Students' Questions: tax on cars

Tomoko asked me to help with some advice about the following question:

The burning of oil for transport, especially in private cars, is wasteful and environmentally irresponsible. Taxation on petrol and diesel fuel should be increased to very high levels to discourage the use of private cars. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

To answer this question, you first need to decide what your opinion is - do you agree that the use of private cars is bad for the environment, and do you think that taxation is a good solution? To make it easy, let’s say that we agree:

I'd write a paragraph about the problem of cars causing air pollution in cities. I'd say that it's wasteful when people travel to work alone because their cars could carry 4 or 5 people. I'd talk about other forms of transport that are more efficient and less damaging e.g. trains.

My second body paragraph would be about the positive effects that taxation could have: people would be forced to use public transport, and the money from taxation could be used to improve buses, trains, underground systems etc.

There are more ideas about transport and the environment in my ebook.

Comments

[tomoko]

Thank you for guiding me(us) about this topic and sorry my reply is late.
Also I would like to ask you one more thing.
Could you teach me what kind of or how sentences would you make if you add topic sentences in each paragraph ? I am not good at making topic sentences. Thank you

[Simon]

Hi Tomoko,

The topic sentence should be as simple as possible. For example, if the paragraph is about "advantages of computers", just write: "Computers have many benefits" or "Computers have improved our lives in many ways". Keep it really short and simple.

Hope this helps

Simon

[tomoko]

Hi Simon

So, in this topic case, each topic sentences is
"Cars cause air pollution in cities."
"Taxation could have positive effects."
Will they be all right?

I am just wondering how to connect causing pollution and alternative transport because you advocate other forms of transport such as trains in the last part of first paragraph. It seems to me that those two (causing pollution and trains) are not relevant.

[Simon]

Hi Tomoko,

Yes, your simple topic sentences are good.

Whenever we talk about cars causing pollution, it's a good idea to mention alternative forms of transport that pollute much less. If we discourage people from using cars, it follows that we are encouraging them to use other (less polluting) forms of transport instead. Also, higher car taxes would give governments and local councils more money to invest in public transport systems (e.g. trains).

I hope this makes things clearer.

Simon

[tomoko]

Thank you　Simon.

[Simon]

No problem Tomoko

[adverb]

Hi, simon.
If the question says" To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement", does it mean both"The burning of oil for transport, especially in private cars, is wasteful and environmentally irresponsible”and"Taxation on petrol and diesel fuel should be increased to very high levels to discourage the use of private cars."
The reason why I ask this question is that I notice you encourage us to write sth. on both these two statements. This is exactly what puzzles me most of the time when I try to interpret the question. What I usually do is just focus on the latter statement, namely"Taxation on petrol and diesel fuel should be increased to very high levels to discourage the use of private cars" do you agree or disagree?
Can you help me with this question? Is it a must to discuss both statements the question mentions?

[Simon]

Hi Adverb,

You are right to focus on the second statement - that is what the question is really about. However, the first statement is connected to the second, and is also relevant to your answer, so it's ok to talk about that too.

[tomoko]

Hi Simon

I think Adverb asked very good point.
I am also always puzzled to interpret this type of questions. That was why I asked you this topic. Thank you, Adverb. So is my following understanding to this topic all right? It is that we need to stick to the second statement that the previous Adverb mentioned but do not out of the topic to different directions such as "economy" or "policy" to "Taxation on petrol and diesel fuel".

[Simon]

Hi Tomoko,

Yes, the second statement is the main thing that you should talk about. If you disagree that fuel prices should be increased, you could suggest other measures instead. But try not to go too far away from the topic - keep referring to the reasons why increasing fuel prices would not be a good idea.

[dido]

Hi Simon, sorry for the late comment.
I was wondering if we can write two opinion, one agree and on disagree, is it correct or I should write only one opinion.
Could you advise me? and thank you for your helpful website

[Hassan Ovski]

I agree that private car use is bad for the environment. Biking and public transport needs to be encouraged more and more!

[Muna]

increasing taxation has a long term benefit by growing the network which transport our goods and move our workforce, directly correlating with the national economic growth.
it also has a short term benefit by creating tons of thousands jobs that can't be outsourced.
in a conclusion we can say : under the current system the funding to maintain our infrastructure is in a direct shortfall . we've got top define our national priorities with the understanding that to keep our national economy moving ,we've got to invest in assets that literally keep Britain moving.

[Mihir]

I agree that Private car is bad for environment where you can't take pure Carbon Dioxide, and which leads to our directly health.