Basically it's a well-organized essay with minor grammatical problems. I will point out some areas that might be more refined if revised. First, 二手煙 = second-hand smoke, not second smoke. ※ 引述《dividi (阿福加油~!!)》之銘言： : In some countries, people are no longer allowed to smoke in many public : places and office buildings. Do you think this is a good rule or a bad rule? : Nowadays people are more aware of danger of second smoke. Therefore, a : controversy has been arisen that whether governments should restrict people : to smoke in public. The issue involves a conflict between our right as : individuals to freely do whatever we want and the duty of governments to : protect their citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal : interest in preventing the harm that exposure to second smoke takes : precedence over the rights of individuals to smoke liberally. : Admittedly, those who advocate unbridled smoking behavior might point out ^^^^^^^^^not commom usage here. : that since cigarettes are legal commodities, governments should respect the : right of smoking. However, this right is not absolute, nor should it bother : other people. Personally, I believe forbidding smoking in public places and : office buildings brings much good than harm due to two reasons as followed. The 2nd paragraph seems a restatement of the 1st one. I find some parts repetitive. It would be better if you combine the two and make it more coherent. : First of all, smoking behavior is indeed harmful to a society. When a person : smokes, the air one exhales contains nicotine, which is a toxic chemical that : may increase the chances of others of developing lung cancer. In fact, : according to many medical reports, smoking does much harm to people who are : exposed to second smoking than to the smokers. Consequently, authorities : should protect the right of not be exposed to harmful environments rather : than the right of freely smoking. : Secondly, I believe that exposure to smoking behavior is very likely to cause : similar behavior, especially to children. Both common sense and our : experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the behavior : they are exposed to. They might misunderstand smoking as an expression of : mature, without knowing the hurtful characteristics. Therefore, it is : governments’ responsibility to protect immature people from potential : contamination. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(what do you mean by contamination here?) In this paragraph the message is understood but the expression is confusing. For example, in the 1st sentence, whose exposure? cause what similar behavior? In addition, it's unlikely that children will not smoke if people are not allowed to smoke in public areas. The problem with children's imitation seems to lie in the media which create an image that "All heroes smoke." So you might want to revise the argument. Maybe the rule (forbidding people from smoking in the public) can help decrease the rate of children smoking. or other ways of refining it. : In conclusion, the advantages of prohibiting smoking in the public outweigh : its disadvantages. Exposure to such behavior tends to harm society and its : citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting : infringement of our right of doing whatever we want. The 2nd sentence starting from "Exposure..." is unclear. whose exposure? what behavior?(remember the subject of your previous sentence is the advantages) and what does "its" refer to? (there is no mention of the government in this paragraph). It would be better if this long sentence can be revised and maybe breaks down into several shorter sentences. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 128.205.231.174 ※ 編輯: excrement 來自: 128.205.231.174 (03/28 07:18)