▶ Your Answer :
The reading and the lecture both
talk about the policy of that increasing energy prices to save limited sources of
energy. The reading states that there are three reasons that the policy is not effective.
However, the lecturer argues that the reasons given in the reading are not
convincing.
First of all, the reading states
that people will not stop consuming gasoline even if gasoline price increases.
On the contrary, the lecturer argues the statement is false. This is because if
using gasoline is very burdensome, people will try their best to use gasoline
economically. For example, they will not drive short distances.
Next, in the reading, the author
argues that increasing gas taxes can put a financial burden on people. In contrast, the
lecture claims the notion is erroneous. The reason for this is that they will
be use public transportation or carpool to reduce costs spent on gasoline. So,
this policy will not put a burden on people.
Finally, the reading goes on to
explain that it is more efficient to encourage car makers to develop more
fuel-efficient cars than to increase gas taxes to conserve gasoline. On the
other hand, the professor, in her lecture asserts the idea does not make sense.
This is because if gas taxes increase, it is too burdensome for consumers to
drive cars that use a lot of gasoline and car manufacturer will be required to
develop more fuel-efficient cars. So, this policy ultimately will bring the
result to conserve sources of energy.
Good (24-28)
서론 -that 절은 주어+동사 의 완전한 문장이 나와야하는데, 그렇지 않으므로 of 절로 바꿔주세요. 두번째 본문 -be는 여기서 불필요합니다. 빼주세요.
내용 정리 괜찮습니다. 수고하셨습니다~~
|