TOEFL TPO 66 Writing Task 1 Sample: Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments made in the reading passage.

1.子项得分 Task fulfillment: 4 Organization: 3 Coherence and Cohesion: 3 Language Use: 3

2.预估分数 Estimated Score: 22

3.任务完成度 从任务完成度的角度来看，文章基本上回答了问题，总结了听力中的观点，并解释了它们是如何挑战阅读材料中的论点的。但是，文章在解释听力观点时缺乏详细性和准确性。为了提高任务完成度，你需要更仔细地听取讲座中的信息，并在你的文章中提供更详细、准确的解释。

Example 1: Instead of "the airships usually stay at 40 kilometers height over the surface of the earth," write "the types of airships currently in use can only rise to heights of about 14 kilometers above the surface."

Example 2: Instead of "How to balance the safety and easy the gas energy for airship is still a question under adressed," write "Finding a truly economical solution for lifting gases, one that balances safety and cost, is not an easy matter."

4.文章结构与组织 The essay has a basic structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. However, it could be improved in terms of organization and coherence. To enhance the organization, make sure each paragraph focuses on one specific point from the lecture and directly challenges a point from the reading passage. Also, use clear transitions between ideas and paragraphs to improve coherence.

Example 1: In your first paragraph, focus on discussing only one challenge to the reading passage's argument about fuel efficiency. Begin the paragraph with a clear topic sentence, such as "The lecturer challenges the claim that airships are more fuel-efficient by discussing the difficulties in finding an economical and safe lifting gas."

Example 2: Improve coherence by using clear transitions between ideas. For example, instead of "However, the lecturer argues that the choice of gas energy for airships is a question," write "However, the lecturer counters this argument by pointing out the challenges in finding an economical and safe lifting gas for airships."

5. 语法批改

The passage suggest that airshipsuggests that airships would be widely used in the future considering itstheir benefits over helicopteorshelicopters and airplanes. However, the lecturer refutes the passage and points out all theories in the passagespassage are not reasonable. Firstly, the article thinks airships use less energy than helicoptorshelicopters or airplanes, because they lift by balloon and move back orand forth by engineengine, while helicoptorshelicopters or airplaneairplanes all depend on engine energy. However, the lecturer argues that the choice of gas energy for airships is a question. The common choicechoices are hydrogon and heliom,hydrogen and helium; the former is dangerous by causingbecause it causes accidents, laterand the latter is difficult to abtainobtain and expensive. How to balance the safety and easy theease of gas energy for airshipairships is still a question under adressed addressed. Secondly, the article suggests that the airships can reach places hard to reach since they do not need long way to take off. The professor in the lesteninglistening material disagrees with this point because the balloon is difficult to control. Imagine such a situation, people use the airships to transport loglogs to the forests and moving the logmove the logs off. How to keep the airship steady during the unloading process if there is strong wind to blow the huge ballon.balloon. It is dangerous if we can't keep the airship steady enough. Thirdly, according to the passage, the airshipairships would replace satellites someday due to itstheir ability to stay long time in the sky with little fuels, they arefuel, which makes them much cheaper. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that the airships usually stay at 40 kilometers height over the surface of the earth, and there are always strong windwinds there. Therefore, the airships need more energy to keep themself stay in thethemselves in a certain position to support telecommunication functionfunctions for certain covering places. As a result, people need sentto send fuel to support the airshipairship, which will be much expensive.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The passage suggests that airships could be widely used in the future due to their advantages over helicopters and airplanes. However, the lecturer refutes these claims and highlights several issues that challenge the arguments presented in the reading.

Firstly, the article posits that airships are more energy-efficient than helicopters or airplanes, as they rely on a balloon for lift and an engine solely for horizontal movement. In contrast, the lecturer contends that selecting an appropriate lifting gas for airships remains problematic. The two common choices are hydrogen and helium; however, hydrogen is highly flammable and has caused numerous accidents, while helium is scarce and expensive. Balancing safety and cost concerns for lifting gases is still an unresolved issue.

Secondly, the passage asserts that airships can access hard-to-reach locations since they do not require lengthy runways for takeoff or landing. The professor in the listening material disputes this point, emphasizing that controlling an airship's balloon can be challenging. For instance, when using airships to transport logs from forests, maintaining stability during loading or unloading processes becomes difficult if strong winds are present. Failing to keep the airship steady could result in dangerous situations.

Lastly, according to the passage, airships may eventually replace satellites due to their ability to remain airborne for extended periods with minimal fuel consumption at a lower cost. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that airships typically operate at altitudes of around 40 kilometers above Earth's surface where strong winds prevail. Consequently, maintaining a fixed position to support telecommunications functions requires additional energy consumption. This necessitates frequent refueling which ultimately increases operational expenses.

