TOEFL intergreted essay: Ban of second-hand smoking

[Anniehal]

Both the reading material and the listening material discussed about the advantage and disadvantages of smoking in the public.

From the reading part, we can find that the author pointed out that 3,000 people suffer from the lung cancer resulted from second-smoking. Whilst, the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-smoking, heart disease is another serious one. According to a research conducted in Hanamontana, forty percentage of second-hand smoker had some health problems related to heart disease, which is really serious and dangerous.

The writer argued that the bans of smoking in public places will result to some adverse effects on economics that people do not willing to go the bars because they are not able to smoke there. However, the speaking material pointed out that there are bars closes, but a lot of new ones keep open. And those bar owners must have the ability to figure out how to adapt to the new policy and attract customers, moreover, the potential of non-smoker customers are much more profitable than those smoking customers.

The author also claimed that the ban of smoking betray the core concept of America, which is seeking to protect the rights of minorities. Besides, the smokers pay a lot of taxes to the government every year, but the government does not protect their rights. On he contrary, the lecturer claimed that this ban of smoking actually helps smokers, because many of them do not really want to smoke ,but they are addicted. However, with the implement of this policy, there will not be so many places for them to smoke, so it will be easier for them to give up smoking, and this is the real help.

So basically, both the writer and speaker talked about the ban of smoking in the United States. The writer douted this policy, while the speaker was in favor of it.

Bill,Richard…Would you please give me some suggestion about the tense…i’m so confusing.

is this correct??“The writer argued that the bans of smoking in public places will result to some adverse effects on economics that people do not willing to go the bars because they are not able to smoke there.”

Thanks again!

TOEFL listening discussions: What will the secretary do next?

[Kitosdad]

Both the reading material and the listening material discussed the advantageS and disadvantages of smoking in public PLACES.
From the reading part, we can find that the author pointed out that 3,000 people suffer from lung cancer AS A DIRECT RESULT OF second-HAND smoking.

Whilst, the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, heart disease WAS another serious one.
According to a research conducted in Hanamontana, forty percent of second-hand smokerS had some health problems related to heart disease, which is really serious and dangerous.

The writer argued that the banNING of smoking in public places will result IN some adverse effects on economics, AND that people WILL not willingLY go INTO bars because they are not able to smoke there.

However, the speaking material pointed out that there are bars THAT ARE CLOSING, but a lot of new ones keep openING UP, and those bar owners must have the ability to figure out how to adapt to the new policy and attract customers.
Moreover, the potential of non-smokING customers IS much more profitable than those smoking customers.

The author also claimed that the ban of smoking betrayED the core concept of America, which is seeking to protect the rights of minorities.
Besides, the smokers pay a lot of taxes to the government every year, but the government does not protect their rights.
On he contrary, the lecturer claimed that this ban ON smoking actually helps smokers, because many of them do not really want to smoke, but they are addicted.

However, with the implementATION of this policy, there will not be so many places for them to smoke, so it will be easier for them to give up smoking, and this WILL realLY help.
So, basically both the writer and speaker talked about the ban of smoking in the United States. The writer douBted THAT this policy WOULD WORK, whilST the speaker was in favoUr of it.

---

Damn, you just keep on improving.

[Anniehal]

Finally see your face!Bill!That’s nice!

Whilst, the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, heart disease WAS another serious one.
Should this change to" the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease"? to company with the “WAS” in the second half of this sentenc???

Moreover, if “we can find that the author pointed out that 3,000 people suffer from lung cancer” is correct. Why the second “is” of "the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-smoking, heart disease is another serious one. " should change to “WAS”??

Whould please give me some other examples of senteces with past and future tenses togethe???
Thanks a lot!!

[Richard]

Hi Anniehal
We don’t know what you have listened and what you have read. So…I just know it’s an integrated part of writing section.
I have made some suggestions, but I’m not that sure:

@Anniehal

whilst, the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-smoking, heart disease is another serious one.

