NMGMADMAN的作文贴。不管有没有人拍砖,我心依旧。

NmgMadman

还有14天就考托福，第五次考了，不想再失败了。每天至少写一篇然后认真修改，监督自己。人言力耕者，岁旱亦有粮。

NmgMadman

Do you agree or disagree? It is more important to keep your old friend than it is to make new friends.

The importance of friendship have been emphasized countless times by people. Undoubtedly we have reached the consensus that friendship has been the most important, if not, among the most important ingredients of lives of people. However, the issue comes with, should we focus on keeping old buddies or making new one? I, as someone who easily falling into mood of nostalgia,  tend to exert most efforts on keeping relationship with old friends.

Friendship is valued for its "quality", instead of "quantity". Driven by the modern social development, the pace of life has been accelerated to an unprecedented extent. People especially grownup bear more pressure and tend to  live more dependently than ever before, resulting in significant feeling of loneliness. Even though we may meet lots of new people during daily life, in business, in gym, or in a dinner. We may say hello, shake hands, talk and kill time, hardly do we really reveal the real minds of us---as they don't really know us, that's just social intercourse. By the time we're really in trouble, we're down or we are facing setbacks on our works, it's those old friends who can really understand us, who can rely on and who save us from disappointment. When we experiencing embarrassed situation , having a nice dream last night, or meeting someone that we're kind of into, it's those friends we'd love to share with, in spite of good one or bad one, it's always the most pleasant experience that someone can share your happiness and bear your sorrow.

Friendship is also valued for "maintainance", other than "replace". Ubiquitous the experience is that many people may have encountered such situation,  Getting a stack of business cards after a party, but hardly you can recognize who is it just a few days later. People are always chasing for what they have not have yet, while easy to ignore those they have had, and that's not the way of fostering friendship. After I went abroad towards US, I got so busy catching my school schedule that somehow contact minor times with my old guys who have been my best friends in college. Once we met on the facebook and we talk, I felt that we have kind of far away from, not physical distance, but heart. I felt so sad about that and after that, I talk to my old guys routinely and ask each other what's going on recently. So keep an eye on connecting with your old friends, it's more important than make new one.

"Time will tell", that's my motto and something I always believe in. You're less likely to perceive that if a guy would be your friend especially when you just met him/her. According to a psychological research, people tend to conceal their real personalities when they meet someone fresh. However as the time goes by, they are inclined to detach their "makeup" and behave towards their real characteristics. So that's the point I want to emphasize, as I mentioned above,  we can share our happiness and sorrow to our old friends because we are so close that we have nothing to conceal. That's the feeling of trustiness, since after such a long relation, you know him well. On the contrary, start to know someone fresh can be time-consuming. Much less, the result may be unpleasant,  the one you want to be friends maybe not the one that fit.

To sum it up, it's feasible to make new friends. But, keeping old friends should always be placed as the first priority, and reason is simple--they're more important to you.

NmgMadman

10月22号作文More and more people are spending money on their pets, even though there can be other good ways to spend money.

The statement raises a issue with pet, such as puppies, cats. As soaring population account for pet-keepers, should  we spend money on them or doing something else meaningful? The problem can be originated from "Is keeping pets worth spending money?". From my prospective, in most cases, the answer is yes.

To begin with, most of the pet-keepers are those one who enjoy keeping a pet. If by doing so they can achieve intrinsic happiness, their spending can be indentified "worthy". It's those pets who get their accompany everyday and be treated as one of their family members to some extent. They have fun in buying cookies for them, they are willing to spend hundreds of dollars to give their dear pets a vaccine injection. Apparent it is that pets owners should spend money on them.

Beyond the conception of pet itself, some puppies and cats are playing vital role in the lives of some group of people. For example, without their dogs those blind people would lose their way home, old ladies who live alone would lose their accompany, suffering from loneliness. Pets as to those people, likes water as to the plant, indispensable it is. Therefore some amount of money spending on them is in undoubtedly essential budget.

Despite the pleasure and help the pets bring us, there exist tons of reasons to spend on their pets. By raising a pet, a child would start their first lesson of life on how to take care of others. Mary, the daughter of my uncle John, raised a puppy since she's 3 year old, they got along well and played around , fed and bathed the puppy everyday. After she attended the elementary, she was elected as the class monitor as a result of her outstanding warm heart and ability to take care of others. Afterwards, she got along with each kid in her class and became the most favorable girl among them.

