新航道

   新航道上海學校雅思頻道小編第一時間帶來分享每次雅思考試大作文范文及解析，希望對各位備考考生們有所幫助，對雅思寫作有所提高!本文是10月26日雅思大作文范文及解析：該誰來負責清理環境?

  2019年10月26日雅思大作文題目：

  Some people think that companies and private individuals, not the government, should pay to clean up the environment in proportion to the amount of pollution they have produced.To what extent do you agree or disagree?

  解析&審題

  本題審題中有一個暗含的陷阱，因為本題實際上包含了兩個部分：第一部分是“公司和個人應該清理環境，而非政府”，第二個部分是“應該按照制造污染的數量的比例來負責清理環境”，也就是說，你制造了多少污染，你就負責清理多少垃圾。可能多數同學都回應了第一個部分，而沒有注意到第二個部分。

  首先看第一個部分：公司和個人應該清理環境而非政府。可能我們的直覺是應該同意這個觀點，而且認為這個觀點非常合理，因為如果公司和個人不為環境不負責，他們就不會主動減少污染排放。這個觀點基本是可以的，但我們也應該看到，這個觀點依然是比較絕對的，因為它只適用人為因素造成的污染(比如亂扔垃圾，使用交通工具等)，卻不適用那些非人為因素造成的污染，比如火山爆發、森林著火等引起的污染，對于那些非人為因素造成的污染，顯然應該由政府負責清理。因此，這里的討論應該區分“人為污染”和“非人為污染”兩種情況。

  再看第二個部分：按照制造污染的數量比例來負責清理環境。這個建議雖然難以實施，但還是一個很好的建議，因為它體現了公平原則，也能對制造污染的公司和個人產生重要的制約作用。

  以下請看唐老師的高分范文。

  老師筆記

  01

  Given the high costs of cleaning up the environmental pollution, some people argue that companies and individuals, rather than the government, should shoulder the financial responsibility of protecting the environment and how much they should pay depends on the amount of pollution they have produced.

  鑒于清理環境污染的成本高昂，有人認為，企業和個人，而不是政府，應該承擔起保護環境的財政責任，他們應該支付多少，取決于他們產生的污染量。

  解析

  (1) 本段開門見山，直接對題目中的觀點進行重新表述。

  (2) Given 鑒于;由于

  (3) Depend on... 取決于......

  02

  It is certainly true that the government should invoke the ‘polluter pays’ principle and make companies and individuals accountable for the damages done to the environment and human health, because this will make them feel the environmental burden of their action and stop them from doing more harm to the environment. For example, a paper-making factory will be more careful with its wastes if it is compelled to pay a tremendous amount of money for the water it pollutes, and a car owner may choose to use public transport if he is made to pay an extra pollution fee for driving.

  毫無疑問，政府應該援引“誰污染誰付費”的原則，讓企業和個人為他們對環境和人類健康造成的損害負責，因為這將使他們感覺到自己的行為對環境造成的負擔，從而阻止他們對環境造成更多的損害。例如，如果強迫造紙廠為其污染的水支付巨額費用，它就會更加小心處理其廢物;如果讓車主為駕駛而支付額外的污染費，他有可能選擇使用公共交通工具。

  解析

  (1) 本段論證讓公司和個人為其造成的污染是合理的。本段使用的是例證法：列舉了兩個例子。

  (2) Invoke 援用;使用

  (3) Accountable 負責的

  (4) Compel 強迫

  (5) A tremendous amount of... 大量的......

  (6) Extra fee 額外費用

  03

  Yet this does not mean that the government has no share of responsibility in cleaning up the environment. In fact, in cases such as volcanic eruption and forest fire, the pollution happens, but not as a result of the improper action of any company or individual. Under such circumstances, the government should be responsible for restoring the environment.

  然而，這并不意味著政府在清理環境方面沒有責任。事實上，遇到諸如火山爆發和森林火災這些情況，污染是會發生的，但不是任何公司或個人的不當行為造成的。在這些情況下，政府應該負責恢復環境。

  解析

  (1) 本段從另外一個角度論述政府在某些情況下也應該對環境負責。

  (2) This does not mean that... 這并不意味著......

