标题: 橙za的作文贴！求各位狠拍赐教！几百年没写过作文了！ [打印本页] 作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-6 19:06 标题: 橙za的作文贴！求各位狠拍赐教！几百年没写过作文了！ 今天是此生托福作文第一写。。。 吭哧了好久写出来感觉还是非常高中生。。。太弱了！摔！ 需要看起来各种资料啊！学习啊！ 今天看见sdcar大神的帖子说关于read和write的关系的问题，感觉说的非常非常对。 平时太太太缺乏active reading了导致写的时候不知道要些什么也不知道要怎么写。 要read English website and articles on daily basis啊！求大家监督！ 求进步！求大家狠批啊！！！
先来个今天的
10.6 独立 Your job will have more effect on your happiness than the social life does.
Aristotle said that happiness is the goal that all human beings are going for, and that they pursue happiness not for anything else, but only for its own sake. Happiness is a great deal for everyone and could be affected by various factors in life, such as the job we do, the social life we have, and the people we love. Although a job isn’t everything in life and couldn’t fully represent a person, I still believe that it has more effect on a person’s happiness than the social life does.
For starters, people who love and enjoy their jobs tend to be a lot happier than those who have a job that they hate. You can easily tell if a guy is happy by the attitude he has for work. Does he complain and whine about the assignments all the time or does he see every challenge a precious opportunity for him to practice and improve? Needless to say, the latter is happier. Whether the guy loves the job he does significantly determines his happiness in life. If he is passionate about what he does, even when there are bumps down the road, he would be more optimistic about the obstacles, have a better mood, and be happier. Social life couldn’t have this kind of effect on happiness. If a guy hates his job, and even though he has a colorful social life, he couldn’t avoid bringing his negativity about work to his social life, making social life less enjoyable. To some degree, job is more essential for and has more impact on happiness.
Moreover, job is where the money comes from and economic factors are crucial for happiness. If a family can’t afford what they want in life, there is no way that this family is feeling happiness every single day of their life. And social life couldn’t compete with the economic factors on the impact it has on happiness, because how much money a person makes could substantially influence the quality of his/her social life. With short of money, even the best social life a person could have would not bring much more happiness than it would if the person is doing great in the economic department. From this aspect, it is pretty clear that the job plays a more important role than social life does for happiness in life.
Although the job affect happiness more than social life does, it does not mean that the social life is not important and that we should care less about it. Social life is a big part of people’s life. After a long day work, no matter how we love the job we have, we should always take some time, see some friends, and relax. A workaholic with no social life couldn’t be any happier than a person who keeps a good balance between job and social life.
To sum up, job has a greater impact on happiness than social life does. But in order to better achieve happiness, it’s not enough to just discover the passion about the job, what we also need to do is to find a good balance between the job and the social life.
总结一下我的问题 1. 有一些重要的句子，老重复，句式过于简单，需要句式高端化。 2. 容易罗嗦，不是很efficient。加上第1条，弄的弄的就很无聊。 3. 第二段有点儿跑题了，其中job和social life给的比重失衡，且语言很不精炼，逻辑也有跳跃，不紧凑，第二段需大改。。。 4. 例子！！！作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-8 13:19
橙子10.7独立 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The government and corporation should share all their scientific discoveries with other countries in the world?
The world today has become more integrated than ever, and with the development of technology and Internet, new scientific discoveries are made every day around the world. In the century of information and technology, the sharing of scientific discoveries is very important, which helps countries all over the world develop and grow. However, I do not think it is necessary for governments and corporations to share all their scientific discoveries with other countries in the world.
For starters, sharing makes other countries less motivated to work hard on their researches and make new discoveries. When people can attain new information and knowledge through sharing, they become less encouraged and inspired to make new observations and do deeper research. Instead, they tend to just learn from the sharing and take it all in, and that is it. So is it with countries and operations. If a country does not share its new scientific findings with other country, and let us say that this new finding would substantially increase the productivity in the pepper crops and therefore greatly lower the costs, making this country an exporter of pepper and their GDP soar. Other import countries would want to figure out how the productivity improved, so they would be very motivated to work on new methods to push up working efficiency, and there is a great chance that they would make new discoveries that are even better and more significant. Not sharing is a potent stimuli for new findings.
