橙za的作文贴！求各位狠拍赐教！几百年没写过作文了！

bonnenuit

用过去表示虚拟语气 一般是用在指事情已经完成 不可能再会发生的情况下的模拟
比如说 if i were you， i would not do that，，是指你已经把这个事做了， 然后再假设如果当时我是你， 我就不会那么做 而且这个事情可能不会再发生在我身上

一般现在时或者将来时多表示对未来的模拟 可能会发生，比如 if it does not rain tomorrow, I will go there, 如果明天不下雨, 我就去，是表示对未来的猜测
并不是有if 都用虚拟的语气

chengzaaaa

谢谢bonne解答！！！

chengzaaaa

橙子10.8独立
People who move out of their native village or town are more successful and happier than who stay in their native village or town for their whole life. A\D

Nowadays, people often leave their native village or town to go to other cities to find a job or pursue their dreams. But are these people more successful and happier than those who never left for their whole life? I do not think that is necessarily true.

For starters, whether people feel successful and happy largely depends on their attitude about what they do. Some young people move to big cities in the hope of finding a better job that pays more. However, having a job with no interest and passion does not bring happiness and a sense of fulfillment, even with high salary. Villagers may not make a lot of money, but loving their jobs make them live a much more pleasant and delightful life than those who left home and do miserable jobs. I have some relatives who never left the village they are in. My aunts, who make a modest living by planting pear trees, always tell me about interesting details of pears and trees, and they live happy lives. Some of my cousins who live in the cities, however, complains and whines about how they are annoyed by the jobs and that they feel unlucky all the time. So, living in villages is not any worse than struggling in cities.

Secondly, people in big cities are probably much unhealthier than people who never left native towns. The condition of health is a significant part to consider when it comes to assessing a person’s success and happiness. Big city dwellers work so hard that they develop all kinds of diseases that would not happen to them if they stayed at hometowns. Many young people have sore necks and problems with livers and spleens. In villages and countryside where there is less pollution, people breathe in cleaner air and have regular meals and exercises, and so they are generally healthier. Life with chronic pain and regular appointments with doctors certainly make people less happy and fulfilled than life with unlimited energies.

Admittedly, leaving villages and moving to metropolitan cities also brings some benefits. Being in a competitive environment makes people feel more motivated and work harder. They can meet people with different backgrounds, have more colorful experiences and make more money, which all contribute to happiness. Young people have more opportunities and breaks for their career. That give them chances to pursue success.

People are allowed to make their own choices. We cannot say for sure which way is better, staying at home or going out to see the world. But I believe that as long as we appreciate and enjoy what we do in life, we will have a successful and happy life.

loveluyuanbai

不好意思 来晚了

chengzaaaa

不好意思 来晚了

-- by 会员 loveluyuanbai (2012/10/9 23:55:39)

谢谢修改！

chengzaaaa

第一次计时写。。。。。。怂怂的

橙子10.13独立
Do you agree or disagree? It is better to work with your own computer and telephone at your home than work in your company's office.

Terrible traffics and tiny cubicles at the office have always make people want to flee from the company and work at home. But is it really a better idea to work with our own computer and telephone at home than working in the company’s office? I do not think that is necessarily true.

For starters, people tend to be lazy when they are at home. The minute I got home from work every day, I feel so exhausted that the only thing I want to do is throw myself on the couch and never get up. I do not want to move for one bit. That is what homes are for us. We feel comfortable and relaxed at home, and we feel motivated and urgent at work. It is safe to say that most people are used to the coziness and relaxation at home, so for them, home is a place for rest and comfort, not for work and intensity. If these people work at home, they will not work as hard as they would if they are in companies, because they feel relatively relaxed instead of urgency and intensity. Laziness no doubt leads to lower productivity.

Second, the effectiveness of communications is less well achieved from working at home. When we work, especially in industries such as advertisement and business, communicating with other people is an inevitable part. Although, thanks to the advanced technology, we can talk to one another through videos, communications through internet are surly not as effective as talking face to face. People can’t literally see each other, the sincerity is less felt, and the messages conveyed are less well received. The quality of work will be poorer. To better communication, people should work at company instead of at home.

Admittedly, working at home is not a bad idea for all people. For those who can easily concentrate on what they do and whose job does not require very frequent communication with others, working at home might be a better idea. For example, for freelance writers, compared to a noisy desk at the company where everyone is running around answering phones, a desk at home with silence is the best choice.

To sum up, I believe that working at companies is a better choice than working at home. To achieve high productivity and effective communications, we should spend our working time at companies.

chengzaaaa

此生第一篇托福综合。。。。。求各种拍哟
最后删删删223个词，是不是其实可以写多点儿。。。

橙子10.13综合TPO23
The reading passage talks about three possible explanations for the declining populatino fo yellow cedar.  The insects, the bears, and the climate change. However, the professor in the lecture thinks that none of them is adequate.

