Archive for category: 熱門英文試題

Support	Oppose
Renew ageing infrastructure: Underground utilities in old districts include water, sewage, electricity, gas and telecommunications. If they are not renewed, pipe bursts, power failures, road collapse and service disruptions become more likely. Road closures are inconvenient, but preventing future emergencies provides greater long-term protection for residents and businesses.	Short-term harm to shops can be severe: Road closures and hoardings reduce footfall, block loading and affect shop visibility. Small businesses have limited cash flow and may not survive long works. If authorities push major utility projects, they should consider rent pressure, temporary compensation and promotion support.
Support urban renewal: Urban renewal is not only about new buildings; underground infrastructure must support higher population, commercial activity and public facilities. If surface development moves faster than utility renewal, new facilities may face capacity problems. Accelerating utility works lays the foundation for long-term renewal.	Residents and transport face inconvenience: Old district roads are already narrow. Closing major streets forces detours, public transport diversions and difficulties for taxis and delivery vehicles. Elderly residents, wheelchair users and carers are especially affected. Infrastructure renewal is necessary, but construction planning must consider daily life, not only engineering.
Reduce repeated road openings: If authorities coordinate utility companies and works departments, multiple pipes and cables can be handled in one project, reducing repeated excavation later. A single project may be more disruptive, but total construction time and repeated disturbance may fall. One well-coordinated project is preferable to years of piecemeal works.	Information release is often insufficient: If notices are unclear before works begin, residents and shops cannot adjust travel, business and delivery plans. Work schedules, closure areas, noise periods and emergency contacts should be clearly announced. Even reasonable projects can cause anger if communication fails.
Improve public safety: Ageing utilities and temporary repairs may create risks such as road subsidence, leaks, gas hazards and power faults. Systematic renewal reduces sudden dangers and allows pavements, roads and fire access to be redesigned. In dense old districts, infrastructure safety is closely tied to daily life.	Works may overrun or exceed budgets: Underground utilities are complex. Inaccurate drawings, unrecorded pipes or technical problems can extend works. If authorities estimate too optimistically, residents and shops face longer disruption than promised. Before accelerating projects, risk plans and transparent progress updates are needed.
mprove long-term business conditions: Shops may suffer during works, but after completion, better roads, drainage, lighting and public space may improve footfall and business conditions. If old districts retain ageing infrastructure, businesses also face sudden outages and poor street environments. Renewal can raise district attractiveness.	Phased and night works should come first: Instead of closing large road sections at once, authorities could use phased works, night-time construction, temporary pedestrian routes and short-term diversions. These may lengthen the project slightly, but they reduce harm to daily life and business activity. Efficiency should not override community capacity.

Support	Oppose
Protect passengers and pedestrians: Public light buses and passenger vehicles pick up and drop off frequently on busy streets. When they lose control, passengers, pedestrians and roadside shops can all be affected. Stronger speed monitoring, collision-prevention systems and driver behavior records can reduce serious accident risks. Public transport carries many people and should meet higher safety standards than private cars.	Operating costs will rise: Public light bus and passenger transport operators face higher costs if they must install new devices, renew fleets, add recording systems and arrange driver checks. Some routes already have unstable demand. If costs are passed to fares, passengers pay more; if not, operators may reduce services or leave routes.
Improve driver working-hour management: Professional drivers spend long hours on the road and may be affected by fatigue, pressure and health problems. Authorities can require clearer working-hour records, rest arrangements and health checks to prevent drivers from working while tired or unwell. This protects not only passengers but also drivers themselves.	Driver shortages may worsen: The industry already faces ageing drivers and recruitment difficulties. If requirements rise sharply, such as more frequent health checks or shorter hours, some drivers may leave the market and service shortages may worsen. Safety reform must be paired with better pay and working conditions.
Promote vehicle safety technology: Modern vehicles can include automatic braking, lane-departure warnings, blind-spot detection and speed records. Introducing these features gradually into passenger transport vehicles can provide extra protection when drivers are distracted or cannot react in time. Public transport safety should not rely only on driver experience.	Technology cannot prevent all accidents: Automatic braking and warning systems help, but weather, road conditions, sudden pedestrian behavior and device failure can still cause accidents. If people assume devices can eliminate risk, they may neglect road design, pedestrian arrangements and driver training.
Strengthen public trust: Serious accidents weaken confidence in public transport and affect visitors’ impression of urban transport management. If authorities introduce systemic improvements after incidents, such as stronger inspections, public safety data and follow-up on high-risk routes, people are more likely to believe safety is being addressed seriously.	Too much regulation may reduce flexibility: Public light buses provide flexible services that reach deeper into communities. If regulation makes them operate too much like large buses, flexibility may fall and remote or low-demand districts may suffer. Policy should not remove the supplementary role of smaller transport services.
Reduce post-accident costs: Traffic accidents create medical, compensation, investigation, road-closure and insurance costs. Preventive measures that reduce accident rates can lower wider social costs in the long run. Although safety equipment and regulation require investment, prevention is often more in the public interest than paying after serious casualties.	Road environment should be improved first: Some accidents relate to junction design, pavement protection, stop locations and congestion. If responsibility is placed mainly on operators and drivers, road-environment risks may be ignored. Authorities should also review accident blackspots, barriers, stops and traffic-light arrangements.

