『写作小分队』 求轰炸

陈喵喵holdon

The reading passage criticizes the "let it burn" policy leading to serious consequences to the Yellowstone Park in 1988. The professor, however, announces that the fire is more creative than destructive.(感觉还是应该把两者的观点再明确化一些,reading要停止这个policy而professor很赞成)

First, the reading passage claims that the park's trees and other vegetation were damaged by the fire. By contrast, the lecture points out that the fire create(created) new opportunities for new plant species to survive which were not able to survive in the scorched place before(信息有误,为一些以前需要open and shaded space来生长的植物提供了机会). Some certain seeds now could exist in high level(原意为一些植物的seeds只有在高温下能develop,而火灾提供了这种机会).

Second, according to the passage, wildlife was affected by the firs(fire). But the professor indicates that not only the population of the animals increases, but also the new species appear. The fire created an ideal habitat for some small animals, such as rabbits and hears(hares). Consequently, the number of predators living on these small animals increases. So some certain food chains were strengthened, rather than disrupted.

Finally, the passage asserts that the fire negatively influenced the local tourism economy. The professor refutes that actually, the fire in 1988 was caused by the combination of multi-factors, such as the strong wind, the dry air(+little rainfall). However, such kind of fire did not come back each year later. So tourists still go to the park every year.



不知道为什么字体换颜色的功能突然不行了，所以就用了加粗加下划线，见谅。
比前面那篇信息更准确，交代也比较不啰嗦一些，有进步哈。

陈喵喵holdon

Have you had such kind of feeling that you fell(felt) either tired or empty after you watch a movie which teach you nothing, just for wasting time(直接用a waste of time,不然感觉像目的是浪费时间)? Have you noticed that you will be attracted automatically if the movies really teach you something about the real life? And are you deeply fascinated by movies that can tell you something, such as the love, the courage, the life meaning and so on?(这个和上一个问句的意思好像差不多) You will stand on my side with the opinion that movies are worth watching only when they teach us something about the real life.

The most important meaning for the movie is to impart unfamiliar things to human beings. According to a statistic analysis for China's film industry, it suggests that more than 70 percent of the consumers who go to theaters watching movie is young people, nearly 20 percent of them is children. It is not a surprise that the middle age people only account for 10 percent of them. The older adult's perspective, experiences are much richer than the young. So the young will find it is interesting to watch the movie for they could learn something really different from what they know. It is because the movies teach the something about the real life that they are willing to watch the movie(这个句子的主语好混乱,后面的they是观众吧,句子里指代的是movies).

It will be a luxury approach to waste your time if the movie does not tell you something meaningful. Even though some people indicate that watching movies, regardless of whether they are worth or meaningful, create more opportunities to share time with friends, families, this is not the point. However, the opposite is the right one. You spend time with your friends or families; it is because you want to share something happy or meaningful with them.(这个point很好！) So why do you waste your time watching a movie which just makes all of you disappointed? That is to say, if the movies are not able to grant something to us, they are not worth watching. Watching such kind of movies will also make you tired.(这两句的描述好像跟这段的观点不一致,跑偏了)After all, there are more ways for us to relax, to entertain, and to learning.(这段缺少例子)

The meaningful movies which can tell us something about the real life will attract us automatically. Think about this: why do some television programs is so popular all the time, while some of them die out without any notice? It is the information, the different and new experience, and the various culture from another world that those programs teach us that make them prevail. Therefore, just like the spread of the television programs, the spread and popularity of movies are for the same reason. Recently, there is a very hot documentary movie The tip of the tongue of China, regarded as the most successful documentary movie of China, appealing thousands of Chinese people, especially the young. As we all know, the young commonly take fewer interests in documentary movies. It is the vivid illustration and the glorious knowledge of Chinese food that fascinate the young people. Such kind of movies is really worth watching.(这段的观点:人们会自然而然被有意义的电影吸引,讲的应该不是看该类电影的原因吧?讲的好像是一种现象,一个客观事实,或者说是只看有意义电影这个现象.最好找一个别的理由加以论证)

缺少结尾段??

margrate

The reading passage criticizes the "let it burn" policy leading to serious consequences to the Yellowstone Park in 1988. The professor, however, announces that the fire is more creative than destructive.(感觉还是应该把两者的观点再明确化一些,reading要停止这个policy而professor很赞成)

First, the reading passage claims that the park's trees and other vegetation were damaged by the fire. By contrast, the lecture points out that the fire create(created) new opportunities for new plant species to survive which were not able to survive in the scorched place before(信息有误,为一些以前需要open and shaded space来生长的植物提供了机会). Some certain seeds now could exist in high level(原意为一些植物的seeds只有在高温下能develop,而火灾提供了这种机会).

