2018年7月7日雅思大作文题目

　　“People have different views on how to reduce traffic congestion. Some think that governments should build more train and subway lines, while others think that building more roads and widening existing roads will reduce traffic congestion. Discuss both views and give your opinion.”

　　解析&审题

　　本题是关于城市生活中的交通问题。此类问题是雅思考试的常客，各位烤鸭需要认真对待。唐老师目前收集到的相关考题如下：

　　The best way for the government to solve the traffic congestion is to provide free public transport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. To what extent do you agree or disagree? (2014/1/9，2017/1/21)

　　解决交通堵塞问题的办法是全天候提供免费公共交通，你是否同意?

　　In many towns and cities, the high volume of road traffic has been a problem. What are the causes and what actions can be taken to solve the traffic problem? (2012/7/21)

　　交通堵塞的原因是什么，怎么解决?

　　In some countries,the government has tried to reduce traffic.For instance,they imposed a congestion tax during rush hour. Do you think this development is positive or negative? (2016/1/30)

　　高峰期征受堵塞税能否解决交通堵塞问题?

　　Increasing the price of cars and petrol is one of the best ways to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?(2018/3/10)

　　汽车及汽油价格是解决交通和污染问题的办法，你是否同意?

　　Traffic and housing problems in major cities could be solved by moving large companies and factories and their employees to the countryside. To what extent do you agree with this opinion?(2018/5/5)

　　将大公司和工厂搬迁到乡村地区，可以解决城市交通和住房问题。你同意吗?

　　本题问的是：解决交通堵塞问题有两种方案，一种是修建铁路和地铁，另一种是修建或扩展道路，要求你讨论哪一种方法。

　　这类题目的基本思路应该是用双边讨论的结构，首先讨论修建铁路和地铁的好处和坏处，然后讨论修建道路的好处和坏处，最后给出自己的结论(无非是根据不同城市的情况来决定到底哪一种方案更合适)。

　　修建新铁路和地铁：好处当然是运载量大，污染相对较小，坏处是成本高昂，且耗时很长;

　　修建道路：好处是成本低，耗时少，但坏处就是污染大，且占用大量城市空间。

　　我的观点：对于那些面积而分散的城市，应该新建铁路和地铁;对于那些空间小，而且多数人都开车上下班的城市来说，则应该多修道路或者扩修已有道路。

　　老师笔记

　　01、There seem to be two equally effective ways of reducing urban traffic congestion: building more train and subway lines and building more new roads or widening the existing roads. To my mind, whether one way is better than the other depends upon the city conditions.

　　减少城市交通拥堵似乎有两种同样有效的方法：修建的火车和地铁线路以及修建的新道路或拓宽现有道路。在我看来，一种方法是否比另外一种方法，取决于城市的条件。

　　解析

　　(1) 本段直接进入话题，提出改善城市交通的两种办法，然后给出自己的观点：到底哪一种办法取决于城市的条件。

　　(2) equally 同样地

　　(3) urban 城市的

　　(4) to my mind 在我看来

　　(5) depend upon 取决于

　　02、It is quite obvious that train and subway lines are able to carry more passengers than roads, especially in a given period of time, and therefore are every effective in reducing the traffic in rush hours. The subway, for example, can deliver more than 10,000 people in as short as half an hour, who, if all travel by buses or cars, will pose tremendous pressure to the traffic. However, though causing less pollution, it is pretty costly and time-consuming to build a new train and subway line. The city dwellers will often have to endure a few years’ traffic inconveniences before they can enjoy the benefits that a new train and subway line brings to them.

