Jan. 29, 2023
Banning Cars
At first glance limit traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate?).
Yet, not everything is black and white. Banning cars could produce side effects in the normal activity of the area. Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...).
It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another empty out downtowns.
It goes without saying that this kind of measures should be always along with higher investments in public transport.
I strongly believe that the way forward is to convert car lanes into bike lanes and to build big pedestrian zones. That is, creating a city for people, not for cars.
It's paramount that governments stay commited with this type of measures, since air contamination will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.
Taking everything into account, people should think about give up a bit of convenience of driving their own cars along the city centers, in favour of a healthier future.
At first glance limited traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? ).
Yes, pollution would be better. But contamination still gives the same message across!
Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...).
In this situation commerce is correct.
It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns.
What did you mean in the second half of the sentance?
It's paramount that governments stay commited with this type of measures, since air contamination will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.
Taking everything into account, people should think about give up a bit of convenience of driving their own cars along the city centers, in favour of a healthier future.
Banning Cars
At first glance, limiting traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? )pollution.
"Pollution" is definitely more common in the US.
Yet, not everything is black and white.
Banning cars could produce side effects in the normal activity of the area.
Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (shcould I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...)occur.
"Commerce" is okay.
It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns.
It goes without saying that thisese kinds of measures should be always be developed along with higher investments in public transportation.
I strongly believe that the way forward is to convert car lanes into bike lanes and to build big pedestrian zones.
That is, creating a city for people, not for cars.
It's paramount that governments stay committed with thisese types of measures, since air contaminapollution will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.
Taking everything into account, people should think about giveing up a bit of convenience ofor driving their own cars alongwithin the city centers, in favour of a healthier future.
Feedback
I agree! Good work!
Jan. 30, 2023
Cheers
At first glance, limiting traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? )pollution.
Yes, "contamination" is used with disease (bacteria, viruses).
Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...).
Commerce is correct for local shops and restaurants. "Trade" refers to business between two different areas.
It's one thing to set a limit to theon pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns.
It goes without saying that thisese kinds of measures should be always go along with higher investments in public transportation.
"Public transport" is technically correct but "public transportation" sounds a little more natural.
It's paramount that governments stay committed with thisto these types of measures, since air contaminapollution will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.
Taking everything into account, people should think about giveing up a bit ofthe small convenience of driving their own cars along thein city centers, in favour of a healthier future.
Just a note that "favour" is British English spelling, and the American English spelling is "favor." It depends on your audience :)
Feedback
I agree!
Jan. 30, 2023
That’s very kind
|
Banning Cars This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
At first glance limit traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? ). At first glance, limiting traffic in Yes, "contamination" is used with disease (bacteria, viruses). At first glance, limiting traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce "Pollution" is definitely more common in the US. At first glance limited traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? ). Yes, pollution would be better. But contamination still gives the same message across! |
|
Yet, not everything is black and white. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Banning cars could produce side effects in the normal activity of the area. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...). Namely, a considerable reduction in Commerce is correct for local shops and restaurants. "Trade" refers to business between two different areas. Namely, a considerable reduction in "Commerce" is okay. Namely, a considerable reduction in In this situation commerce is correct. |
|
It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another empty out downtowns. It's one thing to set a limit It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns. It's one thing to set a limit to the pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns. What did you mean in the second half of the sentance? |
|
It goes without saying that this kind of measures should be always along with higher investments in public transport. It goes without saying that th "Public transport" is technically correct but "public transportation" sounds a little more natural. It goes without saying that th |
|
I strongly believe that the way forward is to convert car lanes into bike lanes and to build big pedestrian zones. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
That is, creating a city for people, not for cars. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It's paramount that governments stay commited with this type of measures, since air contamination will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere. It's paramount that governments stay committed It's paramount that governments stay committed with th This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Taking everything into account, people should think about give up a bit of convenience of driving their own cars along the city centers, in favour of a healthier future. Taking everything into account, people should think about giv Just a note that "favour" is British English spelling, and the American English spelling is "favor." It depends on your audience :) Taking everything into account, people should think about giv This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium