Whether more recycling is needed or not and how governments should involve in this problem are varied by people. One might say that imposing fees on disposals is an efficient way to control the pollutions in cities, whereas others argue that if the governments levy too high taxes or sanctions on people, it will raise their opposition. As a writer of this essay, I strongly agree with the former statement.
(들여쓰기 하실 거면 더 확실하게 해주셔야 합니다. 그렇지 않을 경우 그냥 들여쓰기 없이 엔터 두 번 치시는 게 낫고요.) To begin with, governments need to have powerful actions and compulsory instructions regarding the recycling issue. For instance, when governments do not levy taxes or fees on wastes we create daily, people would not give severe concern towards concern severely about recycling. Moreover, penalties are sometimes required sometimes to mitigate the amount number of wastes in cities and rural areas. By doing this, people will be cautious not to throw out their rubbish everywhere.
The reason why these powerful actions are needed is that recycling properly is connected to our environment. Every year, millions of barrels of wastes are produced by humans and this leads to serious contaminations on land, water, and air. Yearly, more and more wildlife such as turtles, fishes, endangered species are vanishing because of the garbages we produce. Therefore reducing wastes by recycling is the one and the ultimate way to control environmental pollution. (이 문단은 다시 쓰셔야 합니다.이에 대해서는 밑에서 말씀드릴게요.)
The governments should set instant and compulsory actions and laws on people to recycle more. Since the condition of our environment is dependent on our behaviors and social actions, the law is an absolute way to proliferate recycling.
255단어
푼 시간 36분
목표점수 7.0
항상 감사합니다~
총평: (5/6/7/7) 6.5
이 논제의 경우 학생들이 정말 많이 틀리므로 주의해주셔야 합니다. 논제에서 핵심은 '재활용'이 아닌, '법'입니다. 재활용의 중요성 및 영향은 이미 전제가 된 사항이고, 이를 해결하기 위해서 '법이 얼마나 중요한가'를 다루는 것이 하마님의 역할입니다. 본론1은 이러한 맥락에서 적절한 반면, 본론2는 그렇지 않습니다. 이러한 차이점을 잘 캐치해서 본론2를 수정해주세요!
수고하셨습니다 :)