TPO 53 托福综合写作+独立写作范文

TPO 53
综合写作
阅读原文：
Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society, including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet, should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
听力原文：
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Each of the arguments about the benefits of cigarette and other such taxes can be challenged.
First, these taxes don’t necessarily lead to healthier behavior. For instance, high cigarette taxes have led some smokers to buy cheaper lower quality cigarettes. Such cigarettes typically contain even more harmful substances than better quality cigarettes and present even greater health risks. Similarly, imagine how some consumers might react to higher taxes on unhealthy foods. They might continue buying the unhealthy foods they prefer even if they’re more expensive. And as a result, have less money left to spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldn’t benefit their health.
Second, there are different ways of thinking about fairness. It might seem fair for people indulging in unhealthy behaviors to pay for the consequences of those behaviors through high taxes. But some people would argue that these taxes are unfair, because they don’t take into account people’s incomes. If a high-earning person and a lower-earning person are addicted to cigarettes and each smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. Paying the tax would be a greater expense for the low earner relative to his or her income. The same argument applies to the food taxes. So many people believe that these taxes are not fair because they create a much greater burden for those with smaller incomes than for those with higher incomes.
Finally, the fact that governments can use this tax revenue for various projects has the downside. This income represents millions and millions of dollars and governments become dependent on it and don’t want to lose it. In consequence, the governments might not be forceful enough pursuing policies and implementing laws that might eliminate unhealthy habits altogether. For example, they are unlikely to adopt radical measure such as not allowing smoking in outdoor public areas such as parks or even banning smoking in all outdoor areas, public or private, because they don’t want to lose this income.
In the reading passage, the author lists three reasons to prove there are many social benefits of imposing high taxes upon cigarettes as well as other unhealthy products. However, the professor in the listening contends that each of the arguments about the benefits of the cigarette and other such taxes can be challenged.
Firstly, the reading passage claims that high taxes could prevent people from unhealthy behaviors, but the professor argues that these taxes don't necessarily lead to healthy behaviors. For instance, heavy taxes can lead some smokers to buy cheaper and lower quality cigarettes. Such cigarettes typically contain even more harmful substances than better quality cigarettes, and present even greater health risks. Similarly, imagine how some consumers might react to same taxes on unhealthy foods. They might continue buying the unhealthy foods they prefer even if it's more expensive, and as a result, have less money left to spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldn't benefit their health.
Secondly, in the reading passage, it is said that this kind of taxes are financially fair. On the contrary, the professor hold the opinion that there are different ways of thinking about fairness. It might seem fair for people indulging in unhealthy behaviors to pay for the consequences of those behaviors through high taxes, but some people would argue that these taxes are unfair, because they don't take into account people's incomes. If a higher earning person and a lower earning person are addicted to cigarettes, and each smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, paying the tax would be a greater expense for the lower earner relative to his or her income. The same argument applies to the food taxes, so many people believe these taxes are not fair, because they create a much greater burden for those with lower incomes than for those with higher incomes.
Finally, according to the reading passage, such kind of high taxation could increase revenue for the government, while the professor maintains that the fact governments can use these tax revenues for various projects has a downside. This income represents millions and millions of dollars, and governments become dependent on it and don't want to lose it. In consequence, the governments might not be forceful enough pursuing policies and implementing laws that might eliminate unhealthy habits all together. For example, they are unlikely to adopt radical measures such as not allowing smoking in outdoor public areas such as parks, or even banning smoking in all outdoor areas public or private, because they don't want to lose this income.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
It is more important for governments to spend money to improve Internet access than to improve public transportation.
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
The development of science and technology has come to pervade every aspect of our lives, especially the influence from the internet, which is changing people's life in a quite unprecedented speed, and as a result, some people consider government should spend money to improve internet access. After taking various factors into consideration, I, on the contrary, reckon that improving public transportation deserves more financial support from the government.
Firstly, improvement of public transportation could help to solve the serious environmental problems nowadays. Undoubtedly, the disastrous consequence of environmental pollution has been quite obvious, such as the gloomy haze obscuring the top of the skyscrapers, acid rain poisoning farmland and eroding buildings, sea level rise resulting from global temperature rise etc., which urgently calls for effective measures to resolve all these life-threatening challenges. Public transportation capable of vast passenger volume could be one efficient way to take the place of various private vehicles whose exhaust emission is the main pollutants. For example, I am living in one city in North China that suffered bitterly from air pollution. In order to recover the blue sky, last year our government carried out one policy to lower the price of the bus together with improved services. Not surprisingly, more passengers chose to take public transportation. With less exhaust emission from the private vehicles, the air quality was improved since then.
Secondly, compared with internet access, public transportation could benefit more people. Admittedly, with the appearance of various social softwares, internet, because of its efficiency and convenience, does serve as one important role in communication, but not everyone can be proficient or even familiar with internet. We should not ignore the sobering fact that there are still a large amount of illiterate people especially in the remote poverty-stricken areas. Being unable to read or type prevents them from getting online no matter how convenient the Internet access is. By contrast, public transportation could help those areas to connect with outside developed urban areas to develop their economy. The railway connecting eastern China and Tibet could be one persuasive example. Before this railway was built, the lagging economic situation in Tibet constrained the improving of people's living standard. Many family even could not afford their children to get education, while after the Chinese government built the railway to connect Tibet to the outside developed areas, Tibet's economy has been developing dramatically as the railway introduces more industries and encourages tourism, and as a result, large numbers of local people could benefit from what the public transportation promises.
Conclusively, since public transportation could ensure both improved environment and economy, the government is highly advised to spend money on improving public transportation.。