Câu hỏi:

19/08/2025 562 Lưu

Some people think it is more important to spend money on roads and motorways than on public transport systems. To what extent do you agree?

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

It is argued that money should be spent on developing roads and motorways rather than on public transport systems. Personally, I think both road and public transport systems have vital roles to play in modern society, and therefore should be equally invested in.

On the one hand, better road quality increases the level of safety and reduces traffic congestion. In many cities and provinces in Vietnam for example, the number of road accidents is ever-increasing because there are a lot of holes on the road’s surface. This is clear evidence that the government should spend money improving the quality of road systems in order to ensure the safety of people. Additionally, building wider roads and more motorways in big cities like Ha Chi Minh, where traffic congestion is still a major problem, will help to increase road capacity. It means that there will be more space for a larger number of vehicles, hence reducing pressure on the city’s main roads as well as congestion.

On the other hand, better public transport systems are beneficial for the environment and people who do not have a private vehicle. In fact, some modes of public transport like subways produce less pollutants than cars and other private vehicles. Therefore, spending money providing people with access to public transport will improve air quality and reduce pollution. Furthermore, for those who do not have a private vehicle, such as motorbike or car, buses and subways are a great choice if they have to travel every day.

In conclusion, for the reasons above, I believe money should be well-spent on not only road but also public transport systems.

Sample 2:

There are those who opine that it is more crucial if the government allocates financial resources to the construction of roadways instead of transport systems for railways and the tram network. Personally, I am totally against this idea because comprehensive public transport systems can bring convenience to more people and help protect the environment.

The primary reason supporting my stance is that well-built and maintained public transport systems make commuters’ lives easier. Employees do not have to go to work by car, especially those who work in the city centre, where finding a parking space is time-consuming and at the same time, it is costly to park; instead, they can take a nap and finish some work on the train or bus. Apart from that, people can avoid traffic jams during peak hours because bus lanes are already available, and trains always run smoothly as scheduled.

Another point I consider relevant is that financing public transport can contribute more to environmental protection. Automobiles are powered by fossil fuels, emitting large quantities of toxic gases to pollute the air. If people actively choose public transport due to its great convenience and high efficiency they can enjoy, they will be less likely to drive cars. Such green travel will considerably alleviate air pollution, making a city more livable.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree that it is more reasonable to invest money in building roads and freeways rather than public transport facilities. Funding public transport systems can, for one thing, make individuals’ everyday life more convenient, and, for another, conserve the environment. Therefore, it is suggested that the authorities prioritise developing public transport systems.

Sample 3:

Investment in transportation is a major concern for many individuals. There is a notion that the authorities should allocate more funds for the construction of roads and motorways rather than the development of public transportation. This essay totally agrees with the mentioned idea for several reasons.

To begin with, transport infrastructure should be prioritized because the operation of conveyances, including public vehicles, relies heavily on the quality of roads and motorways. The development of roadway systems is indeed an essential prerequisite for the coordination of numerous forms of transport from motorbikes, cars, and trucks to buses. South Korea is an outstanding example. This country, where the vast majority of citizens are pedestrians and public transport commuters, has always put great emphasis on building and maintaining a reliable system of roads.

Furthermore, the advancement of roads and motorways is significantly crucial since this is an effective measure to tackle accidents and congestions. Promoting the quality of roadways helps ensure travel smoothness and safety while expanding thoroughfares enables vehicles to move more easily and be better controlled even during peak hours. The costs of negligence in constructing high-quality roads include increased mortality from car accidents and disrupted delivery of passengers and goods, for instance, and consequently, lead to serious economic losses. Therefore, this ought to be one of the first and foremost focuses of investment.

In conclusion, my firm conviction is that allotting money to roads and motorways is of greater importance than distributing budgets to public transport due to the fundamental role of roadways in the whole conveying system as well as the demand to deal with various traffic problems.

Sample 4:

It is argued that more funds should be allocated to roads and motorways rather than to public transport systems. I am in complete disagreement with this opinion.

