🔶 Part 1 — Tutorial

Step 1 — Analyse the task & choose a position (Agree/Disagree)

Read the prompt slowly and highlight the command phrase “To what extent do you agree or disagree?”; this tells you to give a clear stance with a measured degree. Identify the topic scope (“university education”) and the policy claim (“should be free for everyone, regardless of income”). Clarify key terms: “free” usually means tuition-free at point of use; it does not mean zero cost to society because someone still funds it via taxes. “Regardless of income” excludes means-testing, so consider equity and efficiency angles. Decide your position quickly: fully agree, largely agree with caveats, partly agree (e.g., free for first degree only), or disagree in favour of targeted support. Generate two to three defensible reasons that you can explain with simple mechanisms and micro-examples. Check that your reasons are distinct (e.g., access & social mobility vs economic burden & opportunity cost) and not duplicates. Avoid vague morality claims without mechanisms; show how the policy leads to benefits or problems. Consider typical counterpoints such as tax burden, overcrowding, degree inflation, and alternative funding models (e.g., income-contingent loans). Decide whether to include a short acknowledgement of the other side to sound balanced. Keep the question visible while planning so every sentence later points back to the claim. Finally, form a one-sentence thesis that states your extent clearly and previews your two main reasons.

Example Box — Decoding the Prompt

Prompt: “University education should be free for everyone, regardless of income. To what extent do you agree or disagree?”
Focus: Policy (tuition-free), Universality (no means-testing), Stance (extent).
Possible stances: (A) Largely agree: boosts access and growth, with quality safeguards; (B) Partly agree: free for first degree/low-income only; (C) Disagree: targeted aid and income-contingent fees are fairer/sustainable.

Step 2 — Plan a clear structure & argument flow

Use a compact four-paragraph model for control under time pressure. The introduction should paraphrase the claim in one sentence and give a direct thesis in the next, naming two reasons. In Body 1, lead with your strongest reason (e.g., widening participation and social mobility) and explain the mechanism step by step. Add a short, credible micro-example (a country, a cohort, or a plausible scenario) instead of statistics you cannot defend. In Body 2, give a second, distinct reason (e.g., long-term economic benefits) or present a balanced view by acknowledging a key concern (e.g., fiscal burden) before showing why your position still holds. Keep one central idea per paragraph and avoid laundry lists. Use topic sentences that answer the question directly and signal the paragraph focus. Link sentences logically with cause/result (“therefore,” “as a result”) and reference words (“this policy,” “such costs”). The conclusion restates your extent of agreement and synthesises your two reasons without new information. Allocate time: ~8–10 minutes plan, ~28–30 minutes write, ~2 minutes check. Aim for ~270–310 words for full development while remaining concise and precise.

Example Box — Skeleton Plan

Intro: Paraphrase + thesis: largely agree because of access/mobility and long-term growth, while noting funding safeguards.
Body 1: Access → more graduates from low-income backgrounds → higher lifetime earnings → social mobility (micro-example).
Body 2: Human-capital gains → innovation/productivity; acknowledge tax cost → propose caps/quality filters (briefly).
Conclusion: Clear answer (“to a large extent”) + synthesis; no new ideas.

Step 3 — Write high-impact paragraphs

Keep the introduction lean: one paraphrase sentence and one thesis sentence are enough. Make your thesis explicit about extent (“I largely agree …”). Start each body paragraph with a topic sentence that directly answers the question and names the reason. Follow with a clear mechanism that shows how the policy causes the outcome (e.g., removing tuition lowers financial barriers → enrolment rises → skills base expands). Add a micro-example that sounds realistic but brief (country or cohort). Use precise academic verbs such as “facilitates,” “deters,” “redistributes,” and “yields.” If you include a counterpoint, make it short and structural (e.g., “funding pressure”) and then re-centre your stance with a remedy (e.g., progressive taxation, caps for non-priority programmes). Avoid moralising; prioritise causal logic and clarity. Keep sentences varied but controlled; prioritise accuracy over flair. End each paragraph with a link-back that ties the idea to your thesis. Conclude by restating extent and synthesising the two reasons in new words, avoiding fresh claims.