In order to be objective, I admit that in some case spending on other things such as donating money to children who live in poor or on tuition of the school would be more meaningful, compared to spending on pets. Nevertheless, pets have been the most loyal and reliable friends of human beings and in most cases, it's worthy of spending on them.

NmgMadman

10月21号 综合写作 TPO 7

The professor refutes the points listed in the passage by stating that US companies would eventually accept the certifications issued by an international assessment organization.

First, while the passage considers that consumers in US have no longer believe in ads ,the professor in the listening material, however, argues that consumers treat ads separately. To be specific, US consumers only cast doubt on those ads provided by companies themselves while still trust those certifications issued by international organizations.

Second, the professor continues to the "price" issue, while the passage suggests that US consumers are highly price-sensitive and are most likely to choose those uncertified products which are more cheaper, the professor contends that price would not be consumers' primary concern if the price difference is minor within 5%. The professor also points out that consumers would care about the intrinsic value and the quality of the products, in the case of minor price difference.

Third, while the passages believes that international demand would not be a problem for US companies, the professor refutes that in a totally opposite direction. He says that the key issue is " international competition". He argues that US markets would be  crowded into international companies if US companies don't take action to acquire equal certified status. In other words, the US companies would be phase out the market in the long run because lacking of certification would result in less competition force.

According to points listed above, the professor draws the conclusion that US companies would cater to such certification ultimately.

AnthonySummer

粉红色拼写错误(直接修改了)橘红色语法错误（谓语搭配单复数问题、固定搭配、空格多空了一格、逗号句号用错了）红色其他错误黄色精彩句子蓝色建议修改（个人建议，不对的地方多多指教啊）



10月22号作文More and more people are spending money on their pets, even though there can be other good ways to spend money.



The statement raises an issue with pet, such as puppies, cats. As soaring population accounts for pet-keepers, should we spend money on them or doing something else meaningful? The problem can be originated from "Is keeping pets worth spending money?". From my perspective, in most cases, the answer is yes.



To begin with, most of the pet-keepers are those one who enjoys keeping a pet. If by doing so they can achieve intrinsic happiness, their spending can be identified "worthy". It's (指代无对象） those pets who get their company everyday and be treated as one of their family members to some extent. They have fun in buying cookies for them. They are willing to spend hundreds of dollars to give their dead pets a vaccine injection. Apparently it is that pets owners should spend money on them.



Beyond the conception of pet itself, some puppies and cats are playing a vital role in the lives of some group of people. For example,（逻辑错误） without their dogs those blind people would lose their way home, （无连接词） old ladies who live alone would lose their company, suffering from loneliness. Pets as to those people, likes water as to the plant, indispensable it is. Therefore some amount of money spending on them is undoubtedly essential budget.



Despite the pleasure and help the pets bring us, there exist tons of reasons to spend on their pets. By raising a pet, a child would start their first lesson of life on how to take care of others. Mary, the daughter of my uncle John, raised a puppy since she's 3 years old, they got along well and played around, fed and bathed the puppy everyday. After she attended the elementary, she was elected as the class monitor as a result of her outstanding warm heart and ability to take care of others. Afterwards, she got along with each kid in her class and became the most favorable girl among them.



In order to be objective, I admit that in some case spending on other things such as donating money to children who live in poor or on tuition of the school would be more meaningful, compared to spending on pets. Nevertheless, pets have been the most loyal and reliable friends of human beings and in most cases, it's worth of spending on them.



貌似小问题比较多~

NmgMadman

谢谢SUMMER, 好多小问题自己还真是不看不知道啊。。。我离28分还有多远= =

NmgMadman

10月23日 There's no reason to be impolite to the other people. 超时了10分钟才写了300字出头 感觉自己总是在斟酌= =没有文思如泉涌的感觉

When it comes to the issue that should we show impoliteness in some circumstances, proponents may argue that it's natural impetus of human beings to be impolite towards those people who do not deserve respect. Reasonable it is may appear at first glance, however, it's gratuitous and ridiculous upon further inspection. Reasons or explanations will be shown in the following.

