As living condition is much improved, more and more people own an automobile.

When a large number of vehicles hit the road, arouse many problems. Theres a proposal that private vehicle s should be banned in crowded country. This idea has some points but it doesnt mean that it has no downsides. Lets look at the advantages. Firstly, banning private vehicles leads to less congestion. In some overcrowded places, traffic jam is really a nuisance. Its an obvious waste of time, and being stuck in a traffic jam makes people easily fly into a temper. Getting the roads rid of this burdensome problem is a good thing. Secondly, fewer vehicles in the street mean less exhaust emission, hence less air pollution. Almost all private vehicles are cars and motorbikes (only a small number are bicycle), which let out carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. These hazardous not only are injurious to human health but also contribute to global warming. Along with air pollution these vehicles increase noise pollution also. So in order to reduce pollution to some extent we must avoid using private vehicles. Another benefit goes to saving natural resources. Cars and motorbikes run on gasoline, which is originally deprived form

the earth. We are now exploiting more oil than the earths crust can produce; a future energy deficiency is foreseeable. While scientist is still working on alternative energy, the best method now is cut down on the use of fossil fuel, especially the use of automobiles. The increasing number of private vehicles results in the increasing need of parking lots, garages, and car maintenances. With a growing population, more land will be needed. By banning private vehicles, a lot of land from parking lots can be saved for houses, school and other facilities. Now, lets consider the disadvantages. The first question is will public vehicles efficient enough to satisfy the need of travelling for millions of people in an extremely big city? I think the answer is no. At least for now. Secondly, its the freedom of travelling that matter. Can you really be happy if you are totally dependable on someone else to take you everywhere? Since public vehicles have to travel on schedules, and it caters to a lot of people, you cannot ask the driver to stop anywhere you want. Oh, you can if you take a taxi, but imagine how much it cost if you have to take taxies all year round? Having your own vehicle is much more convenient, no waiting, no restricted time, and you can use it at your disposal.

Weve just seen both the pros and con of banning private vehicles. I advocate the proposal. Compare with the disadvantages, the advantages is tremendous. Solving congestion and environmental problem is much more important the personal convenience. However banning private vehicles at the moment is just impractical, because a large profit will be lost, since car industry is a giant business all over the world. Moreover, in a big city, where life is rush and technology is highly developed; it will only impede the prosperity of the economy there. However the problem of congestion and pollution cannot be ignored. I think we should not suddenly and completely ban private vehicles, but only in some parts of the city, and on certain day (such as Sunday or holiday). Therefore, it will not shock the city dwellers. Then the government phase in the practice of using public transportation, by some means of encouraging, and of course the system must be of higher quality. Lets hope for more efficient traffic in the future. Your argument here is developed in a fairly methodical fashion, which is great. There is room for development of the ideas, especially those ideas you have about the disadvantages of banning cars from cities, to which you devote only one, albeit your longest, paragraph. More importantly, you could probably try to elaborate further the basis of your judgment that the advantages would outweigh

the disadvantages. At present, you resort merely to assertion in your concluding paragraph: you assert that the advantages would be comparatively "tremendous"; and you assert that solving environmental problems is more important than considerations of personal convenience. Perhaps your reasons for thinking that go without saying, but since we habitually sacrifice the environment for the sake of personal convenience, making an explicit argument about why we should not do that would not be a bad idea. You imply also that some of the disadvantages are serious enough to warrant postponing implementing the proposal until some of them can be dealt with. I think that is a good argument, and for that reason ought to be more explicitly foregrounded than it is. The place to do that is probably the thesis, for it is in fact the overarching argument of your paper. You don't really have a thesis statement at present (unless one goes looking for one in your conclusion). Replacing the relative weak final sentence of your first paragraph with a clear articulation of your overarching argument would make your reader's task a bit easier; for instance, it would allow your reader to appreciate that your initial argumentative claims are being offered in the service of a more complicated argument than they at first appear to be. The other problem with the essay is the significant number

of language errors. A few examples: "arouse many problems" is a predicate in want of a subject, and "crowded country" is an obvious typo for "crowded cities," and there are other typos; when you are liable to make grammatical errors, you should be all the more careful about avoiding typographical ones! Tense: you use the present tense in describing circumstances that don't exist; use the conditional. For example, instead of "getting rid of this problem is a good thing," write "getting rid of this problem would be a good thing." You have a tendency to use the singular when the plural is needed: "While scientist is still working" [scientists are]; traffic jam[s] [are]; the pros and con[s]; solving congestion and environmental problem[s] [are]" That's not an exhaustive list, but those are the types of errors that you should be able to avoid with careful proofreading.