我的第三篇,用时48分.这篇是我感觉写的最差的一篇,不知所云..写的时候很紧张,但还是没有在30分钟内完成.总结了一下原因,好像对原文中的论证没有理解.
本来不太想贴,感觉太差.但很想听到些意见和建议,因为觉得CD的斑竹的意见特珍贵..先谢过!
21．The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In this passage,the author recommends that the government lower the railroad companies' property taxes. The argument is flawed in the following respects.
Firstly,to support his recommendation,the author raises the comparison between trucking companies and railways in terms of paying maintenance costs and property tax. However,the analogy between trucking and railway companies can not be made without more information about the similiarities of the two companies. Actually, there is a big difference between the two companies,as trucking companies is not the sole user of the highway while railway companies are the only users of the railway.It seems reasonable for the two companies to bear different part of the maintenance costs according to the available information in the passage.
Secondly, the author claims that the trains are more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport than trucks. The line of reasoning of the author is that since the trains have advantages over trucks,the government should support the railway business by cutting the tax.However,the reasoning is not convincing. If the trains are superior than trucks,in the market economy,the competitiveness can bring the railway companies more profits without government's support.
Thirdly,the author assumes that increases in rail traffic would not require new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens since rail lines already exist. Even if it is true,the conclusion still can not stand,because the author does not rule out the possibility that paid tax is to return the loan borrowed for building the existing lines years ago.
The recommendation author makes is not convincing because of the above-mentioned flaws. To make his recommendation be accepted by the government,the author should provide more evidences on the similarities between the trucking companies and railway companies. Besides, other reasons for paying tax other than building new lines should be ruled out.
我的第三篇,用时48分.这篇是我感觉写的最差的一篇,不知所云..写的时候很紧张,但还是没有在30分钟内完成.总结了一下原因,好像对原文中的论证没有理解.
本来不太想贴,感觉太差.但很想听到些意见和建议,因为觉得CD的斑竹的意见特珍贵..先谢过!
21．The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In this passage,the author recommends that the government lower the railroad companies' property taxes. The argument is flawed in the following respects.
Firstly,to support his recommendation,the author raises the comparison between trucking companies and railways in terms of paying maintenance costs and property tax. However,the analogy between trucking and railway companies can not be made without more information about the similiarities of the two companies. Actually, there is a big difference between the two companies,as trucking companies is not the sole user of the highway while railway companies are the only users of the railway.It seems reasonable for the two companies to bear different part of the maintenance costs according to the available information in the passage.
Secondly, the author claims that the trains are more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport than trucks. The line of reasoning of the author is that since the trains have advantages over trucks,the government should support the railway business by cutting the tax.However,the reasoning is not convincing. If the trains are superior than trucks,in the market economy,the competitiveness can bring the railway companies more profits without government's support.
这段的论证我有些不同的意见呵呵。政府的存在就是解决外部性和信息不对称等问题。作者并不是说火车比卡车好而是说存在正的外部性因此需要政府的干预和引导。所以这点在我看来是没有错误的。这里我认为逻辑错误在于不应该只考虑外部性的问题还有一些别的因素也应该纳入考虑。而在别的方面很可能是卡车运输有更多的优势。不知道你怎么看这个问题？
Thirdly,the author assumes that increases in rail traffic would not require new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens since rail lines already exist. Even if it is true,the conclusion still can not stand,because the author does not rule out the possibility that paid tax is to return the loan borrowed for building the existing lines years ago.
The recommendation author makes is not convincing because of the above-mentioned flaws. To make his recommendation be accepted by the government,the author should provide more evidences on the similarities between the trucking companies and railway companies. Besides, other reasons for paying tax other than building new lines should be ruled out.
也还可以啊，没有不知所云。只是还要加快速度觉得这篇字数比较少。
注意细节和逻辑，加油！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |