包子不包子：欢迎拍砖～～

包子不包子

6.10 独立

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To make children do well at school, parents should limit the hours that a child spends on watching TV.

Children living in modern city enjoy watching TV in a gradual increasing time. Sometimes, a couple of children are likely to spend all the weekend staying at home and watching TV. Less time is left for outdoor activities to build a healthy body. On the other hand, little attention is paid to school work. From my stand of point, parents should limit the hours that a child spends on TV. I will demonstrate my reasons as the following.

To begin with, watching TV is a time consuming activity for a child and it does occupy the time for studying. While watching TV, cartoons, movies and talk shows, hardly can a child control him or herself to stop watching in the next 5 minutes. The colorful pictures are moving on TV and they produce amazing sounds as well as fabulous contents. All of the elements mentioned above are possible to trap a child's attention. No awareness is left to do school work in this way. Though a child can stop watching TV in the next 5 minutes, they cannot stop thinking about the programs they just watched. So interesting the sounds and images are that they keep emerging in their mind, which impairs children’s concentration significantly. Therefore, the time children spend on watching TV should be limited by their parents.

Another point that of the same value is that watching TV for an infinite time could produce negative influence to a child’s health, which cannot assure the acquisition for study. Stay indoors and stare at the same point close to eyes is not only harmful for children's physical development but also mental. What a child should enjoy is not shut him or herself alone in a little room. Play with other children, talk and laugh with each other is what they should love to do. During which, communication can help them to learn from each other and improvement and development of themselves are possible to be achieved. Only with healthy body and mind can children devoted to school work better. Again, children should not watch TV no matter how long they want.

Some people may announce that there are TV programs about science, art and other subjects that children can learn knowledge from. Children should not be limited in watching programs like that. Personally, I would like to say that if a child really can learn knowledge from TV, what are schools and teachers for. The view mentioned above is limited and children should pay more attention to their works at schools rather than TV programs.

To sum up, spend too much time watching TV is not only harmful for a  child physical health but also psychological health, and TV programs also produce a long term influence on study which is difficult for  children to control. Accordingly, children's time spend on watching TV should be limited.

包子不包子

6.11 综合


Both of the writer and lecturer discuss the critical statements about buzzers, people who work as living commercial advertisements to promote products. The writer lists out three critical statements. However, the lecturer, buzzer Bill, insists that all of them are misleading.

First, the buzzer claims that buzzers do tell the truth and they are not just ordinary advertisements. Although they get paid from the company they work for, buzzers are people who have used the products and really enjoyed them. For Bill himself, he thinks the phone service he is buzzing is great. Therefore, this directly disproves its counterpart in the reading material.

Moreover, the speaker contends that people believe in whatever buzzers say is not true, which is different from the author. On the contrary, the truth is the opposite situation. People ask buzzers lots of questions, such as price, services and how long they have used them. If the buzzer cannot answer those questions, the customer will not buy the product definitely. Accordingly, this is another place where experiences contradicted theory.

At last, buzzers produce harmful effects on social relationships is refuted by the speaker. It is stupid, he claims. In fact, buzzers improve social relationships. He explains that company has bad products cannot crew buzzers. People who try the products buzzers are promoting will be able to experience those good one. Due to this, people become trustful and open to others. Consequently, the last statement is also disproved.

In conclusion, the lecturer clearly identifies the weakness in the passage and convincingly shows that the arguments in the reading to attack buzzers are incorrect.

包子不包子

6.11 独立 不好写啊啊啊啊啊T.T


6月11日110821 NA
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? There is never a reason to be rude (impolite) to another person.

Have you ever seen a person shouting at a salesman for trivial things? Have you ever seen people standing in the same line arguing about the sequence? Have you ever an employee been criticized by his employer? If you have seen those things before. No wonder can you see the outcome of being impolite. Personally, I agree that there is never a reason to be rude to another person.

To begin with, being impolite to another person is not helpful to solve the problem. Imagine an employee has just been criticized by his boss. With a low and desperate mood and struggle to let the anger out, how can anyone under that circumstance able to settle things done perfectly? Bad mood leads to unpleasant results, which can be another reason for the leader to shout at the employee. The cycle will go on. No improvement can be made.  All the things are started from the employer's being impolite. Surely, he is not satisfied with the work others did. Other than shouting and being rude to people, there are still myriad of methods to express his unsatisfactory. Therefore, rudeness is not assisting to address any problems, even they make things worse, and under no account can people be rude to others.

Another view owns the same value is that being polite is a crucial quality of a person. Respect the old and love the young is an old tradition in China. People regard being polite to others as a way of self-achievement for individuals and an acquisition to keep the order of the society. Politeness creates harmony for a society. Can you imagine what does it look like if people are shouting, arguing and fighting everyday on the streets? Only when politeness rest in every citizens' hearts, can the society reach its order and progress be assured. Again, there is never a reason for people to be rude. If it is to express the unpleasant feelings, being rude is kind of an excuse. I guess talk to another people in peace is a better approach to express clearly rather than screaming.
Others may say that there are some situation that people cannot control themselves to be rude. Everything just happens so quickly, when they remember what happened, they had already hurt someone. In that case, people should ask for others forgiveness politely and try to correct their fault.

In conclusion, under no circumstances can people be rude to others. If it happened without control, a polite approach should be created to fix the situation.

包子不包子

6.12 综合TPO20

Both of the lecturer and author explore the critics of the 'let it be' policy for natural fire. The reading lists three possible critics. The listening, however, insists that natural fire is part of the ecological cycle and it also plays as a creative part for nature. She explains what really happened after the 1988 Yellowstone fire.

First, the professor believes that the fire diversify trees and vegetation instead of damage them in Yellowstone. She justifies her point by giving two examples. With the burning down of tall trees in the forest, open air are produced for certain small plant to thrive. In addition, seeds of some species can only germinate by exposing to high level of heat. Therefore, this directly disproves its counterpart in the reading material.

Moreover, the speaker contends that there is a same situation for animals, the fire creates new opportunities for certain animals and the food chain is even stronger after the fire, which is different from the writer. She declares that the small plants benefit from the dying of the tall trees supply ideal habitats for small animals like hares and rabbits, which are the food for later predators, large animals. Accordingly, this is another point where experiences the contradicted theory.

At last, the lecturer asserts that only if this kind of impressive fire happens every year, no negative effect can be put on local economy and tourism. The 1988 forest fire in Yellowstone is the result of an unusual combination of elements, low rainfall and strong wind. For fire like this is not common and such kind of fire never happened again since 1988. Tourists came back to the park the next year and each year after that. Consequently, the last critic is also disproved.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weakness in the passage and convincingly shows that the arguments in the reading are incorrect.

包子不包子

6月12日 090403 NA
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers' salaries

Education tops the list of what people should do to achieve self-improvement in recent years. It seems like an insurance of a bright future. Gradual attention has been put into educational field, money, policies and equipment. However, can the quality of education be improved by the increase in the teacher's salaries? Is it the best way to do so? Personally, I do not think so.

To begin with, education is not only about the knowledge that people learn at school. How to be a qualified person is also part of it. Education is not the knowledge that a person learnt at school, it is what he is after forgetting all the knowledge, virtue and personality. This is the best understanding of education I have ever read. Teachers' teaching brings the truth of the world to students, chemistry, physics and poem. Some people devote themselves in the development of certain subject after their graduation. Others, unfortunately, use their chemical knowledge to harm other people. This is the defect of teachers' teaching. The appropriate method to deal with the real world is personal and it is hard to be passed on to students from teachers, which is indeed part of education. Accordingly, by simply increase the salaries of teachers are not helpful to improve the quality of education in this aspect.

Another point owns the same value is that teachers are merely part of the educational system. High education also demands for academic environment, qualified educational equipment and up to date information. Can you imagine all the things that a university has are professors? No labs, libraries and computers. The list will go on. It definitely cannot be called as a university. A real famous university provides the best education for its students through various approaches not only limited by the lectures professors given. Students are able to discuss projects in libraries and practice themselves in labs. If there is any problems, computers and the Internet are their most efficient assistance. In this way, education no longer attached to teachers in a simple way. Only increasing the salaries is not a wise choice.

Others may announce that people can be motivated by money, and teachers are the same. Whereas, have they ever consider about what if there exist a limitation in the teaching abilities of teachers? Under this circumstance, I am afraid that no matter how large a sum of money that a teacher receives, even a little improvement cannot be reached in his or hers work.

To sum up, increasing the salaries of teachers is not the best way to improve the quality of education. Education is not only related to teachers. There are several elements should be contemplated about.

vanessa923

红色错误。蓝色建议，黄色好词好句。
Have you ever seen a person shouting at a salesman for trivial things? Have you ever seen people standing in the same line arguing about the sequence? Have you ever（seen） an employee been（being） criticized by his employer? If you have seen those things before. No wonder can you（是you can么？有待考证） see the outcome of being impolite. Personally, I agree that there is never a reason to be rude to another person.

To begin with, being impolite to another person is not helpful to solve the problem. Imagine an employee has just been criticized by his boss. With a low and desperate mood and struggle to let the anger out, how can anyone under that circumstance able to settle things done（去掉，settle直接可以做及物动词） perfectly? Bad mood leads to unpleasant results, which can be another reason for the leader to shout at the employee. The cycle will go on. No improvement can be made.  All the things are started（starts） from the employer's being impolite. Surely, he is not satisfied with the work others did. Other than shouting and being rude to people, there are still myriad of methods to express his unsatisfactory. Therefore, rudeness is not assisting to address any problems,（and ）even they make things worse, and under no account can people be rude to others.

