综合写作 讨论在美国西海岸修建高铁(high-speed rail lines) 是否有益
Sample answer:
In the lecture, the professor is skeptical about the idea of the reading passage that the high-speed rail lines benefits people in US. The professor argues that the benefits are not as obvious as reading suggests.
Firstly, in the reading passage, high-speed railway will save money spent maintaining the roads, which can be very expensive. On the contrary, the professor says that compared maintaining the roads, building high-speed rail lines costs more. Government in California has to borrow 100 million, which takes up 75% of annual fiscal avenue, and it is hard to pay back alone.
Secondly, the professor opposes reading’s idea that more citizens will choose to take high-speed train, which can relieve traffic congestion by stating that whether people will choose to take high-speed train depends on whether it is convenient for them to go to train station. People need driving to the train station first, which is not contributing to solve traffic jams.
Finally, the professor disapproves the reading’s idea that this means of transportation is one of the most environmentally friendly forms, because it is fuel-efficient while the train is running at a high speed. The professor points out that the railway cannot cover all the areas, and somewhere in California is speed-limited, so there is nothing different from regular trains.
作文题目：
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Providing Internet access is as important as other services, like building roads, so the government should provide it at no cost.
写作思路：
相似的话题还曾经出现过对于政府而言是否提供网络要比加强公共交通更有必要，此题不过换了种说法，讨论政府是否应该免费提供网络。这道题大家只需要单方面考虑政府免费提供网络的利弊即可，无需比较。但是此题出现明显的因果关系，大家不妨可以考虑一下不同意的观点，可能会比较好写。另外，大家还是要题目审清楚，at no cost是“免费”，at any cost才是“不计代价”的意思。
范文指导
In contemporary society, along with the development of high technology, people drastically depend on Internet for communication with others as well as for knowledge acquisition. There has been a saying vividly indicating how much people rely on Internet, adapted from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: the demand for Wi-Fi, rather physiological needs, has been the primary foundation of all human’s needs. In light of the common requirement, some people advocate that government should provide access to Internet for free. As far as I am concerned, the proposal is not worthy backing. My reasons are listed as follows.
Admittedly, it might facilitate people’s life if there were free access to Internet. Most modernists, especially the young, are carrying and playing their cellphones and portable computers no matter where they go. Free accessible Internet provides people with not only the firsthand information, such as political news, recreational top news or weather forecast but also the possibility of receiving and sending E-mails to deal with the routines even when they are having afternoon tea at the café shop. However, it is impractical to say that government should provide all citizens with whatever they deem important.
For a start, it poses an oppressive financial challenge for the government to provide Wi-Fi. The establishment of free Wi-Fi system, which covers all areas, can be a piece of big work, which will consume a considerable amount of money and involve the most cutting-edged technology. Given that after paying years’ toilsome work and astronomical money, the government provides free access to Internet for all citizens, it does not mean no more additional money will be needed. Subsequent maintaining stable and high-speed Internet requires constant and long-lasting fiscal support. In the term, people’s life quality is very likely to be declined because of the financial deficit. The endless investment is unnecessary for the government.
Furthermore, it is more advisable to invest other fundamental services like building roads. Never can traffic jams be fresh in the metropolis. Considering the inefficient public transportation, an increasing number of people turn to use private vehicles, which pushes more cars onto roads, which leads to higher probability of traffic congestion. Here is a notable case in point. Last week, I witnessed a serious traffic collision caused by private cars, one of which was deformed because of crush, and the drivers as well as passengers were all severely injured. Such kind of tragedy is happened everyday and everywhere owning to overloaded use of private cars as well as insufficient overpasses and highways. Accidents will be reduced undeniably thanks to adequate investment from the government. Compared with offering free access to Internet, it seems much functional.
According to the reasons discussed above, I should reiterate that the government is not supposed to provide free access to Internet just due to the seeming importance.
相关推荐: