Both the lecture and the reading hold different
position, respectively, over the
issue of whether congestion fees should be imposed on drivers who enter the
city or not. The lecturer’s argument
is formed around the many points that
are in direct contrasts to the material
in (view of the)
reading passage.
To begin with, the lecturer claims that businesses in
the city is (are)
not affected from (by) congestion fees.
Because, through the lasted customer, (as) the
businesses would be able to recover in few days. (Did
he provide as further reason for this?) This contrasts (with) the writer’s argument that since (due to) congestions
fees, fewer people would enter the city. And the fees give negative effects on (to = give to) businesses
in the city.
On top of that, the lecturer argues that congestion
fees would not give (be a) stress to the people. To be specific, people
will use public transportation when congestion fees will
be (are) execute(d). This counters the reading passage’s viewpoint
that the fees would (will) put a financial burden on people.
Lastly, the lecturer asserts that congestions fees
would not affect delivery businesses. In fact, delivery businesses would be
able to move faster and lower price, because through the fees, city can be resolve traffic jam. This casts doubt on
the writer’s claim that congestions fees increase delivery expenses and suffer the (make) small
businesses (suffer).
(I’m not sure if the passage writes or says “fees”
instead of “fee” because to me, singular noun sounds better. I didn’t correct
it since I wasn’t sure.)