Five_007的写作练习贴~

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-17 21:48:56

占座啦~~~~~~

6.17 【机经上的作文先来一篇，下一楼发作业贴】

Do you agree or disagree that drivers should pay a certain amount of fees to permitted to drive out in traffic in peak traffic hours?

When it comes to the issue about whether the drivers have to pay amount of money for permission to drive out in congestive traffic in peak hours, people’s perspective differs. Many people argue that it may be an action needed to be done, while others are just on the contrary. Each opinion has its redeeming feature if being determined on a case-by-case basis. On a personal level, I am in favor of the later one after careful consideration.

Admittedly, charge for permission to drive out has its own merits. It means that drivers will take the cost of fees into account so they will not receive the order in peak hours and in congestive road, which may ease the congestion to some extent. Granted the advantage above, is it a good idea to charge for driving at certain period? When taking more factors into consideration, as far as I am concerned, keep free with the driving action outweighs charging.

Compared with charging, to be free seems more paramount for customers' right. We may easily quote a single instance to illustrate this. Just imagine that the driver have to pay for permission in order to drive out in congestion, they may be hesitated. What it means is that to charge the fees makes drivers so hard to earn extra money than usual that they may even get negative income. So the driver would just stop to wait a better traffic condition rather than pay for driving. This may result the unbalance between demand and supply. The peak hours in traffic are also the time that clients need the taxi most, so if the drivers decide to stop driving, the customers can hardly catch a taxi if they have emergency sometimes. Thus the declination caused by charging may damage the rights of potential clients.

In addition, charge for fees isn’t the radical strategy that can be effective on the long term. If the amounts of taxis offer service in the rush hours decrease, the people in need of this kind of vehicles will buy cars themselves, which finally also results in congestion of roads. And what else can we do then? Charge for the cars which drive out in rush hours? That’s ridiculous because the population and the peak traffic time would not change. Examples like this happen everywhere, we have to learn from past and take the source of certain phenomenon so that the fundamental solution can emerge. That is, the radical problem for congestion is the unreasonable construction of way, so what the government have to do is to arrange the load of every road and expand the road if possible. Thus, to take charge isn’t the best way to resolve the congestion, to take advantage of road more rationally is another thing we should think over.

In a nutshell, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that it is better to keep free for the driver to drive out in the peak hours which not only asserts the rights of citizens, also make it possible to create a more radical way to solve this problem.

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-18 11:01:14

6.17
综合： TPO4
Are dinosaurs endotherms? The reading claimed that might be true, while the speaker, in the listening，contended that it was probably not real when considering the reason from the passage deeply, which was totally opposite to the reading. Their respective views and reasons are as follows.

The first reason for speaker's disagreement was that dinosaurs lived long time ago when the polar places were much warmer than today, so many animals which not even be endotherms could survive. And on the other hand, once those polar place turned cold, dinosaurs could migration to another warmer places just like the strategy the reptile takes today. This viewpoint indeed proposed a powerful question to the author, who emphasized that polar place was so cold and only endotherms could live there.

Another reason why the professor in the listening disagreed with the writer was that it was unnecessary for dinosaurs to run by the legs beneath the body. The underneath legs of dinosaurs were powerful support to their weighty body, not for running. Therefore, it sounded not reasonable enough for the passage to contend that the dinosaurs were endothermy cause they have the legs underneath the body like all modern endotherms are.

The final argument provide by the lecture was that although the dinosaurs did have the haversian canals, they also had the growth rings, which showed that they were not growing so quickly. Dinosaurs experienced the growing period of growing, growing slowly, stop growing and growing again. Once the temperature was cold to some extent, they would stop growing, which not like the endotherms because endotherms grow even in the freezing cold. His statements seriously refuted the standpoint from the text that haversian canals showed the dinosaurs grew quickly like endotherms.

独立：The food we ate in the past is healthier than food today

When it comes to the issue about whether the food today is healthier than that in the past, people's perspective differs. Many people argue that the food we ate in the past is much better than today's, especially in the aspect of health, while others are just on the contrary. Each opinion has its redeeming feature if being determined on a case-by-case basis. On a personal level, I am in favor of the former one after careful consideration.

Admittedly, today's food is healthier than before since the conditions where food is being made, the cleaning process the food experienced and the packaging it had before getting the hand of customers are all improved, the food we eat today indeed hygienic than before, so it is healthier than the past. Granted the advantage above, is it a good idea to confirm that food nowadays is healthier? When taking more factors in to consideration, as far as I am concerned, the extent of health the food had in past outweighs today's.