By deleting whilst and changing (second-smoking) to (second-hand smoking=Passive smoking) your sentence will be OK!

@Kitosdad

Whilst, the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, heart disease WAS another serious one.

Right one, but I’m sure it’s not what you meant. Am I right?

I suppose you meant:
The speaker claimed that second-hand smoking not only brings about lung cancers but it also causes heart diseases.

@Anniehal

Should this change to" the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease"?

If the speaker was relating something to somebody= your sentence is OK!
Was he/she speaking about a person who had caught a disease in addition to lung cancer.(note: both in the past)simple past tense- past perfect tense

@Anniehal

Moreover, if “we can find that the author pointed out that 3,000 people suffer from lung cancer” is correct. Why the second “is” of "the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-smoking, heart disease is another serious one. " should change to “WAS”??

(the speaker claimed that lung caner is not the only disease caused by second-hand smoking, heart disease is another serious one.)
It’s correct.
whilst=British English=while
I’ll be absent tomorrow.
Let’s see what will be Bill’s viewpoint on this.

[Kitosdad]

Whilst the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, HE ALSO DREW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT heart disease WAS another serious one.

Whilst the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, HE ALSO IDENTIFIED heart disease AS BEING another serious one.

---

Good morning Annie. Your point was indeed valid.

I offer two alternate sentences that should serve equally well.

Bill.

[Naiverock]

Hi, Annie,
As far as I know, past and future tenses can not be used together, as it may easily lead to confusion.
In the integrated writing, you can use past tense or present tense as your wish. Just make sure you have used the same tense in one article.
Andy

[Anniehal]

Thank you all!!!soooo much!
Richard, Bill, Andy~ I got the point!!
Thx!!

[Richard]

Hello guys.
I’m sorry. Can you help me?

@Anniehal

Richard, Bill, Andy~ I got the point!!

Are you sure?
Could you please explain simply what conclusion we have to draw?
I really don’t know.

@Naiverock

As far as I know, past and future tenses can not be used together, as it may easily lead to confusion.

What about this one:
My wife said that she will always love me no matter what.

@Naiverock

In the integrated writing, you can use past tense or present tense as your(you) wish. Just make sure you have used the same tense in one article.

What about this one:
They said that trust is vital for any business.
I get them from the below-mentioned forum:
english-test.net/lessons/6/index.html
and you can see this one:
athabascau.ca/courses/engl/1 … speech.htm
and I was wondering what (article) means in you sentence.
english-test.net/forum/ftopi … ect_speech

@Kitosdad

Whilst the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, HE ALSO DREW ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT heart disease WAS another serious one.

Whilst the speaker claimed that lung cancer WAS not the only disease caused by second-HAND smoking, HE ALSO IDENTIFIED heart disease AS BEING another serious one.

I don’t know why you didn’t use present tenses.
Is this wrong?

@Richard

The speaker claimed that second-hand smoking not only brings about lung cancers but it also causes heart diseases.

I still insist on my whole previous comment. Can anyone convince me?
It is reporting a general truth, so the present tenses will be retained or even the future tense can be used as Alan has written on that page.
These are(Direct and Indirect Speech) impotent to me.

Thanks.

[Naiverock]

Hi, Richard,
I know what bothers you. In my high school, I asked the similar questions to my English teacher.
She told me that, if one was talking about the truth or some facts that are beyond dispute, it’s fine to use present tense.
But she also suggested me not intend to use it unless I had to.
So, my opinion is this: use some normal and familiar tenses so that we can avoid the potential confusion.
Have I made myself clear? View it as a gentle advice, please.

[Anniehal]

Yep, yours “The speaker claimed that second-hand smoking not only brings about lung cancers but it also causes heart diseases.” is right.
Kito said my point is valid, so he just gave me another two options.They both are right!

[Richard]

Hi Andy
Yes, Thank you.
In some cases, I don’t believe some of my former teachers. I would rather findings that are based on serious research rather than anecdotal evidence.