|
Mydoggie，还在吗．．．？ 我能把我的回答发在这里．．．你帮我看看么．．？拜托啦我觉得我写的总是不对．．. The passage argues that the smokers should have the right to pick the risk of smoke, casts doubt about that the smoking ban could help reduce the lung cancer and indicates that the smoking bans have some negative influence to some businesses.
In the lecture, the speaker holds the stance that the smoking ban is a positive action. She points out that the smoking ban is benefiting to the majority of people, and also can help the smokers to quit smoke. While not all the smokers want to smoke all the time, they keep on smoking because they are addicted. Therefore banning smoking in the public such as restaurants, nightclubs could help them quit smoke. The reading countered that smokers choose to risk their health of their own free will; according to the speaker, as a matter of fact, some of them want to quit. So,smoking ban is a practical action.
Moreover, the speaker brings up the idea that although some business had to shut down, nevertheless, there is more new business opened and survived. The smoking ban did not influence the business so much as the passage mentioned. And the majority can benefit from a non-smoking environment, so the opportunity of the restaurants and the nightclubs are more than before, not less.
At last, the speaker entirely disagree the argument in the passage that because eliminate the secondhand smoke can reduce the lung cancer, the smoking ban is unnecessary. To the contrary, the secondhand smoke can lead to some other serious disease. Such as heart disease. Therefore the illustration and the point set in the passage are ungrounded. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-11-18 00:10:00
楼主
我一定注意...我觉得自己老是会说太多东西了,那我的论点好象没有太大的错误...这我就放心了...可是你有看过那个HIGH-LEVEL SAMPLE吗?就是这篇的...我觉得完全和我写的不一样.他没有提LUNG-CANCER的事情，上来更是说文章第一部分,就是people take risk to smoke like take risk to drink or drive...是直接连在speaker 的反对观点后面的,难道这个是支持吗?我觉得speaker 通篇都在反对...绝对没有支持的意思...还是那个SAMPLE的说法我没有理解...好迷惑的...