Another view owns the same value is that being polite is a crucial quality of a person.(语法错误）（ To） Respect the old and love the young is an old tradition in China. People regard being polite to others as a way of self-achievement for individuals and an acquisition to keep the order of the society. Politeness creates harmony for a society. Can you imagine what does it look like if people are shouting, arguing and fighting everyday on the streets? Only when politeness rest in every citizens' hearts, （去掉）can the society reach its order and progress be assured. Again, there is never a reason for people to be rude. If it is to express the unpleasant feelings, being rude is kind of an excuse. I guess talk（ing） to another people in peace is a better approach to express（express什么呢，可以加点东西） clearly rather than screaming.
Others may say that there are some situation that people cannot control themselves to be rude. Everything just happens so quickly, （.）when they remember what happened, they had already hurt someone. In that case, people should ask for others forgiveness politely and try to correct their fault.

In conclusion, under no circumstances can people be rude to others. If it happened without control, a polite approach should be created to fix the situation.
总体来说思路还不错。一些小细节例如主谓一致，主语成分的注意一下。加油！

包子不包子

vanessa923有没有觉得包子的词汇 句型 太简单 单调 什么的？
好久没写 感觉没有以前写的好了 T.T

nirvanababy

红色错误，高亮写得不错。

Both of the reading and listening discuss the issue of addressing the decline of a kind of evergreen tree-Torreya. The author comes up with three possible solutions. The speaker, on the contrary, insists that none of the solutions are satisfied.

First, the professor believes that the microclimate in the same location where Torreye have thrived thousands years is affected by the larger region greatly. Climate change and drain out of the wet land in Florida could produce a drier environment for Torreya, which is difficult for Torreya to survive in any microclimate within its original location. Therefore, this directly disproves its counterpart, reestablish(reestablishing) Torreya in the same location, in the reading.

Moreover, the speaker contends that move(moving) Torreya to different location are (is) unlikely to be successful, because it can produce unpredictable outcome to the new environment. She explains that by providing an example about the moving of another tree species. When this kind of tree was planted in a different region, it spread so quickly that killed local trees which were already endangered. Accordingly, the second solution is proved to be not practicable.

At last, the professor asserts that research center is not a satisfied solution either, which contradicts with(删掉)the idea proposed by the author. She says that Torreya in the research center are in small population and less genetic diversity. Therefore, they cannot resist disease and do not have enough capacity to survive like the trees in the wild environment in the long term. Consequently, the research center theory is also disproved.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identified the weakness in the reading and convincingly shows that all the solutions raised by the writer are not satisfied. （平行结构的时态没有一致）

总体来说听力和阅读里的要点都把握得很好，改写也很不错。赞一个！孩纸你完成作业很积极，学习ing!

vanessa923

vanessa923有没有觉得包子的词汇 句型 太简单 单调 什么的？
好久没写 感觉没有以前写的好了 T.T

-- by 会员 包子不包子 (2012/6/12 13:00:24)

我觉得词汇还好哦，其实用准用对才是最好的。
句型可以适当下意识提高一下，像我有时候会特意提醒自己什么强调句，倒装句，并列句什么的多用点。
有意识就好了，呵呵。
加油！

包子不包子

6.13 tpo21


Both of the writer and the lecturer discuss the influences of genetic modified trees. The writer lists out three possible benefits of genetic modified trees. The lecturer, however, insists that they can benefit the public and environment but they are not as great as they first heard. Problems and causes associated with genetic modified trees are real.

First, the professor believes that genetic modified trees cannot ensure the survival of its species. That is genetic modified trees are more unified. Not like nature trees with genetically diverse, at least some trees of its species are resistance to the environmental challenges, which ensure the survival of that species. Genetic modified trees, on the contrary, are more likely to die out when facing environmental challenges because of their lacking in genetic diverse. Therefore, this directly disproves its counterpart in the reading material.

Moreover, the lecturer contends that genetic modified trees actually cost more for people who grow them, which is different from the writer. The speaker strengthens her idea by claiming that genetic modified trees companies charge more for the seeds and people who grow them cannot simply collect the seeds and plant them for free. By law, they have to pay for the companies every single time they plant that kind of tree. Accordingly, this is another place where experiences contradicted theory.

At last, the speaker asserts that genetic modified trees produce more damages to wild trees rather than prevent them from overexploitation. They grow more aggressively, she says, also they outcompete the wild trees which are mixed with genetic modified trees for resources like sunlight, water and nutrition. Eventually, the nature trees will be crowding out. Consequently, the last point is disproved.

In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weakness in the passage and convincingly shows that all of the potential benefits raised by the author are incorrect.