Compare with former food, today's food have been not healthy enough in order to increase tasty experience, which leads to content of so many additives and the process of frying. Additives make the food taste better, but they are not good for our body. The fried food appears everywhere, which sharply increase the amount of obesity. We may easily quote a single instance to illustrate this. Since the McDonald was introduced to China, there are increasing people of overweighs cause the hamburgers, chips and other things provide by it contains too much fat. I still remember my best friend Jack, who was still a lean boy until he was addicted to the fried chips in McDonald. Only five years past, his weighs ten kilogram than before and he is a fat man now! Thus, the food today makes much bad influenced on human body.

In addition, with the increasing number of population, genetically modified food has been used for supporting the huge demand for food. However, the genetically modified organism had been tested by scientists, and the conclusion of them was that even though these would not damage the human immediately, they might cause some mortal harm to the gene of human in the long-term. It means that, you may escape the damage brought by the genetically modified food, but your offspring might have to bear the consequences by eating genetically modified food. It sounds so terrible.

In the nutshell, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that with the development, today's food will bring damage to human in now and future. Thus, the food in the past is much healthier than today's.

超级无敌小鹤鹤 · 发表于 2014-6-18 23:18:52

呃呃呃，我是企鹅小队长，最近在准备面签，所以先把6.17的独立改给你吧，因为综合要自己做一遍听力比较复杂哈，面签过后再帮你改啦~~

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-19 00:11:21

超级无敌小鹤鹤发表于 2014-6-18 23:18
呃呃呃，我是企鹅小队长，最近在准备面签，所以先把6.17的独立改给你吧，因为综合要自己做一遍听力比较复杂 ...

谢谢队长啊。。。辛苦了。。加油啊~~

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-19 19:55:50

TPO5 综合

Were the "great house" used for residence, storage or ceremonial centers? The reading claimed several reasons that supported that idea. While the speaker, in the listening, contended that it was probably not real, which was totally opposite to the reading. Their respective views and reasons are as follows.

The first reason for speaker’s disagreement with the reading was that even though the ‘great house’ was closed to several residences found before looking from outside, there were few fireplaces inside. However, the fireplaces were essential for daily cooking of people in the old days. What's more, there were not enough rooms for hundreds of people to live in. This viewpoint indeed proposed a powerful question to the author, who emphasized that the structure of "great house" was similar with other ones, so they were used for residence.

Another reason why the professor in the listening disagrees with the writer was that if ‘great house’ were used for storage, why there was no maize or containers for maize left? Therefore, it sounded not reasonable enough for the passage to contend that the ‘great house’ was used for storing because their sizes were fitting for this function.

The final argument provide by the lecture was that apart from broken pots, there were also many building material found. It means that the ‘great house’ might be a place for throwing away thing without usefulness. To be more accurately, the ‘great house’ was more like a trash hit rather than ceremonial centers. His statements seriously refuted the standpoint from the text that the broken pots were used in the ceremonies and then discarded by people.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identified the weaknesses in the reading and convincingly showed that the central argument in the reading that the ‘great house’ might be once used for residence, storage or ceremonial centers was inaccurate.

独立作文：
In 20 years, people will lead a more leisurely life.

When it comes to the issue about what kind of future life human beings would like to chase, many people argue that owing to the development of technology, the future seems to be a leisure one. While others were just on the contrary. Each opinion has its redeeming feature if being determined on a case-by-case basis. On a personal level, I am in favor of the prior one.

Admittedly, the development happened in recent year indeed conducted a lot of inconvenient or even scared events for human in specific aspects. Since the internet was invented and became predominant in our daily life, the issue of internet safety came along. The recent event of Snowden, an employee of CIA, showed the global people that the advance of internet makes the illegal wiretap possible, which produced panic of citizens for being eavesdropped. What's more, increment of illegally stealing personal information also makes alerted about potential danger. Granted all the disadvantages above, is it a good idea to claim that future life will be more complex rather than leisure? When taking more factors into consideration, as far as I am concerned, the leisure brought by advanced technologies outweighs the complexity.

Compared with former transportation, the traffic instruments today save us a lot of time, which we should believe that it will do the same thing in the future. We may easily quote a single instance to illustrate this. Before the China Railway High-speed was put into operation, the time spent on arriving Xiamen from Fuzhou should be five hours. However, since the CRH was used, it only takes you two hours. Last summer, when I tried to back home by CRH, I surprisingly found that the distance between the two city had been shorted so many that I could spend few time on transportation, which meant that I can get home more easily and avoid the long-time travel. Of course, I can spend more time with my family, much more leisure, right? Hence, we'd better come the conclusion that , at least on the aspect of transportation, the developed technologies has made our more leisure and it will constantly improve its service in the future.

