▶ Your Answer :
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.
First, the reading passage mentions that fewer people in the city may hurt businesses. 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. Sales figure will follow the change of the economic situation. This means that sales will amplify when the economic surroundings arise.
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. 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.
Finally, according to the reading passage, there will be increase in the delivery expense, which small businesses go through financial problems. In contrast, the lecture counters the reading’s point by saying that delivery businesses will find the efficient route because of 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.
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. |