Writing evaluation result for: Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or... - Balang

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 increases the chance of reducing 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 reduce 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 make 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

6.5

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 ideas are underdeveloped. The "boycott" analogy is confusing and does not clearly explain how airlines would innovate (e.g., sustainable fuels). The Jordan example is relevant but brief. Extend arguments with specific consequences for businesses (e.g., global supply chains, business travel) and individuals (e.g., family connections, career limits).

Coherence & Cohesion: The structure is logical (intro, two body paragraphs, conclusion). However, cohesive devices are mechanical ("On one hand," "For example," "On the other hand"). The conclusion introduces new arguments ("environment is not private property") rather than summarizing main points. Improve flow by using referencing and substitution to link sentences within paragraphs.

Lexical Resource: Vocabulary is adequate ("commercial airlines," "significant losses," "preserve") but repetitive ("reduce the number of flights/times they fly"). The boycott example shows imprecise collocation ("take the step of boycotting"). Aim for more precise topic vocabulary (e.g., carbon footprint, aviation sector, economic viability, sustainable alternatives).

Grammatical Range & Accuracy: You use a mix of simple and complex sentences with generally good control. Errors include article usage ("a historical country" → an), subject-verb agreement ("it increases the chance of reducing pollution" is wordy), and punctuation (comma splices in the conclusion). Work on relative clauses and passive forms to vary structure.