Example Box — High-impact Sentences

Thesis (balanced agree): “I largely agree that tuition should be free at the point of use because it widens access and strengthens the skills base, provided funding is safeguarded.”
Topic sentence (Body 1): “Removing tuition fees primarily expands access for capable students from low-income families.”
Micro-example: “For example, after fees were reduced, first-generation enrolments rose in several regional universities.”
Conclusion line: “Overall, while financing must be handled carefully, the mobility and growth gains justify broad tuition relief.”

Step 4 — Language, coherence, and accuracy

Choose topic-specific lexis that signals precision: “means-testing,” “progressive taxation,” “human-capital formation,” “opportunity cost,” and “capacity constraints.” Use cautious hedging (“tends to,” “is likely to”) where evidence would be needed. Maintain cohesion with pronoun reference and synonyms to avoid repetition (“this policy,” “such funding”). Keep one clear idea per paragraph and delete sentences that drift from your line of argument. Check subject–verb agreement, article use with abstract nouns, and comma placement in complex sentences. Prefer active, declarative clauses for clarity. Balance linkers; overusing simple connectors can sound mechanical. Ensure your word choice is formal and neutral. Proofread for consistency in terms (use either “tuition-free” or “fee-free,” not both). Verify that every topic sentence answers the question and that each paragraph ends by linking back to your stance. In the final minute, scan for grammar slips and confirm your conclusion states the extent unambiguously.

Example Box — Quality Checks (Quick List)

Clarity: Each topic sentence answers the prompt.
Mechanism: Policy → effect → outcome is explicit.
Cohesion: References and linkers are smooth, not repetitive.
Lexis: Field-appropriate vocabulary used accurately.
Accuracy: Complex sentences controlled; punctuation checked.

Universal Fill-in-the-Gap Template — Opinion (Agree/Disagree)

Use carefully; adapt to the exact topic. Replace […] with your ideas. Keep sentences concise.

Sentence-by-Sentence Scaffold

Intro S1 (Paraphrase): In recent years, [topic restatement] has received growing attention.

Intro S2 (Thesis): I [completely/largely/partly] [agree/disagree] that [main claim], mainly because [Reason 1] and [Reason 2].

Body 1 S3 (Topic sentence): The first reason is that [Reason 1 stated succinctly].

Body 1 S4 (Explain): This is because [clear mechanism or cause/effect].

Body 1 S5 (Micro-example): For example, [who/where/when/how—compact and credible].

Body 1 S6 (Link back): Therefore, [explicit link back to the question/stance].

Body 2 S7 (Topic sentence): A further consideration is [Reason 2 stated succinctly].

Body 2 S8 (Explain or Counter + Refocus): While [acknowledge limitation/counterpoint], this is outweighed by [your rationale].

Body 2 S9 (Micro-example): For instance, [brief supporting case or data].

Body 2 S10 (Link back): Consequently, [explicit link back to the question/stance].

Conclusion S11 (Restate answer): In summary, I [agree/disagree] that [re-state claim] to a [great/limited] extent.

Conclusion S12 (Synthesis): This is primarily because [Reason 1] and [Reason 2], despite [brief caveat, if any].

Paraphrase & Thesis — Ready-to-adapt Samples

Paraphrase Options (Tuition-Free University)

P1: Many argue that universities should waive tuition so that all students can study without paying fees.
P2: It is often claimed that higher education ought to be cost-free for everyone, irrespective of family income.

Thesis Options

Agree (strong): I fully agree because free tuition widens access and accelerates national skills growth.
Agree (balanced): I largely agree, although sustainable funding and quality controls are essential.
Disagree (reasoned): I disagree; targeted aid and income-linked fees are fairer and more sustainable than universal free tuition.

🟦 Part 2 — IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 (Practice Task)

[IELTS Academic] [Writing Task 2] — Opinion (Agree/Disagree)

Task

Question:
Governments should invest more in public transport than in building new roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Write at least 250 words.

