2007年雅思听力考试题目大全

截至8月25日

日期Version S1 S2 S3 S4
1月6日★ 30066 X X X 30083
1月13日★ 不详 X X 30037 40112
1月20日 07119 05106 30061 06134 33
2月3日★ 07121 30074 06110 30036 30040
2月10日★ 07122 30032 27 41 30076
3月3日★ 不详 30072 50126 30033 30041
3月10日★ 不详 30037 30042 30042 71
3月31日 不详 30014 50133 30043 06133
4月14日★ 不详 30042 30060 34 37
4月21日★ 07131 30019 30049 30058 X
4月28日 不详 X 30041 30072 06119
5月12日★ 07134 30079 X X X
5月19日★ 07135 X X X 30060
6月2日 不详 X X X 66
6月9日★ 07138 26 X X 35
6月16日★ 不详 30080 X 30019 37
7月7日★ 不详 X X 05101S1 30043
7月14日★ 不详 X X 30058 30040
7月21日 不详 X 06141 30034 X
8月11日★ 不详 30083 30090 41 30034
8月18日★ 不详 X 06108 30036 X
8月25日 07148 X 30038 X X
9月1日     
9月8日★     
9月22日★     
10月13日★     
10月20日★     
11月3日★     
11月17日★     
11月24日     
12月1日     
12月8日★     
12月15日     
注：汉字概述内容是新题，并已经收入讲义，X表示最新题，尚未收入讲义。加★的日期表示成都有考试。
 

(249 words)

 

The lecturer presents some negative viewpoints on earthworms, challenging conventional ideas as stated in the reading passage.

 

Firstly, it is stated in the reading that earthworms bring positive effect on the soil by mixing forest duff deeper and aerating the soil by their burrowing. But, the lecturer says just the opposite: earthworms can actually destroy the soil cover because they change the structure of the soil. Furthermore, according to the lecturer, earthworms clean the nutrients off from the soil surface very quickly. Duff disappears from underneath and native plants suffer, consequently, existing ecosystem balance is damaged. This is the first point where the listening material contradicts the reading.

 

Secondly, the passage considers earthworms as good fish bait for fishers and fishers are helpers for the expansion of worm’s population. However, the lecturer illustrates some new but frustrating evidences, indicating that unused bait worms dumped by fishers were actually invaders to local ecosystem. This is the second obvious divergence presented in this set of materials.

 

And lastly, the lecturer gives a rough analysis to the reasons why earthworms are causing problems. Decaying leaves in the duff, with the properties of releasing nutrients slowly into the soil, are of great importance. Also, duff provides shelters to insects and spiders, which are food source for other animals. In other words, earthworms can damage this balanced food chain system. Therefore, reading’s claim about the positive impact of earthworms on the food web was evidently overstated. This point is obviously the third contradictory statement. 

尼安德特人

尼安德特人（拉丁文学名homo neanderthalensis，又译尼安德塔人)是一种在大约12万到3万年前冰河时期本来居住在欧洲及西亚的人种，性格温驯。根据最新的考古发现，现代人并不是尼安德塔人的一支，就是说，尼安德塔人和现代人不同种，尼安德塔人种和智人。现代人从15万年前在非洲出现，大概在5万年前离开非洲，3万5千年前才到达欧洲。尼安德塔人与现代人形成种系发生上的平行系群。但现在智人是人属下的唯一一个种。而尼安德塔人的遗迹最早是1856年在德国的尼安德谷(neander valley)所发现。但刚开始他们并未被辨识出是跟我们属于不同的人种。对于两个人种的相似与不同，以及他们可能有过怎样的接触(如果有的话)，出现激烈的讨论。

 

解剖特征 

尼安德塔人身高1.5到1.6米左右。颅骨容量为1200到1750 cm3，现代人的则为1400 - 1600cm3。身体的特征为，额头平扁，（就是说眉弓到发际线的距离比现代人短得多）。下颌角圆滑，下巴并不像现代人那样前突。骨骼强健，有着耐寒的体格，具体就是肱骨与尺挠骨的比例，以及股骨与胫骨腓骨的比例比现代人大，这是典型的适应寒冷气候的解剖特征。他们生活在欧洲，肤色应该是浅色的。这一反20世纪初，尼安德塔人黑皮肤，多毛，会使石器的“猿人”形象（更多是动物）。

