▶ Your Answer :
In the past, the trip was limited due to
the insufficient transportation mode. As society and technology developed, people
can travel around the world easily. Even though there are several reasons for
people to travel around the world, the dominant reasons could be the relaxation
reasons. <(내용을 조금 더 summarize 해주시면 좋을 것 같습니다) Some people claimed that these trips this trip should be limited because the
unnecessary tourist trips would only damage the environments. However, the restriction of such travel would
face the public's backlash and alternative ways of traveling would increase. Also,
due to the frequent use of vehicles have more severe impact on the environment than
that of airplanes.
It is undeniable that the use of aircrafts
consumes more fossil gases than that of cars, and as a result, it can harm the
environment more than that of cars. Nevertheless the amount of pollution
resulting from the unnecessary travels is less fewer than that of vehicle pollution. Traveling around a country or nearby areas by a vehicle is easier that airplanes. Driving a vehicle can travel around the country or nearby areas easier than
that of aircrafts, thus, the vehicles are more frequently used than
aircrafts. In the case of daily usage,
people travel more often by cars than aircrafts. According to the UK
statistics, 98% of British people travelled by vehicles, whereas 64% of British
travelled by airplanes. Since the vehicles are used using more frequently than that
of airplanes, pollutions coming from vehicles are more damaging to the
environment than that of aircrafts.
(Need better transition)
Even that <(even that what?), by regulating the flights to the
necessary trips would result the public's backlash. Since people have gotten
used to the travelling around the world and feeling relaxed from such travel,
the restriction of the flights would be considered as the restriction of people's
rights for freedom. People would have the human rights to enjoy their own's feelings and the traveling even though that is unnecessary. Furthermore, some people may
not agree that with the unnecessary trip is tourist travel <(little unclear), since they can learn
various knowledge from traveling. People can <(can what?) various knowledge to understand other
people's perspective by knowing different such as cultures, history and tradition. Also,
people can invigorate their energies from travelling before they concentrate
fully on their work. Since the restriction of flights would be considered as
the lost of all those factors mentioned above, there would be public backlash. the public would be backlash.
In conclusion, despite that the airplanes can
cause environmental damages, it seems more severe than that of cars.<(두 번째 문단의 내용과 contradicting 합니다) However, the discouraging the flights would not stop people to travel and would which cause an even more serious phenomenon to the environment and society. Also, the public's
backlash will be inevitable.
Score: 6 Comment: 잘 서술 해주셨습니다. 다만 전체적으로 내용/글 정리가 필요합니다. 전체적으로 summarize를 조금 더 해주시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 문법상 collocation/word form/article use/ sentence structure/표현/시제/verb phrase/plurality/에 주로 틀리시고 계십니다. 또한 Conclusion의 첫 번째 문장의 두 번째 문단의 내용과 contradicting합니다. 그렇기 때문에 글쓴이의 주장이 헷갈리게 들립니다. 전체적으로 글쓴이의 주장이 통일이 되도력 신경을 써주시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 그 외에는 글 안에 있는 수정이나 코멘트를 봐주시면 될 것 같습니다. 수고 하셨습니다. |