▶ Your Answer :
Nowadays, environmental problem such as air and water pollution is becoming more and more serious and governments all over the world are taking different steps to deal with this problem. While there are lots of measurements that they can take, I think passing and enforcing the environmental laws, which is the third choice, is the most crucial action that they should take. The reasons illustrating this are stated in the following paragraphs.
To begin with, it is the most cost effective method. Other methods such as conducting research on environmentally friendly energy and protecting wild life, require more funding which comes from the citizens’ tax. However, passing and enforcing laws do not require such a tremendous money like the research funds, thus less burdensome for its citizens by drawing more favorable and increasing the possibility to draw agreement from them. For instance, the city that I am living at once started a project to build a hydroelectric power plant. People from other countries thought that it was a great idea, but it eventually failed because it faced serious opposition disagreement of the local citizens due to tripled tax. If the city has come up with had tried alternative methods like promoting carpooling or regulating carbon dioxide emission, they would not have failed.
Secondly, passing new laws can alter public’s attitude towards environment. Laws that directly regulates lifestyle such as encouraging public transportation and recycling will change people’s attitude as well as behavior in the long run. The city that where my sister is currently living at enforces people to recycle and punishes people who throw trash in the road. This law not only makes her to be careful when throwing trashes but also to realize that a small but relentless behavior can pose threat to the Earth. Other methods suggested as a choice are far from the general public’s life, thus causing the public to feel they are irrelevant to the environmental issues.
Finally, time efficiency is another advantage for this method. While the first method is risky and even if it succeeds, conducting researches on new energy sources takes a lot of time to see the outcome. (Clarify the meaning) The second choice, too, would require lots of time for the air condition to be recovered. However, regulating carbon dioxide or toxic pollutants from factories would directly improve water and air condition. When my hometown had passed the law on the sulfur dioxide emission from the factories, the air condition directly improved because it was the major cause of the air pollutants in the area. If the government had instead planted trees to protect the forest, it would have taken a long time for the air quality to be improved.
To conclude, whereas some people might argue that funding researches on the new energy sources or protecting nature is more important, I would rather consider passing new laws and enforcing them as more crucial measurement to the environment. Since this choice is not only cost effective but also time efficient. Moreover, new laws regulating public’s lifestyle can positively change people’s attitude towards the environment, thus even more beneficial in the long run.
채점기준표 | Grammar | Contents | Example | Coherence | 점수 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | Score | Fair 18-22 | - 다양한 각도에서 주장을 서술해주신 것 같아요.
- 다만 세 번째 단락은 논지라기 보다는 첫 번째와 두 번째 내용을 재서술한 느낌이 강하고, 다소 불필요한 부분이 많은 것 같아요. - 내용 역시 상당히 긴 편이라 30분내에 서술이 가능할 수 있을지 우려되네요.
|
|