On the one hand, I can understand why spending money on road networks gains the support of many people. Their view is that better road quality would increase the levels of safety and ease traffic congestion. Firstly, the better quality of motorways means a considerable decline in road mortality and injury rates. This is justifiable since the roads in some countries are fraught with holes and obstacles, plaguing people with danger and insecurity. In this sense, the amelioration of poor road infrastructures would ensure the safety of travellers. Secondly, expanding roads and building more motorways are believed to curb traffic jams. Traffic congestion is a major concern in big cities where massive numbers of vehicles travel on the road during hours of peak demand. This vexed problem could be tackled as wider roads provide maximum travel time in free-flowing traffic.

However, I would argue that spending on public transport is a better investment for a few reasons. Compared to vehicles, high-capacity public transit modes can accommodate a larger number of passengers at a time. This could be exemplified by integrated and expansive public transport networks in Australia. Recent estimates indicate that each train on Sydney’s railways removes approximately 1000 cars from its roads. Therefore, a modal shift from private to public transport would tremendously alleviate urban congestion which has been considered as one of the productivity bottlenecks in developed economies. Moreover, efficient public transport systems are a contributor to a cleaner environment. By removing cars from streets, public transit plays a pivotal role in the abatement of carbon emissions. Not only does this reduce air pollution, but it also mitigates the effects of climate change as a whole.

Based on the above-mentioned arguments, I acquiesce to the view that money should be invested in public transport systems rather than road networks.

Sample 5:

Traffic is an ongoing problem in modern society, and there have been heated discussions on whether to invest more in road infrastructure or upgrading mass transit such as trains and buses. From my perspective, it is more optimal to spend taxes on building wider or newer roads or bridges.

The biggest current problem in cities is none other than the congestion of traffic. As solving this problem by reducing the population or limiting the use of private vehicles is nigh impossible, the ideal solution is to change the city's infrastructure. It has been proven in various research and articles that numerous cities managed to circumvent any traffic related issue simply by widening the intersection, creating new roads or constructing new bridges. Another example can be seen in the city of Hanoi, a beautiful city which was marred by constant traffic jams and rush hours. However, in recent years, new intersection bridges and wider routes being built at a fast pace have lessened the issues plaguing the city. Renovating infrastructure has usually been the optimal method for solving traffic problems.

Comparatively, putting public taxes into mass transit has been shown to be ill-choiced due to more expensive investments and less successful results. Despite focusing on public transport, the frequency of rush hours and traffic congestion remains static, with no drastic change likely to be seen. The problem stems from the size of the mass transit used daily, and hypothetically, if people rely more on them, the need for more buses and trains will increase. As a result, too many buses occupying one road can be a nightmarish scenario one might expect in the future. Coupling with more public money invested, then a city or a country is probably going to face an economic recession stemming from traffic.

In conclusion, the answer to whether public money should be put into road infrastructure or systemic innovation to public transport is simple. Renovating and creating new roads and bridges are cheaper, easier and more optimal to solve traffic problems. Hopefully, the government can earnestly spend people's hard-earned money on that rather than making excuses about human population or failure of technology.

Sample 6:

There is a contention that financial resources should be directed towards the enhancement of roads and motorways rather than towards public transportation systems. From my perspective, both road infrastructure and public transport systems hold significant importance in contemporary society and hence warrant equal investment.

On one hand, enhancing road quality enhances safety levels and alleviates traffic congestion. In numerous cities and provinces across Vietnam, for instance, the frequency of road accidents is on the rise due to numerous potholes on the road surface. This serves as compelling evidence that the government ought to allocate funds towards enhancing road quality to ensure the safety of its citizens. Moreover, constructing wider roads and additional motorways in major cities like Ho Chi Minh City, where traffic congestion remains a significant issue, will augment road capacity. This implies that there will be more room for a greater number of vehicles, thereby easing pressure on the city's primary roads and reducing congestion.

On the flip side, improved public transportation systems are advantageous for both the environment and individuals lacking private vehicles. Indeed, certain modes of public transport such as subways emit fewer pollutants than cars and other private vehicles. Therefore, investing in providing people with access to public transport will enhance air quality and mitigate pollution. Furthermore, for those without private vehicles such as motorcycles or cars, buses and subways serve as excellent options for daily travel.

In summary, based on the aforementioned reasons, I opine that funds should be judiciously allocated not only towards roads but also towards public transportation systems.

Sample 7:

It is believed by some that more funds should be expended on roads and motorways as opposed to public transport. I completely agree with the given viewpoint as I believe that the economy of a country relies massively on the seamless condition of its roadways.