Timer
40:00

Your Essay

Words: 0

Submit Your Essay for Feedback
🟦 Part 3 — Sample Answers & Explanations

Band 6 — Sample Answer

Question: Governments should invest more in public transport than in building new roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In many countries, traffic and pollution are daily problems, and policy makers must decide where to put limited funds. Some people think that building more roads is the fastest solution, while others argue that public transport deserves higher priority. I mostly agree that governments should invest more in public transport because it can reduce congestion and protect the environment, although some road projects remain necessary in rural areas.

The first reason to focus on public transport is congestion. When cities add new lanes, drivers often return to the road until it becomes crowded again, so the relief is temporary. By contrast, frequent buses, safe trams and reliable metro lines can move large numbers of people in one go. If services are clean, on time and affordable, commuters are more likely to leave their cars at home. For example, when my city increased bus frequency during peak hours, many office workers switched from driving, and journeys became more predictable. This shows that quality public systems can give people a practical alternative to private cars.

Another reason to prioritise public transport is the environment. Cars create air pollution and greenhouse gases, especially when they are stuck in traffic. A single electric tram or a full bus can replace dozens of cars, which helps to cut emissions. Admittedly, public transport is expensive to build and does not reach every village. In remote areas, maintaining and improving roads is still important for farm access, emergency services and basic trade. However, in most towns and cities, improved and integrated public transport will bring wider, longer-term benefits than pouring concrete into more road capacity.

In conclusion, I largely agree that governments should put more money into public transport rather than new roads. Better services reduce congestion and pollution and give people a real choice, while targeted road upgrades can be kept for places that truly need them.

Why this Band 6 answer is good — Step-by-step
  1. It answers the question directly with a clear stance (“mostly/largely agree”).
  2. The introduction paraphrases the prompt without copying it.
  3. The thesis mentions two main reasons (congestion and environment) to guide the reader.
  4. Body 1 begins with a topic sentence that states the first reason.
  5. It explains the mechanism: road expansion often attracts more drivers, while transit moves more people at once.
  6. A short, realistic micro-example (“my city increased bus frequency”) supports the argument.
  7. Linking back at the end of the paragraph shows relevance to the stance.
  8. Body 2 introduces a second, distinct reason (environmental benefits).
  9. It contrasts private cars with shared modes to show emission reductions.
  10. The paragraph briefly acknowledges a counterpoint (cost and coverage limits).
  11. It narrows the exception to rural areas and keeps the main focus on urban settings.
  12. Vocabulary is appropriate for the topic (congestion, emissions, frequency).
  13. Grammar and spelling are mostly accurate, with occasional basic structures for clarity.
  14. Coherence is maintained through simple but effective linkers (by contrast, for example, however).
  15. The conclusion restates the stance and synthesises reasons without adding new ideas.
  16. The essay length (≈280–310 words) allows development without becoming repetitive.
  17. Overall control is adequate for Band 6, though more precise lexis and complex sentences could improve it.

Band 7 — Sample Answer

Whether to expand road networks or strengthen public transport has become a defining policy choice for modern cities. I largely agree that greater investment should go to public transport because it delivers more reliable capacity and fairer access, although strategic road upgrades remain sensible for freight and remote regions.

Public transport provides scalable capacity. Adding general-purpose lanes often triggers extra car use until queues return, so expensive road schemes can offer only short-lived relief. By contrast, high-frequency buses, bus-priority corridors, and metro lines can move far more people per hour in the same space. When services are frequent, integrated and ticketing is simple, commuters experience shorter, more predictable journeys. For example, after a neighbouring city rolled out bus-priority signals and an express corridor, peak-hour travel times fell for both bus users and drivers because buses no longer blocked junctions unpredictably.

Prioritising public transport is also fairer and greener. Low-income workers, students and older residents depend on affordable services; better coverage enables them to reach jobs and education without owning a car. In environmental terms, shifting travellers from private vehicles to shared modes reduces emissions and improves air quality. Admittedly, roads still matter: rural routes need maintenance, and logistics require dependable highway links. Even so, most urban congestion stems from commuter traffic, and the most cost-effective way to address it is to offer a credible alternative to driving rather than repeatedly widening roads.