 

生活方式 

尼安德塔人看来是相当稀少的动物，已经在法国北部发现尼安德塔人的艺术作品（在艺术品中发现一颞骨，通过研究发现，它属于一个尼安德塔人。就艺术品本身，它们的一端被切出一条沟，应该是被人用绳子绑起来的。而现代人的艺术品，则是在其中打洞，并将之用绳串起来）。其营地的遗迹大多是工具。但是尼安德塔人的工具数万年都没有改革。因此认为他们的智力比现代人低。他们没有弓箭，要有特殊的策略去围捕动物。他们会与熊等动物争夺栖身用的洞穴。

 

命运 

尼安德塔人的遗迹从中东到英国，再往南延伸到地中海的北端，都有所发现。这些遗迹有骨骸、营地、工具，甚至艺术品。尼安德塔人的遗迹消失的时候，大概正是在现代人进入欧洲的时候。

 

早期学说认为尼安德特人在智人的入侵下已经绝种；可能是由于气候突然寒冷起来。尼安德塔人为避寒而躲进山谷，群体之间缺乏联系，近亲交配增多，加上现代人与之的竞争，导致了尼安德塔人的灭亡。

 

但根据 discovery channel 播出的节目表示，尼安德特人未必被智人灭绝，反而可能因为遗传上居于劣势，所以都被现代人同化，例如在葡萄牙发现的一具4岁小童的尸骨，其中的解剖显示了很多尼安德塔人的特征，如提到的肱尺桡骨的比例和下颌骨的形状。但是他配有装饰品，下巴的强健构造，而且他生活在尼安德塔人灭绝的3千年后，这说明他是现代人。

 

其他关于尼人的介绍 

出现在欧洲的早期智人。直立人走出非洲后,约60万年前在欧洲演化出海德堡人,海德堡人又于约30万年前演化出尼安德特人,简称尼人。名称因其化石在1856年发现于德国杜塞尔多夫附近尼安德特河谷的一个山洞中而得名。

 

尼人分布很广，西起欧洲的西班牙和法国，东到中亚的乌兹别克斯坦，南到巴勒斯坦，北到北纬53°线。年代最早的距今达20万年左右，最晚的距今约4万年。尼人化石常与莫斯特文化共存。狭义的尼安德特人，仅指尼安德特河谷发现的人类化石。尼安德特河谷的尼人化石包括颅骨和部分肢骨，其化石遗存比较丰富，主要有头盖骨和体骨等。

 

根据现有的资料来判断，尼安德特人骨胳粗大，肌肉发达，但个子不高，男子只有１．５５米至１．５６米。由于身体较矮，脊椎的弯曲也不明显，因此他们很可能是弯着腰走路，跑步时身体略微朝向地面。尼安德特人头骨的特征是：前额低而倾斜，好像向后溜的样子，眉峰骨向前突出很多，在眼眶上形成整片的眉脊。尼安德特人的脑部已经非常发达，脑容量约达１２３０毫升。

 

尼安德特人使用较为进步的打制石器，过着狩猎和采集的生活。这表明，当时的人类在同大自然界的斗争中，自身已有了较大的发展。

 

自从1856年人们第一次发现尼安德特人的化石以来，尼安德特人一直是一个吸引公众兴趣的谜，对尼安德特人的各种猜测一直不断。从许多方面来看，尼安德特人都可称得上是原始人类研究中的恐龙。与恐龙一样，尼安德特人也是突然之间销声匿迹的，它们消亡的原因也一直是学者们争论不休的话题。同时，恐龙和尼安德特人都是大众文化的宠儿，经常在漫画中一同出现。

 

