不怕丢人了^ 第一次写这样的文章 实在不知道写的怎么样 是不是很奇怪啊？帮忙点评1下~~~

             Whether public transportation should be free.

  According to a reliable statistics on China Daily, self-car owners averagely increase 457 thousands per year. Since more and more people begin to use their own cars to go to work, there is a controversial issue that whether government should start a welfare that public transportation is free. Personally speaking, it depends on the economic condition of a country.

  Generally speaking, the countries which have high level of economic conditions should take measures to make the transportation free. In one hand, this measure will encourage local residents to take buses. As we know, cars contaminate environment more seriously than buses. The pollution of environment will cause serious problems, as the acid rain and sandstorm. Taking buses can relieve such problem. On the other hand, this welfare will curtail the distance between the poor and the rich, which is beneficial for the balance of economics.

  Some people may argue that this measure will cause car factories’ bankruptcy. I’ll reply that it will never happen because these factories can produce more buses and improve their technology of making cars. If exporting their high level cars to other countries, they will make more profits.

The countries which are poor and have a large number of populations should not take such a measure. First, the pressure of local governments is too heavy, they have to give help to more aspects, say the hope project and some downtowns. Furthermore, places which have public transportation systems are not poor, compared with the places which haven’t. It is no serious need to do this. I will cite an example. Li Cang，a small town located in southwest China, is so poor that local residents can not get enough food to eat. They surely don not have transportation systems. Their problems are more serious. 

All in all whether public transportation should be free is depends on the condition of a specific places

As Deng Xiaoping, one of the greatest statesman China ever seen says “facing the same problem, different countries have their own different but proper ways to solve .

mao sui zi jian

According to a reliable survey published on the China Daily, the number of car owners increase 457,000 annually by average. More and more people begin to drive their own cars to offices. There is a controversy whether a government should sponsor a public transportation system free of charge. My opinion is it should depend on the economy of a country. 

Generally speaking, the countries which have economic prosperity should take measures in building a free-of-charge transportation. These measures will encourage local residents to ride buses. (To our knowledge, cars contaminate our environment more seriously than buses. The pollution will cause serious problems, as the acid rain and elnino. Taking buses can relieve such problem. On the other hand, this welfare will curtail the distance between the poor and the rich, which is beneficial to the balance of economics. too many short sentences, try to modify the structure and include them in a few long sentences).

Some people may argue that these measures will cause bankruptcy of automakers. I’ll counter that it will never happen because these factories can switch to produce buses (and improve their technology of making cars. If exporting their high level cars to other countries, they will make more profits. it is not the point)

就此打住。许多地方是logic的问题，很难将它们纠正。

多练习！切记！

改的 很棒^ 不得不承认 ^

改了一点点^^^^^^^ 这种题目不好举例子 大家都怎么写的？ 希望都写一写互相借鉴一下。  另非常感谢 2 L

According to a reliable survey by China Daily, car owners increase 457 thousands annually by average. More and more people begin to take their own cars to go to work. There is a controversy that whether government should sponsor welfare that makes public transportation free of charge. Personally speaking, it depends on the economic condition of a country.

  Generally speaking, the countries which have economic prosperity should take measures to make the transportation free-of-charge. On one hand, this measure will encourage local residents to take buses. As we know, cars contaminate environment more seriously than buses. The pollution of environment will cause serious problems, say the acid rain and sandstorm. Taking buses can relieve such problems. On the other hand, such welfare will curtail the distance between the poor and the rich, which is beneficial for the balance of economics.

  Some people may argue that this measure will cause bankruptcy of automakers. I’ll reply that it will never happen as they can pay their attentions from cars to buses and produce more modern buses.

The countries which are poor and have a large number of populations should not take such a measure. First, the pressure of local governments is too heavy. There exist more serious problems for the governments to handle, say build basic constructions, help poor children finish their study. Furthermore, places which have public transportation systems are not poor, compared with the places which haven’t. The government should take priority of the need the later group of people. I will take Li Cang，a small town located in southwest China for instance. The town is so poor that local residents can even not get enough food to eat. They surely don not have a transportation system. Their problems are more serious to solve.

All in all, whether public transportation should be free-in-charge depends on the economic condition of a specific place. As Deng Xiaoping, one of the greatest statesman China ever seen says “facing the same problem, different countries have their own different but proper ways to solve.