Firstly, in order for many industries to run smoothly, it is required for them to transport a substantial quantity of goods every day to different cities. The Indian economy, for example, relies heavily on agriculture, and a huge number of fruits and vegetables are transported through roadways on a daily basis. This whole system can crumble if the roads are not well maintained, which in turn will impact not only the livelihood of many but also lead to inflation as people will not get eatables easily.

Secondly, it is significant to improve roads and motorways as it promotes smooth commuting not only through public transport but also for those who travel using personal vehicles. Consequently, the productivity of a nation increases because a huge number of people travel to work every day. It might also result in fewer accidents on roads which may lead to contentment among people. For instance, many road accidents occur because of the fact that motorways are not smooth and have potholes or are congested.

To conclude, I believe that it is more crucial to improve roads and motorways as compared to public transport if both the efficiency of the workforce and the economy of a nation are considered.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

The issue of addressing the global challenge of feeding a rapidly expanding population has spurred discussions about potential solutions, including the adoption of Genetically Modified (GM) foods. While some proponents argue that GM foods present a viable answer to this problem, I fundamentally disagree. The potential risks associated with GM foods and the availability of alternative sustainable approaches make me skeptical about their efficacy as a long-term solution.

To begin with, Genetically Modified foods often involve the manipulation of organisms' genetic makeup to enhance desirable traits, such as increased crop yield or resistance to pests. While this may seem promising in theory, the unintended consequences of genetic modification could pose significant risks to human health and the environment. For instance, allergens or toxins could be inadvertently introduced into GM crops, leading to adverse effects on consumers. The release of genetically modified organisms into the environment could also disrupt natural ecosystems and harm biodiversity.

Additionally, the push for GM foods detracts attention and resources from more sustainable and holistic agricultural practices that have the potential to address food security challenges without compromising safety. Agroecological approaches, such as crop rotation, agroforestry, and integrated pest management, offer environmentally friendly alternatives to intensive monocultures and chemical-based farming. These methods promote soil health, water conservation, and biodiversity, all of which are crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability of food production.

In conclusion, while the growing global population necessitates innovative solutions for food security, I am opposed to the idea that GM foods offer a viable remedy. The potential risks to human health and the environment, coupled with the availability of more sustainable agricultural practices, make me doubtful about the long-term efficacy of genetically modified foods. Instead of relying solely on GM foods, it is imperative to explore diverse and sustainable approaches that prioritize both human well-being and the planet's health.

Sample 2:

To tackle food shortages, many scientists recommend genetically modified (GM) food as a solution. Despite some concerns regarding this solution, I strongly believe that this is the future for food security.

The first benefit that GM foods offer is that it has significantly higher yield compared to traditional crops. GM foods have their genes altered to reproduce their cells quicker, leading to faster crop productions. Also, GM foods are capable of withstanding harsh environments, such as during winters and dry summers. Another benefit of consuming more GM foods is that they require fewer pesticides, contrary to popular belief. Because scientists design GM foods to be resistant to common pests, farmers do not need to spray pesticides as regularly as they would growing traditional crops.

However, despite these benefits, there are some concerns that researchers should revisit before populating GM foods. The first concern is the impact GM crops have on the ecosystem. Because these crops are known to be resistant to pests, it could lead to the eradication of pest species. As a result, this can disrupt the ecosystem’s balance. The second concern is that, due to GM crops’ high efficiency and rapid growth, they can easily become an invasive species with unhealthy farming practices. This problem, aside from damaging the ecosystem, also has adverse effects on the economy. For example, if one plot destined to grow a certain plant gets invaded by another species, farmers will experience a loss of income.  

In conclusion, although admittedly, there are some legitimate concerns for GM foods, I still strongly agree that GM crops are the most feasible solution to the global food shortage.  

Sample 3:

Feeding the ever-growing world population is undoubtedly a significant challenge that needs to be addressed. Some individuals argue that genetically modified (GM) foods could provide a viable solution to this problem. In my opinion, while GM foods may offer certain benefits, they also come with potential risks and drawbacks that need to be carefully considered.

Proponents of GM foods argue that they can help increase crop yields, improve nutritional content, and enhance resistance to pests and diseases. This, they claim, would enable farmers to produce more food on less land, ultimately helping to feed a larger population. Additionally, GM foods have the potential to withstand harsh environmental conditions, such as drought or extreme temperatures, making them more resilient and reliable sources of food.

