1、Casting Doubts 1,Sociopolitics Jack,Procedure,Reading - note-taking - paraphrase - summaryListening - note-taking - paraphrase - summaryWriting based on model Proofreading and improvement,Reading,Structure of reading passage P 1: Topic - Viewpoint P 2: Support 1 - details and facts P 3: Support 2 -
2、details and facts P 4: Support 3 - details and facts,A contentious issue in American politics is whether or not to raise the gasoline tax. Many people support it because they believe it will help the economy. However, their beliefs are erroneous since raising the gas tax would definitely have negati
3、ve effects on the economy. To begin with, an increase in the gas tax would disrupt the economy. Many people rely upon their cars to get to work. By raising the gas tax just a few percentage points, the government would be making peoples commutes to work cost more. In many cases, they cannot afford t
4、his extra expense. In addition, if people are spending more money on gasoline, then they will spend less money purchasing other products. Since the American economy runs on consumer spending, a decrease in spending could greatly damage the economy. Second of all, an increase in the gasoline tax woul
5、d hurt those with low incomes. Naturally, it would make their gasoline more expensive, and these people simply do not have the money they would need to pay the tax. Also, since many people with low incomes live in areas with no public transportation, they might not be able to afford to go out or eve
6、n make it to their workplaces. At best, they would suffer increased financial hardship.,Note,Raising the gasoline tax - a bad idea 1. Would disrupt the economy Could hurt peoples finances - make it difficult to afford commuting to work People spend less on other products - could damage the overall e
7、conomy 2. Would hurt people with low incomes Gasoline becomes more expensive - poor people can not afford it No public transportation - people cannot get to work or go out,Summary for the reading,Although some people believe the government should increase the gasoline tax, it would actually harm the
8、 economy. First, many people use their cars to drive to work. Raising the gas tax would make these trips more expensive. And then people would spend less money in buying other products. The American economy need people to buy things, or else it will start getting bad. Also, a high gasoline tax would
9、 be bad for people who earn low salaries. They might not even be able to afford to drive to work. They might not even able to afford to drive to work. Since they cannot take public transportation, it would be difficult for them to get around.,Lecture,While we are on the topic of taxes, lets discuss
10、another touchy issue. Im referring, of course, to the gasoline tax. I must say that Im strongly in favor of raising the gas tax for a number of reasons. Allow me to explain a couple of them. One argument people always like to use against the gas tax is that it will disrupt the economy. Well, I disag
11、ree. For one thing, our economy is way too complex for just one factor to hurt the economy. A raise in percentage points in the gas tax wouldnt in any way dramatically harm our economy. Also, there are many other factors that are already doing tremendous economic damage. Health care expenses and fix
12、ing the nations infrastructure are just two of these. Also, lets think about how people with low incomes would be affected. Yes, the gas tax would take money that they cant afford to spend out of their pockets. However, all it takes is a little creativity to solve this problem. For example, the gove
13、rnment could give tax breaks to people whose incomes are below a certain level. This would, in a sense, give them a rebate on the gas tax. Or the government could also allow people with lower incomes to pay less money when they go to fill up their cars.,Words and phrases,Touchy adj. sensitive Refer
14、to Disrupt v. to interfere with Complex adj. complicated, intricate Dramatically adv. Severely, significantly Tremendous adj. very large Infrastructure n. Tax break relief from paying higher taxes Rebate n. repayment, refund,Note for lecture,Raising the gasoline tax - no harm to the economy1. Would
15、not disrupt the economy Economy is very complex - gasoline tax cannot hurt it Other factors are damaging economy - health and infrastructure 2. Can help poor people Give tax breaks to people with low incomes Charge less at gasoline stations - people with low incomes save money,Summary for the lectur
16、e,The professor fully supports increasing the gasoline tax for a couple of different reasons. First, he does not agree with arguments that a higher gas tax would harm the economy. Since the American economy is so big and complex, it would be impossible for an increased gas tax to damage it. Likewise
17、, issues like health care and repairing infrastructure are already causing lots of damage to be economy. Second, while people with low incomes would be hurt by an increased tax, there are ways to avoid this pain. The government could give them tax breaks to compensate them for the increase in taxes.