但是，大众文化对尼安德特人有许多的误解。尼安德特人往往被看作陈旧过时的化身，被诽谤为因智力不足以应付环境的变迁而导致灭亡的低等人种。而实际情况是尼安德特人非常成功地面对气候挑战的时间至少有20万年，比延续至今的现代智人还要长12.5万年到15万年。

 

尼安德特人之死 

人类历史上最迷人的奥秘之一，莫过于在欧洲繁荣了成千上万年的尼安德特人的命运了。3万多年前，随着冰川蔓延过整个欧洲大陆，尼安德特人便灭绝了。上周，英国剑桥大学地质考古学家特尹尔德-范-安德尔等出版了一本名为《欧洲末次冰川期的尼安德特人和现代人》的书，认为尼安德特人之所以走到末路，是因为不能适应在摄取食物方面的变化。

 

《欧洲末次冰川期的尼安德特人和现代人》的内容取自于一项气候、环境、考古等多学科相结合的7年计划的全部信息，该项目首次对6万5千年至2万年前期间进行了综合研究，那时候，解剖学上的现代人逐渐占据优势，而尼安德特人而完全消亡了。

 

范-安德尔等报告说，欧洲冰河纪并非总是冰。在大约3万年前的寒冷时期降临之前，气候还是相对温和的。到了2万年前，半个欧洲都笼罩在冰下。但按照范-安德尔等的说法，尼安德特人的衰败并非天气的原因，而是由于赖以生存的、温顺的成群野牛和庞大麋鹿等草食动物的减少。贫瘠土地上的动物变得非常稀少，而且为数不多的野兽不断迁徙，从而必须奋力追赶才能捕获猎物。这时候，尼安德特人显然不能适应摄食环境的变化了。

 

与尼安德特人消亡处于相同时期的早期现代人“奥瑞那人”，则很好地适应了相同的环境和食物，范-安德尔等对此表示为“非常之惊奇”。范-安德尔等认为，这表明尼安德特人之所以在对环境适应方面失败，更主要是由于文化方面的原因，而非大脑的解剖学缘由，尼安德特人其实与其他任何人一样聪明。大约3万5千年前，当一种处于更晚期文化的“格拉维特人”出现时，他们由于具有了笨重的矛与刀、以及严密的家庭组织，因此能够有效地追赶并捕获迁徙的野兽，从而得以生还下来。

 

美国波士顿大学考古学家邱提斯-拉奈尔斯认为，大多数考古学家都假设这一时期的欧洲都一致地寒冷。而范-安德尔等通过综合研究既往5千年时间段中，整个欧洲的气候和人类居住情况，表明尼安德特人在其生命的最后几千年中因气候变化而夭折。无论如何，摄取食物方面的变化导致安德特人灭绝的学说是个新思路，我们不能不对此予以充分的重视。  

 

 

Extinction

 

As with many animals evolving in isolation from significant predators, the dodo was entirely fearless of people, and this, in combination with its flightlessness, made it easy prey.[15] But journals are full of reports regarding the bad taste and tough meat of the dodo, while other local species such as the Red Rail were praised for their taste. It is commonly believed that the Malay sailors held the bird in high regard and killed them only to make head dressings used in religious ceremonies.[16] However, when humans first arrived on Mauritius, they also brought with them other animals that had not existed on the island before, including dogs, pigs, cats, rats, and Crab-eating Macaques, which plundered the dodo nests, while humans destroyed the forests where the birds made their homes;[17] currently, the impact these animals — especially the pigs and macaques — had on the dodo population is considered to have been more severe than that of hunting. The 2005 expedition's finds are apparently of animals killed by a flash flood; such mass mortalities would have further jeopardized an already extinction-prone species.[18]

Although there are scattered reports of mass killings of dodos for provisioning of ships, archaeological investigations have hitherto found scant evidence of human predation on these birds. Some bones of at least two dodos were found in caves at Baie du Cap which were used as shelters by fugitive slaves and convicts in the 17th century, but due to their isolation in high, broken terrain were not easily accessible to dodos naturally.[19] By 1755, Cossigny reports that the number of refugees and settlers which cut down the inland forest was so high that the well-flighted Mauritius Blue Pigeon was rapidly declining all over the island.[citation needed]