First and foremost, impoliteness never solve any problems. Take one simple example, my brother-in-law just bought a cellphone from  a phone store, however, the machine crushed 3 days after purchase. He got really angry and came to the store, spoke rudely to the salesman who handed that phone to him 3 days ago. The salesman then charged my brother for personal insult. My brother eventually got his cellphone changed a new one,  however, got a warning from police as well. Angry may be the first reaction when we come to situation like this, but behave angrily and impolitely never really solve problems, on the contrary, make things worse.

Moreover, what you're doing to others would reflect to yourself. Respecting others, Showing politeness, these things are actually mutually processed. When you smile to the people, you will receive a smile as well. When you say thank you after someone helped you, they would be willing to help you next time. When you behave impolitely to someone, however, that one will return you in the same way. Worse maybe, people who witnessed your behavior may keep away from you.

To be frankly, it's impossible for everyone keep rational all the time. Such impetus, misbehavior, maybe happen sometime, but, learn to control your temper. The evolvement of human beings, from gorilla, to people in today, we are civilized creatures. A lot of cases, you may be marked as lacking of civilization or missing parenting education.

To sum it up, it's never been a wise move to behavior impoliteness under highly civilized society of today.

NmgMadman

10月24日 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government and corporation should share all their scientific discoveries with other countries in the world? Please use specific details and examples to support your opinion.

An ongoing topic has been debated hotly recently, which says: should government and corporation share their scientific discoveries with others in the world?

Proponents may argue that would enhance the worldwide average productivity, thus offers better well-beings to people all over the world. Reasonable it may appears at first glance, but upon further inspection, it's has several apparent fallacy. Reasons and examples are shown as follow.

First and foremost, not only such "altruism" would not help to enhance comprehensive well-beings of people, but also, indeed, it may probably damage those people, leading them into starvation and poverty. The reason is that such generous share would restrain those scientists in receptive countries from creativity and diligence. Just imagine, if scientists in other countries have don't have to worry about our livelihood at all because they can count on the free dividend other scientists give them, what a chaos the world would be? There would be no one willing to work anymore because they are able to gain without pay. That's definitely not the rule how the world runs and extremely ridiculous.

Moreover, such share in terms of technology may threat harmony and peace of this planet. Take one simple example, right now some powerful countries have achieved the core technique of nuclear weapon. Following this statement, they should share them with the rest of countries. Can you imagine what would happen afterwards? Those terrorists may take advantage of this thus threatening our lives. If every single person in this planet under the threat of death, how come would they achieve more well-being?

To be objective, I'm not stating that those governments and corporations should withhold all of their discoveries to all the countries. In some cases, such support regarding technology would actually help those poor countries enhance their productivity, which may avoid more people starving or frozen to death.

All in all, according to what I listed above, I support that corporations and government should, in most cases, don't share their technologies with other countries.

NmgMadman

作文到底多少字才算比较好啊 郁闷 写的好少

NmgMadman

今天状态不好，不知所云。

When compared with job and social life, which are two indispensable ingredients of human beings, many people may prefer social life more because social life can easily be associated with relax, pleasure, new friend, excitement, etc. From my point of view,  job, would bring me more happiness than social life.

First and foremost, work time accounts for most of the time of a grownup. One has to work hard to make living. More importantly,  working is a mutual process between a job position and a man. A man would like to choose a job which interests and fulfill him. A job position, however, are looking for a man competent for it. Such perfect match would help one man easily engaged in his role in job, working with passion and creativity. Thus one can enjoy the sense of achievement and fulfillment brought by devotion in the field of one's interest. Take me as an example, last semester I joined a part-time job to be assistant of my professor, working on a project regarding valuation of a firm. I'm totally caught by my job because this field is so attractive and it's such a satisfaction each time I got progression of the project. I don't even want move when I sat down and concentrated on my project, let alone went to social.

Moreover, in my opinion, job is actually part of social life. Distinctive from the real social life, which happiness and joy are always transient, social life in job means getting along with you colleagues when you go to work. Your workmates are someone you'll see everyday and directly decides whether you would have a pleasant work time or not. If you can stay in harmonious with your colleagues and fulfill your job well, then you're likely to gain more happiness than those not.

To sum it up, for me, job has greater happiness than social life.