Your explanation for the structures appeased my confusion. Thank you for your patience.

 I really think I have gained enlightment and made progress under your guides during this short time.

Thank you for your time. And thank you for commenting my essay.

Very useful advice. I will draw on your suggestion. Wish we all can make progress on the writing.

A very good essay and some very good queries and comments, thanks!

Coherence and Cohesion -  how ideas link to each other

Alison wrote

Companies, which are the profit-chaser, are always passing fees to their customers by increasing commodity price. Therefore, merely price rising cannot dramatically decrease the private transportation, and air pollution is still rampant.

Brian asked:

what is the relevance of this sentence to the previous one? That is something that is considered COHERENCE.

I agree with him here -  it's not quite clear why you mention the 'commodity price' - it's hard to see the relation between the price and the effect on traffic problems. This doesn't mean your idea is wrong - it just needs to be in a different place and explained more fully. 'Coherence and Cohesion' is one of the four headings in the official writing descriptors. 

Introduction

Alison, your introduction has an interesting structure, but it's not quite right. Radha noticed it and added two sides in her good suggestion. Here's some other sentences using your structure:

You wrote:

Serious as the traffic problems is, currently, some people claim the most effective solution is raising the price of petrol.

This structure and similar ones are usually used to give TWO sides of a problem or situation in one sentence.

• Serious though the problem is, few people have taken action.
• Loud though the cries for action have been, few countries have sent ships to tackle piracy.
• Serious though the threat of civil war is, it seems diplomacy has finally started to make a difference.
• Careful as he was, he still managed to make a few errors.
• Although famous for his work on panda breeding, Professor Li also worked successfully with lemurs and pangolins.

So to fix your sentence, it should be something like

Unpopular a course of action though it might be, some people claim the most effective solution would be raising the price of petrol  

Alison also wrote:

I personally think it is not comprehensive.

This needs a little more:

I personally think it is not a comprehensive enough solution. OR
I feel this is not a comprehensive enough response to the problem. 

(The only way to think is personally - it's an unnecessary word.)   

Short sentences: Replace nouns with verbs

Alison wrote:

To some extend, increasing the price of gasoline price does can attribute to the reduction of consumption on petrol.

Radha found a typo (does/can), but I like the suggestion of a much simpler sentence:

 Hiking the petrol price will solve the problem only to some extent. 

In Alison's original sentence, there were seven nouns (consumption, petrol, price, gasoline, extent, reduction) and two verbs (attribute, increasing -  and increasing is really part of a noun phrase). Radha's sentence has only four nounes and two verbs. It's less weighty and moves more. It's shorter. It's easier to read.    

Word Order

Brian asked if the word order of 'can' and 'we' was correct in Alison's sentence:

Only when multiple means are used can we effectively solve this problem.

Yes, the word order is correct, and very nice too. Here are some more examples:

• Only when everything else has failed should we go to war.
• Only when customers complain do companies respond.
• Only when the court has given a guilty verdict will the victim's family rest.

Nice work, Alison!

Another complicated structure Alison used that needs a minor adjustments:

However, I think the price is not the only factor when people consider driving. The convenience, and whether it is easy to access also affect people’ choice; and that is why the impact of raising price is limited. 

This needs some rewording in the first sentence and something a little more parallel in the second sentence (and comma removed):

However, I think (the) price is not the only factor people consider before driving. Convenience and ease of access also affect people’s choice; and that is why the impact of raising the price is limited.

(You could also leave the comma after 'convenience' AND add one after 'access' in your example.)

Passives

Yes, as Brian suggests, always try to reduce the number of passive sentences in your writing. Use them in Task 1, if you have a report on a process or a formal complaint, but try to avoid them in Task 2. 

Tricky Commas again

Alison wrote

As we all know, many people who work for the companies located in the centre of metropolitan, prefer to live in the suburb areas

The subject of the sentence is 'people', and the verb is 'prefer.' Don't separate the subject from its verb -  

Many people who work for companies in the city center prefer to live in the suburbs.

(I've shortened the sentence and removed unnecessary words.)

Overall, Alison is a risk-taker and there are some excellent structures here. But the advice from Brian and Radha is very good - simplify, avoid passives, make sure ideas link to each other, and try to give both sides in the intro.

Thanks everyone!

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do agree or disagree? What other measures do think might be effective?

 

Serious as the traffic problems is, currently, some people claim the most effective solution is raising the price of petrol. I personally think it is not comprehensive.