There is some controversy surrounding the extinction date of the dodo. Roberts & Solow state that "the extinction of the Dodo is commonly dated to the last confirmed sighting in 1662, reported by shipwrecked mariner Volkert Evertsz" (Evertszoon), but many other sources suggest the more conjectural date 1681. Roberts & Solow point out that because the sighting prior to 1662 was in 1638, the dodo was likely already very rare by the 1660s, and that thus a disputed report from 1674 cannot be dismissed off-hand.[20] Statistical analysis of the hunting records of Issac Johannes Lamotius, carried out by Julian Hume and coworkers,[citation needed] give a new estimated extinction date of 1693, with a 95% confidence interval of 1688 to 1715. Considering more circumstantial evidence such as travellers' reports and the lack of good reports after 1689,[19] it is likely that the dodo became extinct before 1700; thus, the last Dodo died barely more than a century after the species' discovery in 1581.[21]

 

Alice and Dodo — illustration by John Tenniel.Few took particular notice of the extinct bird. By the early 19th century it seemed altogether too strange a creature, and was believed by many to be a myth. With the discovery of the first batch of dodo bones in the Mare aux Songes and the reports written about them by George Clarke, government schoolmaster at Mahébourg, from 1865 on,[22] interest in the bird was rekindled. In the same year in which Clarke started to publish his reports, the newly-vindicated bird was featured as a character in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. With the popularity of the book, the dodo became a well-known and easily recognizable icon of extinction.

 

绝大多数理论把导致渡渡鸟灭绝的罪名加在早期的人类定居者身上。16世纪，第一批定居者在毛里求斯发现了体态丰满却不会飞翔的渡渡鸟，随即对这种笨拙的不会飞的大鸟展开了残酷的猎杀活动，最终导致这些鸟类动物灭绝。 但如今，这个观点看起来并不完全正确，自然灾害似乎是导致渡渡鸟灭绝的主要原因。研究人员根据最新找到的证据在一份声明中表示：“埋藏丰富化石的地层显示，自然灾害使渡渡鸟赖以生存的环境遭到毁灭性破坏。”

 

死于飓风或洪水

墓穴发现者克里斯蒂安·弗·库恩表示，虽然这一最新发现并没有对人类猎杀理论进行反驳，但科学家相信渡渡鸟的大规模死亡可能是由飓风或洪水引起的，而这些自然灾害发生的时间要早于人类迁徙到该岛的时间。 

库恩说，这些动物尸体至少有500年的历史。“可能是一场飓风或接二连三的飓风、也可能是洪水或海平面突然猛涨，致使这些动物最终死在岛上。”库恩表示。 

今年6月，科学家在毛里求斯东南部地区一家糖厂附近发现了大量渡渡鸟完好遗骨和其它动植物的化石，其中包括现已灭绝的毛里求斯大海龟、鹦鹉和一些树的种子。

 

不能排除人类因素

渡渡鸟是毛里求斯特有的孤鸽科鸟类，体重可达20公斤，不会飞行。在渡渡鸟灭绝后，科学家就一直认为渡渡鸟的绝迹不能排除人类因素。如今，虽然有证据表明大部分渡渡鸟死于天灾，但仍然无法否认人类在渡渡鸟灭绝过程中起过负面作用。 

1505年，葡萄牙殖民者乘船从大西洋绕过好望角进入印度洋，在登上毛里求斯岛之前，看见森林里栖息着一种鸟，大小如天鹅，披着一身灰色的羽毛，尾羽不太长，卷成一簇像一朵花。身体胖胖的，头顶半秃，腿骨矮粗，翅膀短小，黑色的大嘴末端弯曲成钩。 

这是一种不会飞的鸟，过群居的生活，走路蹒跚，左右摇摆。葡萄牙人来到这里以后，很容易捕捉这种迟钝的鸟。因此，他们把它叫做渡渡鸟(dodo在葡萄牙语中是愚笨的意思)。 