  (3) Volcanic erutption 火山爆發

  (4) As a result of... 由于......

  (5) Under such circumstances 在這些(種)情況下

  (6) Restore 回復

  04

  It is perfectly reasonable that the companies and individuals who do greater harm to the environment should pay more to clean it up, though many problems may arise when this policy is put into practice. It is, after all, very difficult to determine in exact terms the proportion of pollution a company or individual has produced, and therefore there will be many quarrels about how much a company or individual should pay to deal with the pollution. Nevertheless, I believe that a final solution will be found so that no company or individual will argue over their share of responsibility.

  對環境危害較大的企業和個人，應該多花點錢來進行清理，這是完全合理的，盡管這項政策實施后可能會出現很多問題。畢竟，很難準確地確定一個公司或個人所制造的污染的比例，因此，對于一個公司或個人應支付多少費用來處理污染，會有很多爭吵。不過，我相信，最終的解決辦法會找到，這樣就不會有公司或個人為自己的責任分擔而爭論了。

  解析

  (1) 本段對題目的另一個觀點進行回應，即是否應該按照造成污染的比例來確定公司和個人應該支付的款項。本文認為這個措施不錯，但很難實施。

  (2) Arise (問題或情形)出現

  (3) Put into practice 實施

  (4) After all 畢竟

  (5) In exact terms 準確地

  高分范文參考：

  Given the high costs of cleaning up the environmental pollution, some people argue that companies and individuals, rather than the government, should shoulder the financial responsibility of protecting the environment and how much they should pay depends on the amount of pollution they have produced.

  It is certainly true that the government should invoke the ‘polluter pays’ principle and make companies and individuals accountable for the damages done to the environment and human health, because this will make them feel the environmental burden of their action and stop them from doing more harm to the environment. For example, a paper-making factory will be more careful with its wastes if it is compelled to pay a tremendous amount of money for the water it pollutes, and a car owner may choose to use public transport if he is made to pay an extra pollution fee for driving.

  Yet this does not mean that the government has no share of responsibility in cleaning up the environment. In fact, in cases such as volcanic eruption and forest fire, the pollution happens, but not as a result of the improper action of any company or individual. Under such circumstances, the government should be responsible for restoring the environment.

  It is perfectly reasonable that the companies and individuals who do greater harm to the environment should pay more to clean it up, though many problems may arise when this policy is put into practice. It is, after all, very difficult to determine in exact terms the proportion of pollution a company or individual has produced, and therefore there will be many quarrels about how much a company or individual should pay to deal with the pollution. Nevertheless, I believe that a final solution will be found so that no company or individual will argue over their share of responsibility.

  建議背誦的句子

  1. It is certainly true that the government should invoke the ‘polluter pays’ principle and make companies and individuals accountable for the damages done to the environment and human health, because this will make them feel the environmental burden of their action and stop them from doing more harm to the environment.

  毫無疑問，政府應該援引“誰污染誰付費”的原則，讓企業和個人為他們對環境和人類健康造成的損害負責，因為這將使他們感覺到自己的行為對環境造成的負擔，從而阻止他們對環境造成更多的損害。

  2. In fact, in cases such as volcanic eruption and forest fire, the pollution happens, but not as a result of the improper action of any company or individual.

  事實上，遇到諸如火山爆發和森林火災這些情況，污染是會發生的，但不是任何公司或個人的不當行為造成的。

  3. It is perfectly reasonable that the companies and individuals who do greater harm to the environment should pay more to clean it up, though many problems may arise when this policy is put into practice.

  對環境危害較大的企業和個人，應該多花點錢來進行清理，這是完全合理的，盡管這項政策實施后可能會出現很多問題。

  4. It is, after all, very difficult to determine in exact terms the proportion of pollution a company or individual has produced, and therefore there will be many quarrels about how much a company or individual should pay to deal with the pollution.

  畢竟，很難準確地確定一個公司或個人所制造的污染的比例，因此，對于一個公司或個人應支付多少費用來處理污染，會有很多爭吵。