| 项目 | 内容 |
|---|
| 题型 | Agree/Disagree（观点类） |
| 话题 | 政府类 - 财政投资与交通基础设施 |
| 关键词 | governments, spend money, railways, rather than, roads |
| 考察能力 | 评估政府投资优先级和政策选择 |
【开头段】
├── 背景：transport infrastructure fundamental
├── 让步：recognise advantages of railways
├── 立场：either/or is overly simplistic
└── 预告：balanced investment strategy
【主体段1 - 支持铁路】
├── 环保：fraction of carbon emissions
├── 高速铁路：competitive with air travel
├── 减少拥堵：move commuters efficiently
└── 货运：remove heavy lorries
【主体段2 - 支持公路】
├── 适用范围：rural, small towns, last mile
├── 必要服务：emergency, deliveries, personal
├── 发展中国家：lack capital for rail
└── 灵活性：door-to-door, own schedule
【主体段3 - 综合观点】
├── 立场：integrated transport system
├── 铁路定位：intercity, freight corridors
├── 公路定位：local, rural, first/last mile
└── 目标：seamless intermodal transport
【结尾段】
├── 让步：railways deserve increased investment
├── 批评：declaring superior ignores complementary nature
└── 总结：both serve distinct purposes
| 词汇/短语 | 含义 | 用法示例 |
|---|
| competing priorities | 相互竞争的优先事项 | allocate resources between competing priorities |
| overly simplistic | 过于简单化 | framing this as either/or is overly simplistic |
| high-volume corridors | 高流量通道 | for high-volume corridors between cities |
| the last mile | 最后一公里 | the "last mile" of any journey |
| fixed infrastructure | 固定基础设施 | rail requires massive fixed infrastructure |
| economically viable | 经济上可行的 | viable only where volumes are high |
| intermodal transport | 多式联运 | seamless intermodal transport |
| distinct purposes | 不同的目的 | both serve distinct purposes |
| 原句 | 可迁移到 |
|---|
| "allocate limited resources between competing priorities" | 任何政府预算/投资话题 |
| "overly simplistic" | 批评任何二分法思维 |
| "economically viable only where..." | 讨论政策适用范围 |
| "an integrated system where X and Y complement each other" | 任何需要综合方案的话题 |
| "neither alone can meet diverse needs" | 批评单一解决方案 |
