2015年8月22日
In the lecture, by claiming that the prescribed burning is not as harmful as it is in the reading, the professor refutes the three points mentioned in the passage.
Firstly, the reading holds that the prescribed burning is a menace to animals, especially newborn animals. However, the professor refutes that the time of burning can be planned to avoid the breeding season, so that there will be few young animals and the adult animals can run faster to escape from the fire, what’s more, the burning will not spread so fast, which gives animals enough time to run away.
Secondly, the reading claims that prescribed burning is detrimental to environment by producing smoke and carbon dioxide. The professor disagrees with this by suggesting that the vegetation in the forest can absorb carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and more vegetation should be planted to enhance that effect.
Finally, in the reading passage, it indicates that prescribed burning might cause natural fires, increasing the time, money and resources spent. In contrast, the professor holds that the original aim of prescribed burning is to burn down the branches or dead trees that can lead to forest fire, after which the aftermath of natural fires will not be so severe.
独立写作：Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The effective only way for governments to encourage energy conservation is to increase the price of gasoline and electricity.
Energy shortage is an issue that plagues many governments and causes increasing concerns. The way of raising the price of gasoline and electricity to encourage energy conservation does have some merits, but I contend that there are more effective and feasible approaches to reach the same purpose.
Admittedly, by motivating energy users to reduce their consumption, the increased prices can take effect in energy conversation to some extent. For the purpose of saving money, people will restrain themselves, driving less and using electricity less. However, such solution only scratch the surface, just a temporary relief, not a permanent cure. The majority of people use gasoline and electricity out of necessity, especially those whose commutes to work are rather time-consuming, so they will not change their consumption habits just due to the raised prices.
A more efficient way is to improve the density and convenience of public transportation. When the places where people works can be reached by mass transit, especially by metro which does not have the plight of traffic jam, most of people will choose not to drive their own cars because it takes more time and more money compared with metro, which can remarkably reduce energy consumed for transportation.
The second plausible solution is to stimulate the inventing of energy-efficient products and encourage consumers to use such products. A prominent example of this is the energy savings that can be made by replacing incandescent light bulbs with more modern alternatives, such as compact fluorescent and LED bulbs, which may have higher upfront cost but their long lifespan and low energy use can save consumers a considerable amount of money. Very similarly, fuel-efficient vehicles should be the trend of future, as well as new energy cars such as those powered by hydrogen-based fuel-cell or ethanol.
In conclusion, higher energy price is not the best solution to energy conservation, while the improvement of infrastructure and energy-efficient products are more effective and efficient.
写作思路：
这道题有“only”这样词，属于绝对词题词，我们一般采用先让步--承认提高油价和电价确实在一定程度上促进能源节约，然后提出其他方案，如提高公共交通的密度，节能新产品的发明，更加的治标治本。
相关推荐: