huluhulufei 的作业贴~

huluhulufei

7月23日Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To make children do well at school, parents should limit the hours that a child spends on watching TV. Use specific reasons to support your answer.



The education of the next generation is one of the most significant issues of modern society. Parents have found various ways to instigate their children’s interests on academic works. However, confining amusement will hardly make any effect on promoting children’s appetite for knowledge. Obviously, I disagree with the statement that parents should limit the hours that a child spends on watching TV in order to make them do well at school. The reasons are as follows.

To begin with, it’s TVs that arouse children’s interests, teach what they can’t learn on campus. For example, children will learn the landscape of a nation though they have never been there; they’ll learn true love, kindness, and friendship by watching a movie on TV and they have the opportunity to conclude the communicating skills by watching chatting programs on TV. Therefore, TV will lay a solid foundation for children to improve themselves. Children will have more experiences deal with both life and academic works at school. So TVs has positive influence on children’s behavior on campus.

In addition, the limitation from parents may have an opposite effect on their purpose. Children are not pets, so they won’t accept parent’s idea unless they recognize its inner value. Teenagers are those who are dramatically fond of amusements. And also, they hate any kind of limitations on them. It’s quite obvious to see the result if their parents push hardly on them to only concentrate on their academic works, without any permission of a break. They’ll have a strong tendency to find other ways to amuse themselves like playing computer games on the internet or listening to the music. Therefore, the limitation will be harmful to the next generation.

I concede that TVs have negative influence on children in some extant. However, no one can find something absolutely positive without any weakness. The advantages of TVs can outweigh their disadvantages. What’s more, children have rights to handle their own affairs. If they’re really interested in the academic, they’ll find time to deplore the academic issues, to communicate with professors. On the contrary, if they’re not, the limitation of watching TVs will have no effect their better performance on campus, because they dislike it. In this way, it’s up to children’s interests that influence their behavior at school. No one can force them.

In sum, I disagree with the statement that parents should limit their children’s hours on watching TVs in order to make them do well at school, because TVs help children develop their own interest, teach them various life and academic skills, and it’s children’s right to handle their own affairs.

huluhulufei

7.23 综合TPO 14


The reading passage holds the point that salvage logging is beneficial both to a damaged forest and to the economy. However, the professor in the lecture argues that salvage logging will bring longer damage to the forest, and the economy will not be promoted longer. He uses three specific points to support his idea.

First, the reading claims that the dead trees will decompose in the forest, which is harmful to the new trees generations, and salvage logging will provide space for new generation. On the contrary, the professor points out that the natural decomposition of trees will enrich the soil, leaving the soil rich nutrition, which is beneficial to the new trees generation. Therefore, the statement of the professor proves its counterpart untenable.

Second, though the reading asserts that moving away dead trees will prevent insects, such as the spruce bark beetle, which is harmful to new trees, the professor proves this statement indefensible. Not all the insects are harmful to the forest, and the spruce bark beetle has already living in the forest for hundred years. Obviously, it doesn't make any damage. Also, some of the insects and birds that habit on the dead trees contribute to the forest's longer health, and the salvage logging will do more harm to the forest than harmful insects do.

Third, the professor claims that the economic benefit of salvage logging is small and can not last long. He further supports his idea by the fact that the industries need to use expensive implement, such as the helicopters, to move away the dead trees, so the cost is really high. In addition, it's a temporary phenomenon that more workers are needed, and the workers should be more experienced and training than the local villagers are.

kchszy061ban

蓝色为意见或建议高亮为精彩绿色为总结红色为错误
The reading passage holds the point that it's an unfortunate development that rare and important fossils are being sold to private ownership instead to museums. However, the professor in the lecture claims that the evident that the reading provides are too exaggerated and the advantages of doing so outweigh its disadvantages. He uses three specific points to support his idea.

First, the reading asserts that selling fossils to private ownership will prevent the public to see the collections. On the contrary, the professor points out that it's just because of the exposure of fossil that the public can have a look at the fossils and purchase them. Even the low-level public institutions can purchase them to exhibit for the public, so the public has more opportunities to have a look at the fossils. Thus the professor's statement disproves its counterpart in the reading.

Second, even though（这个好像不用连用？） the reading insists that scientists will lose great opportunities to find discoveries about extinct life forms because the fossils will be sold to the private ownership, the professor points out the statement unconvincing. Without the identification from scientists, who can make the value of fossils? （这个后面要不要+argued by the professor）
By making detail examinations and tests, scientists will not miss out potential crucial discoveries. Therefore, the reading passage's statement is untenable.