In summary, despite potential advantages of airships mentioned in the reading passage, the lecturer presents compelling counterarguments that challenge their feasibility as a widespread mode of transportation or satellite replacement in the future. (299 words)

The passage suggest that airship would suggests that airships could be widely used in the future considering due to their advantages over helicopters and airplanes (changed "considering its benefits over helicopteors and airplanes. benefits" to "due to their advantages" for better clarity and flow). However, the lecturer refutes the passage and points out all theories in the passages are not reasonable. these claims and highlights several issues that challenge the arguments presented in the reading (rephrased for clarity).

Firstly, the article thinks airships use less energy posits that airships are more energy-efficient than helicoptors helicopters or airplanes, because as they rely on a balloon for lift by balloon and move back or forth by and an engine solely for horizontal movement (rephrased for clarity). In contrast, the lecturer contends that selecting an appropriate lifting gas for airships remains problematic (changed "is a question" to "remains problematic" for better expression). The two common choices are hydrogen and helium; however, hydrogen is highly flammable and has caused numerous accidents, while helicoptors or airplane all depend on engine energy. However, the lecturer argues that the choice of gas energy for airships helium is a question. The common choice are hydrogon and heliom, former is dangerous by causing accidents, later is difficult to abtain scarce and expensive. How to balance the Balancing safety and easy the gas energy for airship cost concerns for lifting gases is still a question under adressed an unresolved issue (rephrased for better flow).

Secondly, the article suggests that the passage asserts that airships can reach places hard to reach access hard-to-reach locations since they do not need long way to take off. require lengthy runways for takeoff or landing (rephrased for clarity). The professor in the lestening listening material disagrees with disputes this point because the point, emphasizing that controlling an airship's balloon is can be challenging (rephrased to improve expression). For instance, when using airships to transport logs from forests, maintaining stability during loading or unloading processes becomes difficult to control. Imagine such a situation, people use the airships to transport log to the forests and moving the log off. How if strong winds are present. Failing to keep the airship steady during the unloading process if there is strong wind to blow the huge ballon. It is could result in dangerous if we can't keep the airship steady enough. situations (rephrased for better flow).

Thirdly, Lastly, according to the passage, the airship would airships may eventually replace satellites someday due to its their ability to stay long time in the sky remain airborne for extended periods with little fuels, they are much cheaper. minimal fuel consumption at a lower cost (rephrased for clarity). Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that the airships usually stay airships typically operate at altitudes of around 40 kilometers height over the above Earth's surface where strong winds prevail. Consequently, maintaining a fixed position to support telecommunications functions requires additional energy consumption (rephrased for better expression). This necessitates frequent refueling which ultimately increases operational expenses (rephrased for better flow).

In summary, despite potential advantages of the earth, and there are always strong wind there. Therefore, the airships need more energy to keep themself stay in the certain position to support telecommunication function for certain covering places. As a result, people need sent fuel to support the airship which will be much expensive.airships mentioned in the reading passage, the lecturer presents compelling counterarguments that challenge their feasibility as a widespread mode of transportation or satellite replacement in the future (rephrased for clarity and better expression).

8. Mind Map

- Introduction
  - Airships' potential future use
  - Advantages over helicopters and airplanes

- Energy Efficiency
  - Reading: Airships more efficient than helicopters/airplanes
  - Lecture: Lifting gas issue (hydrogen vs. helium)

- Access to Remote Locations
  - Reading: No need for runways, can reach difficult areas
  - Lecture: Balloon control challenges, stability issues in strong winds

- Satellite Replacement
  - Reading: Longer airborne time, minimal fuel consumption, lower cost
  - Lecture: High altitude wind issues, additional energy consumption, increased operational expenses

- Conclusion
  - Lecturer's counterarguments challenge airships' feasibility as widespread transportation or satellite replacement 

9. Keywords

1.子项得分 任务完成度：4 组织：4 连贯与衔接：4 语言使用：3

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

整体来说，你的文章回答了题目要求，概括了听力中的观点，并且解释了它们是如何挑战阅读文章中的论点的。但是，有一些地方可以改进以使文章更加准确和完整。首先，在提到氢和氦这两种气体时，可以更详细地说明它们的问题。其次，在讨论飞艇在森林中运输树木时，可以更清楚地描述听力中提到的挑战。

例子1： 原文：“By contrast, the speaker indicates that the fuel is hydrogen and helium, which will not decrease the cost.” 改进：“By contrast, the speaker indicates that airships require special lighter-than-air gases like hydrogen and helium for lift, which have their own problems and will not necessarily decrease the cost.”