18、 Or they could simply pay less when they go to fill up their cars.,Planning,Structure:点对点结构Introduction Body 1 Body 2 Conclusion (optional),Introduction The professor firmly disagree with the reading passage, which states that _. Instead, the professor feels that _. Body 1To begin with, the reading
19、passage declares that _. The author also mentions that _. Since American economy _, it would start to go into decline. However, the professor believes _. Plus, a gas taxs effects cannot compare to _, which are already damaging the current economy. Body 2The reading also states that _. The professor
20、mentions that _. He also thinks that _. Conclusion The professor and the reading passage _.,Introduction,The professor firmly disagree with the reading passage, which states that increasing the gasoline tax would harm the economy. Instead, the professor feels that this would not have a negative effe
21、ct on the economy.,Body 1,To begin with, the reading passage declare that an increase in the gasoline tax would make peoples commutes cost more. The author also mentions that people would therefore spend less money. Since the American economy needs people to spend money to remain strong, it would st
22、art to go into decline. However, the professor believes the gas tax could not harm the economy since it is too complex to be affected by one tax. Plus, a gas taxs effects cannot compare to health care costs and the repair of the countrys infrastructure, which are already damaging the current economy
23、.,Body 2,The reading also states that people with low incomes will not be able to afford gas and may not be able to go to work or anywhere else. The professor mentions that the government could simply give people tax breaks. He also thinks that people with low incomes could pay less when they go to
24、gas stations.,Conclusion,The professor and the reading passage are definitely in disagreement over the gasoline tax, and both provide a couple of reasons in defense of their arguments.,Cast Doubt 2,Environment,Procedure,Reading - note-taking - paraphrase - summaryListening - note-taking - paraphrase
25、 - summaryWriting based on model Proofreading and improvement,Reading,Structure of reading passage P 1: Topic - Viewpoint P 2: Support 1 - details and facts P 3: Support 2 - details and facts P 4: Support 3 - details and facts,Because of the dangers of forest fires, some park rangers have started pr
26、omoting a new way to take care of forests. Their method is called prescribed burning. What they do is actually start fires in forest to burn down various kinds of trees or other plant life. Unfortunately, prescribed burning is not an effective method for a number of different reasons. First, fires a
27、re extremely difficult to control. While park rangers insist that they take tremendous precautions, it is still possible for a prescribed burning to rage out of control. This has actually happened in some cases. Because the rangers could not control the fire, it caused much more damage than a regula
28、r forest fire would have. In fact, fire is unpredictable. Rangers may want to burn one area but instead end up burning additional places because of the unpredictability of forest fires. In addition, prescribed burning is not cheap. It costs a large amount of money to start and control a forest fire.
29、 There are numerous people and machines involved in this process, so salaries and equipment costs must be paid. Moreover, when fires start burning uncontrollably, it costs even more money to reign them back in. all things considered, prescribed burning has many disadvantages and should not be practi
30、ced.,Words and phrases,Prescribed burning 控制燃烧，计划燃烧 Park ranger 公园管理员 Uncontrollably adv. Wildly Handle v. take care of Consult v. discuss with, check with Commence v. begin, start Rejuvenate v. enliven, invigorate Settlement n. a place where people live Authority n. a person in control or power,Not
31、e,Prescribed burning - an ineffective alternative to forest fires 1. Difficult to control Can rage out of control - can burn more areas than regular forest fires Unpredictable - may start to burn other unintended places 2. Very expensive Must pay for people and equipment Can cost more when fires beg
32、in burning uncontrollably,Summary for reading,Prescribed burning is the practice of starting forest fires on purpose and controlling them so that they burn a small area of the forest. This method, however, has some disadvantages. The first disadvantage is that the fire can sometimes get out of contr
33、ol. Fires are hard to control, and some prescribed burnings have actually gotten out of control and burned unintended places. In fact, rangers sometimes wind up burning other places because they cannot control the fires. The second disadvantage is the cost involved. Paying peoples salaries and equip
34、ment costs is expensive. Also, when the fires get out of control, it costs a lot of money to get them back under control.,Lecture,We all know that forest fires can cause lots of damage to the environment. Remember that one we had last year? Well, the forest is just now starting to recover. However,