Support	Oppose
Protect lives: Extreme weather can quickly cause flooding, landslides, heatstroke, falling trees and traffic accidents. If suspension arrangements are unclear, people may still have to travel in dangerous conditions. More binding rules reduce inconsistent decisions by employers, schools and institutions, placing safety above routine schedules.	Affect economic activity: If suspension thresholds are too easily triggered, retail, logistics, construction and services may stop frequently, causing income loss and project delays. Dense cities have complex operations, and full suspension affects supply chains and cross-boundary business. Rules must avoid excessive conservatism.
Protect outdoor workers: Construction, cleaning, security, logistics, repair and delivery workers face high exposure to rainstorms and heat. Voluntary employer arrangements may vary widely. Mandatory rest, hydration, shade, adjusted hours and suspension standards can reduce heatstroke and injuries while improving workplace fairness.	Risks vary by industry: Offices, hospitals, public transport, logistics and outdoor works face different weather risks. One rule for all sectors may be too rigid. A better approach may be graded guidance based on job nature, district risk and service necessity rather than blanket suspension.
Support vulnerable groups: Elderly people, chronically ill residents, low-income families and people in poor living conditions face higher risks during heat or storms. If rules trigger cooling centers, temporary shelters, outreach visits and supplies, extreme-weather arrangements become part of social protection, not merely administration.	Compensation is complex: Whether suspended work is paid, whether employers can require remote work, and how temporary or self-employed workers are protected are complicated questions. Unclear rules may create labor disputes. Extreme-weather arrangements must align with labor, insurance and business systems.
Adapt to climate change: Extreme weather may become more frequent, and cities cannot rely on ad hoc responses every time. Institutional standards allow firms, schools and families to prepare remote work, online classes, childcare and roster changes. Clear rules are more reliable than case-by-case announcements.	Forecasts remain uncertain: Weather forecasting is advanced, but heavy rain and local flooding can still be uncertain. If suspension is announced too early and impacts are mild, the public may question overuse; if too late, protection fails. Turning forecasts into legal duties is difficult.
Reduce transport chaos: During extreme weather, mass commuting can create station crowding, flooded roads and public transport delays. Clear suspension rules reduce unnecessary travel and allow emergency services, repair teams and essential workers to use transport networks first, improving urban emergency efficiency.	Infrastructure resilience should come first: Suspension reduces travel risk but does not solve flooding, drainage gaps, slope risks or insufficient outdoor shade. Authorities should invest in drainage, slopes, public transport contingency and older-district facilities. Rules matter, but they cannot replace long-term infrastructure investment.

