Today, we will discuss an important issue related to the environment and transportation.
Airplanes are convenient but cause significant air pollution, especially on short flights, which use more fuel per mile due to frequent takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, trains are a greener option and are becoming more popular and widely used in many regions.
To begin our discussion, I’d like you to discuss: should short flights (2 hours or less) be banned where trains are available?
Why or why not?
Andrew
I think short flights should be banned.
If we ban them, more people will take trains, making the railway busier and encouraging the government and businesses to invest in improvements.
Trains will become faster and more comfortable.
This way, more people will choose to travel by train, which is better for the environment.
Claire
Well, banning short flights might seem good, but it can cause problems.
Not all places have good trains, and improving them takes time and money.
Some places are hard to read by trains, so flying is necessary.
Without short flights, travel could become difficult, and this is inconvenient and disruptive.
9/17最新托福真題
語料 lexical resources
ban
1. such ban will enhance the infrastructure, quality, and speed of rails
2. lower carbon emission/footprint —consume lots of fuel—relying more on electricity
3. noise
4. improve passengers/peoples health in general
better seats/without high pressure/radiation
not to breathe toxic chemicals
5. competitive prices for the trains; economy /lower costs by taking trains
a. business travelers
b. all travelers
6. related industries
real estate
tourism
7. mobility
not ban
1. remote destinations
2. economic
3. efficiency
4. deprive passengers’ choice
5. capacity limit
Although banning short-distance flights is aimed to hold pollution in check, such approach will prove counterproductive on several grounds.
What Andrew argues does have some logic: when these flights are banned, people will turn to railways as the travel option, improving the infrastructure, service, and comfort of taking trains.
It must be mentioned, however, that such improvement speaks of a chronic process, while the issues of terrain, climate, and city development could foil the widespread enhancement of railways.
[many people may turn to driving or taking buses instead of embracing railway, fueling air pollution instead.]
讓步技巧的條列式解析
這裡的段落策略可以分為四步：
一、先承認對方主張有道理
“What Andrew argues does have some logic” → 用正面語言承認禁航帶來的潛在好處（鐵路改善）。
二、列舉具體優點
指出鐵路可能因為需求上升而在基礎建設、服務、舒適度上提升
這是給對方立場最強的支撐。
三、轉折引入限制條件
“It must be mentioned, however, that such improvement speaks of a chronic process” → 用however 翻轉，強調改善並非立刻可行。
4
四、提出反例與缺陷
補充說明地形、氣候、城市發展會阻礙鐵路升級，甚至有人改開車或搭巴士，反而增加污染
這就是 讓步—反駁 的典型結構：先讓對方站穩，再揭示缺口並推翻。