Dani's avatar
Dani

Jan. 29, 2023

0
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.

b2examexposition
Corrections (3)
Correction Settings
Choose how corrections are organized

Only show inserted text
Word-level diffs are planned for a future update.

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.

Dani's avatar
Dani

Jan. 31, 2023

0

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?

Dani's avatar
Dani

Jan. 31, 2023

0

Banning Cars

Yet, not everything is black and white.

Banning cars could produce side effects in the normal activity of the area.

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.

Dani's avatar
Dani

Jan. 30, 2023

0
0

Dani's avatar
Dani

Jan. 30, 2023

0

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 the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? )pollution. At first glance, limiting traffic in city centers appears to be a good way to reduce pollution.

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 contamination (is it pollution more appropriate? )pollution. At first glance, limiting traffic in the city centers appears to be a good way to reduce pollution.

"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? ). 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 the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...). Namely, a considerable reduction in commerce.

Commerce is correct for local shops and restaurants. "Trade" refers to business between two different areas.

Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (shcould I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...)occur. Namely, a considerable reduction in commerce could occur.

"Commerce" is okay.

Namely, a considerable reduction in the commerce (should I use trade? I'm refering to shops, restaurants...). Namely, a considerable reduction in 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 empty out downtowns.


It's one thing to set a limit to theon pollution, but quite another to empty out downtowns. It's one thing to set a limit on 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. 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. 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 thisese kinds of measures should be always go along with higher investments in public transportation. It goes without saying that these kinds of measures should always go along with higher investments in public transportation.

"Public transport" is technically correct but "public transportation" sounds a little more natural.

It goes without saying that thisese kinds of measures should be always be developed along with higher investments in public transportation. It goes without saying that these kinds of measures should 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.


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 with thisto these types of measures, since air contaminapollution will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere. It's paramount that governments stay committed to these types of measures, since air pollution will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.

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. It's paramount that governments stay committed with these types of measures, since air pollution will be a crucial issue in the long term everywhere.

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 giveing up a bit ofthe small convenience of driving their own cars along thein city centers, in favour of a healthier future. Taking everything into account, people should think about giving up the small convenience of driving their own cars in 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 :)

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. Taking everything into account, people should think about giving up a bit of convenience for driving their own cars within the city centers, in favor of a healthier future.

This sentence has been marked as perfect!

You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.

Go Premium