ChaseDream

标题: Catherie作文 [打印本页]
作者: Catherie    时间: 2012-10-9 20:20
标题: Catherie作文
狠批吧，我好久没写过作文了。。。。
10.7  作文
综合
In the lecture, the professor makes several points about that the expansion of human population and the growth of agriculture not only  did  not impose bad effect on the habitats of birds, but also increase the areas suitable for some birds. While the reading states that wildlife in the united States, especially the birds ,have suffered from the mounting human population and the growth of the agriculture and the usage of chemical pesticide.
The first point that the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is that even though the population of some species might decreased, some other animals' population did increased. According to the professor, in fact, the habitats for animals have increased  in the town and even the scarce hawk can been seen these years .However, the reading notes that traditional area continue to decrease due to the increase of the human population and settlements.
The second point that the professor challenges the reading is that further decrease of the natural habitats will not emerge in a short time. Also, new productive crops have been adopted in agriculture. On the contrary, the reading contends that more and more traditional areas will be converted to farming land thus, inevitable damage will impose on the birds .
Finally, the professor argues that new pesticides of less poisonous have been used and new kind of corps which are unattractive to pest or resist insects are being researched .In other words, Birds life will not be affected. This contradicts the point in the reading that eating poisoned insect or drinking contaminated water will affect the reproduction of the bird and even kill the birds.  
In short, the points asserted by the professor are different from what the reading says. The professor demonstrates that the size of the bird populations will not decreased.



独立


As to whether the government and corporation should share all their scientific discoveries with other countries all over the world, my opinion and reasons are like this: the government and company can share part of their scientific discoveries, but not all. Since fierce competition could promote further development of science,the government and the company, generally, need the new discoveries to main their dominance in relevant field, they can not share everything with others.


No one could deny that fierce positive competition has made a huge contribute to making progress in human history. Fierce positive competition, however unlike negative competition, is a virtuous circle. When a country or a company makes breakthrough in scientific field and plays  dominant part in global, generally, the country or the company likely to keep exploiting in the relevant field and make greater progress. In order to keep pace with the premier country or company, other countries and companies, with no doubt, will spare no effort to innovating and finally make even huger progress, instead of just imitating. In the process of virtuous circle, obviously, constant humankind's giant leaps will be made.


In addition, relied on some remarkable scientific discoveries, government and company can dominate related field, even the world, and obtain great benefit. Here is an example from Steven Jobs, the legendary founder of Apple Inc, is best remembered for being an innovator in information technology field. The products from their company, like iPad, iPhone, is prevailing in global. Needless to say, noticeable profits have been brought to Apple Inc. by successive technology innovations. However, we can not neglect the fact that the huge profits and dominance are based on technology which are confidential. It's hard to image whether Apple Inc. can be so successful once the technology is shared by other companies.


In conclusion, government and corporation should not share all their scientific discoveries. Sharing everything with other countries will, undoubtedly, renders the government and the company lose their advantages and slow down human beings' pace in the journey of scientific exploration.    



10.9综合
In the lecture, the speaker makes several points about that buzzers donnot pretend that they gain nothing , when promoting relevant products .Whilethe reading states that buzzers conceal the fact that they will be paid forpromoting anything to acquaintances .





The first point the speaker challenges the reading is that buzzers do tellthe truth when promoting products. Also, the buzzers don not lie ,when they praiseproducts sincerely and supply a series of services. On the contrary, thereading contends that what the consumers hear from the buzzers is no differentfrom the advertisements, to be more specific, both methods sever the samepurpose, because buzzers are vehicle of paid advertising. Undoubtedly,the consumers cannot receive the true information from buzzers.





The second point the speaker cast doubt on the reading is that buzzers usethe products individually and evaluate the product from their own experiences.According to the speaker, the consumers will ask a lot about the products and buzzeranswer all of those based on their own experience, rather than spare no effortto hide some negative information of related products .However the readingnotes that buzzers deceive the consumers by pretending they are also consumers,but at the same time, giving as much positive estimate as possible.





Finally, the speaker argues that demonstration from the reading is really stupid.In other words, if harmful effects will be made, it is no sense to recruitbuzzers. In fact, in the process of promoting, the customers usually love theproducts after trying. So, the relationship between customers and buzzer are soliderthan ever before. This contradicts the reading that buzzing is likely to have abad influence on social relationships and the buzzers will lose their credit.





In summary, the points asserted by the speaker are different from what thereading says. The speaker demonstrates that they do not deceive consumers, whenpromoting relevant products.


作者: 超级无敌小鹤鹤    时间: 2012-10-9 21:13
10.7的贴已锁，两篇作文已经帮你整合到这儿了
小分队成员请把作文都放到同一个帖子里，谢谢
作者: Catherie    时间: 2012-10-10 16:06
标题: 10月10日的综合
In the lecture, the professor makes several pointsabout why the "let it burn" policy is good. While the reading statesthat the "let it burn" policy have caused much damage.

The first point the professor uses to cast doubt onthe reading is that new kind of  treesand other  vegetation replaced thescorched land after the forest fires .According to the professor, after theforest fires, the land is fertile and new seeds can grow very well. However,the reading notes that fires causes a destruction .The tress are scorched andthe Smaller plants were almost become ashes.

The second point the professor challenges the readingis that the population of the wildlife increased after the forest fires, suchas rabbit, deer. Also, the food chain becomes stronger than ever before. Theecology system is reviving gradually. On the contrary, the reading contendsthat larger animals may escape from the fires, but the smaller ones are not solucky. The habitants are affected severely. And animals cannot live there anymore.

Finally, the professor argues that such big fire willnot happen every year and the tourist went to visit the park the next yearafter the fire. In other words, the local economy does not affected by thefires .This contradicts the reading that the fires impacts relevant touristattraction. And the local economy suffered from the fires.

In summary, the points asserted by the professor aredifferent from what the reading says. The professor demonstrates that "letit burn" policy should be supported.
作者: Yeeisstrong    时间: 2012-10-11 08:24
不好意思，改晚了~

10.9综合
In the lecture, the speaker makes several points about that buzzers donnot pretend that they gain nothing , when promoting relevant products .While the reading states that buzzers conceal the fact that they will be paid for promoting anything to acquaintances .



The first point the speaker challenges the reading is that buzzers tell the truth when promoting products. Also, the buzzers don not lie ,when they praiseproducts sincerely and supply a series of services. On the contrary, the reading contends that what the consumers hear from the buzzers is no different from the advertisements, to be more specific, both methods sever the same purpose, because buzzers are vehicle of paid advertising. Undoubtedly, the consumers cannot receive the true information from buzzers.



The second point the speaker cast doubt on the reading is that buzzers usethe products individually and evaluate the product from their own experiences. According to the speaker, the consumers will ask a lot about the products and buzzers answer all of those based on their own experience, rather than spare no effort to hide some negative information of related products .However the reading notes that buzzers deceive the consumers by pretending they are also consumers, but at the same time, giving as much positive estimate as possible.



Finally, the speaker argues that demonstration from the reading is really stupid. In other words, if harmful effects will be made, it is no sense to recruit buzzers. In fact, in the process of promoting, the customers usually love the products after trying. So, the relationship between customers and buzzer are solider than ever before. This contradicts the reading that buzzing is likely to have a bad influence on social relationships and the buzzers will lose their credit.



In summary, the points asserted by the speaker are different from what thereading says. The speaker demonstrates that they do not deceive consumers, whenpromoting relevant products.



Lecture的观点几乎听得很全的，我觉得总结能力很强，我是菜鸟一枚了。










作者: Catherie    时间: 2012-10-11 17:05
标题: 10月11日综合作文 求狠批，求进步
In the lecture, the professor makes several pointsabout planting genetically modified trees will cause serious problem .While thereading says   planting geneticallymodified trees will bring a number of benefits.

The first point the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is thatgenetically modified tress usually designed for a certain condition .Accordingto the professor, Once the condition, like climate or a certain insect, changed,all the genetically modified trees will die. However, the reading notes that geneticallymodified tress are more adaptable to nature environment than unmodifiedtrees.

The second point the professor challenges the reading is that planting geneticallymodified trees will cost more money when compared with nature trees. Also, thefarmers have to pay money for adopting genetically modified technology. Therefore,the price of the genetically modified products will more expensive thanordinary products. On the contrary, the reading contends that farmers who growgenetically modified trees can make a lot of money, because the modified tresshave high yields of food in a short time.

Finally, the professor argues that the greatly promoting of genetically  modified tress will damage to local trees .Inother words, those genetically modified tress have advantage in competingwater, nutrients with unmodified trees .This contradicts the reading that  the introduction of genetically modifiedtrees can lessen the exploitation of wild trees. Because genetically modifiedtrees which are designed for a given geographic, generally, have a higher yield.More timber can satisfy people’s demand for building or something else. Besides,some endangered native tree can be saved.

In summary, the points asserted by the professor are different from what thereading says. The professor demonstrates that genetically modified trees willdo harm to ecology environment.
作者: Catherie    时间: 2012-10-12 16:48
11月12日综合写作
In the lecture the professor makes several points about that ethanol fuel is a good alternative for gasoline and none of the reasons given by the reading is convincing .While the reading states that using ethanol to taking the place of gasoline is not a good choice.