In sum, governments should channel the larger share of funds into public transport because it expands capacity efficiently and supports equity and climate goals. Limited road investment should continue where it clearly enables freight and connects isolated communities.

Why this Band 7 answer is good — Step-by-step
  1. The stance is explicit and balanced (“largely agree … although …”).
  2. Paraphrasing is accurate and concise, avoiding repetition of the prompt.
  3. The introduction previews both the main reasons and the caveat about roads.
  4. Body 1 uses a strong topic sentence highlighting “scalable capacity”.
  5. It explains induced demand for roads in simple terms without overclaiming.
  6. Transit solutions are concrete (high-frequency buses, priority corridors, metro).
  7. Mechanism is clear: space efficiency → more people moved per hour → predictable journeys.
  8. The micro-example is plausible and focused on peak-hour reliability.
  9. Lexis is more precise (scalable, corridors, integrate, cost-effective) yet natural.
  10. Cohesion devices are varied and controlled (by contrast, for example, even so).
  11. Body 2 broadens to equity and environment, integrating social and climate goals.
  12. It acknowledges essential road roles (freight, rural connectivity) to maintain balance.
  13. The conclusion synthesises the argument and repeats neither examples nor new ideas.
  14. Sentence structures are varied, with accurate complex clauses and few errors.
  15. Tone is formal and objective, matching IELTS academic style.
  16. Overall coherence is strong, meeting Band 7 descriptors for task response and cohesion.
  17. Further improvement could include more precise data framing or brief quantification.

Band 8+ — Sample Answer

Deciding between pouring funds into new roads or modern public transport is not merely a technical issue but a choice about the kind of city a society wants. I agree to a large extent that investment should prioritise public transport because it delivers superior marginal capacity and aligns with equity and climate objectives; nonetheless, targeted highway works remain justified for freight corridors and genuinely isolated communities.

From a capacity perspective, building additional general-purpose lanes often invites the very traffic it aims to disperse. As driving becomes temporarily faster, latent demand is activated and queues re-emerge. Mass transit, by contrast, scales without multiplying vehicles: a high-frequency, reliable network—whether bus rapid transit, light rail or metro—moves thousands of passengers per hour in the footprint of a couple of traffic lanes. When services are frequent, legible and integrated with seamless ticketing, travellers optimise for reliability, not only for speed. Brief, targeted measures such as bus-priority signals and dedicated corridors further stabilise journey times, improving conditions for remaining drivers as well.

Public transport also advances distributional and environmental goals. Affordable, accessible networks widen participation in employment and education for households that cannot sustain car ownership, while cleaner fleets and mode shift cut urban emissions and noise. Critics argue that rail lines are capital-intensive and that cities still need roads. Both points are valid, yet neither undermines the central claim: the most cost-effective path to reducing urban congestion is to make the alternative to driving competitive, while reserving road budgets for maintenance, safety upgrades and freight reliability. In other words, the priority is not “no roads” but “no more generic urban widening” unless paired with measures that limit car dependency.

Overall, governments should devote the greater share of transport budgets to frequent, integrated public transport, complemented by selective road projects that protect logistics and connectivity where transit cannot substitute. This portfolio best addresses capacity, fairness and environmental constraints.

