Model Answers[Ⅰ]Q1.
According to the article, it is a complex issue, but in general, aluminum is more environmentallyfriendly. There are several reasons for this.
Plastic bottles seriously pollute our environment, whereas aluminum cans have a higher recyclerate. Plastic bottles contain only 3% recycled content, while for aluminum cans it is 68%. That is asignificant difference. One problem, however, is that aluminum uses huge amounts of electricity inthe production process, so it emits more greenhouse gases. Yet plastic bottles require the use ofmore electricity than aluminum to cool the liquids.
While there is no perfect solution, the advantages to the environment are more for aluminum.
Nevertheless, we are not sure if consumers will be attracted to drinking water from a can. Severalcompanies are now testing this. They are also testing cans which can be reclosed. Unfortunately,there may not be enough aluminum to go around, since many companies are thinking of switchingto aluminum. We will have to see what the future brings, but it is certain that something has to bedone to reduce pollution.
(179 Words)Q2.
While the reading just compares plastic and aluminum, there may be other options. One of thebest options would be for people to start using their own refillable containers. In many countriessuch as Germany, people go to the supermarket with all their own bags and containers, and put thegoods directly into those. The government might be able to convince people to bring their own“PET” bottles, glass bottles, or thermos/”suito” to the convenience store or supermarket, and fill theliquids from drink machines. This would be a challenge, but it is worth trying.
We could also increase the tax on small plastic bottles and cans, and give some incentive forpeople to buy larger containers, and then transfer the water to their own bottle or thermos at home.
We could consider to give a refund of 10 yen to customers who bring back their plastic bottles,which would increase the amount of recycling. As you see, there are a variety of possible solutionswhich we should explore.
(169 Words)[Ⅱ]Q1.
Due to the smoke exposure from wildfires, various health problems occur. In the short term, thereis an increase in sickness and respiratory problems for people exposed to smoke, such as KelseyNorton. Also, people living near a fire, as well as professional firefighters, seem to experiencehigher rates of lung cancer, and death from heart disease. And of course, many people lose theirhomes and other property.
Regarding the connection to primates, the California National Primate Research Center conducteda study on 50 baby monkeys who had been living in outdoor pens, and had been exposed to a longperiod of wildfire smoke. The study shows that the monkeys went on to develop lungs which were20% smaller than the lungs of another group, who were born one year later. So the evidence seemsstrong that these kinds of problems could develop among human children exposed to smoke, aswell.
(151 Words)Q2.
In my opinion, the primary reason for the increase in wildfires is global warming and relatedclimate change. With temperatures increasing every year, forests are becoming more dry and easyto burn. In addition, I believe the amount of rainfall has decreased during certain seasons in manyparts of the world. As a result, fires may start spontaneously, or when they are started by carelesspeople, they spread more quickly.
We must strongly explore several solutions to limit the damage caused by the wildfires. One ofthe key choices maybe not to allow people to build houses near an area that commonly has troublewith wildfires. In addition, we should thin the forests before the dry season, and the governmentsshould create spaces, or “fire breaks” between trees, at regular intervals, so there is some land withno trees and the fires may be stopped. We should pursue these and other measures to reducewildfires in the future.
(158 Words)