for 615

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-3 21:16:05

6.3

独立The best way to reduceair pollution is for the government to raise the cost of fuel

People nowadays are attaching moreimportance to the issue of environmental pollution , especially to airpollution . Even just from looking at the news about the haze in Beijing, onecan imagine the seriousness of air pollution in China. In order to cope withthis problem , some people believe that the best way to reduce air pollution isfor the government to raise the cost of fuel. According to the principle of economics , a priceincrease will lead to a demand decrease, which will definitely decrease thegasese released into the open air. However, this is an unwise decision.

First , raising the price do have someeffects ,but it will cause some unintended disasters, such as inflation. Admittedly, raising the price willdecrease the consumption of fuel, but we have to recognize that this regulationonly has an effect on the people who use private cars for transportation. Andfor reducing air pollution , that's notenough. What's worse, raising price may have some unintended consequences onpeoples' lives. The link between petrol price and world economy is becomingincreasingly close. Small changes in energy price will lead to big fluctuationsin the world economy , since the energy is the raw material of many everydayconsumptions, such as clothes. Thus ,I strongly disagree with the idea ofraising the cost of fuel.

In fact , to reduce air pollution ,it isvital to know as much as possible whatattributes to air pollttion. Without this knowledge we can only resolve part ofthe problem, and we will fail to solve the question completely. Perhaps , theburning of fuel may contribute to only a small part of total air pollution.There are many other pollutants, such as industrial gas that may have aserious impact. The past 30 years witnessed the rapid economic growth of China.However, it also witnessed the air condition from bad to worse, since so manymanufactures set up in China. Most of them run day and night ,and never stoppouring industrial gas into the air .Only through governing of industrial gaswill we get our fresh air back, and wipe the haze .As individuals we shouldalso contribute ourselves to the air cleaning program. For example, we can usepublic transportation as much as possible, and plant more trees.

From the discussion above, I adhere to thepoint that raising the cost of fuel is an unwise method of reducing airpollution . It only solves the problem partially and it will lead to otherdisasters. To prevent air pollution, we should first find out the mainreasons leading to the pollution , andsecond , make joint and feasible efforts to overcome it.

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-3 21:17:29

综合TPO20
In the reading passage ,  it believes the "let it burn " policy should be replaced for some damage reasons , but in the lecture the professor believes that the fire bring about new opportunities for both the plants and animals to thrive.

First , about the vegetation. The passage in the view that  fire may cause tremendous damage to the trees and vegetation. In the lecture ,while the professor believes that , a fire may colonized by new plants .Since the ground has been burn down , it can be colonized by new plant species , which makes it even more diverse. For example , a plant like open air and can't grow in the forest before , now begin to thrive ,because the forest has been burn down. Actually the fire make  new places for new kinds of plants to colonize the land.

Second , there is a same story to tell about the wildlife here as mentioned above . In the reading  passage , it only emphasize the point that the fire would kill many animals living there ,and the
habitat destruction would make many species never come back , but in the lecture there is a totally different story to say . Since the grass land will recover soon , and this will make new opportunity for certain type of animals to such as rabbits and hares to thrive , because they are prey to many predators , so a strong food chain is built up ,which vary greatly from what have discussed in the reading passage .

Third, in the reading passage , it believes that , the fire may have negative effect on the local economy, while in the lecture, the professor have a totally different idea. Since the local tourism is not that much depend on the park , and the recovery of the park make it a more valuable place to visit , the economy have nothing to do with the fire. 309

小蘑菇开始打怪 · 发表于 2014-6-4 20:28:06

红色错误
蓝色可修改更好
黄色赞赞赞

综合TPO20
In the reading passage ,  it believes the "let it burn " policy should be replaced for some damage reasons , but in the lecture the professor believes that the fire bring about new opportunities for both the plants and animals to thrive.（我个人认为开头还可以再多描述一些背景，比如the fire of Yellowstone）

First , about the vegetation.（这个语法感觉不太对，这样的表示貌似比较口语化。用when it comes to the vegetation...会不会好一点） The passage in the view that  fire may cause tremendous damage to the trees and vegetation. In the lecture ,while the professor believes that , a fire may colonized by new plants .（这个逻辑貌似不对吧，听力里面说的是fire create new space for new plants, not the fire itself）Since the ground has been burn down , it can be colonized by new plant species , which makes it even more diverse. For example , a plant like open air and can't grow in the forest before , now begin to thrive ,because the forest has been burn down. Actually the fire make  new places for new kinds of plants to colonize the land.

Second , there is a same story to tell about the wildlife here as mentioned above . In the reading  passage , it only emphasize the point that the fire would kill many animals living there ,and the habitat destruction would make many species never come back , but in the lecture there is a totally different story to say . Since the grass land will recover soon , and this will make new opportunity for certain type of animals to such as rabbits and hares to thrive , because they are prey to many predators , so a strong food chain is built up ,which vary greatly from what have discussed in the reading passage .（听力的点和表述都没有问题~很好很好~）

Third, in the reading passage , it believes that , the fire may have negative effect on the local economy, while in the lecture, the professor have a totally different idea. Since the local tourism is not that much depend on the park , and the recovery of the park make it a more valuable place to visit , the economy have nothing to do with the fire. （这里的听力我貌似和楼主听的不是很一样，我听到的是，Yellowstone的tourism受到很多因素的影响，然后大火过后，旅游业就恢复正常了，所以其实大火并没有直接造成旅游业的损失）309

楼主整体逻辑还是很好的，但是如果可以在每段开始的地方多一些句型的变化会更好。
然后听力的部分，因为我自己也不是很确定。。我再回去听一下吧~

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-4 21:10:24

小蘑菇开始打怪发表于 2014-6-4 20:28
红色错误
蓝色可修改更好
黄色赞赞赞

其实是我最后一段没听懂。。。。
诶万一考试的时候有某一段听不懂。。。就瞎了。。。

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-4 21:12:55

TPO21
The reading passage believes that by genetic modification ,trees can bring a number of benefits. While in the lecture the professor thinks it is totally the other way around .