例子2： 原文：“However, the listening argues that the airships need tree logs to takeoff.” 改进：“However, the listening argues that using airships for picking up loads off the ground, such as tree logs in a forest, has its challenges due to their size and difficulty in maintaining stability.”

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章结构基本上是清晰的，包括引言、正文和结论。每个段落都集中在一个特定的观点和支持细节上。然而，可以改进一些过渡词和短语，使文章更加流畅。此外，有些句子可能需要重新组织以提高清晰度。

例子1： 原文：“Hence, the airship is not safe enough and econnomical comparing with the airplanes.” 改进：“Hence, when comparing airships to airplanes, they may not be as safe or economical due to the issues with lifting gases.”

例子2： 原文：“Thus, the windy condition is a big problem to airships.” 改进：“Thus, windy conditions pose a significant challenge for airships due to their size and difficulty in maintaining stability.”

5. 语法批改

The passage contends that there are several advantages of airships over airplanes and helicopters. On the other hand, the professor in the following lecture casts doubt on this point and assert that airships are not likely to be widely used.

Firstly, the passage claims that airships' fuel costs are more economical due to the ability of vertical lift and horizontal movement. By contrast, the speaker indicates that the fuel is hydrogen and helium, which will not decrease the cost. Moreover, not only the hydrogen is easy to be burned amdAMD(misspelling) fired, but also the helium is difficult to be obtained. Hence, the airship is not safe enough and econnomicaleconomical(misspelling) comparing with the airplanes. Apparently, the speaker's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.

Besides, the reading notes that the airships can be used in hard-to-reach location becasuebecause(misspelling) not only it don't need the long runway for takeoff and landing, but also it can load more than helicopters. However, the listening argues that the airships need tree logs to takeoff. She also elaborates that airships' takeoff must tomust('must to' instead of 'have to') be steady enough, otherwise, it will be dangerous becasuebecause(misspelling) it is light like a balloon. Thus, the windy condition is a big problem to airships.

Lastly, the author of the passage proposes that airships can replace satellites through its ability of rising high above surfacethe surface(This rule identifies whether the article 'the' is missing in a sentence.) and stay there without refueling for a long time. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that it cannot replace the satellites to do samethe same(This rule identifies whether the article 'the' is missing in a sentence.) tasks. Airships can only raise up 14to 14(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) kilometers height, where there is strong windsthere are strong winds(Possible agreement error 'there's' + plural noun). To resist the distraction of winds and maintain the position, airships need more fuel to achieve it. Consequently, airships cannot compare with satellites. ObivouslyObviously(misspelling), the (Two consecutive spaces)argument in the passage cannot hold water.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The passage contends that airships have several advantages over airplanes and helicopters, while the professor in the lecture casts doubt on these points, asserting that airships are not likely to be widely used in the future.

Firstly, the passage claims that airships' fuel costs are more economical due to their ability for vertical lift and horizontal movement. In contrast, the speaker indicates that airships use hydrogen and helium as fuel, which will not decrease costs. Moreover, hydrogen is highly flammable and has led to accidents in the past, while helium is difficult to obtain and provides less lifting power. Hence, airships are not as safe or economical compared to airplanes. The speaker's argument effectively challenges the claim made in the reading.

Additionally, the reading notes that airships can be used in hard-to-reach locations because they do not require a long runway for takeoff and landing and can carry heavier loads than helicopters. However, the lecturer argues that maintaining stability during takeoff is challenging for airships due to their lightweight nature. Windy conditions pose a significant problem for airships as sudden gusts can cause them to crash into surrounding obstacles like trees.

Lastly, the author of the passage proposes that airships could replace satellites due to their ability to rise high above Earth's surface and remain there without refueling for extended periods of time. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that current airship technology only allows them to reach heights of about 14 kilometers where strong winds are prevalent. To resist these winds and maintain position, airships require more fuel than initially suggested. Consequently, they cannot provide continuous uninterrupted service like satellites do. This argument further undermines the claim made in the passage regarding airship capabilities. (287 words)

The passage contends that there are airships have several advantages of airships over airplanes and helicopters. On the other hand, helicopters, while the professor in the following lecture casts doubt on this point and assert these points, asserting that airships are not likely to be widely used. used in the future. (Changed "the following lecture" to "the lecture" for better flow)

Firstly, the passage claims that airships' fuel costs are more economical due to the their ability of for vertical lift and horizontal movement. By In contrast, the speaker indicates that the fuel is airships use hydrogen and helium, helium as fuel, which will not decrease the cost. costs. Moreover, not only the hydrogen is easy highly flammable and has led to accidents in the past (rephrased "easy to be burned amd fired, but also the fired" for clarity), while helium is difficult to be obtained. obtain and provides less lifting power. Hence, the airship is airships are not as safe enough and econnomical comparing with the or economical compared to airplanes. Apparently, the The speaker's argument disproves its counterpart effectively challenges the claim made in the reading.