Third, the reading claims that the commercial fossil collectors will destroy valuable scientific evidence associated with the fossils they unearth, and the professor concedes it's true. However, if scientists are those who have the absolute right to collect fossils, much more fossils will surely be undiscovered for a dramatic long time. Therefore, it's commercial fossil collectors that make great contribution to the large amount of fossil findings. Their advantages outweigh the disadvantages. So it's of significance for commercial fossil collectors to dig fossils. In this way, the professor proves the reading's assertion indefensible.
综合写的太好了，听力要点齐全。

lcaecar

feifei不好意思看错了..没有注意到那个 is correct...
麻烦帮改一下7.22号的作文
http://forum.chasedream.com/TOEFL_Writing/thread-735715-3-1.html

huluhulufei

正改着你就来啦！！ 刚刚改好，快去看看吧！！加油！！

hansxiao7

The education of the next generation is one of the most significant issues of modern society. Parents have found various ways to instigate their children’s interests on academic works. However, confining amusement will hardly make any effect on promoting children’s appetite for knowledge. Obviously(感觉这里是前后因果？用hence一类的会好一些）, I disagree with the statement that parents should limit the hours that a child spends on watching TV in order to make them do well at school. The reasons are as follows.

To begin with, it’s (不允许用缩略词）TV that arouse children’s interests, teach what they can’t learn on campus. For example, children will learn the landscape of a nation though they have never been there; they’ll learn true love, kindness, and friendship by watching a movie on TV and they have the opportunity to conclude the communicating skills by watching chatting programs on TV. Therefore, TV will lay a solid foundation for children to improve themselves. Children will have more experiences deal with both life and academic works at school. So TVs has positive influence on children’s behavior on campus.(最好在段中加入 只有给他们足够的时间看 才能让他们学到更到 The more time they spend in watching TV, the more knowledge they are able to acquire)

In addition, the limitation from parents may have an opposite effect on their purpose. Children are not pets, so they won’t accept parent’s idea unless they recognize its inner value. Teenagers are those who are dramatically fond of amusements. And also, they hate any kind of limitations on them. It’s quite obvious to see the result if their parents push hardly on them to only concentrate on their academic works, without any permission of a break. They’ll have a strong tendency to find other ways to amuse themselves like playing computer games on the internet or listening to the music. Therefore, the limitation will be harmful to the next generation.

I concede that TVs have negative influence on children in some extant. However, no one can find something absolutely positive without any weakness. The advantages of TVs can outweigh their disadvantages. What’s more, children have rights to handle their own affairs. If they’re really interested in the academic, they’ll find time to deplore the academic issues, to communicate with professors. On the contrary, if they’re(这里也是） not, the limitation of watching TV will have no effect （on) their better performance on campus, because they dislike it(冗了）. In this way, it’s up to children’s interests that influence their behavior at school. No one can force them.

In sum, I disagree with the statement that parents should limit their children’s hours on watching TVs in order to make them do well at school, because TVs help children develop their own interest, teach them various life and academic skills, and it’s children’s right to handle their own affairs.

嗯。。。提两点建议 一个是文章中不够specific，只说理的话不是很充足 比如你可以在第一个论证段加一些电视节目的名称啊 saturday night live 啊 discovery 啊 national geographic啊 第二个就是注意在文章中的切题 思路还不错 继续加油吧少年

sherryzhangh

.23 综合TPO 14
你好, 改的不好,见谅.

The reading passage holds the point that salvage logging is beneficial bothto both a damaged forest and to the economy. However, the professor in the lecture argues that salvage logging will bring consistent longer damage to the forest, and the economy will not be promoted longersustained in the long term. He presenteduses three specific arguments points to support his idea.
第一段观点清晰，总起句表达可更准确。
First, the reading claims that the dead trees will decompose in the forest, which is harmful for new trees to generate to the new trees generations, as and salvage logging will provide space for the new generation. On the contrary, the professor points out that the natural decomposition of trees will enrich the soil, leaving the soil (with) rich nutrition, which is beneficial to the cultivation of new trees the new tree generation. Therefore, the statement of the professor proves its counterpart untenable.
表达时用词尽量避免重复
Second, though the reading asserts that moving away dead trees will prevent insects, such as the spruce bark beetle, which poses danger to the survival of saplingsis harmful to new trees, which is proved indefensible by the professor prove this statement indefensible. Not all the insects are harmful to the forest and the spruce bark beetle has already lived in the forest for hundreds of years. Obviously, it doesn't casue makeany damage. Moreoveralso, some of the insects and birds that inhabit the dead trees contribute to the forest's sustainable health, and the salvage logging will therefore do more harm to the forest than harmful insects do.
在论述观点时应包含必要的清楚的细节
Third, the professor claims that the economic benefit of salvage logging is small and can not unlikely to last long. He further supports his idea by the fact that the industries need to use expensive implement, such as helicopters, to move away the dead trees, so the cost of which is very high. In addition, it's a temporary phenomenon that morea large amount of workers is needed, who and the workersshould be more experienced and trained than the local villagers are.

