Is the international car-free day an effective way to reduce air pollution? Some people think an international car-free day is an effective way to reduce air pollution. Others think there are more effective ways do to this. Discuss both sides and give your opinion. It is an omnipresent phenomenon that air pollution becomes more serious because of the increase of vehicle. Although some people argue that an international car-free day is beneficial for mitigating this issue, I believe that other alternative approaches can bring a better effectiveness. It is true that an international car-free day promotes the protection of air quality. First and foremost, temporary control of car number can reduce toxic gas tremendously, which offers a favorable condition for improving air quality. During this movement, individuals may also raise their awareness of changing their travel habits with regard to maintaining a blue and clear sky. What is more, this activity will appeal to more similar movements to decrease air pollution. If there were no such a day to emphasize the importance of reducing air pollutants, people would be faced with an inevitable trend of numerous contamination. However, many alternatives can be adopted to provide a better outcome for air protection. First, apart from an international car-free day, planting more trees is another method to tackle air pollution. The more plants there are on the Earth, the less overwhelming thread it will be to air quality. Additionally, utilizing electronic vehicles are the most practical way to reduce emission of wasted gases. It is precisely less gasoline powered cars that avoid mass production of air pollutants. Cars powered by solar system can facilitate the reduction of air contamination as well. Last but not least, a proper restriction of car usage for drivers can be taken to cut down the detrimental impact that driving cars brings. In conclusion, it is undeniable that holding an international car-free day can reduce air pollution, but many other methods may be of more effectiveness. Total words: 284 Time: 40 min

Should people be encouraged to live in cities so as to solve traffic? •Some people think that in order to solve traffic and transportation problems people should be encouraged to live in cities rather than in suburbs or in the countryside. To what extent do you agree or disagree? It is true that the traffic and transportation problems are becoming a huge problem. While some people claim that living in cities instead of in remote areas can slightly mitigate this phenomenon, I completely disagree with this suggestion. It is undeniable that encouraging people to dwell in cities can avoid some traffic and transportation problems. First, there is no need for individuals to spend several hours on roads during weekdays because living in the center areas makes it convenient for them to go to work or study, as a result of which the number of vehicles will decrease significantly. Additionally, environment can be protected better to some extend. Because of the less utilization of cars or buses, the waste gases from vehicles will be reduced, avoiding detrimental air contamination. However, although there are a few advantages of encouraging people to live in cities, I don’t believe this is the best solution to deal with traffic and transportation issue. First and foremost, excessive concentration of population will ruin people’s living quality. With numerous people living in the same area, everyone feels frustrated by the fierce competition on work, or by a long queue in a restaurant. Another important aspect is that making people live in the cities will exert a huge burden on the cities’ logistic services. When compared with the less traffic and transportation problems, the overwhelming pressure on cities’ operation is much unfavourable for its long term development. Given the above considerations, I conclude that although there are some benefits for solving traffic by getting people live in cities, I suppose that its downsides are less beneficial for citizens and cities.