In a number of countries, some people think it’s necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities.
Others believe the money should be spent on improving existing public transport.
Discuss both of these views and give your opinion.
Many people argue that it is compulsory to pay
a large amount of money to build new railway lines for fast trains in order to connect
to cities, while others maintain that the budget should be used for the development
of public transport already made. In the following, I will discuss the two ideas and also suggest
my own one.
A number of experts insist that the financial
investment to construct new railway lines for fast trains between cities would
have positive effects on overpopluation problems. For instance, the Korean
government has made various train railways to send as many residents in Seoul in
which more than 50% of popluation are living as possible to other
ones. With the help of the new lines, the extremely high level of rent and traffic
jams which occurred much frequently have substantially been coped with. This indicates
that a rise of number of new railway lines for trains could be a great way to
deal with serious urban issues which the development of the given public transport
cannot tackle.
However, others assert that the improvement
of the existing public transportation for citizens is more important than the
constructation of more ways for trains. This is because the number of people who
travel between cities by train has decreased and is expected to fell thanks to the
utilization of airplane. As traveling by airplane has been general due to the increase
in the number of airlines and the decrease of the price of flight tickets, people
who go to other cities are likely to use them rather than trains. Since airplane
is faster than train in general, the latter would be more needless in the
future. Therefore, the investment for existing public transports is more significant
than for new lines for fast trains. (여기는 내용상 수정이 필요한데, 자세한 건 총평에서 말씀드리겠습니다.)
In conclusion, both views are somewhat
reasonable, I believe that spending a lot of amount of money on the improvement
of public transports already set is more beneficial. This is because the role
of train would be replaced by the more cutting edge technology, namely, airplane.
총평: (5/6/6/7) 6.0
어휘 문법으로 인해 일정 점수는 벌어가시겠지만, 본론 두 번째 문단은 수험생들이 정말 많이 범하는 논리적 오류가 있으므로 주의해주셔야 합니다.
기본적으로 철도에 대한 투자를 부정하는 것이 곧 대중교통 투자의 긍정으로 이어지는 것은 아닙니다. 철도를 부정하면, 딱 거기서 끝날뿐이고요. 일례로 지금 적어주신 비행기 관련 내용은 '세금 등을 철도에 투자해서는 안 된다.' 라는 논증에 쓰일 수는 있어요. 그러나 여기서 더 끌고 나가서 그 돈을 대중교통에 투자해야한다는 주장을 하고자 하면, 이에 맞게 그러한 투자의 장점을 적을 수 있어야 합니다. 그렇지 않을 경우 '철도에 사용하지 않은 세금은 그냥 아껴두는 게 낫다.' 라는 주장이 우세해지니까요.
하나를 부정하는 것이 곧 반대편의 긍정이 되는 경우도 있긴 합니다. 그러나 이는 두 사항이 불가분의 관계에 있을 때에 한해서의 얘기이며, 조금 논리적으로 심화된 사항이라 굳이 깊게 들어가실 필요는 없습니다. 어차피 9점 받으셔야하는 것도 아니니까 그냥 복잡하게 생각하지 마시고 각각의 장점을 적는 쪽으로 수정해주세요~수고하셨습니다 :)