However, it is important to acknowledge the concerns surrounding GM foods. Critics argue that the long-term health and environmental impacts of consuming and cultivating GM crops are not yet fully understood. There are also ethical considerations, such as the potential for corporate control over the food supply and the loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, the introduction of GM crops into natural ecosystems could have unforeseen consequences, disrupting delicate ecological balances.

In conclusion, while GM foods may offer some potential benefits in addressing the challenge of feeding a growing world population, the risks and uncertainties associated with their widespread adoption cannot be ignored. It is crucial to conduct thorough research and risk assessments to ensure that the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. Ultimately, a balanced approach that takes into account the needs of both current and future generations is necessary to tackle this pressing issue.

Sample 4:

Whether GM foods are the ultimate answer to address the need to feed the ever-growing global population has been a topic of fierce argument recently among intellectuals across the world. However, I fully agree with the statement that such foods are an effective remedy to worldwide food scarcity.

One obvious advantage of GM foods is better production in lesser time which will ensure food for more people that too utilizing a few resources. In addition, these foods and their cultivation are a lot more environmentally-friendly than normal foods because the former are highly resilient to diseases, pests and insects which reduces the need to use harmful herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and so on. This also ensures that people get pure fruits and grains, for example, free from chemicals.

Better texture, varied flavors and improved nutritional values are some other qualities which make genetically modified foods a viable solution to shortage of food. When such high-quality foods are made available at cheaper prices, it will sure save governments and individuals substantial sums of money, not to mention the obvious health benefits for people. Further, longer shelf-life makes bioengineered foods easier to transport to distant places and store them. Last but not least, their potentially non-allergenic nature makes them Manna from heaven for the hungry millions.

In short, GM foods are the need of the hour. Therefore, the authorities across the world need to spring to action to mass-produce genetically-engineered foods and make them available to people thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives from malnutrition and starvation.

Sample 5:

As the population is increasing at a fast rate across the world, a shortage of food is becoming a perplexing problem. Some individuals suggest that this can be addressed by genetically modified foods. In my opinion, I totally disagree with the statement since engineering genetic foods have a high risk of potential problems and negative environmental impacts.

The main issue of genetic modification organism is a risk of potential problems after having the food for a long-term. This is because scientists or nutritionists are not sure about the long-term effects and safety as it is a relatively new practice. For example, food allergic reactions have risen in the last decade such as nuts or dairy products, which resulted from consuming GM foods. In addition, there are also a large number of people who hold concerns about the potential risks to human health affected by GM crops such as inducing mutations in human genes. Therefore, numerous people have an inclination toward eating organic food rather than GM foods.

Another thing to consider is that the agricultural method of GMOs brings harmful effects on the environment and ecosystem. Firstly, the changes in the agricultural practice affect on the farming and where weeds or other harmful factors become stronger. This results in overuse of the toxic sprays such as pesticides and herbicides. Secondly, the new cultivation method is harmful for non-GMO crops and also insects or animals, which can lead to loss of biodiversity. To illustrate this, bees play an important role in the pollination of various food crops, but they are vulnerable from the sprays.

In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to the opinion that genetically modified foods can deal with

a shortage of food due to the world demographic growth. This is for the reason that it has potential problems affecting people’s health and it has negative effects on environmental impacts and biodiversity.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

An increasing concern for many governments around the world is the declining health of their citizens due to a poor diet. While some people believe governments should be responsible for improving the health of their nation, others believe it is up to the individual. This essay will examine both sides of the argument.

There is no doubt that individuals must take some responsibility for their diet and health. The argument to support this is the fact that adults have free will and make their own choices about what they eat and the exercise that they do. Children are also becoming less healthy. However, their parents are the ones who provide their evening meals, so it is their responsibility to ensure these meals are nutritious and encourage them to avoid junk food and sugary snacks during the day.

Despite these arguments, there is also a case for advocating the intervention of the state. People these days often have little choice but to depend on fast food or ready meals that are high in sugar, salt and fat due to the pressures of work. Governments could regulate the ingredients of such food. Some governments also spend huge amounts of tax money on treating health problems of their citizens in hospitals. It would be logical to spend this on preventative measures such as campaigns to encourage exercise and a good diet.

