▶ Your Answer :
In
the reading passage, the author claims smart cars that will be available in the
near future by today’s ever-evolving technology are beneficial in many ways. On
the other hand, the lecturer refutes the author’s claim by opposing the
benefits of smart cars mentioned by the author.
First,
the lecturer states that smart cars could make accidents. Sometimes,
cutting-edge computer devices equipped in smart cars would fail thereby leading
to car accidents. What is more, smart cars will follow each other closely,
which makes the chance that the more number of cars will get involved in an
accident higher. This casts doubt on the author’s claim that smart cars can
save lives.
Second,
the lecturer argues that smart cars will generate additional traffic problems.
This is mainly because, if smart cars are available for people, to say more
convenient cars, then more and more people will buy them and this will increase
the number of cars on the road. Consequently, traffic congestion will be worsened
by additional number of cars. This contradicts the author’s argument that
traffic problems will disappear with the wide use of smart cars.
Third,
the lecturer points out that people could not save money by the use of smart
cars. Considering the high price of using global positioning technology and
other state-of-the-art technologies such as sensors, and computer devices,
people will have to pay a lot of money when they use or maintenance them.
Furthermore, the devices that have advanced technologies require more careful
maintenance thereby costing more money to users. All of these factors will
offset cost-advantages from using smart cars. This directly opposes the author’s
assertion that smart cars will reduce the cost of driving.
In the reading
passage, the author argues that smart cars are beneficial by citing three
benefits; safer driving, quicker driving, and less expensive costs. On the
other hand, the lecturer refutes the author’s argument opposing three benefits
cited by the author. Firstly,
the lecturer contends that smart cars also make accidents. The computers
equipped in smart cars occasionally malfunction thereby making accidents.
Additionally, computer-controlled driving makes cars on the road more pack
together, which would involve more cars in a potential accident. This contradicts
the author’s argument that smart cars prevent many accidents. Secondly,
the lecturer argues that smart cars actually cannot save time. A number of studies
have shown that there is a positive relation between the level of convenience
and the number of cars. This means if car technologies improve, there should be
more cars on the road. More cars will worsen traffic congestion, therefore
people would have to waste more time on the road when they commute. This casts
doubt on the author’s assertion that traffic problems will disappear thanks to appearance
of smart cars.
Thirdly,
the lecturer maintains that smart cars will not reduce the costs of driving.
Using a global positioning system is expensive. Furthermore, the devices in
smart cars and the costs for their maintenance are costly as well.
Consequently, this will offset the other aspect of saving money for drivers.
This directly opposes the author’s statement that smart cars will bring a
reduction in the costs of driving. |