English Lang p2 q5

for my question 5 I didn't really talk about why public transport is better than cars, such as impact on the environment and traffic. I mainly talked about why public transport should be more accessible . Is this fine?

Oh my god I did the complete opposite. I straight up forgot about the public transport part until the end. I waffled on able how bad cars are for the environment.

can you remember the exact statement?

Q5? It was something like ‘Cars are convenient, comfortable and reliable but we should limit their usage by making public transport like buses and trains cheaper and more reliable’. I can’t remember it exactly but it was asking us to argue for or against it in a speech format.

I think I may have done it all wrong. First paragraph I used myself as an anecdote proving the unreliability of public transport and how I so often am met with delays, I then spoke about how public transport must be more available and they have the power to make the difference. Then I spoke about how horrible public transport really is and how people would use it if it was cheap and comfortable, like the cars. I then described the ideal world where transport was easy to use and not expensive and how they can make a change that could help. Not sure I fully kept to the statement. Does it sound any good? could i still get good marks?