Dark_Tournament TOEFL-ibt作文写作小组的第十三次作业

yangxiaohanhitUID: 2460575

I am always amazed when I hear people saying that drivers should pay extra fee when they want to drive during the traffic jams. People might argue that it works quite well in some metropolises such as London and so on. As a matter of fact, however, this might be a plausible action for the government were it not for three reasons.
Firstly, and most importantly, it is the government, or say, the traffic authority that should take the responsibility of congestion, not the drives. The drivers have spent hundreds, or even thousands of RMB to get the allowance to drive on the road in China. It is unfair and unjust to ask more. Let us consider an example of supermarket. Should we ask the customers who have bought goods in the market to give the market more money if there is a long queue before the cashier's desk? The answer is absolutely no. We need more check-out stand, higher technological equipment to do jobs faster and we need to train more skillful servers. But what we need to keep in mind is that it is the job of the market, not the customers. The situation goes the same when we talk about the traffic problem. We can construct more roads, upgrade advanced facilities and train more experienced traffic warden, much the way like the supermarket does. Again, it is the government needs to pay, not the drivers.
Secondly, such action does not solve the origin of the problem. Why comes the traffic jams? As long as the people become wealthier and richer, there are more possibilities for them to buy a private car. What if there are a lot of people who can just neglect the associate fee then? So, even though the surcharge will relieve the problem temporarily at a certain degree, I doubt its long term effect. Should we just ask more and more money? Without improving the organization of traffic, the issue might never be handled completely.
Finally, the roads are not for the people who can afford them, but who really needs them. Such rude policy without thoughtful and detailed consideration is out of solid foundation. The result of all this is that the millionaires, even not in a hurry, would enjoy the road, driving as fast as they can, while the poor employees have to go around the city over and over, regardless
that they might lose their job if they are ten minutes
late.
It is true that the add-fee idea has some positive side at the first glance. The government will not only have no expense but get a considerable amount of income. There will be fewer cars in the downtown area as well. Everything looks so fine. However, what we need to ask ourselves very seriously before any policies being made is that who is responsible of, who will be benefited and whether there are better ways. For the laws related to public welfare, it is not the effectiveness that mattered, but equality.

gundammoleUID: 2300958

1# yangxiaohanhit
I am always amazed when I hear people saying that drivers should pay extra fee when they want to drive during the traffic jams. People might argue that it works quite well in some metropolises such as London and so on. As a matter of fact, however, this might be a plausible action for the government were it not for three reasons.
（这句不太理解，是要说this might be a plausible action for the government of doing this for the follow three reasons.吗？）


8 ]" F8 Y' G" o0 g
Firstly, and most importantly, it is the government, or say, the traffic authority that should take the responsibility of congestion, not the drives. The drivers have spent hundreds, or even thousands of RMB to get the allowance to drive on the road in China. It is unfair and unjust to ask（them for）more. Let us consider an example of (in) supermarket. Should we ask the customers who have bought goods in the market to give the market more money if there is a long queue before the cashier's desk? The answer is absolutely no. We need more check-out stand, higher technological equipment to do jobs faster and we need to train more skillful servers. But what we need to keep in mind is that it is the job of the market, not the customers. The situation goes the same when we talk about the traffic problem. We can construct more roads, upgrade advanced facilities and train more experienced traffic warden, much the way like the supermarket does. Again, it is the government needs to pay, not the drivers.
(这句话听起来有点怪，needs用在这里不太合适。可改为Again, it is the government’s business, not the drivers’.)


Secondly, such action does not solve the origin of the problem. Why comes the traffic jams?(Why does the traffic jam comes?) As long as the people become wealthier and richer, there are more possibilities for them to buy a private car. What if there are a lot of people who can just neglect the associate fee then? So, even though the surcharge will relieve the problem temporarily at a certain degree, I doubt its long term effect. Should we just ask more and more money? Without improving the organization of traffic, the issue might never be handled completely.

Finally, the roads are not for the people who can afford them, but who really needs them. Such rude policy without thoughtful and detailed consideration is out of solid foundation. The result of all this is that the millionaires, even not in a hu'rry(hurry), would enjoy the road, driving as fast as they can, while the poor employees have to go around the city over and over, regardless that they might lose their job if they are ten minutes late.

It is true that the add-fee idea has some positive side(sides) at the first glance. The government will not only have no expense but get a considerable amount of income. There will be fewer cars in the downtown area as well. Everything looks so fine. However, what we need to ask ourselves very seriously before any policies being made is that who is responsible of this, who will be benefited and whether there are better ways. For the laws related to public welfare, it is not the effectiveness that mattered, but equality(equal).
感觉各方面都很不错,个人特别喜欢supermarket的那个比喻,用的很贴切.
字数上超过500了,但想必LZ自有定夺,就不再多说.如有修改错误的地方，尽管指出。LZ加油!

yangxiaohanhitUID: 2460575

恩，谢谢。第一句那个地方是虚拟语气的if it were 把were提前省略if，呵呵。新概念上的一个句子。。剩下的多多指教啊。。。我不知道有字数限制啊。。不好意思。