Secondly, sharing all the discoveries threatens the national defense force. A great portion of scientific discoveries is applied to military and national defense areas. Countries are putting a lot of money for researches and developments of new chemical and biological weapons, hoping to strengthen their national defense. Scientific discoveries regarding these domains are keys to the countries’ safety and cannot be shared around the world. We never see any country blabbing about how its new secret weapons are made or how they function, because those are the leverages they have for their countries’ safety. Keeping the sovereignty safely requires keeping some scientific findings in the country. And that is why governments and corporations should not share all scientific discoveries with other countries.
Although sharing all the discoveries is a bad idea, some of the scientific findings should be shared with no doubt, such as new findings in the medical and health disciplines. Whenever a new kind of medicine is produced or some kinds of treatments are improved, sharing the information worldwide will be essential to help people in other countries who suffer from diseases that cannot be treated for years. If the cure for Alzheimer, the 7th leading cause of death, is found, would people hesitate to share the cure around the world?
We do not necessarily have to share every bit of new findings that we have, because we need to keep them for the sake of more findings and our safety. But when the news is worth sharing, we would not wait.作者: bonnenuit 时间: 2012-10-8 15:08
The world today has become more integrated than ever, and with the development of technology and Internet, new scientific discoveries are made every day around the world. In the century of information and technology, the sharing of scientific discoveries is very important, which helps countries all over the world develop and grow. However, I do not think it is necessary for governments and corporations to share all their scientific discoveries with other countries in the world.
For starters, sharing makes other countries less motivated to work hard on their researches and make new discoveries. When people can attain new information and knowledge through sharing, they become less encouraged and inspired to make new observations and do deeper research. Instead, they tend to just learn from the sharing and take it all in, and that is it. So is it with countries and operations. If a country does not share its new scientific findings with other country（countries), and let us say that this new finding would substantially increase the productivity in the pepper crops and therefore greatly lower the costs, making this country an exporter of pepper and their GDP soar. Other import countries would want to figure out how the productivity improved, so they would be very(用fully更恰当） motivated to work on new methods to push up working efficiency, and there is a great chance that they would make new discoveries that are even better and more significant. Not sharing is a potent stimuli for new findings.（个人觉得这里不需要用虚拟语气，用一般将来时就可以了，虚拟语气一般用在不可能再发生的假设）
Secondly, sharing all the discoveries threatens the national defense force. A great portion of scientific discoveries is applied to military and national defense areas. Countries are putting a lot of money for researches and developments of new chemical and biological weapons, hoping to strengthen their national defense. Scientific discoveries regarding these domains are keys to the countries’ safety and cannot be shared around the world. We never see any country blabbing about how its new secret weapons are made or how they function, because those are the leverages they have for their countries’ safety. Keeping the sovereignty safely requires keeping some scientific findings in the country. And that is why governments and corporations should not share all scientific discoveries with other countries.
Although sharing all the discoveries is a bad idea, some of the scientific findings should be shared with no doubt, such as new findings in the medical and health disciplines. Whenever a new kind of medicine is produced or some kinds of treatments are improved, sharing the information worldwide will be essential to help people in other countries who suffer from diseases that cannot be treated for years. If the cure for Alzheimer, the 7th leading cause of death, is found, would people hesitate to share the cure around the world?
We do not necessarily have to share every bit of new findings that we have, because we need to keep them for the sake of more findings and our safety. But when the news is worth sharing, we would not wait.
关于would那个我主要是在第二段第三行那儿if了一下嘛，然后后面let us say that什么的，我默认这个是一个虚拟的故事情况了，这种情况要不要用would啊。。。？还是也是直接用一般时呢？ 我在关于would上一直很纠结！可能看美剧里大家动不动就would。。。 求解答！！作者: bonnenuit 时间: 2012-10-8 18:22
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 都用虚拟的语气作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-8 22:37
谢谢bonne解答！！！作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-9 14:40
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.作者: loveluyuanbai 时间: 2012-10-9 23:55
不好意思 来晚了作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-10 14:36
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.作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-13 18:44
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.作者: kiddy72 时间: 2012-10-14 00:45
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～～作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-14 10:58
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！！！！作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-14 21:03
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.作者: AnthonySummer 时间: 2012-10-14 21:56 The reading passage talks about three possible explanations for the declining populationfor yellow cedar. The insects, bears, and the climate change. However, the professor in the lecture thinks that none of them are adequate.