渡渡鸟出现在距今2000万年前，一直生活在印度洋中远离大陆的毛里求斯岛。英国作家刘易斯·卡罗尔在他著名的童话《爱丽丝漫游奇境记》中活灵活现地描绘出了一只“爱用莎士比亚的姿势思考问题”的渡渡鸟，但实际上，这位生于1832年的英国人终其一生也没能见过一只活着的渡渡鸟。 

 

本报综合报道 前不久，科学家在非洲岛国毛里求斯发现一个大型的渡渡鸟墓穴，这为人类解开渡渡鸟灭绝之谜提供了重要线索。科学家近日表示，现有的证据显示，这些鸟类动物死于一场自然灾害，而当时人类尚未登上这个位于印度洋西南部的海岛。

Original

 

With the improvement of income, traveling is over-creasing into popularity for most of middle-class families to release themselves. Recently, two types of the widely-chosen journey are conducted tour and self-guided tour. Conducted tour is determined by a large more number of travelers. However, from my point of view, DIY tour is the most suitable choice for our inner desires to feel about dazzling and various cultures.
 
Unlike guide-led, unconducted tour offers a variety of selections of freedom and flexibility, in terms of transportation, accommodation, itinerary and time of stay at the spot. To give an example, I’ve been to the Yellow Stone National Park   to see geysers. Unfortunately, there was only twenty minutes for me to wait for eruption of them. So I certainly missed it. Just like such problems, I’d rather decide to go sightseeing without taking part in the guided group.
 
Further more, tourists who have special hobbies can not be filled with the obsolete and traditional options. Particularly, a great deal of hobbies is professional or semi-professional. For example, someone may be fond of zoology, botany, x-sports and geology. So they expect uncommon service. For those manias, they might have to wait for a comparatively longer time, perhaps 2 to 4 hours, just to take one shut.
 
To compare with conducted tour, there is a last but not least reason that DIY tour provides much more opportunities to enable fast-step visitors to follow local societies deeply, such as natural landscapes, customs, culture and also architectures. As for my experience, I went to Hong Kong during my last summer holidays. Being different from the other times I meet there, I tried to become a native there. Being a member of the society, I got the real native culture at last. Taking subways, I know about the advanced public transportation system. Also I tasted local snack in tea-huts.
 
To sum up, these factors result in those young and wise people would probably choose travel without guide-aid. Of course, in my opinion, self-conducted tour brings more adventures into my life.
 

LV(Luke’s Version)  342 words

 

 

With the improvement of income, traveling is becoming popular among middle-class families. Recently, two types of the widely-chosen journeys are conducted tour and self-guided tour. Conducted tour is favored by a large number of travel destination goers. However, from my point of view, DIY tour is the smart buy.

 

Unlike guide-led tour, un-conducted tour offers a variety of selections of freedom and flexibility, in terms of transportation, accommodation, itinerary and time of stay at the scenic spot. For example, I’ve been to the Yellow Stone National Park to see geysers. Unfortunately, there was only twenty minutes for me to wait for the eruption. I was not lucky enough to see it because of the time limit. Should I was told about this arrangement before, I would have went sightseeing by myself rather than joining the guided group.

 

Further more, tourists who have special hobbies may not feel satisfied with arrangement by conventional tour guide. Particularly, many great hobbies are professional or semi-professional. Big fans of zoology, botany, extreme sports and geology tend to expect hobby-oriented service. One of my friends is a photo mania; he sometimes may have to wait for two to four hours just to take one nice shot.

 

Last but not least, comparing with conducted tour, DIY tour provides much more opportunities to enable fast-paced visitors to observe and understand local society deeply, such as landscape, customs, culture and food. As for my experience, I went to Hong Kong for the second time during my last summer holiday. Unlike previous visit, I gave up any aid from others and tried to settle everything down independently. I experienced local cuisine, genuine street snack, night life, metro, and shopping rush. This experience was very Hong Kong and very exotic. I could not stand the way of joining a tour group any longer.