First, the reading passage stated that genetically modified trees can survive even the worst conditions . However ,in the lecture , the professor thought that since the genetically modified tress lack diversification, and they are genetically uniform ,even a little bad condition can wipe all of them out. But the native ones are so genetically diverse that some species can survive the disaster. This is the first point the professor contradicts what the passage asserts.

Second , the economic benefits. In the reading passage ,it claims that genetically modified trees can grow faster and make greater returns for the farmer. While ,in the lecture , the professors states that, since genetically modified trees cannot produce seeds themselves, every year farmers have to buy seed from the company ,and it's so expensive that ,it wipes out the economic benefits it brings. This is the another point that the professor refused what the reading material believes.

Finally , the prevention of overexploitation of wild trees. In fact , some of the genetically modified trees grow aggressively that they out compete the native trees for resources , such as sunlight ,and the native trees will decline for the lack of resource. Even worse some endanger species even died out . This is the last point the professor refutes the reading passage. 248

小蘑菇开始打怪 · 发表于 2014-6-4 21:24:36

xhbhxhbh 发表于 2014-6-4 21:10
其实是我最后一段没听懂。。。。
诶万一考试的时候有某一段听不懂。。。就瞎了。。。 ...

没听懂就多写吧。。当然还是听懂最好。。

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-5 15:31:31

6.4 独立写作在家工作好还是去公司工作好
Nowadays , with the life standard progress further , people expect more about their work conditions such as  office space and computers . In order to meet the stuff members’ satisfactions , some companies resort to give them the chance to work at home , however , other companies refute provide such opportunities considering the work efficiency .In fact , I am more incline to work at home rather than at company .

When it comes to the efficiency , of course , by supervision the employers can get the result they want , but there are some other reasons to consider . To begin with , since the traffic condition in China is not optimistic, it'll take long hours on commuter ,let alone the traffic congestion. For example ,last winter I took part in an internship in a company , since the company isn't far from my school , I went to work by bus every day , I really felt disgusting about the hours lost on road ,even it was only an hour from school to company .And I felt tired when I arrived at the company , it really affect the work efficiency. When taking into consideration of both the time and the physician condition, I must conclude that it's wise to work at home ,not only for the hours lost in the commuter, but avoid working with a exhausted body.

Besides, working at home we can have a more flexible schedule ,and also saving the administration fees for company. Were I permitted work at home , I could get up a little late and  having a full night sleep really helps smooth my mind a lot , when I didn't get enough sleeping ,I feel dazzle about everything and couldn't do things well. In addition ,since one will spend time at home ,the company will not pay for many fees they would the other way around. Such as the electric fees ,even the coffee .During my internship , the company had to open the air conditioner all day long ,and provided some teas or snacks for their employees , while working at home will definitely wipe all that expenses out . Although this may seem has little effect on their profit , but in a long run ,it does contribute a lot.

Finally, working at home can improve the happiness of the employee ,and earn a more close bond between the employees and employers. According to a survey , the turnover of many companies in China is super high  , the biggest reason for this perhaps is the employees complained about it's so busy that they only have a little sum of time to spend with their family . While working at home can completely get rid of such a concern .They can spend more hours with the family , and this can help retain more employees.

From discussion above, I can safely come to the conclusion that , working at home is better. On one hand it can help avoid the time wasting on the road, and employees can get more sleep which would enhance working efficiency. On the other , it will help cut down administration fees and at the sometime employees can spend more time with their family which help enhance their satisfaction .  550 40 minutes

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-5 20:29:59

6.5  综合作文 TPO22
The reading passage asserts that the usage  of Ethanol fuel as are replacement of gasoline is not a good one .While the professors contradicts what's claims in the passage on three aspects as follows:

First, the Ethanol fuel do not add to the global warming ,while the passage believes that ethanol releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which contribute to  global warming. As a matter of fact , ethanol fuel is made from plants, to make ethanol fuel , we have to plant more plants which help absorbs the greenhouse gases. In fact , the growing of the plants removes much of the carbon dioxide ,since they are the raw material of photosynthesis.

Second, when it comes to animal food , the passage believes that the production of ethanol would reduce the amount of plants for animals .While, it is in fact has nothing to do with the food supply of animals ,since the production of ethanol fuel often use these plants which are not eaten by animals . So the demand of animals will not be affected.

Third, in terms of price , it is not true that the ethanol fuel will never be able to compete with gasoline. The passage asserts that since there are some subsidies given by government ,  the ethanol fuel is affordable . Without the government's help the ethanol will not able to compete with gasoline on price. However ,this won't always be true. If more people but ethanol fuel , there will be more production of ethanol fuel ,which may help reduce the cost .Study shows that if the demand of  ethanol fuel expand by three times , there will be a 45% decrease in cost , which will of course lead to price reduction, and make it affordable.296

超级无敌小鹤鹤 · 发表于 2014-6-6 16:34:25

hello，我是小队长企鹅，不好意思改晚了，小分队又有新的高手加入共同学习进步真是太好啦

xhbhxhbh · 发表于 2014-6-6 19:08:59

超级无敌小鹤鹤发表于 2014-6-6 16:34
hello，我是小队长企鹅，不好意思改晚了，小分队又有新的高手加入共同学习进步真是太好啦 ...

谢谢企鹅，我经常找不到去哪里改队友的文章。。。找到的时候也都晚了很久了。。

for 615

本帖子中包含更多资源

所属分类: TOEFL / IELTS

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()