Both the lecture and the reading hold different positions, respectively, on the issue of congestion fees.
The lecture’s argument is formed around many points that are in direct contrast to the material in the reading passage.
이때 lecture와 reading passage 내용이 반대가 된다. 이렇게 적기보다는 구체적으로 언급해 주시는것이 좋아요. The main idea of the reading passage is that congestion fee is largely ineffective in economic issue. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the three points which are explained in the reading passage.
First, the reading passage mentions that fewer people in the city may hurt businesses.
여기서 고칠점은 앞에서 아무 언급도 없던 the city of London 얘기가 갑자기 왜 나왔는지 연결이 안된다는 거에요. 아마 reading passage에서 the city of London의 예시를 들면서 도시에 사람이 적으면 hurt business한다. 라고 했지만 lecture는 아니라고 반박한다고 추론해볼수 있겠네요..
First, the reading passage mentions that fewer people in the city may hurt businesses with the example of London. 를 추가하면 좋을것 같아요.
However, the lecturer refutes this by arguing that it is untrue because the result from the city of London was misleading and that was due to the economic recession.
However, the lecturer refutes this by arguing that damage on businesses in Lodon does not result from congestion fees, but from economic recession.
Sales figure will follow the change of the economic situation. This means that sales will amplify when the economic surroundings arise. (이부분 무슨 말로 적은건지 이해가 안가네요 ㅠㅠ)
In addition, the reading passage points out that congestion fees will be a financial burden for lower income people. On the other hand, the speaker in the lecture rebuts this by claiming that people who have low income are already use transportation.
1) 문법 실수
2) people who have low income. 그냥 low income group라고 재언급 하셔도 무방합니다.
그런데 mainpoint는 이렇게 하는것이 더 나을법 하네요..
On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this by claiming that low income group will not be affected by this policy.
Absolutely lower income people will not drive their car to enter the city. Thus, transportation such as the bus can move quickly because there is less congestion in the center of city.
To be specific, most low income people do not possess their own private cars and use another transporation, which means they are not obliged to pay for congestion fees. Therefore, it is natural that congestion fees would effectively resolve traffic jam by charging only drivers.
Finally, according to the reading passage, there will be increase in the delivery expense, which small businesses go through financial problems.
grammar error.
Finally, according to the reading passage, congestion fees would increase delivery expense, which leads to financial problems for small businesses.
In contrast, the lecture counters the reading’s point by saying that delivery businesses will find the efficient route because of congestion fees.
However, this point is directly rebutted by lecturer's assertion that delivery businesses will rather benefit from congestion fees.
After that, delivery time will be decreased by the route. This short time for necessary products is good for small businesses and this delivery price may be stabilized from this process.
Specifically, delivery businesses will find more efficient route in order to avoid cogestion fees, which in turn reduces delivery time and price. Thus, it is undeniable that congestion fees ultimately benefit small businesses.
In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects with regard to problem of congestion fees. However, the lecture’s argument makes it clear that none of these characteristics justify the reading passage’s claim.
conclusion은 안적으시는게 더 나을것 같아요. !! 글자수가 280자 정도가 적당합니당...