Why this Band 8+ answer is good — Step-by-step
  1. The thesis states the extent of agreement and frames the policy trade-off precisely.
  2. Paraphrasing is sophisticated and avoids lexical repetition from the prompt.
  3. Body 1 articulates a causal chain (lane expansion → latent demand → renewed congestion).
  4. It contrasts vehicle growth with passenger throughput to emphasise space efficiency.
  5. Terminology is topic-appropriate (marginal capacity, mass transit, dedicated corridors).
  6. It explains how frequency, legibility and integrated ticketing influence mode choice.
  7. The paragraph notes positive spillovers for remaining drivers, adding nuance.
  8. Body 2 integrates equity and climate outcomes without drifting from the question.
  9. Counter-arguments (capital cost, road needs) are acknowledged succinctly.
  10. The rebuttal re-centres on urban congestion and cost-effectiveness.
  11. Policy scope is well targeted: maintenance and freight reliability vs generic widening.
  12. Register is consistently formal and objective, with controlled hedging.
  13. Sentences are varied yet accurate, with strong control of complex structures.
  14. Coherence is maintained with logical connectors rather than formulaic linkers.
  15. Each topic sentence signposts the paragraph’s role in the overall argument.
  16. The conclusion synthesises priorities as a portfolio rather than a binary choice.
  17. Lexical resource shows range and precision without over-complication.
  18. Task response is fully developed with clear relevance in every paragraph.
  19. There is no new information in the conclusion—only a refined restatement.
  20. Overall, it demonstrates Band 8+ features across task response, coherence, lexis and grammar.
🟦 Part 4 — Vocabulary (10 Key Words)

congestion

BrE IPA: /kənˈdʒestʃən/   AmE IPA: /kənˈdʒɛstʃən/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: traffic congestion; congestion on a road; reduce/ease/relieve congestion

Definition: A situation where too many vehicles use the same road space, causing slow movement and delays.

Example: “Peak-hour congestion on the ring road adds twenty minutes to average trips.” (= Traffic is so heavy that journeys take longer.)

Synonyms: traffic jams, gridlock, crowding

Common mistakes: ✗ “congestions” (✱ uncountable); ✗ “congestion in the road” → ✓ “congestion on the road”.

emissions (singular: emission)

BrE IPA: /ɪˈmɪʃ(ə)n/   AmE IPA: /ɪˈmɪʃən/

Part of speech: noun (usually plural)

Patterns: CO₂/vehicle emissions; emissions from X; cut/curb/reduce emissions

Definition: Gases or other pollutants released into the air, especially from vehicles and industry.

Example: “Expanding clean bus fleets can lower urban emissions.” (= Fewer harmful gases are released.)

Synonyms: pollution (uncountable), discharge, output (contextual)

Common mistakes: ✗ “emission gases” → ✓ “gas emissions”; remember it is often plural; use verbs like “reduce/curb”.

infrastructure

BrE IPA: /ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌktʃə/   AmE IPA: /ˈɪnfrəˌstrʌktʃɚ/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: transport/public infrastructure; invest in; upgrade/maintain infrastructure

Definition: The basic systems (roads, rail, power, water) a society needs to function.

Example: “Sustained investment in transport infrastructure improves reliability and safety.” (= Funding systems raises quality.)

Synonyms: network, facilities, backbone (figurative)

Common mistakes: Usually uncountable (avoid “infrastructures” in general use); use “invest in”, not “invest on”.

equity

BrE IPA: /ˈekwɪti/   AmE IPA: /ˈɛkwɪti/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: equity in access; promote/advance equity; equity-focused policy

Definition: Fairness in the way resources and opportunities are shared among people.

Example: “Prioritising buses advances equity by serving people who cannot afford cars.” (= It makes access fairer.)

Synonyms: fairness, justice; (compare) equality

Common mistakes: Don’t confuse equity (fairness) with equality (sameness); use “equity in access,” not “equity for access”.

freight

BrE/AmE IPA: /freɪt/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: freight traffic; freight corridor; move/ship freight

Definition: Goods transported by road, rail, sea or air.

Example: “Targeted highway upgrades may still be needed for long-distance freight.” (= To move goods efficiently.)

Synonyms: cargo, goods

Common mistakes: Uncountable in general use (avoid “freights”); say “transport freight”, not “transportation freight” in learner writing.

reliability

BrE/AmE IPA: /rɪˌlaɪəˈbɪləti/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: reliability of service/network; improve/undermine reliability

Definition: The quality of being dependable and consistent in performance.

Example: “Dedicated bus lanes improve reliability during rush hour.” (= Services come on time more consistently.)

Synonyms: dependability, consistency

Common mistakes: Spelling: reliable → reliability; use “reliability of X,” not “reliability for X.”

scalable

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈskeɪləbəl/

Part of speech: adjective

Patterns: a scalable solution/system; scalable to meet demand

Definition: Able to increase capacity efficiently as demand grows.

