[Deactivated user]
could on one of the English language professionals assess my integrated writing skills in TOEFL?

In this set of materials, both, the reading passage and the listening portion address the topic of eco-tourism, or alternatively green-tourism. The lecturer posits that although eco-tourism has fewer disadvantages than the other means of tourism, such as ordinary tourism, it still has got several drawbacks. By making such a claim the lecturer argues against the validity of theory alleged in the passage. She manages to do so by providing the rigorous arguments, that are listed as follow.
First, the lecturer pushes forth the idea that the eco-tourism leads to some environmental damages, since, according to her, there should be a track or road constructed for tourists to reach the side. If follows that, the trees should inevitably been cut and, this also leads to water and environmental pollution. This information, directly contradicts to that of conveyed in the article, claiming that in case the government, instead of allowing the loggers to cut down the rainforest, decides to keep this treasure and develop it as a sightseeing for tourists, it will get rid of environmental damage, in terms of logging, farming etc.
Furthermore, the professor believes that developing eco-tourism does not benefit the people, in terms of employment. She explains her assumption by claiming that the wages for the workers, who are employed to the eco-tourism extent, are considerably low. Thus, according to classroom discussion the green-tourism is not as appealing, in terms of providing jobs, as the reading passage claims to be.
Moreover, the lecturer also takes time to demonstrate the further argument. She feels that there are an abundant number of people heading for the side where the eco-tourism offers the jobs, and it, in turn, leads to mixing the two underlined cultures. Therefore, this argument, again, perfectly challenges on the one demonstrated in the article.
To sum up, in the listening portion the lecturer takes time to go against the overall content of the article, that holds that the eco-tourism is a rare situation in which each side benefits from it, namely, the government, tourists and the overall population. She efforts to do so through demonstrating a numerous side effects of eco-tourism and defining her point further with the help of several rigorous arguments. For these reasons, the reading passage and the listening portion are in direct opposition with each other.

May 1, 2014 9:47 PM