 

To sum up, these factors result in the fact that young and wise people would probably choose travel without guide-aid. In my opinion, self-conducted tour is superior to guided tour, and it will be my only and best choice.

 

Original

 

Writing: A.D. travel in a grouop led by a guide??

 

    With the increase of people's income, traveling is becoming an ever popular choice of relaxation for most middle class families. Currently, there are two types of travelling, guided tour and DIY tour. Many tourists favor the former one. However, I personally prefer the latter and I think self-planed trip is the smartest choice. The reasons are as follows.

    First of all, unlike guided tour, self-guided tour offers various alternatives, such as freedom and flexibility in terms of transportation, accommodation and itinerary. For example, many travel agency nowadays only provide trips by air, which is easy planning. Unfortunately, I prefer traveling by train, for the breath-taking scenery and fresh air cannot be missed. I can also play cards or Killer game with my friends, which makes our trip funny and unforgettable.

   Further more, guided tour does not meet special needs of some professional hobbies, such as photography, architecture and botany. These professionals expect higher standard of arrangement from the trip, which cannot meet by travel agency. For example, some photography lovers may have to wait for hours just to take a shot; some bonany fans may have to search for days just to observe the wanted plants. Guide-led tours in no way can provide enough time for them and this can only spoil the charm of a high expected trip.

   In addition, compared with guided tour, unconducted tour is more likely to enable busy visitors to understand local society deeply, such as customs, cultures and languages. For example, recently, my friends and I paid a trip to Guilin without any aid, where I experienced exciting and tough mountain roads, romantic and placid river rafts, tasty and fast dining service and so on and so forth. To look back, if I had chosen conducted tour, all I could have expected would only be comfortable and easy roads, fast and crowded ships and disgusting and common food.

   To sum up, traveling without guide is really for young, wise and quality-pursuing peole. If you expect real life from traveling, plan yourself and go on self-conducted tour.

 

 

LV(Luke’s Version)

 

With the increase of people's income, traveling is becoming a popular choice of relaxation for most middle class families. Currently, there are two types of traveling: guided tour and DIY tour. Many tourists favor the former one. However, I personally prefer the latter because I think self-planed trip is the smartest choice. The reasons are as follows.

 

First of all, unlike guided tour, self-guided tour offers various alternatives, such as freedom and flexibility in terms of transportation, accommodation and itinerary. For example, many travel agencies nowadays only provide trips by air, which is easy to book. Unfortunately, I prefer traveling by train, for the breath-taking scenery and fresh air cannot be missed. During the long rail trip, I can also play cards or Killer Game with my friends, which makes our trip fun and unforgettable.

 

Further more, guided tour does not meet special needs of some professional hobbies, such as photography, architecture and botany. These professionals expect higher standard of arrangement from the trip, which cannot be fulfilled by travel agency. Some photography lovers may have to wait for hours just to take one shot; some botany fans may have to search for days just to observe the wanted plants. Guide-led tours in no way could provide enough time for them; and may only spoil the charm of a highly expected trip.

 

In addition, compared with guided tour, un-conducted tour is more likely to enable busy visitors to understand local society deeply, such as customs, cultures and languages. For example, recently, my friends and I paid a trip to Guilin without any aid, where I experienced exciting and tough mountain roads, romantic and placid river rafts, tasty and fast dining service so on and so forth. To look back, if I had chosen conducted tour, all I could have expected would only be comfortable and easy roads, fast and crowded ships and disgusting and common food.

 

To sum up, traveling without guide is really for young, wise and quality-pursuing people. If you expect real life from traveling, plan yourself and go on self-conducted tour. 

LV (Luke’s Version) 320 words

 

“Experience is the best teacher” is a buzz sentence, but I agree with it. The most important, and sometimes the hardest, lessons we learn in life come from our participation in situations. You can’ learn everything from a book.

 

Of course, learning from books in a formal educational setting is also valuable. It’s in schools that we learn the information we need to function in our society. We learn how to speak and write and understand mathematical equations. This is all information that we need to live in our communities and earn a living.