Second, according to the passage, wildlife was affected by the firs(fire). But the professor indicates that not only the population of the animals increases, but also the new species appear. The fire created an ideal habitat for some small animals, such as rabbits and hears(hares). Consequently, the number of predators living on these small animals increases. So some certain food chains were strengthened, rather than disrupted.

Finally, the passage asserts that the fire negatively influenced the local tourism economy. The professor refutes that actually, the fire in 1988 was caused by the combination of multi-factors, such as the strong wind, the dry air(+little rainfall). However, such kind of fire did not come back each year later. So tourists still go to the park every year.



不知道为什么字体换颜色的功能突然不行了，所以就用了加粗加下划线，见谅。
比前面那篇信息更准确，交代也比较不啰嗦一些，有进步哈。

-- by 会员 陈喵喵holdon (2012/10/11 19:39:03)

再改


The reading passage criticizes the "let it burn" policy leading to serious consequences to the Yellowstone Park in 1988 and want to ban it. The professor, however, announces that the fire is more creative than destructive.

First, the reading passage claims that the park's trees and other vegetation were damaged by the fire. By contrast, the lecture points out that the fire created new opportunities for new plant species that could not grow otherwise. Smaller plants took over the areas of trees destroyed by the fire. And the high heat of the fire promoted the germination of certain species.

Second, according to the passage, wildlife was affected by the fires. But the professor indicates that not only the population of the animals recovers, but also the new species appear. The fire created an ideal habitat for some small animals, such as rabbits and hares. Consequently, the number of predators living on these small animals increases. So some certain food chains were strengthened, rather than disrupted.

Finally, the passage asserts that the fire negatively influenced the local tourism economy. The professor refutes that actually, the fire in 1988 was caused by the combination of multi-factors, such as low rainfall, unusual strong winds, and the dry air. However, such kind of fire did not come back each year later. So tourists still go to the park every year.

margrate

TPO 1 1015综合

The reading passage maintains that a four-day workweek is beneficial. The professor in the lecture, however, demonstrates that this it will not work as the reading discusses.

First, according to the reading, the shortened workweek would increase company profits, while the professor states that this policy would force companies to spend a lot more. Hiring more staff will increase the cost on training and medical issues, as well as the cost on office space and computers. All these cost will offset the benefits.

Second, the reading passage shows that the unemployment will be reduced under this policy. Contrary to the reading, the professor points out that, because of the increasing cost from hiring more staff, companies will force employees to work overtime, or raise the expectation that staff who work four-days will do the same work as five-day staff, leading to no more jobs being offered and unpleasant jobs.

Third, even though the reading contends that a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees, the professor indicates that the shortened workweek will low either employees’ job ability or promotion opportunity of the four-day staff. The four-day staff will be the first one to lose their jobs when economy goes down. And the companies will make it a priority to promote five-day staff who can cover and supervise the jobs all the week.

Above all, the professor in the lecture clearly analyses the three weaknesses of the four-day workweek and strongly refutes what has been discussed in the reading passage.

阿伦艾弗森

The reading passage maintains that a four-day workweek is beneficial. The professor in the lecture, however, demonstrates that this it will not work as the reading discusses.

First, according to the reading, the shortened workweek would increase company profits, while the professor states that this policy would force companies to spend a lot more. Hiring more staff will increase the cost on training and medical issues,as well as the cost(hiring无逻辑主语)on office space and computers. All these cost will offset the benefits.

Second, the reading passage shows that the unemployment will be reduced under this policy. Contrary to the reading, the professor points out that, because of the increasing cost from hiring more staff, companies will force employees to work overtime, or raise the expectation that staff who work four-days will do the same work as five-day staff, leading to no more jobs being offered and unpleasant jobs.（这句话有些别扭，语法中being这样的词最好不要出现在句中）

Third, even though the reading contends that a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees, the professor indicates that the shortened workweek will low either employees’ job ability or promotion opportunity of the four-day staff. The four-day staff will be the first one to lose their jobs when economy goes down. And the companies will make it a priority to promote five-day staff who can cover and supervise the jobs all the week.

Above all, the professor in the lecture clearly analyses the three weaknesses of the four-day workweek and strongly refutes what has been discussed in the reading passage.

一点拙见，望共同进步