Example: “Metro lines are scalable because trains can be added at peak times.” (= Capacity can grow without big redesign.)

Synonyms: expandable, extensible (context)

Common mistakes: Spelling: not “scaleable”; use “scalable to meet demand,” not “scalable for demand”.

induced demand

BrE IPA: /ɪnˌdjuːst dɪˈmɑːnd/   AmE IPA: /ɪnˈdust dɪˈmænd/

Part of speech: noun phrase (uncountable)

Patterns: induced demand for driving; new lanes trigger induced demand

Definition: Extra travel that appears after capacity increases, which soon fills the new space.

Example: “New lanes can trigger induced demand, so congestion soon returns.” (= More space invites more driving.)

Synonyms: generated demand, (related) latent demand

Common mistakes: Avoid plural “induced demands”; as a verb, say “capacity induces demand,” but the set phrase is the noun.

subsidy (verb: subsidise BrE / subsidize AmE)

BrE/AmE IPA (noun): /ˈsʌbsɪdi/

Part of speech: noun (countable); plural: subsidies

Patterns: subsidy for fares; provide/withdraw subsidies; subsidise/subsidize something

Definition: Money from a government or authority to reduce the price of a service for users.

Example: “Targeted subsidies can keep fares affordable for low-income riders.” (= Public money lowers ticket prices.)

Synonyms: financial support, grant, aid

Common mistakes: Spelling: BrE subsidise vs AmE subsidize; plural is “subsidies,” not “subsidys”; use “subsidy for X,” not “subsidy to X.”

coverage

BrE/AmE IPA: /ˈkʌvərɪdʒ/

Part of speech: noun (uncountable)

Patterns: service/network coverage; expand/widen coverage; coverage in an area

Definition: The extent or area that a transport service reaches or serves.

Example: “Extending bus coverage into suburbs reduces car dependency.” (= More places have a bus service.)

Synonyms: reach, availability, network extent

Common mistakes: Uncountable (avoid “a coverage”); use “coverage of/in,” not “coverage on”.

🟦 Part 5 — Phrases & Expressions (10 Items)

public transport

BrE IPA: /ˌpʌblɪk ˈtrænspɔːt/   AmE IPA: /ˌpʌblɪk ˈtrænspɔːrt/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase (uncountable)

Patterns: use/rely on public transport; invest in public transport; public transport services/network

Definition: Buses, trams, trains and similar services available for everyone, usually for a fare.

Example: “Cities that invest in public transport often see fewer cars at rush hour.” (= Shared services reduce car use.)

Synonyms: mass transit, public transit

Common mistakes: ✗ “public transports” (uncountable); use “invest in,” not “invest on”.

invest in (something)

BrE IPA: /ɪnˈvɛst ɪn/   AmE IPA: /ɪnˈvɛst ɪn/

Part(s) of speech: verb + preposition

Patterns: invest in + infrastructure/services; invest heavily in; government investment in X

Definition: To spend money, time or effort to improve something and gain benefits later.

Example: “Governments should invest in clean buses to cut emissions.” (= Spend public money to improve buses.)

Synonyms: fund, finance, put money into

Common mistakes: ✗ “invest on”; avoid vague objects (say “invest in bus lanes,” not “invest in it” repeatedly).

reduce congestion

BrE IPA: /rɪˈdjuːs kənˈdʒestʃən/   AmE IPA: /rɪˈduːs kənˈdʒɛstʃən/

Part(s) of speech: verb + noun collocation

Patterns: reduce/ease/relieve congestion; congestion on roads; measures to reduce congestion

Definition: To make traffic less crowded and faster to move.

Example: “Dedicated bus lanes can reduce congestion on main corridors.” (= Fewer delays for all vehicles.)

