- 分享到:
【题目要求】
Many people think cheap air travel should been couraged because it gives ordinary people freedom to travel further. However, others think this leads toenvironmental problem, so air travel should be more expensive in order to discourage people from having it. Discuss both views andgive your own opinion.
【题目翻译】
很多人认为我们应当鼓励廉价的飞机旅行，因为它给了普通人远行的自由。然而，另外一些人则认为这会导致环境问题，因此飞机旅行应当更加昂贵，以便减少人们的使用。谈论双方观点更给出你自己的观点。
【关键词分析】
cheap air travel
本题不是简单的飞机旅行的利与弊，而是问飞机旅行是否应当廉价。
【话题分类与题型】
本题是旧题，与2008年6月14日的考题完全相同，与2010年4月10日（见下）的考题也几乎一致。属于科技类与环保类的混合话题，题型为Discursive(Argumentation)。值得一提的是，最近考老题的次数较多，上一次考试（2011年3月19日）的考题与2008年11月15日的完全相同，因此提醒各位考生一定要重视对历年考题的复习。有意思的是，今天欧洲考区的话题同样是科技类与环保类的混合题型，同样是2008年的考过的旧题。题目是科技改变农产品产量与质量的利弊（详见本文最后）。
【话题评价】
环保类写作话题题库中有一个小分支是关于“交通工具”的。从2003年至今，这个分支话题共出现8次，其中2次是问汽车的利弊，6次飞机是否应该被限制（其余4道话题见下）。这些话题的基本思路都是相同的，缺点主要从环保角度去考虑。当然每个话题有不同的侧重点，同学需要认真对待。
【类似真题】
1. Some people think the recent increase in cheap airtravel brings benefits, while other people think it has drawbacksto the environment and the world's resources. Discuss both viewsand give your opinion. (100410)
2. Some people believe that air travel should berestricted because it causes seriouspollutionand uses up the world’s fuel resources. To whatextent do you agree or disagree? (060218)
3. One long-distance flight consumes fuel which a caruses in several years’ time, but theycausethe same amount of pollution. So some people thinkthat we should discouragenon-essential flights, such as tourist travel,rather than to limit the use of cars. To what extentdo you agree or disagree? (060325,080405)
【结构与思路】
本文属于Discuss both views and give youropinion题型，因此双方的观点必须都提及，缺一不可。但是结论上未必要折中，如果要支持一方的话，则选择驳斥另外一方即可。
文中词汇表达灵活多样请继续保持，学术词汇积累也做的很棒；简单句比重稍微偏高，注意极个别句子错误；语言不流畅；连词使用偏少。
Going with development of economy and globalisation, a growing number of individuals would choose go outside by air, which inevitable lead to a hot debate that whether the ticket price should be increased or decreased not. Some people say it should be down as more people could afford. While, the opposite side disagree as the affordable buying would cause more contamination to our earth.In the follow, I would show more details of those two groups. And finally would show my side. Reducing the price could go with two main merits. The obvious one is creating more working opportunities, which is the most needed at this moment. Because more people by air could demand more staff. Moreover, the affordable air travelling could make more people going further within limited days which could make their holiday enjoyable. Meantime, the equality sense among individuals increases. Both of them increase the life quality. While, the reasons why opponents disagree are due to environmental pollution and natural resources depletion relating with increasing air flights. On one hand, more air flights means more emitted greenhouse gas, which could lead to warm earth and then further affects biodiversity. One the other hand, the rate of oil consuming would go up, which is not regenerated energy. They think it is not wise for us to supply more jobs at the expense of burning dirty and irregenerated energy. Hence, reducing ticket price is not wise at the expense of contaminated surroundings and reduce energy restoration which is not sustainable. To conclude, it is true reducing air tickets price could supply more jobs and let individuals enjoy holidays. However, if at the expense of environmental pollution and depletion of recourses, the merits couldn't be sustainable. Therefore, I am on the side of the disagree group.
人气：51发布：2013-09-06
人气：58发布：2013-11-16
人气：73发布：2014-10-31
