employed to cause social disorders.

The oversimplified compulsory means also seem to have exempted the governments from the responsibility for coming up with more constructive measures. Individuals should not be simply compelled to conform to something. They should be persuaded to take some desirable actions after being given a benefit of doing so. If, for example, the public transports are made more available, comfortable and reliable, people will use them. And improving the public transportation system is certainly the duty of governments, which should not be replaced by coercive measures.

In conclusion, setting vehicle free days might seem to be an active response to the growing traffic and pollution problems at the first glance, but upon further reflection, I believe that this policy will not achieve its intended results.