Having considered both sides of the issue, I would argue that although individuals must take ultimate responsibility for what they eat, governments also have a role to play as only they can regulate the food supply, which openly encourages a poor diet. It is only through this combination that we can improve people’s health.

Sample 2:

It is observed that few citizens think that ruling authorities must take care of the habit of eating of the citizens. On the other hand, few people think that it is their own duty. There is a divided opinion on this. My preference is explained further.

Examining the former view, the propionate claim that it is the duty of the government to take care of the food habits of people. To a large extent, it is like imposing the rules if there are strict rules for junk food availability. For example, if there are limited outlets, many people will avoid going to such places. Also, they can put restrictions on the production of certain food. To add to that, the government also can put a restriction on soft drink products. So as much as less availability as less use. So by that, they can control the uses.

On the other hand, many believe that it is their responsibility of own to take care of their health. Nowadays youngsters prefer to eat outside food, but their parents should take care of their eating habits. As they are the pioneers of their children. All the good and bad things taught by elders to their kids. And kids also listen to their parents only. So, it becomes their own duty to look after this.

All in all, it can be said that the government is not responsible for the eating habits of people. It is an individual’s duty to take care of their diet. Government cannot control diet because it will have a bad impact on the ruling authorities.

Sample 3:

The increasing focus on health has sparked a debate regarding the responsibility for dietary decisions. Some argue that individuals should have the autonomy to choose their diets, while others believe governments should ensure their citizens adopt healthy eating habits. In my view, achieving the best health outcomes requires cooperation between individuals and governments.

On one hand, individuals bear the primary responsibility for their dietary choices. With a wide array of food options available, people can create balanced diets rich in essential nutrients. This flexibility allows for personalized approaches; for example, vegetarians can opt for protein-rich beans, while those who consume meat can choose leaner protein sources. Moreover, individuals have a unique understanding of their own bodies and preferences, enabling them to tailor their diets for optimal health and well-being.

However, governments also wield considerable influence over food choices. Their role extends beyond ensuring food safety to include implementing regulations that restrict the advertising of unhealthy foods, especially those aimed at children. Additionally, governments can subsidize the production and sale of nutritious foods, making them more accessible to all citizens, particularly those facing financial challenges. Educational campaigns advocating for balanced diets and highlighting the risks of unhealthy eating further empower individuals to make informed dietary decisions.

In conclusion, promoting a healthy populace requires a multi-dimensional approach. While individuals are ultimately responsible for their choices, governments can play a significant role in creating an environment conducive to healthy eating. Through regulatory measures, educational initiatives, and economic incentives, governments can empower citizens to prioritize their well-being and make informed choices. This collaborative effort will contribute to the overall health and wellness of the population.

Sample 4:

Nowadays an increasing number of people are becoming concerned about their health and the quality of their diet. There are two diametrically opposed opinions on the matter. Some people believe that each and every individual is responsible for their own health while others state that it is the government that must ensure that the citizens have healthy eating habits.

Personally, I believe that people bear full responsibility for their diets for a number of reasons. First, nowadays there is a vast variety of products that everyone can choose from, ensuring a balanced diet consisting of different types of products with sufficient vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. Everyone can balance their diets according to these factors and also based on their taste preferences. For example, vegetarians will prefer beans rich in protein while omnivorous eaters might opt for meat instead. Secondly, while governments cannot considerably vary in their healthy eating programs usually adhering to 'one size fits all' approach, individuals know exactly what they need in order to keep fit and healthy both generally speaking and in terms of food. We take a tailored approach as we know exactly what we need to succeed in life, be strong and healthy.

However, others argue that the government is fully responsible for the kind of food its population consume because they make decisions regarding the quality of food their country produce and import as well as prices. For instance, in many developing countries people rarely have access to high quality food, thus being forced to choose something cheap like fast food. Moreover, the government can introduce legislation as regards to what kind of food can be promoted, seen for example in many European countries where the advertising of fast food, alcohol and cigarettes is prohibited. These measures, it is argued, can affect the way we eat and control the diets of the whole population. 

In conclusion, while the governments may play a role in the choice of food of its citizens, it is still the responsibility of every individual whether to eat healthy diet or not due to many reasons being that a variety of methods to balance their diets or their finances. After all our life is in our hands!

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP