5.9 综合+独立

qianjun06 · 发表于 2013-5-9 20:54:57

5月9日 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Should the government supports artists or should artists support themselves?

In recent years, there is a public controversy on whether government should support artists or should artists support themselves. Those who criticize the phenomenon argues that supporting the artists goes far away from the responsibilities of the government. However, some of people are in support of this notion. Contrary to the opinion of the former is my heartfelt agreement with the idea that government should lay some emphasis on artists.

To begin with, as a international city, Shanghai should be the central of the world's art exposition. Our government should spend great effort to build more art centers for all of the people around to enjoy the art feast of our own civilization. In such circumstance, artists should be inspired by the government to create more challenges art works. The more world sight view the government have, the more great works the artists will contribute. It provides a typical instance of Japan, in the 1990s, Japanese government sponsor 3 millions of dollars to the art galleries and all the artist who won the world-wide prize would be rewarded a 10 thousand dollars. Japanese had won the noble prize by the 2000. Therefore, on no account can we ignore the importance of the strength of the government.

In addition, the prompting of the art can bring about surprising benefits to the government for the reason that art can thrive local economy. The reason why some cities have the ability to attract large amounts of people is that they have some fantasy tourism sites, such as the art work, the art museum as well as the art gallery. There is no denying that if our government imitate those successful cities, establish more art colleges and institutions, and encourage more artist to complete more valuable works, our city will become one of the most celebrated tourism site in the world. Thus, we cannot emphasize the importance of the art too much.

When people deem it is favorable to propose prosperity of the art, isn't it critical that the supporting will give us some consideration to the negative points it may cause? Sometimes the art works may out of time, and will not make people obsessed with them. Thus the cost will not offset the revenue. Also, the money spent on the artists should be approved by taxpayers. If they oppose to expend so much money on those visual works instead of their welfare, our government will be compelled to terminate these activities.

Considerable though the disadvantages that voting for the artists brings about are, they cannot compete with the merits that our governors provides boon to the artists result in, when the status of the international art center and the prosperous tourism are taken into consideration.

qianjun06 · 发表于 2013-5-9 20:58:03

TPO17 综合

The writer makes the points that birds in the United sates will necessarily decline. On the contrary, the lecturer demonstrates a contradictory idea that the notion of fewer and fewer birds is unconvincing.

To begin with, contrary to the believe that human populations and settlements continues to expand, the professor says that cities provide a much better place for some types of birds ,although some birds' population will decline. There are more pigeons on the street. Though some types of birds will shrink , others will grow. The total number of the birds will not decline. Therefore, the reason stated in the text is refuted.

In addition, the author holds the view that agriculture will keep pace with the growing human population. In contrast, the speaker challenges the idea by stating that there will be less land for agriculture using. More productive crops will be provided, so there is no need to destroy crude area. This directly casts doubts on its counterpart in the reading text.

Last but not least, the reading material reasons that the use of chemical pesticides will increase. On the other hand, the listening material presents a conflicting idea that there are two changes will cut the use of the pesticides. One is that scientists will invent a much less toxic pesticide. The other one is that there will be more pest-resistance crops, which will don't hurt the birds. Thus, the last reason provides in the reading is unsound.

perfectends · 发表于 2013-5-10 21:07:44

qianjun06 发表于 2013-5-9 20:58
TPO17 综合

The writer makes the points that birds in the United sates will necessarily decline. O ...

我看你综合单崩，咱俩组一个吧~我最晚明天补好~

艾米果果 · 发表于 2013-5-10 21:14:03

这篇确实好难写啊！

In recent years, there is a public controversy on whether government should support artists or should artists support themselves. Those who criticize the phenomenon（现象，这样这个phenomenon会被认为是指的全面的controversy。语义就怪怪的，理解成批评这种controversy？） argues（主谓一致argue） that supporting the artists goes far away from the responsibilities of the government. However, some of people are in support of this notion. Contrary to the opinion of the former is my heartfelt agreement with the idea that government should lay some emphasis on artists.

To begin with, as a（an） international city, Shanghai should be the central of the world's art exposition. （这个分论点总括句没有概括出整段的中心，Shanghai这个是个例子，应该放在后边）Our government should spend great effort to build more art centers for all of the people around to enjoy the art feast of our own civilization. （这句话读起来更像总括句一些）In such circumstance, artists should be inspired by the government to create more challenges art works. The more world sight view the government have, the more great works the artists will contribute. It provides a typical instance of Japan, in the 1990s, Japanese government sponsor 3 millions of dollars to the art galleries and all the artist who won the world-wide prize would be rewarded a 10 thousand dollars. Japanese had won the noble prize by the 2000. Therefore, on no account can we ignore the importance of the strength of the government.
（额，说实话这一段怎么论证的我是没读懂=_=，能用中文给我描述一下你想表达的分论点么?）

In addition, the prompting of the art can bring about surprising benefits to the government for the reason that art can thrive local economy. The reason why some cities have the ability to attract large amounts of people is that they have some fantasy tourism sites, such as the art work, the art museum as well as the art gallery. There is no denying that if our government imitate those successful cities, establish more art colleges and institutions, and encourage more artist to complete more valuable works, our city will become one of the most celebrated tourism site in the world. Thus, we cannot emphasize the importance of the art too much.

When people deem it is favorable to propose prosperity of the art, isn't it critical that the supporting will give us some consideration to the negative points it may cause? Sometimes the art works may out of time, and will not make people obsessed with them. Thus the cost will not offset（be offset by） the revenue. Also, the money spent on the artists should be approved by taxpayers. If they oppose to expend so much money on those visual works instead of their welfare, our government will be compelled to terminate these activities.

Considerable though（thought？） the disadvantages that voting for the artists brings about are, they cannot compete with the merits that our governors provides boon to the artists result in, when the status of the international art center and the prosperous tourism are taken into consideration.
怎么说呢,我觉得这篇作文读起来有些不通。所以不好意思啊，不怎么会改。感觉稍微有点审偏题了，题干是问government该不该支持artist，主要支持artist跟支持art还是有细微差别的。虽然是否支持artist可以从art能否带来什么好处上说，但是重点还是artist有什么特点来决定government支不支持啊，感觉通篇都是围绕着art转，有点偏题啊。

qianjun06 · 发表于 2013-5-13 20:04:42

5.13 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should buy things made by their own country, even if things of other countries may cost less?

In recent years, there is a public controversy on whether people should buy things made from their own country. Those who criticize the activity argue that people should purchase commodity regardless of their origins. However, some people are in support of this notion. Contrary to the opinion of the latter is my heartfelt agreement that people can select different kinds of products without the boundary where they come from.

To begin with, people are concerned about the inexpensiveness and the effectiveness of the products. The cheaper, the better. the effective ,the better. In this regard, price and quality takes a top priority. It provides an instance of my own, I am obsessed with digital products. Sometimes I will purchase the camera made in Japan, and sometimes I will choose an American good such as iphone. No matter where they are manufactured, the origin will never play an critical role when I am comparing a product. At the same time, what makes a customer really care about is whether the inventory is expansive or not. The higher performance-price ratio product will attracts more purchasers whether it is an import one. Therefore, no on account can we ignore the price and the quality of a product.

In addition, permitting only buying the native products will cause a barricade to other countries, thus making our own country a economic recession. As we all known, trading barricades will compel other countries do just what we have done. Consequently, no country will trade with us and the barricades will have an negative effects on our economy, inducing manufactory industrial depression. As can be seen in the case of Japan, in 2000, the Japanese government lay a trading barricade of tires to the united states, which results a sudden declining in its gross domestic profits from 40 millions dollas to 30 millions. Thus, we cannot emphasis the crisis of the trading barrier too much.

When people deem it is favorable to select various sorts of merchandise, isn't it essential that freedom selection will give us some consideration to the negative points it possibly emerges? For one thing, purchasing the products from other countries will cause more companies go bankrupt and drop the employment rates. For another, if foreign products take a large majority of our consumption, the fiscal revenue will be cut down. Even worse, our on sufficient finance will support our public welfare, such as medical treatment and education.

Considerable though the disadvantages that free trading brings about are, they cannot compete with the merits that national- wide productive selection result in, when the economy and the effectiveness are taken into consideration.

qianjun06 · 发表于 2013-5-13 20:06:58

5.13 TPO20

The writer makes a point that the "let it burn" policy cause three kinds of damage. On the contrary, the lecturer demonstrates a contradictory idea that the fire are good to the environments.

To begin with, contrary to the believe that fires causes tremendous damage to the park's vegetation, the professor says that fires produce optimal environment for new plants which can survive in open and unsheltered area. Also, seeds can survive unless they are exposes in high level heat. Therefore, the first reason stated in the reading text is refuted.

In addition, the author holds the view that wildlife was affected. In contrast, the speaker challenges it by stating that the fires give new opportunities to some small animal like rabbits. Their predators will decline, making them more stronger after fire. This directly casts doubt on its counterpart in the reading.

Last but not least, the reading material discusses that the fire had negative impact on the local economy. On the other hand, the listening material presents a conflicting view that the fire will not occur every year. The combination of the low rain, strong wind and the dry climate cause the massive fire. Yellowstone will not see such fire in the coming years. Customers still came next year after the fire. Thus, the last disadvantages reasoned is unsound.

5.9 综合+独立

所属分类: TOEFL / IELTS

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块