For the first hypothesis, the professor mentioned that healthier yellow cedars are more resistant to insects. For example, they have resistance for the poisons and chemicals that will kill the insects. The records in the reading could be explained that the beetles tended to hurt the trees that were already damaged. So the beetles are not the fundemental reason for the decline.

The professor does not think that bears were the cause, either. He memtioned that yellow cedars are abundant all across North America coasts, including some islands. However, there were no bears on islands, and so the declining population on the islands could not be attributed to bears. Since the trees declined with or without the bears, the bears are not the real cause.

For the third hypothesis, the professor said that this theory ignored one important fact. The dead yellow cedars at lower elevations where it is warmer were actually more than those at higher elevations where it is colder. Though the fact that climate change made the tree more sensitive is valid, it does not qualify the frost as the reason for the decline.

kiddy72

Terrible traffics and tiny cubicles at the office have always make people want to flee from the company and work at home. But is it really a better idea to work with our own computer and telephone at home than working in the company’s office? I do not think that is necessarily true. 开头简洁明了～赞一个！

For starters, people tend to be lazy when they are at home. The minute I got home from work every day, I feel so exhausted that the only thing I want to do is throw myself on the couch and never get up. I do not want to move for one bit. That is what homes are for us.home可数么？We feel comfortable and relaxed at home, and we feel motivated and urgent at work. 这句前后其实没什么关联 It is safe to say that most people are used to the coziness and relaxation at home, so for them, home is a place for rest and comfort, not for work and intensity. If these people work at home, they will not work as hard as they would if they are in companies, because they feel relatively relaxed instead of urgency and intensity. Laziness no doubt leads to lower productivity.说理有一点罗嗦 相反的两方面重复有点多

Second, the effectiveness of communications is less well achieved from working at home. When we work, especially in industries such as advertisement and business, communicating with other people is an inevitable part. Although, thanks to the advanced technology, we can talk to one another through videos, communications through internet are surly not as effective as talking face to face. People can’t literally see each other, so the sincerity is less felt, and the messages conveyed are less well received. The quality of work will be poorer. To better communication, people should work at company instead of at home.

Admittedly, working at home is not a bad idea for all people. For those who can easily concentrate on what they do and whose job does not require very frequent communication with others, working at home might be a better idea. For example, for freelance writers, compared to a noisy desk at the company where everyone is running around answering phones, a desk at home with silence is the best choice.这里应该反驳一下 否则观点不明确了

To sum up, I believe that working at companies is a better choice than working at home. To achieve high productivity and effective communications, we should spend our working time at companies.

整体挺好的 就是说理方面有点把一个意思重复说的感觉 可以多加一些例子充实一下 还有就是让步段应该反驳一下 否则容易让人觉得观点不明确 句式方面可以多采取一些变化～ 改的不好多多讨论！ 加油啦～～

chengzaaaa

谢谢kiddy的修改！
总结一下我的问题：
1. 说理develop的很浅，一直在重复说。注意要develop！
2. 让步段还是要重申自己观点
3. 例子！！！！
4. 句式变化！！！！

chengzaaaa

橙子10.14独立
啊感觉写的特别恶心。。。。。。。
The best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers ‘salaries’.

The quality of education is of great importance in every country, and governments are trying to figure out ways to get improvement. Some say that the best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers’ salaries. From my perspective, I do not deny this is one of the solutions, but I definitely do not think that this is the best way.

Higher salaries do not ensure higher educational quality. In my opinion, the quality of education consists of three parts: the quality of students, the quality of faculties and the learning environment. Teachers are just one part of it, and the other two are just as important. Increasing salaries alone and not making any improvement for the other two parts do not bring about a better education. Let’s say that a college increases the teachers’ salaries, but the students there are in the bottom bunch in the country, and the college’s library s is so poor that students barely go there to study. Under the circumstances, higher salaries do not help much because students do not have any interests in knowledge, and even if they do, they have no good place for studying. So, we can conclude that higher salaries are not enough for improvement of education, so it surly is not the best way.

There are other ways better than raising salaries that can help enhance the quality of education. Making improvements on the facilities leads to a greater effect. A good environment for studying indirectly makes students study hard, because they can concentrate more, and it helps to build a better studying atmosphere. A friend of mine who goes to a college with great learning facilities says that students there tend to study harder than they did before the facilities were renovated, and that they enjoy preparing for tests in the new library because it is quiet and has meeting rooms for group discussions. Higher salaries could not ignite students’ passion for studying like this, thus is not the best way to better education.

Admittedly, the increase of salaries could affect the quality of education from some point. Teachers with higher salaries are more motivated to teach with passion and patience. And these are important qualities for being a teacher. But education will be better if other methods are carried out too.

To sum up, improving the quality of education is a big project that should take many factors into consideration. Higher salaries for teachers are not enough and are not the best way.