口语表达应优化，用词准确

huluhulufei

谢谢Hence 和 Sherry 的批改！！撒花~~~
独立的那篇文章， 我确实只是说理而少例证。 感觉这个问题很生活化~~~ Hence 关于 TV program 的举例提议很好！ 我都没有想到嗫~~哈哈，刚刚想到Oprah 的talking show~~也可以加进去~ National Geographic 我也很喜欢看呢！ 论述的部分我应该写得更充分一些！ 显得有些敷衍了嗫？哈~该打。。。。。  总之谢谢Hence 的细心批改！

综合的那篇文章，确实是表述不够精细，思考欠佳！ 以后一定注意！！ 谢谢Sherry ~~~撒花~~花~~~

huluhulufei

7.24 综合TPO 15

The reading passage holds the point that cane toad in Australia can be deracinated by three measures. However, the professor in the lecture points out that these three measures will not stop the spread of the cane toad, but cause serious environment problems. He gives three specific reasons to support his idea.

First, the reading claims that by building a national fence, the spread of the toad will be prevented. On the contrary, the professor argues that fence won't have such effect. The young toads and toad's eggs are always in streams and rivers, which are flowing almost. Therefore, it's reasonable that young toads and eggs will be carried to get through the fence. In this way, the professor's statement disproves its counterpart in the reading.

Second, the professor concedes that volunteers will kill a large amount of cane toads. However, the untrained volunteers have little ability to identify toad and frogs. In other words, they'll have difficulty distinguishing the two species, especially the young ones. Hence, they'll kill many national frogs, which may be endangered. In this way, the professor proves the statement in the reading untenable.

Third, the reading maintains that the disease-causing virus will control the cane toad populations. And the virus will harm the cane toads only. However, the professor points out this statement indefensible by the fact that there are still reptiles and amphibian species infected, though not harmed by the virus, will be transported to other places such as South American. Once these animals arrive on America, the virus they carry will be a great damage to the local cane toad. The virus may cause ecosystem disaster either.

huluhulufei

7月24日Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? There is never a reason to be rude (impolite) to another person. Use specific reasons to support your answer.



Nowadays people have to make great effort striving in this highly competitive society. It’s common to have conflicts between whatever colleagues and friends. However, is it a kind of reason to be rude to others in order to eliminate the conflicts? I don’t think so. From my perspective of view, I agree with the statement that there’s never a reason to be rude to another person. The reasons are as follows.

To begin with, others will look down on us if we are rude, and no matter what the reason is. To be polite, kind, and warm-hearted is a reflection of our well-educated background, social status, and great manners. Have you ever seen a man dressed up, saying bestial words? The answer is obviously not. Rude has a magic power, which makes a strong obstacle between people and their friends. As long as one knows another’s rude personality, he’ll think of him impolite and lack of education. Such feelings will spread among his social network. Unluckily, no one would like to treat him as true friends. In this way, rude is dramatically a terrible tool to make others look down on us.

In addition, it is rude that break relationships. Friends are those who can help us when we are in need of a helping hand. No one can deny that there’re conflicts among even the best friends. Someone chooses rude as their way to solve the conflicts. However, it always results in a terrible circumstance—broken friendship. Rude words will hurt others, making no use to the origin of the problem. What’s more, only parents can forgive you without any reason. Even among best friends, there’re still some rules that can’t offend. Obviously, the relationships between people are complex and convoluted.

What’s more, it is rude that makes things worse especially works. For example, I have ever been a computer company for internship one summer, and was designated as a member of a team, which took the responsibility of developing the appearance of a new computer type. It impressed me strongly because of the meetings that the team held. Each time we started to discuss about a design, those who opposed it said tons of rude words to those who supported it. Therefore, the meeting had to be held over and over again. Unluckily, the final decision hadn’t come out until the deadline. Finally, the group was dismissed by the leader of the company. I learned the lesson from the experience that rude could only make things worse, though the reason was for the things itself.

In sum, I agree with the statement that there’s no reason to be rude to others because it will make others look down on us, break the relationship with friends, and make works worse.