The lecturer argues that Congestion pricing is not as advantageous as it is known to be. This contradicts the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing poses a number of significant benefits. First, the lecturer asserts that although congestion pricing allows people to drive faster, it is not responsible for reducing the accident rate. He explains that the reality is actually the opposite; as the traffic gets better, people attend to drive faster, further resulting in much more personal injuries. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing protects people from getting injured by car accidents. Next, the lecturer points out that as more people use public transportation, it is likely that confusion will occur. For example, the buses would be overcrowded, and people would even suffer from catching the buses since there are too many people at the bus stops. This opposes the reading passage's claim that congestion pricing would favor the people's access to transportation. Lastly, the lecturer claims that congestion pricing does not necessarily benefit the economy. He says that since the consumers who are entering the city would not want to pay charges, and therefore, spend less money. To support his statement, he pinpoints that the retailers actually blame congestion pricing for the lag in sales. This counters the reading passage's claim that businesses would prosper if congestion pricing gets implemented.
Good: 24~30 점수: 24 리딩에 대한 정보가 많이 부족한 통합형 에세이인거 같습니다. 통합형 에세이에서 가장 중요하게 보는 것 중에 하나는 한 주제에 대한여서 리딩과 리스닝이 서로 어떻게 잘 비교하고 있는 것 인지를 보여주는 거 가 젤 중요합니다. 지금 이 에세이는 리스닝에 대한 정보는 부족함 없이 잘 서술되어 있지만 리딩에 대한 정보는 한 문장으로만 서술되었습니다. 한 문장으로 끝내는 것 보다는 리스닝을 좀 더 반박 할 수 있는 문장들을 더 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
|