Both the lecturer and the reading passage
discuss special tax on tobacco products. The lecturer casts doubt on the
author's assertion on several plausible advantages of increasing tax on
tobacco, by presenting three counter-arguments.
First, the lecturer asserts that tax on tobacco
will not deter young people from smoking. This is because young people would
still illegally buy cigarretes cigarettes
from the black market of cigarretes. Recent studies indicate that in
case of an increase in tobacco price, teanagers
teenagers would be are more inclined to
buy from a black market rather than from a legal retail as black markets do not
check teanagers teenagers' ID and they
can purchase cigarettes at a cheaper cost. This counters the author's claim
that tax on cigarettes will reduce the number of
young smokers.
Second, the lecturer claims that increased tax
on tobacco is not necessarily going to remunerate the envrionmental environmental destruction. He says that not all tax
revenue from tobacco will be spent on planting trees and cleaning up the
environment. Actually, as an increase in tobacco
price leads would lead to a decline in
people who buy tobacco, less tax would eventually be available. This counters
the author's assertion that an increase in
tobacco tax will help nature to recover from
environmental harm caused by cigarettes.
Lastly, the lecturer argues that increase in tax as a solution for
poverty is problematic. He claims that in reality, tobacco industries
contribute to creating jobs in agriculture, retail and manufacture. Therefore,
if tax on tobacco increases, numerous jobs would disappear, making poverty even
worse. This refutes the reading passage's claim that higher cigarette tax can
be used to diminish poverty.
Writing
0-30 Score Scale |
Good (24-30) |
Score |
24 |
Overall
Comment: |
두 입장을 잘 비교하셨어요. 위에
문법 오류들을 지적해 드렸으니 참고하세요. 문법 오류만 고치시면 더 높은 점수를 받으실 수 있을 거에요! |
|
|