Besides, Additionally, the reading notes that the airships can be used in hard-to-reach location becasue locations because they do not only it don't need the require a long runway for takeoff and landing, but also it landing and can load more carry heavier loads than helicopters. However, the listening lecturer argues that the airships need tree logs to takeoff. She also elaborates that airships' maintaining stability during takeoff must to be steady enough, otherwise, it will be dangerous becasue it is challenging for airships due to their lightweight nature (rephrased "it is light like a balloon. Thus, the windy condition is balloon" for clarity). Windy conditions pose a big significant problem to airships. for airships as sudden gusts can cause them to crash into surrounding obstacles like trees (rephrased "airships need tree logs to takeoff" for accuracy).

Lastly, the author of the passage proposes that airships can could replace satellites through its due to their ability of rising to rise high above Earth's surface and stay remain there without refueling for a long extended periods of time. Nevertheless, the lecturer points out that it cannot replace the satellites to do same tasks. Airships current airship technology only allows them to reach heights of about 14 kilometers where strong winds are prevalent (rephrased "Airships can only raise up 14 kilometers height, where there is strong winds. height" for clarity). To resist the distraction of these winds and maintain the position, airships need require more fuel to achieve it. than initially suggested. Consequently, airships they cannot provide continuous uninterrupted service like satellites do (rephrased "airships cannot compare with satellites. Obivously, the satellites" for accuracy). This argument further undermines the claim made in the passage cannot hold water.regarding airship capabilities.

8. Mind Map

Mind Map:

- Introduction
  - Passage: Airships advantages
  - Lecture: Doubts on airship usage

- Fuel Costs
  - Passage: Economical fuel costs
  - Lecture: Hydrogen and helium issues
    - Safety concerns
    - Availability and lifting power

- Hard-to-reach Locations
  - Passage: No long runway needed, heavier loads than helicopters
  - Lecture: Stability issues during takeoff, windy conditions problems

- Replacing Satellites
  - Passage: High altitude, extended periods without refueling
  - Lecture: Limited height, strong winds, more fuel needed for stability

9. Keywords

1.子项得分 任务完成度: 4 组织: 4 连贯性和衔接: 4 语言使用: 4

2.预估分数

25. 3.任务完成度

你的文章基本上完成了任务要求，对阅读和听力材料中的观点进行了总结，并解释了听力材料是如何挑战阅读材料中的论点的。但是，有些地方可以进一步改进。例如，在提到反驳论点时，可以更具体地描述听力材料中提到的细节。

示例1（原文）：Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by airships is not practical from an economic perspective. 示例1（修改后）：Therefore, the lecturer argues that replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships may not be as economically practical as the reading suggests due to the costs and challenges associated with lifting gases.

示例2（原文）：This is because, airships could only rise to 14 km in the sky where there are always with strong winds, leading the fast consuming of their fuels. 示例2（修改后）：This is because airships can only rise to 14 km in altitude, where strong winds are present, causing them to consume fuel rapidly in order to maintain their position for telecommunications or surveying functions.

4.文章结构与组织 你的文章结构清晰，包括引言、正文和结论。每个段落都集中讨论了一个特定的观点，并提供了支持细节。然而，在段落之间加入更明确的过渡词或短语可以使文章更连贯。

建议1：在段落开头使用过渡词或短语，以便更清楚地引导读者从一个观点过渡到另一个观点。 示例1（原文）：Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically... 示例1（修改后）：On the other hand, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically...

建议2：在提到听力材料中的反驳论点时，使用适当的衔接词来强调对比。 示例2（原文）：In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. 示例2（修改后）：However, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case.

5. 语法批改

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airship, an important air transportation way that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airship could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economic because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used to change the way horizontally, which are different from those on airplanes and helicopters to be used on both vertical and horizontal ways. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen gases and helium gases are primarily used to maintain airships afloat would cost a lot. Since hydrogen gases are easy getting fire, leading unexpectedto unexpected(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) accidents. Also, it is hard and expensive to produce helium and store it. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift off vertically, indicating that they could get to some terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships could easily transport a large amount of cargoes which helicopters could not. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. For instance, controlling airships to lift off and land on forests area is especially difficult under windy weather. In this case, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military function because they could float and stay at very high altitudes. Besides, without the needs of refueling, airships would cost much less than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts by saying that actually airships would cost more. This is because, airships could only rise to 14 km in the sky where there are always with strong winds, leading theto the(This rule identifies whether the preposition 'to' is missing in a sentence.) fast consuming of their fuels. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.

