The passage apparently state(单三)that the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines will takeplace of internal-combustion engines for 3 reasons: avoid wasting fuelresources, prevent pollution problems and save money.(首段其实没必要交代这么具体) But the professor disputes it. She does not agree what the passage said and she uses 3 specific points to support her (own)idea.
First of all, the passage suppose(单三) that the internal-combustion engine relies onpetroleum which is a finite resource, we will run out of it at the end.(突兀了,说一下,但是教授的观点是,来个转折) Buthydrogen can be derived from natural gas even water, we don't have to worry about exhausting it.(worry about sth. its exhausting)In contrast, professor claims (这句话最好放在转折的开头)that hydrogen is not easy to get which(because it)needs considerably cold temperature to achieve, so that’ means it’s rare.
Second,professor asserts that hydrogen engine create more pollution problems than internal-combustion engine does. During the progress of extracting hydrogenfrom natural gas and water, it (指代不明)would consume plentiful oil which would make the pollution problems worst. In opposition to what passage said that it (同上)contributes to pollution solving, the lecture totally dispute it.
Finally,from the lecture, the professor point out that it's expensive to buy ahydrogen-based engine which is made by one costly material. Conversely, the passage state that it will save money when we choose to use hydrogen engines which it’s(双主语)twice efficient than internal-combustionengine.
Inconclusion, the viewpoints put forwarded in lecture contract with what is presented in reading passage. What’s more, the professor clear indentifies the weakness in the reading passage.
1.双主语 2。代词指代 3、单三 |