Please correct my integrated writing task, luschen, thank you :)

[Eliasbit]

The article statse that in the near future there will be privatized space flight firms which
will bring many benefits for the scients and the whole public providing three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the space tourism will not bring benefit , and refutes each of the author’s reasons.

First, the reading claims that the prises will be cheap because their will be many competitive firms. The professor refutes this point by saying that the government will be the only community of space tourism. He states that the saftey insurance is expinsive, so it will not reduce the prices of the ticket, consequently the prices will be the same.

Second, the article posits that this new project will accelerate the rate for the discoveries , which means there will be more dicoveries. The professor says that this new project will not accelerate the discoveries, actually it will dely the researches. According to the professor, they will focus on doing commercials instead of discoveries.

Third, the reading says that the taxpaying will be eased for the whole public, this is because the consumers of the privatzation will pay for their own tickets, so government do not have to handle this situation. In the contrary, the professor opposes this point by explaining that the taxpaying will stay the same, because the government neet to build speace station and space airport. Consequently, the citizens will pay the taxation.

TOEFL listening discussions: Why may Martha need money?

[Luschen]

Hi Eliasbit, I think you have the format down very well. You did a good job of summarizing the main point and communicated all of the major points made in the lecture, though a few of your explanations could be more clear and you missed a couple of minor points. Overall, I would rate this a 4 out of 5.

@Eliasbit

The article statse[states] that in the near future there will be privatized space flight firms which
will bring many benefits for the scients [science] and the whole public[,] providing three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the space tourism will not bring benefit[s ] , and refutes each of the author’s reasons.

First, the reading claims that the prises[prices] will be cheap because their[there] will be many competitive firms. The professor refutes this point by saying that the government will be the only community of space tourism.{I did not hear this - what do you mean?} He states that the saftey insurance {I didn’t hear anything about insurance} is expinsive, so it will not reduce the prices of the ticket, consequently the prices will be the same. {you seemed to get the main point, that private space travel will be prohibitively expensive, but the lecture’s main reasons for this are that space traffic control systems need to be built and that each new spacecraft needs to go through extensive safety testing, which is very expensive}

Second, the article posits that this new project will accelerate the rate for the [of new] discoveries , which means there will be more dicoveries[discoveries]. The professor says that this new project will not accelerate the discoveries, actually it will del[ay] the researches. According to the professor, they will focus on doing commercials {commercials are advertisements on television or radio - you mean the top scientists will be lured away to work on commercial ventures instead of doing science and research} instead of discoveries.

Third, the reading says that the taxpaying[taxes] will be eased for the whole public,{semicolon} this is because the consumers of the privatzation will pay for their own tickets, so government do[es] not have to handle this situation. [O]n the contrary, the professor opposes this point by explaining that the taxpaying[taxes] will stay the same, because the government nee[ds ] to build speace[space] station[s ] and space airport[s ]. Consequently, the citizens will [have to] pay [for this infrastructure through higher taxes] the taxation. {another word to include is “subsidies” - the government will have to subsidize, that is provide subsidies, to the private firms to make their space flights possible.}

TOEFL listening discussions: Why may Martha need money?

[Eliasbit]

Thank you sir.

[Torsten]

The article states that in the near future, there will be privatized space companies that will
will bring many benefits to scientists and the public at large, citing three reasons for support. However, the professor states that space tourism will not bring benefits, refuting each of the author’s reasons.

First, it is claimed that prices will be cheap because there will be many competing businesses. The professor refutes this point by saying that the government will be the only community of space tourism. He claims that security insurance is expensive so it will not lower ticket prices, consequently prices will remain the same.

Secondly, the article claims that this new project will accelerate the speed of discoveries, which means that there will be more discoveries. The professor says that this new project will not speed up the discoveries, but rather slow down the researches. According to the professor, they will focus on advertising instead of discoveries.

Third, it will make it easier for the general public to pay taxes because privatization consumers will pay their own tickets, so the government will not have to worry about this situation. The professor contradicts this by stating that tax payments will remain the same because the government will have to build the space station and the space airport. Consequently, the citizens will pay the taxes.