35、some environmentalists actually believe that starting forest fires is effective. Imagine that. Its called prescribed burning, and here are its advantages. First, unlike a regular forest fire, which often burns uncontrollably, prescribed burning can be handled. Park rangers are able to manage exactly
36、 where the fire burns and even what plants and trees it burns down. There are many different prescribed burning experts and programs, so park rangers make sure to consult them before they commence with the burning. Even if the fire starts burning unpredictably, they have methods to ensure that the f
37、ire does not get out of their control and burn the wrong places. Second, there are always fires in forests. They actually help rejuvenate the forests. However, natural forest fires can cause up to ten times the damage prescribed burning does. Not only that, but natural forest fires can also get into
38、 human settlements, burn down houses, and even kill people. By using prescribed burning, authorities can control exactly what gets burned while keeping the fire on a small scale. So they can help the forest recover yet prevent it from entirely burning down.,Note for the lecture,Prescribed burning -
39、an effective alternative to forest fires Rangers handle the fires Can control exactly where fire burn and determine which trees and plants to burn Have ways to ensure fires do not get out of control 2. Helps rejuvenate forests Natural fire - ten times as damaging as prescribed fire and can burn home
40、s and kill people Can keep fires on a small scale,Summary for the lecture,The professor claims that prescribed burning actually has a number of positive benefits. The first one he cites is that park rangers are able to control these prescribed burnings. Because they consult with experts, they know e
41、xactly how to manage these forest fires. Also, if there is a case where the fire starts to get out of their control, they know a number of different methods to regain control. Second of all, the professor claims that natural forest fires cause ten times the damage that prescribed burnings do. Also,
42、natural fires often damage homes and kill people. However, prescribed burnings can take place on a small scale, burn down unwanted areas, and help the forest to rejuvenate.,Planning,Structure:点对点结构Introduction Body 1 Body 2 Conclusion (optional),Introduction,The lecturer claims that prescribed burni
43、ngs are beneficial to forests, yet the reading passage declares the opposite.,Body 1,The professor gives several reasons to counter the arguments in the reading passage. First, in contrast to the claim that prescribed burnings can get out of control, the professor says that park rangers can keep the
44、se fires under control. He also claims that rangers consult experts, so they know what they are doing. Also, the professor states that rangers have methods to control unpredictable fires. This is countered by the reading assertion that fires are so unpredictable that they can burn unintended section
45、s of forest.,Body 2,Second, the lecturer declares that natural forest fires can be ten times as dangerous as prescribed burnings and can even kill people. Meanwhile, the reading says that prescribed burnings are too expensive.,Body 3,The reading also states that it costs a lot of money to get a fire
46、 back under control. However, the professor mentions that these fires happen on a small scale, thus they are able to be controlled and can also help rejuvenate the forest.,Conclusion,The professor and reading clearly disagree with one another with regards to the usefulness of prescribed burning.,Cas
47、t Doubt 3,Education Jack,Procedure,Reading - note-taking - paraphrase - summaryListening - note-taking - paraphrase - summaryWriting based on model Proofreading and improvement,Reading,Structure of reading passage P 1: Topic - Viewpoint P 2: Support 1 - details and facts P 3: Support 2 - details and
48、 facts P 4: Support 3 - details and facts,These days, many schools and research institutions find themselves relying more and more upon educational videos and DVDs. While some purists, preferring to use books, are vehemently against this trend, the reliance upon visual materials is actually a positi
49、ve thing. First of all, educational materials are useless if the audience does not pay attention to them. The twenty-first century is a visual age. Students are much more used to watching videos and DVDs than to reading books. By relying upon visual aids, educators are more likely to capture the att
50、ention of students. Also, videos and DVDs are more easily able to explain difficult processes or ideas through the use of graphics or computer animation. This quality makes difficult topics much easier to understand, a definite merit that will help students further their education. Also, videos and
51、DVDs are much cheaper than books. Many visual aids sell for less than ten dollars while books may cost two or three times that amount. Since many students are on tight budgets, this economic benefit will help them considerably. Additionally, many schools only have to purchase one video or DVD as opposed to buying thirty or forty or more copies of the same book. By purchasing visual materials, schools can save considerable amounts of money, which they can use to buy other important materials.,