In addition, the internet brings us more convenience than trouble. The invention of network helps us to receive information much prompt than usual. There was a survey about the recognition for internet in the 2008 in China. According to the result, about 80% young people in China believed that the internet help they complete work more effectively and efficiently. Examples like this happen everywhere. When I was still a senior student, I had to submit the homework to teachers by face to face. But now, increasing number of works could be done by computer and I can send these works to specified email-box without getting there. It enables me to have more time having fun, does it? Thus, it is high time to concede the convenience the technologies have brought to us until now and it’s reasonable to image that they will bring us more in the future.

In the nutshell, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that even though the advancing technologies brought some inconvenient, it brought more convenience to us such as faster transportation and quicker information. Thus, we should believe that with the constantly development of technologies, our future will be more leisure on a more objective understanding.

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-19 19:56:34

Five_007 发表于 2014-6-19 19:55
TPO5 综合

Were the "great house" used for residence, storage or ceremonial centers? The reading cl ...

不知道怎么上传doc，要麻烦 echo先拷贝到word再修改了。麻烦了啊。。非常感谢！

sweetyecho · 发表于 2014-6-19 21:22:16

错误修改好

TPO5 综合

Were the "great house" used for residence, storage or ceremonial centers? The reading claimed several reasons that supported that idea. While the speaker, in the listening, contended that it was probably not real, which was totally opposite to the reading. Their respective views and reasons are as follows.

The first reason for speaker’s disagreement with the reading was that even though the ‘great house’ was closed to several residences found before looking from outside, there were few fireplaces inside. However, the fireplaces were essential for daily cooking of people in the old days. What's more, there were not enough rooms for hundreds of people to live in. This viewpoint indeed proposed a powerful question to the author, who emphasized that the structure of "great house" was similar with other ones, so they were used for residence.

Another reason why the professor in the listening disagrees with the writer was that if ‘great house’ were used for storage, why there was no maize or containers for maize left（there be句型后面不能加动词吧，此句要不然去掉there be要不然去掉left）? Therefore, it sounded not reasonable enough for the passage to contend that the ‘great house’ was used for storing because their sizes were fitting for this function.

The final argument provide by the lecture was that apart from broken pots, there were also many building material found. It means that the ‘great house’ might be a place for throwing away thing without usefulness. To be more accurately, the ‘great house’ was more like a trash hit rather than ceremonial centers. His statements seriously refuted the standpoint from the text that the broken pots were used in the ceremonies and then discarded by people.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identified the weaknesses in the reading and convincingly showed that the central argument in the reading that the ‘great house’ might be once used for residence, storage or ceremonial centers was inaccurate.

V587！！！无可挑剔！！！

sweetyecho · 发表于 2014-6-19 21:48:23

错误修改好

独立作文：
In 20 years, people will lead a more leisurely life.

When it comes to the issue about what kind of future life human beings would like to chase, many people argue that owing to the development of technology, the future seems to be a leisure one. （此句逻辑意思有问题：人们would like to chase的生活不等于将来会发生的客观的生活吧）While others were just on the contrary. Each opinion has its redeeming feature if being determined on a case-by-case basis. On a personal level, I am in favor of the prior one.

Admittedly, the development happened in recent year indeed conducted a lot of inconvenient or even scared events for human in specific aspects. Since the internet was invented and became predominant in our daily life, the issue of internet safety came along. The recent event of Snowden, an employee of CIA, showed the global people that the advance of internet makes the illegal wiretap possible, which produced panic of citizens for being eavesdropped. What's more, increment of illegally stealing personal information also makes alerted about potential danger（改称makes people alert about blabla）. Granted all the disadvantages above, is it a good idea to claim that future life will be more complex rather than leisure? When taking more factors into consideration, as far as I am concerned, the leisure brought by advanced technologies outweighs the complexity.

Compared with former transportation, the traffic instruments today save us a lot of time, which we should believe that it will do the same thing in the future. We may easily quote a single instance to illustrate this. Before the China Railway High-speed was put into operation, the time spent on arriving Xiamen from Fuzhou should be five hours. However, since the CRH was used, it only takes you two hours. Last summer, when I tried to back home by CRH, I surprisingly found that the distance between the two city had been shorted so many that I could spend few time（time不可数－little） on transportation, which meant that I can get home more easily and avoid the long-time travel. Of course, I can spend more time with my family, much more leisure, right? Hence, we'd better come the conclusion that , at least on the aspect of transportation, the developed technologies has made our more leisure and it will constantly improve its service in the future.

