以下是南京环球教育翟笃家老师写下的雅思A类大作文，希望通过实例对大家的雅思写作有所帮助。

　　Governments should spend money on railways rather than roads. To what extent do you agree or

　　disagree with this statement? (Cambridge IELTS 11, Test 1)

　　类似题目：

　　Some people believe that the government should spend money on building train and subway lines to reduce traffic congestion, while others think that building more and wider roads is the better way to reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

　　(2016年A类大作文)

　　Sample Answer One (Strong Opinion: Railways)

　　Over the past decades, the continued and accelerating process of urbanization in many developing countries has necessitated the development of transport infrastructure. Along with this trend comes the debate among urban planners on whether rails or roads are more worthy of government funding. It seems to me that public spending on rail networks is a wise move.

　　The reason why I advocate building rail systems is that it can mitigate traffic congestion. Firstly, passenger rail services provide a faster, safer, more reliable and affordable transit option. If train and subway lines are constructed, cars and buses will become a less popular travelling choice among citizens, which helps relieve the traffic pressure on the road. Furthermore, with criss-cross rail transit lines built in cities, the capacity and efficiency of transport systems will be improved, because rail vehicles are able to convey a greater number of passengers within a shorter span of time than their road-going counterparts. Thus, passenger traffic can be handled with fewer trips. This works especially well during weekday morning and evening rush hours.

　　Some people may argue that allocating money for road rehabilitation and expansion also offers a solution to traffic problems. To illustrate, on the premise that the number of vehicles remains unchanged, widening the roads reduces the traffic density and facilitates better traffic flow, making it less likely for drivers to be stuck in traffic jams. Nevertheless, government investment in road construction projects can be interpreted as an encouragement for private car use, which exerts multiple adverse impact on the environment. Specifically, a car ride is more environmentally-damaging than a rail journey in terms of the amount of pollution produced per passenger kilometre travelled, due in large part to high route capacity of rail traffic.

　　To conclude, given the detrimental environmental effects road transport may bring, I believe that increasing financial input to railway infrastructure is a better way to tackle the pressing traffic challenges and mounting pollution problems.

　　Sample Answer Two (Strong Opinion: Roads)

　　Over the past decades, the continued and accelerating process of urbanization in many developing countries has necessitated the development of transport infrastructure. Along with this trend comes the debate among urban planners on whether rails or roads are more worthy of government funding. It seems to me that public spending on road construction is a wise move.

　　The reason why I advocate incremental investment in road systems is that it can mitigate traffic congestion. For one thing, on the premise that the number of vehicles remains unchanged, widening the roads can reduce the traffic density and facilitate better traffic flow, making it less likely for drivers to be stuck in traffic jams. For another, the construction of new roads like bypasses provides drivers with numerous route alternatives available for a specific trip, from which they may choose the one that is most suitable for their travel needs instead of using the same route. Consequentially, the traffic on arterial roads will become less congested.

　　Some people may argue that allocating money for implementing rail improvements also serves as a solution to traffic problems. Indeed, with criss-cross rail transit lines built in cities, the overall capacity and efficiency of transport systems will be improved, since rail vehicles are able to convey a greater number of passengers within a shorter span of time than their road-going counterparts. Thus, passenger traffic can be handled with fewer trips. However, the rail transit system has a limited number of operating lines, so its users must find a way to reach the interchange station before gaining access to rail transport. By contrast, for those who travel by road, the trouble can be eliminated.

　　To conclude, given the commuting inconvenience caused by rail transfers, I believe that increasing financial input to road infrastructure is a better way not only to tackle pressing traffic challenges but to improve road connectivity to rail-based transport networks.

　　Sample Answer Three (Balanced Opinion: Railways and Roads)

　　Over the past decades, the continued and accelerating process of urbanization in many developing countries has necessitated the development of transport infrastructure. Along with this trend comes the debate among urban planners on whether rails or roads are more worthy of government funding. In my opinion, a balanced investment in rail and road construction is a wise move.

　　There is no doubt that building rail and road systems helps mitigate traffic congestion. For one thing, with a criss-cross of rail transit lines constructed, the capacity and efficiency of transport systems will be improved, since rail vehicles are able to convey a greater number of passengers within a shorter span of time than their road-going counterparts. Thus, the passenger traffic can be handled with fewer trips. For another, if new and wider roads are added in cities, it will not merely provide drivers with numerous route alternatives but also reduce the traffic density to facilitate easier traffic flow, which contributes to less congested road conditions.

　　Nonetheless, we should not be oblivious to their respective limitations. The main drawback to rehabilitating and expanding roads is that it acts as an encouragement for private car use, thereby exerting multiple adverse impact on the environment. Specifically, the large amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels add further to the deteriorating air quality and global warming. As for the rail transit system, it has a relatively limited number of operating lines, so its users must find a way to reach the transfer station before gaining access to rail transport. This causes commuting inconvenience to residents.

　　On balance, I think a one-size-fits-all option is not the best solution. What really counts is that governments should ensure the complementary advantages of rail- and road-based transport networks are brought into full play. To be precise, rail infrastructure ought to be prioritized for environmental concerns; meanwhile, great efforts also need to be made to strengthen road connectivity to rail facilities.