To some extend, increasing the price of gasoline price does can attribute to the reduction of consumption on petrol. Then, as a consequent, traffic problems and pollution are released. For example, people would rather walk or cycle to their workplaces because of the budget of petrol. They consider whether the cost of driving a car is not cost-effective before they turn on the engine.Another point is that due to the freight charges are increased, a number of multinational corporations will take the distance into consideration, building the factories which are more close to their customers to reduce the fees.

 However, I think the price is not the only factor when people consider driving. The convenience, and whether it is easy to access also affect people’ choice; and that is why the impact of raising price is limited. As we all know, many people who work for the companies located in the centre of metropolitan, prefer to live in the suburb areas. The distance between their apartments and offices are long. If there is no developed public traffic system, the majority still go to work by private cars. Companies, which are the profit-chaser, are always passing fees to their customers by increasing commodity price. Therefore, merely price rising cannot dramatically decrease the private transportation, and air pollution is still rampant.

 In my opinion, in order to deter the soaring traffic and pollution problem, government should expand the finical support in public transportation; establish more infrastructures on subways, public buses. And in the long term, we must find alternative sources of power, such as solar power, wind power and electric power. Only when multiple means are used can we effectively solve this problem.

 

Alison,

I feel introduction should be free of errors. Your introduction is not very impressive. You can write : Traffic congestion leads to serious environmental problems. Although there are some other solution to control traffic,some   people feel that increasing the price of petrol could be very effective. I firmly believe that it is not the best way to solve the problem.

 

Corrections:To some extent,does and can should not come together.You can change the sentence like this: Hiking of petrol price will solve the problem only to some extent.

 

I feel you should try to write clear sentences .

Radha Muralidhar.

To some extend, increasing the price of gasoline price does can attribute to the reduction of consumption on petrol. Then, as a consequent, traffic problems and pollution are released

Example: as a consequennce of: Scientists think it unlikely that any species will actually become extinct as a consequence of the oil spill. I change to below sentence.

As a result, traffic problems and pollution would reduce.

Another point is that due to the freight charges are increased, a number of multinational corporations will take the distance into consideration, building the factories which are more close to their customers to reduce the fees.

Do not use passive form instead of active form. Here an axample:

The number of cities INCREASED DRAMATICALLY in 2010.

Building the factories.... you should give more detail on this sentence which how well will be this matter.

The convenience, and whether it is easy to access also affect people’ choice

The convenience of what? I think you should explain it in detail.

The other factors would be easy access to their work and how convenient their transportaion will be.

The distance between their apartments and offices are long. If there is no developed public traffic system, the majority still go to work by private cars

It is not always true then correct it to something like that.

In some cases which the distance between their home and offices are far, and their is no developed public transportation, the majority tend to go to work by private cars.

Companies, which are the profit-chaser, are always passing fees to their customers by increasing commodity price. Therefore, merely price rising cannot dramatically decrease the private transportation, and air pollution is still rampant.

what is the relevance of this sentence to the previous one.? That is something that considered COHERENCE.

And in the long term, we must find alternative sources of power,

alternative resources

Only when multiple means are used can we effectively solve this problem.

we can ( I am not sure this phrase is usual I hope write fix help me on this)

What I have wrote is based on my knowledge  hope that writefix could leave a comment .

 Serious as the traffic problems is, currently, some people claim the most effective solution is raising the price of petrol. I personally think it is not comprehensive.

To some extend, increasing the price of gasoline price does can attribute to the reduction of consumption on petrol. Then, as a consequent, traffic problems and pollution are released. For example, people would rather walk or cycle to their workplaces because of the budget of petrol. They consider whether the cost of driving a car is not cost-effective before they turn on the engine.Another point is that due to the freight charges are increased, a number of multinational corporations will take the distance into consideration, building the factories which are more close to their customers to reduce the fees.

However, I think the price is not the only factor when people consider driving. The convenience, and whether it is easy to access also affect people’ choice; and that is why the impact of raising price is limited. As we all know, many people who work for the companies located in the centre of metropolitan, prefer to live in the suburb areas. The distance between their apartments and offices are long. If there is no developed public traffic system, the majority still go to work by private cars. Companies, which are the profit-chaser, are always passing fees to their customers by increasing commodity price. Therefore, merely price rising cannot dramatically decrease the private transportation, and air pollution is still rampant.

In my opinion, in order to deter the soaring traffic and pollution problem, government should expand the finical support in public transportation; establish more infrastructures on subways, public buses. And in the long term, we must find alternative sources of power, such as solar power, wind power and electric power. Only when multiple means are used can we effectively solve this problem.