The position of the author protects smokers and he thinks that risks from smoking are doubtful. However, the Lecturer has the pole opinion and she is sure that campaigning which protects non-smokers is a positive event. The author compares the risk from cigarettes with other dangerous habits, and from his point of view smoking is not worse than junk food or alcohol. Also, he believes that there are not any hazards for second smokers. He thinks that is almost incredible when the serious disease can cause something to non-smokers. At the same time, the author strongly disagrees with the restriction of smoking in public places because it can reduce freedom and he concerns that it can have negative consequences for private business. However, the lecturer has the opposite position. She thinks that this restriction cannot reduce the freedom of smokers because it protects private life of non-smokers. Also she supposes that this act of government will give the opportunity to smokers to stop smoking. She also, believes that this policy with the restriction of smoking at public places can help private business because non-smokers will visit bars and restaurant frequently because smoke does not disturb any more. Finally, if people stop smoking they will be able to save about 40 percents of taxes every year.
TOEFL listening lectures: What is the main danger of obesity?
The position of the author protects smokers and he thinks that THE CLAIMED risks from smoking are /doubtful/QUESTIONABLE/. However, the Lecturer has the pole opinion and she is sure that campaigning which protects non-smokers is a positive event. The author compares the risk from cigarettes with other dangerous habits, and from his point of view smoking is NO worse than junk food or alcohol. Also, he believes that there are not any hazards for second smokers. He thinks that IT is almost incredible when the serious disease can cause something to non-smokers. At the same time, the author strongly disagrees with the restriction of smoking in public places because it can reduce freedom, and he concerns that it can have negative consequences for private businessES. However, the lecturer has the opposite position. She thinks that this restriction cannot reduce the freedom of smokers because it protects THE private LIVES of non-smokers. Also she supposes that this act of government will give the opportunity to smokers to stop smoking. She also believes that this policy, with the restriction of smoking at public places, can help private business because non-smokers will visit bars and restaurant frequently because smoke does not disturb THEM any more. Finally, if people stop smoking they will be able to save about 40 percent of taxes every year.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Pretty good Svyatoslavkn.
Kitos. 8/10