Synonyms: ease gridlock, alleviate traffic jams

Common mistakes: Use “congestion on a road,” not “in a road”; avoid “decrease the traffic jam” → say “reduce congestion”.

road widening

BrE IPA: /rəʊd ˈwaɪdnɪŋ/   AmE IPA: /roʊd ˈwaɪdənɪŋ/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: road widening projects; oppose/support road widening; the widening of highways

Definition: Increasing the number or width of lanes on a road.

Example: “Some argue that road widening only brings short-term relief due to induced demand.” (= Extra lanes quickly fill up.)

Synonyms: lane expansion, capacity increase (roads)

Common mistakes: Don’t write “roads widening” for the general process; use “the widening of roads/highways”.

cost-effective

BrE IPA: /ˌkɒst ɪˈfektɪv/   AmE IPA: /ˌkɔst ɪˈfɛktɪv/

Part(s) of speech: adjective

Patterns: a cost-effective solution/approach; more cost-effective than; cost-effectiveness of X

Definition: Giving good results without costing too much.

Example: “Improving bus frequency may be cost-effective compared with building flyovers.” (= Better results per dollar.)

Synonyms: economical, efficient

Common mistakes: Keep the hyphen; avoid “costly-effective”; compare with “more/less cost-effective,” not “most cost-effective than”.

carbon footprint

BrE IPA: /ˌkɑːbən ˈfʊtprɪnt/   AmE IPA: /ˌkɑːrbən ˈfʊtprɪnt/

Part(s) of speech: noun (countable, often singular)

Patterns: reduce/lower a carbon footprint; the carbon footprint of transport

Definition: The amount of greenhouse gases produced by a person, activity or system.

Example: “Shifting commuters to trains cuts the city’s carbon footprint.” (= Fewer emissions overall.)

Synonyms: emissions impact, environmental impact (context)

Common mistakes: Not “carbon foot”; use “footprint of X,” not “footprint for X”.

mode shift

BrE IPA: /məʊd ʃɪft/   AmE IPA: /moʊd ʃɪft/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: mode shift from cars to transit; encourage/achieve mode shift

Definition: A change in how people travel, such as moving from private cars to buses or trains.

Example: “Integrated ticketing can drive a mode shift from driving to public transport.” (= People choose transit instead.)

Synonyms: modal shift, change of travel mode

Common mistakes: Keep the prepositions “from … to …”; avoid the plural “mode shifts” unless you mean several shifts.

reliable service

BrE IPA: /rɪˈlaɪəbl ˈsɜːvɪs/   AmE IPA: /rɪˈlaɪəbəl ˈsɝːvɪs/

Part(s) of speech: adjective + noun collocation

Patterns: provide/deliver reliable service; reliability of service

Definition: Transport that comes on time and works consistently well.

Example: “Passengers switch when buses offer reliable service during peak hours.” (= On-time buses attract users.)

Synonyms: dependable operation, consistent service

Common mistakes: Spelling: reliable (not “realiable”); use “reliability of,” not “reliability for”.

a viable alternative (to)

BrE IPA: /ˈvaɪəbl ɔːlˈtɜːnətɪv/   AmE IPA: /ˈvaɪəbəl ɔːlˈtɝːnətɪv/

Part(s) of speech: noun phrase

Patterns: a viable alternative to driving/road building; present/offer a viable alternative

Definition: A practical option that can really work instead of another choice.

Example: “Frequent, affordable trains provide a viable alternative to daily commuting by car.” (= A realistic replacement.)

Synonyms: practical option, workable substitute

Common mistakes: Keep “alternative to …”; avoid “viable solution for driving” when you mean “alternative to driving”.

allocate funding (to)

BrE IPA: /ˈæləkeɪt ˈfʌndɪŋ (tuː)/   AmE IPA: /ˈæləˌkeɪt ˈfʌndɪŋ (tu)/

Part(s) of speech: verb + noun collocation

Patterns: allocate funding to projects; funding allocation for X; reallocate funding

Definition: To decide officially to give money to a project or department.

Example: “The council should allocate funding to bus-priority corridors before widening roads.” (= Direct the budget to buses first.)

Synonyms: assign budget, apportion funds

Common mistakes: Don’t use “allocate of funding”; keep the object order: allocate funding to X.