蓝色为意见或建议高亮为精彩绿色为总结红色为错误
The reading passage explores the issue of the advantages of replacing the car's main source of power, the internal-combustion engines, by the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines. The professor's lecture deals with the same topic. Although she agrees with that the using of fossil fuel will produce lots of carbon dioxide and do harm to the environment, she challenges that the solution of the reading part is unreasonable. And in the lecture, the professor raises doubt about the points mentioned in the reading one by one.
First, the reading passage suggests that the source of hydrogen is quite wide, and we do not need to worry about whether it will be used up. However, the professor argues in the lecture that it is not so easy to get hydrogen. This is because that the purity of burning hydrogen needs to be very high, and it asks for a high technological level, which is difficult to reach. What's more, the storage of liquid hydrogen also needs a high level of artificial technology. So it is not practical to get the recourses.(前两段写的很好,稍微增加些细节会更好些额)
Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading that hydrogen-based fuel cells will be friendly to the environment, the professor contends that it is not that simple. She admits that burning of hydrogen will reduce the pollution, but the abstraction of hydrogen from the raw materials will cause pollution. The machine that produces hydrogen will use lots of coals and oil, which will turn into(这里应该用产生好一些额) carbon dioxide later. So the energy(this kind of energy特指一下额)will pollute the environment in other forms.
Finally, the professor assets that burning of hydrogen will not save the cost, however, the author of the reading claims that fuel-cell engines will be more efficient. The professor proves her idea through raising the fact that the components of fuel-cell engines is quite high, and the replace substitute of the material has not been found successfully. So the use of fuel-cell engines will be expensive.
蓝色为意见或建议高亮为精彩绿色为总结红色为错误 Both of the reading passage and lecture discuss about the reason why some sea otter populations get reduced. The reading analyzes it as the environment pollution, while the professor thinks that the attacking from their predator cause the accident. And in the lecture, she challenges the points mentioned in the reading one by one.
First, the reading passage suggests that the leak of oil or some industrial chemical substances will pollute the water. However, the professor argues in the lecture that the fact can not prove this is true. If the death of sea otter is caused by chemicals, there should be the bodies of them on the beach.(这里总结一下)
Moreover, contrary to the statement in the reading that as other sea mammals also get declined at the same period, they must all die from the pollution, the professor emphasizes this is a good example to explain the declination is caused by predators. Human hunters hunt all kinds of sea mammals that declined, and only the small fishes can get existed. Also as the food resources for some big mammals are getting less, otter will be the diet to some big animals.
Finally, the professor asserts that the uneven pattern of otter decline owns to the size of their predators, whereas the reading passage claims that it is caused by the uneven concentrations of pollutants. She supports her idea with the fact that, the otters will be more in location that water is shallow than the location that water is deep, because their predators can not swim(这里是predator不能到达shallow and rocky areas) in a shallow water area.
总体都很好额,就是有些要用文中原词的地方还是要用的额。
|