Popular Article
不BB，上干货！
1. 题目
Some people claim that not enough of the waste from home is recycled. They say that the only way to increase recycling is for government to make it a legal requirement.
To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their waste?
2. 批改详情
原文
A study from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that only 62% of household waste is recycled. Some argue that a legal requirement about household recycling is needed to increase the recycling amount. (Some people argue that recycling should be mandatory) In my opinion, instead of setting up a punishment system (legal punishment- fifine) , setting up a rewards system for household recycling (cash reward for recycling) could be more effective.
Although conduct a legal requirement can effectively increase recycling amount from household (Although laws would make people recycle more …), it also comes with very high costs in terms of monitoring systems and labour costs. As we know, the household recycling system in Australia is that a rubbish truck would go to one particular area in a fifixed day to collect rubbish from each house, and all those waste from different house are mixed together. *** If a legal requirement needs to be conducted, it might require extra workers to monitor and record each household’s waste. In fact, the costs for hiring those labourers could be much higher than recycling the extra waste.
段落解析
*** This defifinition would work better as two sentences: The household recycling system in Australia is very basic. Rubbish trucks will visit a suburb once a week to collect mixed trash …
Also note: “legal requirements” are nouns - not verbs. We don’t conduct a legal requirement - they “exist”.
原文
Instead of an ineffificient penalty system, it could be more effective to set up a reward system to encourage people to recycle their waste. Cash back rewards or tax benefifits are some good ways to increase recycling. For instance, in Australia, people can collect empty bottles and sell them to the government at recycling stations for ten cents each, which effectively raises the awareness of citizens to recycle. Citizens can also sell paper, bottle and steel to recycling companies, which also a smart idea for household recycle (unnecessary).
段落解析
*** Band 7.5 - very strong paragraph, logical, good examples. Strong link to intro.
原文
Overall, governmental policy makers should come up with more rewarding policies to encourage people to recycle, and to make more contributions to our planet.
全文解析 + 题目解读
This essay is 50% fifinancial analysis already - you already have a theme of fifinancial rewards / the cost of recycling etc.
Consider these kinds of questions:
How much does it cost?
What is the profifit?
Is it worth it? etc.
Not recycling = environmental cost - waste, soil pollution etc.
Profifit = cleaner environment, reusing limited resources.
To analyse this topic from an economic perspective, recycling is not just a good way of saving money, but also very necessary. When people purchase goods, they only pay for the material cost of the products. Companies usually don’t charge for the environmental damage that the waste materials cause when dumped. This creates a “negative externality” - which means that the consumer is not paying for 100% of the cost of the product. This results in a lot of waste, soil pollution and other forms of environmental damage that the government has no money to address. Therefore, a smart solution is simply to increase the price of goods (for instance, increasing GST) to account for the pollution generated - and to use this money to fund better recycling and waste disposal services.
General Argument What’s the problem? People / companies are not paying for the pollution they generate?
What’s the solution? Make them pay more taxes (of some kind)
What’s the benefifit? We can use that money to pay for X (solution)
Eg. Adaptation to another topic
Global warming / greenhouse gases.
1. Companies are not paying for emissions.
2. Make them pay tax (carbon tax rather than GST)
3. This can pay for government funded research into green technologies / subsidies to make companies for environmentally friendly
William老师-雅思1对1限时价格：$99/hour
人数有限，仅限本周哟
往期文章链接