The first point the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is that ethanol fuel will not add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. According to the professor, the plants used to making ethanol fuel could absorb the extra carbon dioxide. However, the reading notes that  when the ethanol fuel is burned, carbon dioxide will release to the environment and causing global warming.

The second point the professor challenges the reading is that it does not need to reduce the amount of plants which are use to feed the animals. Also, we can use the inedible part of the plants to making ethanol fuel .On the contrary, the reading contends that great amount of food from plants will be use to produce ethanol in order to satisfy only 10 percent fuel demand in United States.

Finally, the professor argues that ethanol fuel will be able to compete with gasoline on price when there is a great demand for ethanol fuel. In other words, when the yield of ethanol fuel increased the price of the ethanol will decrease. Therefore, ethanol fuel will widely be used in the future even without tax subsidy. This contradicts the reading that once the government stop subsidizing the producing of ethanol fuel, the price of ethanol increases drastically.

In summary, the points asserted by the professor are different from what the reading says. The professor demonstrates that ethanol fuel will be a good energy source.
作者: 陈喵喵holdon    时间: 2012-10-12 19:26
In the lecture, the professor makes several pointsabout planting genetically modified trees will cause serious problem(about+sth.你写了整个句子) .While thereading says   planting geneticallymodified trees will bring a number of benefits.

The first point the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is thatgenetically modified tress usually designed for a certain condition .Accordingto the professor, Once the condition, like climate or a certain insect, changed,all the genetically modified trees will die. However, the reading notes that geneticallymodified tress are more adaptable to nature environment than unmodifiedtrees.

The second point(可以尝试用其他连接词) the professor challenges the reading is that planting geneticallymodified trees will cost more money when compared with nature trees. Also, thefarmers have to pay money for adopting genetically modified technology. Therefore,the price of the genetically modified products will more expensive thanordinary products. On the contrary, the reading contends that farmers who growgenetically modified trees can make a lot of money, because the modified tresshave high yields of food in a short time.(这一段读下来有一种reading是重点的感觉)

Finally, the professor argues that the greatly promoting of genetically  modified tress will damage to local trees .Inother words, those genetically modified tress have advantage in competingwater, nutrients with unmodified trees .This contradicts the reading that  the introduction of genetically modifiedtrees can lessen the exploitation of wild trees. Because genetically modifiedtrees which are designed for a given geographic, generally, have a higher yield.More timber can satisfy people’s demand for building or something else. Besides,some endangered native tree can be saved(和第二段的问题一样,这里reading用了太多笔墨,而且无法突出professor反驳的意思).

In summary, the points asserted by the professor are different from what thereading says. The professor demonstrates that genetically modified trees willdo harm to ecology environment.(综合写作conclusion段不必要)
-- by 会员 Catherie (2012/10/11 17:05:05)

作者: 陈喵喵holdon    时间: 2012-10-13 15:10
11月12日综合写作
In the lecture the professor makes several points about that ethanol fuel is a good alternative for gasoline(about后面可以加从句吗?)and none of the reasons given by the reading is convincing .While the reading states that using ethanol to taking the place of gasoline is not a good choice.

The first point the professor uses to cast doubt on the reading is that ethanol fuel will not add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. According to the professor, the plants used to making(make) ethanol fuel could absorb the extra carbon dioxide. However, the reading notes that  when the ethanol fuel is burned, carbon dioxide will release to the environment and causing(cause) global warming.

(适当用下连接词吧)The second point the professor challenges the reading is that it does not need(客观事实不减少动物饲料,用need语气和意思都有点有违原意)to reduce the amount of plants which are use(used) to feed the animals. Also, we can use the inedible part of the plants to making ethanol fuel(这一点应该是支持professor观点的核心阐述) .On the contrary, the reading contends that great amount of food from plants will be use(used) to produce ethanol in order to satisfy only 10 percent fuel demand in United States.

Finally, the professor argues that ethanol fuel will be able to compete with gasoline on price when there is a great demand for ethanol fuel. In other words, when the yield of ethanol fuel increased(为什么要用过去时?) the price of the ethanol will decrease. Therefore, ethanol fuel will widely be used in the future even without tax subsidy. This contradicts the reading that once the government stop subsidizing the producing of ethanol fuel, the price of ethanol increases drastically.

In summary, the points asserted by the professor are different from what the reading says. The professor demonstrates that ethanol fuel will be a good energy source(summary段不是必须的).
-- by 会员 Catherie (2012/10/12 16:48:45)




有些问题跟昨天是重复的。
作者: 陈喵喵holdon    时间: 2012-10-13 16:20
关于你修改的我的综合,有一些意见讨论我贴在我的作文贴后面啦.有时间我们讨论讨论哈~



欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3