TOEFL T P O 41 - Integrated Writing Task
Write the essay now!
Both the reading and the lecturer are about coal ash,a material that contains small amouts of potentially harmful chemical.The author of reading states that environmentalist concerned about their harmful chemical and goverment should create new stricter rules but companies take the opposite thinking.They think that new rules can cause some negative consequences.The lecturer casts doubts on the claims made in the article.She thinks that reasons that given by companies does not reflect the fact that.
First of all,the author of reading claims that regulations already exist and we dont need new one.İt state that for example companies have some obligations about coal ash components and they have builded some new pond or landfill to overcome this situation.This point is challanged by the lecturer.She says that this applications are not sufficient and ponds and landfills are too old.Furhermore,she points out that they shold change with new ones and we should create some new stricter rules for coal ash.
Secondly,the author has concerns about recyling coal ash.He states that with this new rules comsumer might concerned about coal ash product and they may stop buying the products.The lecturer rebuts this argument.She suggest that there are other kinds of metarial to use for example merchury and they are more safety for recycling.
Finally.the author mentions that new rules or laws cause to increase cost.He states that this increasing will be about ten times than today’s cost.The lecturer,on the other hand,states that it is true,costs will increase but market has huge amount of income therefore it will not affect the companies so much.She puts forth the idea that this market has 15 billion dolar income and all cost of electricity of households is equal to one percentage of market.Furhermore she states that clear enviroment is more impotant than their one percent income.
Conclusion,the lecturer effectivelly casts doubt on all of claims and theories presented in the reading.
The passage provides the statement that new regulations for handling and storing coal ash is unnecessary and might have negative results. It brings three main reasons to back up this idea. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on that and does not validate the hypothesis and its information mentioned in the passage by suggesting a number of points which contradict them.
First, the passage states that companies must use a liner in every new pond or landfill they build. On the contrary, the professor shares this idea is not sufficient because she brings up the reason that it requires to add this liner-special material in all landfills and ponds for preventing them from leaking into the soil and contaminating the nearby environment. So, she believes it needs to create strict regulations in this area.
Furthermore, the text asserts that this new rules can affect on recycling of coal ash because of thinking of it is dangerous. On the other hand, the professor says that this idea is not to be taken seriously due to the fact that in other dangerous materials we have a different experience. For example in using mercury despite taking some tough rules for storing or handling it, it had not bad consequences in using it.
Finally, the reading holds the view that a significant increase in cost for companies is the result of the strict new rules. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this point by underlining the fact that companies' cost is already high and this new regulation just makes it in average 1 percent increase for consumers. This increase is not too much to pay for having a clean environment.