In the reading passages there is ample support for the author's claim that increasing the cigarette tax has benefits. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor in the lecture contends that increasing the tax of cigarettes would not have the potential power to young smokers. Young smokers usually buy the cigarettes through the illegal way like through a black market. The black market does not check their ID card, thus they could easily access the cigarettes. Also, the black market sells the cigarette at a low cost, which means that it also could attract the youth to start smoking (start to V 와 start V-ing는 차이가 존재합니다). This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that increasing the cigarette tax would be a way to decrease the rate of young smokers.
Next, the professor in the lecture insists that even if a lot of people to quit smoking due to the price, it will not be a benefit on the aspect of the environment. Chemicals which already are located in the underground are not able to be easily cleared. Also, if people start to quit smoking when the cigarette demand is stable, (새로운 문장으로 시작해주세요) the cost of it would be decreased, which means that the tax would be decreased as well. Consequently, this leads to the situation in which people who tried to quit start smoking again. This refuses the reading passage's assertion that the environment which was (수동태) once damaged will be recovered.
Finally, the professor in the lecture argues that issue of poverty is not able to be solved (수동태) with the revenue got from the cigarette tax. As the cigarette tax gets (주어 동사 불일치) higher, the demand of it would be lower, which means that the job on the agriculture demand would be declined. Thus, increasing the tax is not a good way to solve poverty problem but it would be made worse. This counters the reading passage's suggestion that the profit of the cigarette tax is able to help the issue of poverty due to the fact that fund of it would be increased and it could support the social wealth programs with better service.
-
1. introduction의 분량을 3문장 이상으로 늘려주세요.
2. 사소한 문법 오류가 잦은 편입니다. proof-reading을 꼼꼼하게 해주세요.
수동태/능동태 사용을 복습해보심이 어떨까 싶습니다. (be동사 사용)
3. reading and listening의 비율이 너무 listening쪽으로만 치우쳐져 있습니다.
비율은 5:5, 적어도 6:4 정도는 되어야 합니다.
이는 리딩에 대한 디테일 부족으로 이어지며, 분량 부족, 추가 설명 실패 등으로 이어질 수 있으니
리딩에서도 evidence를 많이 찾아서 써주시면 좋을 것 같습니다.