 

Nevertheless, I think that the most important lessons can’t be taught; they have to be experienced. No one can teach us how to get along with others or how to have self-respect. As we grow from children into teenagers, no one can teach us how to deal with peer pressure. As we leave adolescence behind and enter adult life, no one can teach us how to fall in love and get married.

 

Although some people may claim that learning from experience may be risky and cost unnecessary expenses. However, this shouldn’t stop us from trying new experience. It is said that one learns best by doing, and I believe that this is true, whether one is successful or not. Moreover, if one wants to make new advances, it is necessary to act. Innovations do not come about through reading but through experimentation. Finally, one can apply the skills and insights gained through the study of books to practical experience, making an already meaningful experience more meaningful. However, unless it is applied to real experiences, book knowledge remains theoretical and, in the end, is useless.

 

That is why I believe that knowledge gained from practical experience is more important than that acquired from books. And I fully believe that experiencing our own triumphs and disasters is really the only way to learn how to deal with life. 

AD Drivers have to pay a fee for driving in busy city streets when traffic is in a great amount.

 

原稿：
Recently, there is an argument upon whether it is reasonable for the government to charge a fee on drivers who try to enter the condensed part of a city. People hold different attitude towards the issue, but personally, I believe the “enter fee” is necessary.
Actually, this method has been proved to be effective in many big cities to relieve the traffic congestion. And I believe that for these following reasons.
To start with, I think the policy will encourage our resident to make the most of the mass transportation and in turn improve its efficiency significantly. With such a limitation, drivers will have to think twice before they drive to the restricted area, and turn to the public transportation. So it is understandable that number of private cars in that area should have a sharp decreasing. Fewer cars mean broader roads for buses, and, if planed rationally, we can expect a much higher speed and punctuality of the mass transportation.
Then, the ban gives a perfect definition on what environmentally friendliness is all about. Since our metropolis has now become such a noisy and polluted place that everyone would find annoying. To make things worse, as our cities expand, the situation seems to be ever worsening. So with lesser cars in the urban areas, the air condition there will be raised significantly, people suffer less environmental problems in the cities, therefore citizens may lead a much healthier life. And this makes life in the city a more pleasant experience.
Last, government will raise a considerable sum of money from this regulation. If used wisely, the capital might contribute a lot to the discovery and development of some new energy, which may in effect finally solve the pollution in the cities.
To sum up, I support the “entry ticket”. Taking every factor into consideration, we may come to the conclusion that charging such fee is not only possible but successful way to tackle the traffic jam.    

 

任林的修改稿（LV）

Luke’s Version

 

Recently, there is an argument upon whether drivers should be charged if they want to drive in the condensed part of a city. People hold different attitude towards the issue. I personally believe this is a necessary solution.  Actually, this method has been proven effective in many metropolitans to relieve traffic congestion. And my analysis are as follows.

 

To start with, this policy will encourage city residents to make the best use of mass transportation system, and in turn, improve its efficiency significantly. Considering paying a “entry ticket”, drivers will have to think twice before they rush into the restricted area. Alternatively, they may choose to park their cars and turn to the public transportation. So it is understandable that number of private cars in that area would be decreased greatly. Fewer cars mean broader roads for buses, and, if planed rationally, we can expect a much higher speed and punctuality of the mass transportation.

 

Then, the “congestion fee” gives a perfect definition on what environmentally friendliness is all about. Since most cities are now places filled up with noise, polluted air, and angry pedestrian annoyed by cars. As our cities expand, the situation seems to be even worse. If most cars are kept away from city centers, air quality will be improved significantly, city people will suffer less environmental problems. Therefore citizens would enjoy a much healthier life. And this will make living in city a more pleasant experience.

 

Last, government will raise a considerable sum of money from this regulation. If used wisely, the capital might contribute a lot to the discovery and development of some clean energy, which may replace gas eventually in the future and could be a cure to air pollution caused by cars.

 

To sum up, I support the idea of collecting “city entry ticket” from drivers. Taking above-listed factors into consideration, we could easily come to the conclusion that charging fee is a reasonable and practical way of solving many car-related problems challenging mega cities.