For the first hypothesis, the professor mentioned that healthier yellow cedars are more resistant to insects. For example, they have resistance to 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 fundamental reason for the decline. （概括的很不错啊！）
The professor does not think that bears were the cause, either.（第一句用个复杂句吧，看看模板模仿一下整体结构）He mentioned 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 trees declined with or without the bears, the bears are not the real cause.（概括的很精练）
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.
实在挑不出毛病了，整体写的不错，如果用一个更丰富的结构概括全文会更好！加油啊！ 作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-14 22:02
谢谢anthony的批改！目标是内容丰富语言精练！加油加油~作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-15 13:46
橙子10.15综合TPO1 The reading passage talks about offering employees the option to work 4 days a week and get 80% of their original salaries and the benefits from this option. The lecture, however, contradicts the standpoints made in the reading from the three perspectives that it raises: company profits, economy as a whole, and individual employees.
The professor argues that this option would not increase company profits like the reading says. Instead, it would force companies to pay a lot more. Hiring new staffs to accomplish the same amount of work makes companies spend more money on training programs and medical cares, and the medical cares are same for those who work 4 days a week and those who work 5 days. Also, More employees mean more new offices and computers. These increased expenditures would definely cut profits, unlike what the reading said.
Second, the lecture denies the assertion in the reading that this option would benefit the country's economy as a whole. Hiring people is very costly, as the former paragraph argued. And companies are likely to expect more from the employees once they choose to take the four-day option. Bosses want their employees to finish the same amount of work regardless of the number of days they work per week. In this way, the option not only brings no additional job, but also makes jobs unpleansant.
Last but not least, the professor claims that there are risks for reducing the quality of people's life once they choose this option. Instead of offering more free time for employees to improve their quality of life, like the reading said, this option could shake job stabilities and put obstacles for people who want to advance their careers. In down economic environment, employees who work 4 days a week are more inclined to lose their jobs. And when it comes to promotions, 4-day workers have less chance to compete because the position of managers require people to work 5 days a week to fully supervise the operation of companies.作者: AnthonySummer 时间: 2012-10-16 21:53 The reading passage talks about offering employees the option to work 4 days a week and get 80% of their original salaries and the benefits from this option. The lecture, however, contradicts the standpoints made in the reading from the three perspectives that it raises: company profits, the economy as a whole, and individual employees.
The professor argues that this option would not increase company profits like the reading says. Instead, it would force companies to pay a lot more. Hiring new staffs to accomplish the same amount of work makes companies spend more money on training programs and medical cares, and the medical cares are same for those who work 4 days a week and those who work 5 days. Also, more employees mean more new offices and computers. These increased expenditures would definely cut profits, unlike what the reading said.
Second, the lecture denies the assertion in the reading that this option would benefit the country's economy as a whole. Hiring people are very costly, as the former paragraph argued. And companies are likely to expect more from the employees once they choose to take the four-day option. Bosses want their employees to finish the same amount of work regardless of the number of days they work per week. In this way, the option not only brings no additional job, but also makes jobs unpleasant.
Last but not least, the professor claims that there are risks for reducing the quality of people's life once they choose this option. Instead of offering more free time for employees to improve their quality of life, like the reading said, this option could shake job stabilities and put obstacles for people who want to advance their careers. In down economic environment, employees who work 4 days a week are more inclined to lose their jobs. And when it comes to promotions, 4-day workers have less chance to compete because the position of manager requires people to work 5 days a week to fully supervise the operation of companies. 写的不错，挑不出什么毛病！感觉可以当范列了！作者: chengzaaaa 时间: 2012-10-17 14:54
谢谢anthony的修改！ 不过我觉得第三段第一行后面那儿还是应该用Hiring people is very costly.因为hiring people这件事儿是单数。你觉得呢？作者: bonnenuit 时间: 2012-10-17 19:19
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,（这个it最好还原成原来指代） and the other two are just as important. Increasing salaries alone and not making any improvement（not making有点怪， 我觉得换成making no improvement比较好，也和前面的increasing对应） 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 librarys（换成libraries of the college, 's只能用于人或活物） 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(我觉得改成to好） 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（这句可以提前跟makes student hard并列）. 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 （这个可以省略）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（另起一句话的时候这些代词一定要还原，不然指代不明） are important qualities for being a teacher. But education will be better if other methods are carried out too（at the same time).
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.
可能看美剧里大家动不动就would。。。
