TPO 41 Integrated Writing

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. › TOEFL Writing › TPO 41 Integrated Writing

  • TruckersForMe.com User
    Kevin —
    University: Hainan Normal University
    Nationality: Chinese
    January 30, 2024 at 1:51 pm

    TPO 41 Integrated Writing

    In the reading, the writer talks about three reasons that the United States government couldn’t establish the more restrictive policies to cope with the coal ash. The lecture in the listening, however, believes that none of three reasons are persuasive and uses spesific reasons and details to support her claim.

    To begin with, the reading passage states that the efficient environmental rules have already been set up such as the ask  power company to use liner special material that prevents waste and keep the surrounding clean. In the listening, however, the professor argue that the existing regulations such as the requirement about liner are not sufficient that never could them could cope with the problem of coal ash. Power company just use the liner special material in new pond or new landfil rather than those old one.And then old lanndfil or old pond would leak coal ash into the soil , making a lot of pollution, which could really do harm to environment.

    In addition, the writer points out that the decision for storing and handling coal ash would  do harm to recycling of coal ash, making them unable to transform to other products.On the contrary, the lecture disagrees with this prediction that the stricter regulation doesn’t means recycling would stop.She gives out a example to explain that. The mercury, which take a safe recycling accord the high standard for along time. So consumers wouldn’t concerned about safety and willing to buy the product.

    The last but not least, the reading passage mention that strict rule would result in a extremely increase in handling and disposal costs ,  making the price much higher and therefore reduce customers’ demand.Yet the lecture finds this method indefensible because the real growth of price is less than which people sound. According to the analysis, it would increase the bill only about one percent. This is acceptable compared to the effect of managing the environment

    TruckersForMe Participant
    Administrator
    April 29, 2024 at 10:04 pm

    In the reading, the writer talks about three reasons that the [why the  ]United States government couldn’t establish the more restrictive policies to cope with the coal ash. The lecture[ r  ] in the listening, however, believes that none of [ the  ]three reasons are persuasive and uses spesific[  specific ] reasons and details to support her claim.

    To begin with, the reading passage states that the efficient environmental rules have already been set up[,   ] such as the ask[ ing the  ]  power company to use liner special material that prevents waste and keep[s   ] the surrounding clean. In the listening, however, the professor argue that the existing regulations[  , ] such as the requirement about liner [ ,  ]are not sufficient that never could them could cope with the problem of coal ash. Power company just use the liner special material in new pond or new landfil rather than those old one.[ punctuation error concerning coordinating word  ]And then old lanndfil [spelling eror   ]or old pond would leak coal ash into the soil ,[ spacing error  ] making a lot of pollution, which could really do harm to [ the  ]environment.

    In addition, the writer points out that the decision for storing and handling coal ash would  do harm to recycling of coal ash, making them unable to transform to other products. On the contrary, the lecture disagrees with this prediction that the[  article error ] stricter regulation doesn’t means[  mean ] recycling would stop. She gives out a[ an  ] example to explain that. The [ article error  ]mercury, which take[ s  ] a safe recycling accord the high standard for along[ spelling error  ] time. So consumers wouldn’t concerned about safety and[  are ] willing to buy the product.

    The last[ wrong idiom  ] but not least, the reading passage mention[ grammar error  ] that strict rule[ s  ] would result in a[  an ] extremely increase in handling and disposal costs,  making the price much higher and therefore reduce[ reducing  ] customers’ demand. Yet the lecture finds this method indefensible because the real growth of price is less than which[ what  ] people sound. According to the analysis, it would increase the bill [by   ]only about one percent [ percentage point  ]. This is acceptable compared to the effect of managing the environment