The reading passage covers three major points concerning that why congestion pricing has advantages. The listening passage, which is also of the same topic, clearly states why these points are debatable.
The first point made in the reading passage is that the forming a safe driving behavior is a reason of congestion pricing policy. The speaker, however, challenges this by mentioning that the opposite is true. More severe accidents occur in a with less traffic condition because drivers can speed up. A report from the a government department in Australia supports that the policy actually worsens the degree of injury and increases death rate. Hence, making a safer load road condition many may not be an effective reason of a such pricing scheme.
Another point made by the reading is that about convenience of public transportation. On the contrary, the lecture asserts that this is not true (무엇이 사실이 아니라는 건가요? 앞선 문장에 나온 읽기 지문의 내용은 “대중교통 편의에 관한 건”이라고만 했을 뿐 사실과 거짓을 가릴 수 있는 내용은 없습니다.) due to the fact that it is less convenient in the long-run because more and more people would use public transportation and, eventually, they will have difficulty with catching a bus. Thus, convenience might not be a persuasive reason to support the entire topic.
Lastly, the reading passage claims that enacting the policy will have positive impact on companies since it will decrease the cost. The professor further debunks this by saying that the claim does not match the reality. He said that retail revenue will decrease because less people will drive to the city and one report shows that the congestion pricing virtually results lagging sales. Therefore, the positive impact cost-saving effect (지문의 내용이 제대로 설명되지 않습니다.) is probably not a viable reason.
Writing 0-30 scale
Fair (21-23)
두 지문의 내용이 충분히 정리/요약되지 않는 부분이 있습니다. 본문의 파란 코멘트를 확인하세요. 글에 오타도 보입니다. 글을 다 쓰고나면 처음부터 꼼꼼히 읽으면서 수정할 시간을 확보하세요.