In addition, the internet brings us more convenience than trouble. The invention of network helps us to receive information much prompt （adv形式promptly）than usual. There was a survey about the recognition for internet in the 2008 in China. According to the result, about 80% young people in China believed that the internet help they complete work more effectively and efficiently. Examples like this happen everywhere. When I was still a senior student, I had to submit the homework to teachers by face to face（face to face应该是副词短语，前面不用加by）. But now, increasing number of works could be done by computer and I can send these works to specified email-box without getting there. It enables me to have more time having fun, does it? Thus, it is high time to concede the convenience the technologies have brought to us until now and it’s reasonable to image that they will bring us more in the future.

In the nutshell, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that even though the advancing technologies brought some inconvenient, it brought more convenience to us such as faster transportation and quicker information. Thus, we should believe that with the constantly development of technologies, our future will be more leisure on a more objective understanding.

亲的作文写的真好，例子举的恰当好处，学习了～～～看来看去，真的没啥好改的～加油啦！

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-19 22:32:07

sweetyecho 发表于 2014-6-19 21:48
错误修改好

独立作文：

谢谢亲改的这么认真。。我倒是真的要注意了，第一句套模版结果思路卡死导致逻辑不通。。下次会注意。。非常感谢啊~

Five_007 · 发表于 2014-6-20 22:22:34

今天超时叻，而且由于不知咋地没法传附件。。所以要麻烦先复制再批改啦。。谢谢！
===============================分割线=====================================
TPO6  综合

Does weakness the communal online encyclopedias have make them less valuable than traditional ones?  The speaker refuted that the reading showed some prejudice from criticisms, who don't even know how far the communal online encyclopedias has gone. This idea was totally contradicted with passage.

First, the author emphasized that communal online encyclopedias written by contributors without enough knowledge were not as accurate as the traditional ones. While the professor, in the listening, proposed an opposite view. She stated that neither online nor traditional encyclopedias were accurate enough if one really needed a totally perfect answer. So it was more important for encyclopedias to be corrected in time. For the online encyclopedias had been corrected so much more times than the traditional ones, they should be more accurate than traditional ones.

Second, the author contended that compared with online encyclopedias, traditional ones avoided being maliciously modified. However the professor disagreed with this. She highlighted that there had been two strategies for protecting the contents of online encyclopedias. On the one hand, they had set crucial contents into read only format, which meant that contributors could not modify freely. On the other hand, special editors had also been employed to correct the wrong sections modified by people with malicious intention. Therefore, what the online encyclopedias was also safe.

Finally, the passage presented that communal encyclopedias included too much contents to make the important things to stand out. While the lecture held a different argument. She argued that the spaces on the traditional encyclopedias was too limited to permit them to put other contents attracted the users. It was the online encyclopedias that provided a variety of various information that readers really interested in, thus the huge information that the online encyclopedias had was actually an advantage.

独立：
Patience is usually not a good strategy. We should take action now rather later.

When it comes to the issue that whether it is better for us to keep patient instead of taking action rightly, people's perspective differ. Many people argue that too much patience may lose many chances, so we have to grasp these opportunities without hesitation.
However, others are just on the contrary. Each opinion has its redeeming feature if being determined on a case-by-case basis. On a personal level, I am in favor of the prior one.

Admittedly, patience indeed helps people obtain precious opportunities. Take fishing for example. When we are sitting down the bank of river and waiting for the coming of fishes, we do need huge patience cause the vibration would thrill fishes away if you can not hold on your breath. And also, people usually have to bear much ordeal for many years with patience before they finally became managements in your career. Granted both reasons above, is it a good idea to claim that more patient is better? When taking more factors in consideration, I think the immediate response outweighs the patience.

Compared with patience, it is more paramount for us to take action immediately for competition nowadays is much stronger than before. We may easily quote a single instance to illustrate this. Nokia, which was one of the biggest communication companies on the world, bankrupted and was merged by Microsoft as the telephone production department of the company. Nokia's over-patient with the changes happened in telephone market. When the system of android showed up, it was another opportunity for Nokia to compete more market share, whose share had been up to 70 percent. However, the managers worked for Nokia were so patient that they decided to wait for such a long time to observe the reflection of the market, which led to sharp depleting of market share taken over by Samgsung. Hence, we'd better come to conclusion that it is more pivotal for
competitors now to take action right now instead of  waiting patiently.

In addition, the opportunities come from creating rather than just waiting patiently. Steve Jobs, one of the most creative people on the world, stated that what Apple did was to create habit of clients for clients themselves might even not really recognize their expectation. That is right, if Apple didn't apply the technology of touching into telephone, we might still be using the phones with keyboard. Thus, it is high time to face the valuation of creation, instead of endless patience.

In a nutshell, from what has been discussed above, we may safely draw the conclusion that under the intensive competition, dealing with changes and being creative may be more seismic than just patiently waiting.

Five_007的写作练习贴~

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 ()