Support	Oppose
Restore public revenue: Electric-car tax concessions help early adoption, but maintaining them for too long reduces public revenue. Once model choices increase, prices fall and market acceptance improves, the need for incentives declines. Phasing them out allows resources to be used for charging networks, public transport and other environmental projects.	May slow electric-car adoption: Even though electric-car prices have fallen, purchase costs may still be higher than many conventional vehicles. Sudden removal of tax concessions may cause owners to delay replacement and keep petrol cars longer. If the goal is transport decarbonization, early withdrawal may weaken adoption incentives.
Avoid subsidizing wealthier car owners: Private cars are costly purchases, and buyers of new electric cars may not be the groups most in need of public support. Large tax concessions for private car buyers may be seen as benefiting middle- and higher-income groups. Removing them can make resource allocation fairer.	Charging facilities may still be insufficient: Electric-car adoption depends not only on vehicle prices but also charging convenience. If old buildings, estates and public car parks lack chargers, switching remains difficult. Removing concessions before infrastructure is ready may send mixed signals and weaken market confidence.
Mature markets should return to normal competition: Improved technology, more models and lower battery costs show that electric cars no longer rely entirely on subsidies. Long-term concessions may create dependence among sellers and buyers and delay price adjustment. Phasing out incentives pushes companies to compete on quality, price and service.	Affect middle-class replacement plans: Some owners may have planned replacement based on expected concessions. Sudden or rapid withdrawal changes cost calculations. For families, the first-registration tax difference can be large enough to affect the decision. A longer transition period could reduce disruption.
Reduce incentives for private-car growth: Even if electric cars are cleaner, more private cars still create congestion, parking demand and road pressure. Strong tax incentives may encourage car ownership instead of public transport use. Removing some concessions shifts the policy focus from buying more cars to low-carbon mobility.	May weaken emission-reduction progress: Transport emissions are an important part of urban decarbonization. If electric-car sales slow after concessions end, petrol-car replacement will also slow. Long-term carbon goals require stable policy signals. Uncertain support makes it harder for owners, dealers and charging operators to invest.
Enable more targeted green policy: Instead of broad subsidies for electric private cars, resources can go to commercial vehicles, taxis, buses, chargers and electricity upgrades in older districts. These may bring greater emission reduction and public benefit. Phasing out concessions does not abandon green transport; it redirects support to higher-impact areas.	Gradual reduction may be better than cancellation: Public authorities could reduce concessions year by year or target support based on vehicle price, battery efficiency or buyer circumstances instead of ending them at once. This would reduce fiscal burden while maintaining transition incentives. A gradual approach may better balance environmental and financial goals.

Support	Oppose
Improve passenger convenience: Electronic payment reduces problems such as giving change, insufficient cash and currency exchange, especially for visitors and people who rarely carry cash. As an important point-to-point transport service, taxis would fall behind modern consumer habits if they relied only on cash. Multiple payment options can make rides smoother and improve the industry’s image.	Increase drivers’ costs: Payment devices, transaction fees, network services and maintenance support may all add operating costs. Some drivers have unstable income, and once promotional fee waivers end, costs may fall on them. Without long-term support, a mandatory rule may put pressure on frontline drivers.
Support smart city development: Digital transport payment is part of a smart city ecosystem, linking public transport, retail and tourism services. Requiring electronic payment in taxis is not only an industry upgrade but also an improvement in overall urban services. In the long run, digital transaction records may also help analyse travel demand and improve transport planning.	Elderly or less tech-savvy drivers may be affected: Some drivers are older and may not be familiar with payment apps, settlement procedures or troubleshooting. Mistakes can delay trips or upset passengers. Training and technical support are needed; otherwise, more payment options may create confusion rather than better service.
Reduce fare disputes: Cash transactions can create misunderstandings over change, fare calculation or communication. Electronic payment clearly records the amount, time and transaction details, giving both passengers and drivers evidence. If complaints arise, platforms and enforcement bodies can check records more easily and reduce conflicting claims.	System failures may disrupt service: Electronic payment depends on networks, phones, devices and platform systems. Failure in any part may stop payment. Taxis operate outdoors, in tunnels, remote areas and busy periods where signals may be unstable. If electronic payment is mandatory, cash should still remain as a backup.
Improve visitor experience: In major cities, transport convenience strongly affects visitors’ impressions. Travellers may not be familiar with local cash, money exchange or ATM locations. If taxis accept common electronic payment methods, arrival and travel become easier. This strengthens visitor reception capacity and benefits retail, catering and tourism.	A one-size-fits-all rule may be unsuitable: Different drivers and fleets serve different passenger groups. Some mainly serve regular or short-distance riders, and electronic payment demand may vary. Applying the same rule to all taxis may ignore industry differences. A phased approach could first target high-demand districts and fleets.
Promote industry modernisation: The taxi industry has long faced pressure over service quality and competition. Electronic payment can be a starting point for reform. Once drivers become familiar with digital tools, it becomes easier to introduce e-receipts, lost-property tracking, complaint follow-up and fleet management. A basic payment requirement can push the traditional industry to upgrade.	Privacy and data security require attention: Electronic payment creates transaction records involving ride time, location, amount and payment tools. If platform security is weak, data may be misused or leaked. When promoting cashless payment, public authorities should also set clear data protection, complaint and liability mechanisms.