请【德克的猪】帮忙看看我的【第一篇】，十分感谢

lp_nvm

是OG上的练习，说动物和人类捐献器官者自私的，我看要求是200字左右，我怎么写了300多字，是不是太多了？？开头有60多字，请问如何精简？？还请帮忙指出错误。。狠狠的批～～～～十分感谢！！！！没有结尾可以吗？

The lecture mainly talks about the new findings about the behaviors of meerkat guard and human donators of body organs. In the lecture, the speaker argues that those behaviors are selfish, because the sentinel meerkat and the donators are rewarded. However, this idea completely contradicts what is demonstrated in the reading passage which says those behaviors show altruism due to the belief that nothing is gained.

 

 

First, the sentinel meerkat is full-stomach instead of eating nothing. It is believed in the lecture that meerkat has already fed itself before it stands as the guard. Nevertheless, contrary to this belief, the reading passage shows that the sentinel gains no food while the others eat. Thus, the lecture directly refutes what the passage implies.

 

 

In addition, it is more likely for the guard to escape from predators and meanwhile other meerkats are in greater danger. The lecture suggests that the guard can quickly rush into burrows and run away because it can realize the danger before other meerkats do. Moreover, according to the lecture, the alarm sent by the sentinel makes the rest meerkats to gather together, which in fact draws the attentions of predators and renders them more dangerous. However, the passage says that the guard is in great risk because the gathering helps other meerkats to fight against the predators. Therefore, this is another contraction where the lecture casts doubt on the passage.

 

 

Finally, about the donation behavior, the donators are paid back, rather than gaining nothing. The speaker indicates that the donators can obtain approval and appraise from the society and the strangers who benefit from their donations. So they will eventually have the feelings of self-worth which is a kind of non-material reward. But In contrast, the passage has a different view, that is, those donators benefit nothing from this behavior. Hence, the passage is disapproved by the speaker again