Topic: Whether the government should own the Amtrak?
In the lecture, the speaker makes the point that the main purpose that the government own Amtrak is to provide convenience to the local people instead of making profits. Whereas the point directly contradicts to the point in the reading material that government should not possess the ownership of Amtrak because of its poor financial performance. It is obviously that these two consideration and purpose are basically contradictory to each other, one is to make profit while the other is to provide a better serves to the citizens.
Secondly, disagreeing with the statement in the reading material that the author thinks that if Amtrak keeps being owned by government, then it would be unfair and to some extent, harmful to some private transportation companies by reason that these private companies are not supported by government, or in other words, they can hardly benefit from financial assistant policy. On the other side, the speaker argues that the judgment made by the author is silly, since the government bring more benefits to some private airline companies in other kinds of ways, such as paying bills for their air traffic control towers, training aviators and weather forecasting organizations. It seems government also pays much attention on the stable growth of private companies.
Finally, contrary to the point in the reading passage that the author consists that the government should directly make the best use of the fund to high way construction. For the reason that, less and less people in America choose train as their preferred transport and in contrast, a growing numbers of people are more likely to go by their own cars. The speaker, however, believes that the most essential problem that leads to the situation mentioned by the author is that Amtrak is out of date, when comparing with other more advanced train companies in Japan and Europe. In other words, it is the less advanced train system which limits the number of passenger. And if the government can improve the train system, undoubtedly there will be more people going out by train.
Topic: Whether the government should own the Amtrak?
In the lecture, the speaker makes the point that the main purpose that the government own Amtrak is to provide convenience to the local people instead of making profits. Whereas the point directly contradicts to the point in the reading material that government should not possess the ownership of Amtrak because of its poor financial performance. It is obvious that these two consideration and purposes are basically contradictory to each other, one is to make profit while the other is to provide a better servICE to the citizens.
Secondly, disagreeing with the statement in the reading material that the author thinks that if Amtrak keeps being owned by government, then it would be unfair and to some extent, harmful to some private transportation companies by reason that these private companies are not supported by government, or in other words, they can hardly benefit from ITS financial assistanCE policy. On the other side, the speaker argues that the judgEment made by the author is silly, since the government bring more benefits to some private airline companies in other kinds of ways, such as paying bills for their air traffic control towers, training aviators and weather forecasting organizations. It seems government also pays much attention on the stable growth of private companies.
Finally, contrary to the point in the reading passage that the author INSISTS that the government should directly make the best use of the fund to high way construction. For the reason that, less and less people in America choose trainS as their preferred transport and in contrast, a growing number of people are more likely to go by their own cars. The speaker, however, believes that the most essential problem that leads to the situation mentioned by the author is that Amtrak is out of date, when comparED with other more advanced train companies in Japan and Europe. In other words, it is the less advanced train system which limits the number of passenger. And if the government can improve the train system, undoubtedly there will be more people TRAVELLING by train.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
OK, but you’ve done better James.
I know you are encouraging me, anyway it is you who make it happen: )
By the way, whether or not I should give a beginning and conclusion in integrated writing, like: In the lecture, the professor made several points about… or "In conclusion, the points made in the reading contrast with the lecture… are they necessary if one wants to pursue a higher score?
Hi James, I think that it is recommended that you always indicate just who in speaking. The reader or the speaker. Similarly you shouldn’t express your personal opinion unless asked to do so. An introduction and conclusion are usually expected.
I have a question. If this is integrated writing, shouldn’t we write something between 150 - 225. Because i think you just wrote more than 320 words? which is too much?