Question: Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flyi...

Marking Generated by Free AI Models

You are on the free tier, which uses free AI models. They can occasionally be slow, unstable, or temporarily unavailable. Balang Plus uses premium models for faster, more reliable, and higher-quality marking.

Click on red question marks (?) to see an explanation for each change. Some changes are only suggestions and don't mean the original is necessarily wrong.
There is no denying the fact that the pollution caused by commercial airplanes is affecting the environment. While it is a commonly held belief that reducing the number of flights helps protect the environment, there is also an argument that opposes this idea. This essay will analyse this topic from both points of view and express my opinion. On one hand, when people stop flying or even reduce the number of times they fly every year, it will increase the chance of reducing the pollution. This step will force commercial airlines to figure out solutions to avoid financial losses caused by people’s decisions. For example, when one company raises the price of its product, most people will take the step of boycotting it, and this will make the company reduce the price again. On the other hand, reducing the number of flights will affect the economy. It is possible to say that most sectors depend on travel, such as tourism, services etc. For instance, Jordan is a historical country and its economy depends heavily on tourism; when people stop flying or reducingreduce it, this will cause significant losses in its economy. In conclusion, there are no easy answers to this question. On balance, however, I tend to believe that the environment is not private property and it is a matter for all people, businesses and countries in the whole world; we, and I mean both individuals and businesses, should domake more serious efforts to protect and preserve the environment and naturally the globe.
See more samples for this topic
Check your essay for this topic
Overall Band Score
6
Overview
Vocabulary Range
average
Linking Words
average
Spelling
strong
Grammar Accuracy
average
Grammar Range
average
Cohesion
average
Paragraph Structure
strong
Task Response
average
Word Count
sufficient
While we are confident in our score estimation, you are not guaranteed to receive the same score in an official test.

Task Response: You address both sides and give a clear opinion, but the essay is only 252 words—barely over the 250 minimum. Ideas are underdeveloped; the airline pricing analogy is confusing and doesn't clearly link to environmental innovation, while the Jordan example lacks specific detail on how reduced flights hurt the economy.

Coherence & Cohesion: Paragraphing is logical, but cohesive devices are mechanical ("On one hand," "For example," "In conclusion"). The flow within paragraphs is choppy; the boycott example doesn't smoothly connect to the main argument about pollution reduction.

Lexical Resource: Vocabulary is adequate but repetitive ("reduce the number of times they fly," "environment," "economy"). There are awkward collocations ("figure solutions," "take the step of boycotting," "do more serious efforts") and phrasing errors ("naturally the globe").

Grammatical Range & Accuracy: You use a mix of simple and complex sentences, but errors are frequent: subject-verb agreement ("it will increase the chance of reducing"), gerund/infinitive confusion ("stop flying or reducing"), article misuse ("a historical country"), and punctuation issues (comma splices, run-on sentences in the conclusion).

Key Advice: Aim for 280+ words to fully develop arguments. Replace vague analogies with specific cause-effect reasoning (e.g., fewer flights → lower emissions → slower climate change). Proofread carefully for verb patterns (stop flying vs stop to fly), articles, and sentence boundaries.