Section Title: 6.文章修订

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airships, an important air transportation method that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used for horizontal movement, which is different from those on airplanes and helicopters that are used for both vertical and horizontal movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat, would incur significant costs. Since hydrogen is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is difficult and expensive to produce and store helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships can take off and land vertically, indicating that they could access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships can easily transport large amounts of cargo which helicopters cannot handle. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather conditions. In such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military functions because they can float at very high altitudes without needing refueling frequently. This would make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability. Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky, where strong winds are prevalent, leading to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive. (349 words)

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airship, airships, an important air transportation way method that was popular before the 1940s. 1940s (changed "way" to "method" for better word choice). The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airship airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economic economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. helicopters (changed "economic" to "economical" for proper word usage). According to the article, engines on airships are only used to change for horizontal movement (changed "change the way horizontally, horizontally" to "horizontal movement" for clarity), which are is different from those on airplanes and helicopters to be that are used on for both vertical and horizontal ways. movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen gases and helium gases and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat afloat, would cost a lot. incur significant costs (rephrased sentence for clarity). Since hydrogen gases are easy getting fire, leading is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is hard difficult and expensive to produce helium and store it. helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters by with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships could both takeoff and lift can take off vertically, and land vertically (changed "lift off" to "land" for proper terminology), indicating that they could get to some access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships could can easily transport a large amount amounts of cargoes cargo which helicopters could not. cannot handle (changed "cargoes" to "cargo" for correct plural form). In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not the case. as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships to lift off and land on forests area during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather. weather conditions (rephrased sentence for clarity). In this case, such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military function functions because they could can float and stay at very high altitudes. Besides, altitudes without the needs of refueling, airships needing refueling frequently (rephrased sentence for clarity). This would cost much less make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships would cost more. This is because, airships could might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability (rephrased sentence for clarity). Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky sky, where there strong winds are always with strong winds, prevalent, leading the fast consuming of their fuels. to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.

8. Mind Map

• Introduction

  • Airships: air transportation method
  • Reading: three reasons for future use
  • Lecture: challenges each reason

• Reason 1: Economical

  • Reading: less fuel consumption than airplanes and helicopters
  • Lecture: hydrogen and helium costs, safety concerns

• Reason 2: Vertical Takeoff and Landing

  • Reading: access difficult terrain, transport large cargo
  • Lecture: challenges in controlling airships, time-consuming

• Reason 3: Replacing Satellites

  • Reading: high altitude floating, cost-effective alternative to satellites
  • Lecture: limitations in altitude capability, increased fuel consumption

9. Keywords

Section Title: 6. Article Revision

The reading passage and the lecture both discuss airships, an important air transportation method that was popular before the 1940s. The author of the article presents three possible reasons to support that airships could be used widely in the future. However, the lecturer challenges each reason and provides detailed counterarguments.

Firstly, the writer notes that airships are economical because they use less fuel than airplanes and helicopters. According to the article, engines on airships are only used for horizontal movement, which is different from those on airplanes and helicopters that are used for both vertical and horizontal movement. Nevertheless, the speaker questions this claim, arguing that gases like hydrogen and helium, which are primarily used to maintain airships afloat, would incur significant costs. Since hydrogen is highly flammable, it can lead to unexpected accidents. Also, it is difficult and expensive to produce and store helium. Therefore, replacing airplanes and helicopters with airships is not practical from an economic perspective.

Secondly, the author claims that airships can take off and land vertically, indicating that they could access terrain difficult for airplanes. Moreover, the writer states that airships can easily transport large amounts of cargo which helicopters cannot handle. In contrast, the professor refutes this assertion by stating that it is not as simple as it seems. For instance, controlling airships during takeoff and landing in forested areas is especially difficult under windy weather conditions. In such cases, much time would be wasted for landing safely and slowly without causing damage.

Finally, the reading suggests that airships could replace satellites for telecommunication and military functions because they can float at very high altitudes without needing refueling frequently. This would make them more cost-effective than satellites. On the other hand, the lecturer rebuts this argument by saying that actually airships might end up costing more due to their limitations in altitude capability. Airships can only rise to 14 km in the sky where strong winds are prevalent, leading to rapid fuel consumption. Therefore, airships need to be constantly refueled while floating at high altitudes, which would be quite expensive.