▶ Your Answer :
The
lecturer argues that congestion pricing, a system forcing people to pay fees on their vehicles droven in a city during in rush hours, is not an advantageous system. This
directly contradicts the reading passage’s claim that it has clear benefits.
First,
the lecturer contends that congestion pricing makes driving more dangerous. If
the number of traffic drops, the drivers on the road can drive in a much higher
speed, which results in more frequent car accidents. This is supported by the
research suggesting that the risk of accident rises when a car runs in a 30 thirty (이건 필수는 아니고 그냥 작은 팁인데, 숫자가 복잡하지 않을 경우 지금과 같이 바꿔 적는 게 훨씬 있어보입니다. 그러나 1994년 같이 연도는 그냥 숫자로 적어주시면 되고요.) percent higher velocity. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that
congestion pricing will prevent people from getting injured. The author
demonstrates his argument through a trial program that proved the effectiveness
of congestion pricing in reducing accidents.
Second,
the lecturer maintains that in the long-term, public transportation would become
less convenient. If people do not drive their own car to avoid the fees, the
buses will be overcrowded. Furthermore, citizens will have a hard time catching
a bus that has (bus 와 호응됩니다.) have enough space for them. This is the exact opposite of the reading
passage’s claim that congestion pricing system makes a public bus more
convenient. To be specific, the author believes that if traffic jam is solved,
buses will move in accordance with their original schedule, and citizens do would (하지 않아도 된다와 하지 않아도 될 것이다 정도의 차이라고 보시면 됩니다.) not
have to wait for them for a long time as well.
Finally,
the lecture asserts that the system’s supposed advantage on businesses within a
city does not match with the reality. In fact, the retail businesses will have
less revenue, because people that live in suburb will not drive into a city
when they are forced to pay congestion fees. This refutes the reading passage’s
claim that congestion pricing benefits local businesses. The author points out
that the companies would not have to pay the extra costs to offset the delays
in the delivery of products or excessive fuel consumption, which are the result
of traffic jam.
총평: 대비되는 두 입장은 깔끔하게 비교해주셨습니다. 전반적으로 봤을 때 좋은 점수를 받으실 수 있을 것 같고, 관사를 포함한 문법에서의 잔실수만 조금 수정해주시면 좋을 것 같아요. 수고하셨습니다 :)
|