　　很明显，铁路和地铁线路的载客量比道路要多，特别是在一段给定时间内，因此在减少高峰时期的交通方面是十分有效的。例如，地铁可以在短短半小时内运送1万多人，如果这1万多人都乘公共汽车或汽车出行，将对交通造成巨大的压力。然而，尽管污染更少，建造一条新的火车和地铁线路是昂贵和耗时的。城市居民常常要忍受几年的交通不便，才能享受到新的火车和地铁线路给他们带来的好处。

　　解析

　　(1) 本段论述修建铁路和地铁的好处和坏处。

　　(2) a given period of time 一段给定时间

　　(3) rush hours 交通高峰时段

　　(4) deliver 运送

　　(5) pose 构成

　　(6) tremendous 巨大的

　　(7) time-consuming 耗时的

　　(8) city dwellers 城市居民

　　(9) endure 忍受

　　03

　　By contrast, building a new road or widening an existing road will take far less time and money. It is usually a matter of a few days or weeks before the city people can enjoy a new or a widened road. The problem, however, is that compared with the train or subway line, the roads can solve the traffic congestion but only to a very limited extent. Besides, too many roads willtake up a lot of urban spaces, which are often already very crowded.

　　相比之下，建造一条新路或拓宽一条现有道路所需的时间和金钱要少得多。城市居民通常只需要几天或几个星期就能享受到一条新的或拓宽的道路。然而问题是，与火车或地铁线路相比，道路只能在有限的程度上解决交通拥挤。此外，太多的道路会占用大量本已拥挤的城市空间。

　　解析

　　(1)本段讨论扩修道路的好处和坏处。

　　(2)by contrast 相反

　　(3) a matter of a few days or weeks 几天或几周的事情

　　(4)to a very limited extent 在有限的程度上

　　(5)take up 占用

　　04

　　In my view, both ways are effective to address the traffic problem in cities, but it is the city conditions that will determine which way is better. To acosmopolitan like New York and Beijing, where the huge population live far and wide apart, more train and subway lines may be preferable, but to such a small city as Providence with a small area and small population where most people drive to and from work, more and wider roads are perhaps more necessary.

　　在我看来，这两种方法都能有效地解决城市的交通问题，但决定哪一条道路的是城市的条件。像纽约和天津这样的国际大都市人口，相距遥远，的火车和地铁线路可能，但在普罗维登斯这样的小城市，面积小，人口少，大多数人都开车上下班，更宽的道路也许更为必要。

　　解析

　　(1)本段阐述自己的观点。在双边讨论的结构中，阐明自己的观点重要。本题中，唐老师认为两种方法都有效，但具体采用哪种办法，得根据城市的实际情况来决定。

　　(2)address 解决

　　(3)determine 决定

　　(4)cosmopolitan 国际大都市

　　(5)preferable 的

　　(6)to and from work 上下班

　　向上滑动阅览

　　7分范文

　　There seem to be two equally effective ways of reducing urban traffic congestion: building more train and subway lines and building more new roads or widening the existing roads. To my mind, whether one way is better than the other depends upon the city conditions.

　　It is quite obvious that train and subway lines are able to carry more passengers than roads, especially in a given period of time, and therefore are every effective in reducing the traffic in rush hours. The subway, for example, can deliver more than 10,000 people in as short as half an hour, who, if all travel by buses or cars, will pose tremendous pressure to the traffic. However, though causing less pollution, it is pretty costly and time-consuming to build a new train and subway line. The city dwellers will often have to endure a few years’ traffic inconveniences before they can enjoy the benefits that a new train and subway line brings to them.

　　By contrast, building a new road or widening an existing road will take far less time and money. It is usually a matter of a few days or weeks before the city people can enjoy a new or a widened road. The problem, however, is that compared with the train or subway line, the roads can solve the traffic congestion but only to a very limited extent. Besides, too many roads will take up a lot of urban spaces, which are often already very crowded.

　　In my view, both ways are effective to address the traffic problem in cities, but it is the city conditions that will determine which way is better. To a cosmopolitan like New York and Beijing, where the huge population live far and wide apart, more train and subway lines may be preferable, but to such a small city as Providence with a small area and small population where most people drive to and from work, more and wider roads are perhaps more necessary.