Echo作文贴~请大家多多指教！

sweetyecho

lotusily 发表于 2014-5-5 09:10
5月3日独立修改~

收到！谢谢～

sweetyecho

好多天不写 都生疏了 还是要勤于练习！

chasedreamabc

Drivers have to pay a fee driving in busycity streets when there is a great amount of traffic.

Six years ago, my family “welcomed” animportant item to get into my family—a Toyota car, expecting it to make ourlives convenient. But the reality is that it brings us more problems thanconvenience because of the serious traffic jam. We are desperate tosee some policies（+which，之后的部分做名词性从句） the government can（have，我们绝望的是已经颁布的政策；如果对将出台的政策绝望，see 改为 foresee，predict…） put into effect tochange the terrible situation. However, from my point of view, these policiesdo not work efficiently, including the policy that let drivers pay a fee inbusy city streets. The reasons are as follows.

First of all, city streets, in publicadministration term, belong to public goodsbecause they are built to serve all citizens, not certain people. The featuresof public goods are non-competitiveness and non-exclusiveness: any（any多用表否句子，every）people（each person）has the right to enjoy the privilege regardlessof the people’s wealth or social status. In that way, if （a+，the+）government enforces the policy, this action always means that itadmits unfairness and will spark off chainreactions, because streets, the most basic and indispensable element in one’sdaily life, hinders ordinary people to have thesame opportunities to pursue their own dreams as the wealthy people. Asa result, traffic jam is not restricted to only a simple traffic problem, evenworsen to a social problem.

At the same time, in order to ease thetraffic pressure, the authorities, by charging fees when there is a greatamount of traffic, must have difficulties to achieve the expected goal. Thereason can be easily understood. Assuming that this busy street is beingcharged, a large quantity of people will definitely divertto another unpaid street, giving rise to another crowded road. And if this roadis busy and charged, more people will turn to oneanother（指三者以上的互相，用otherroads呢） road. As a result, the traffic jam istrapped into a vicious circle. From thisperspective, the problem exists forever and the approach cannot solve itradically.

Last but not least, granted that the way can work in some ways.However, the government is not able to provide sufficient resources to put itinto effect quickly. Even if the government is determined to pour（意思1.cause torun，2. move in large numbers, 3. flow in a spurt, 4.supply in large amounts or quantities, 5. rain heavily,是指液体或者人的倾倒，不能指钱） the moneyto fulfill it, I bet most of the money will go useless. First, needless to say,enough monitors, roadblocks, and staff are prerequisitesand the relevant equipment（+s，从前文看不相干的设备不是一件，何况前面都是复数就是并列也是复数啦） will alsotook（take） away a lot of money. Furthermore, comparedwith （a+）highway,（a+）city busy street is time-bound anduncertain; therefore, the equipment can not（书面只有这种哦cannot） be usedfully, leading to not a few waste.

In conclusion, asking drivers to pay a feein busy city streets to solve the traffic jam is not a wise choice, instead, itmay be better for a government to control the amount of people who is declined to buy cars and try its（前面说买是cars，那就不会是一个人咯，应该是their） bestto develop public transportation.

sweetyecho

6.6 独立 Modern agriculture methods damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment.

Imagine the situation that when you try your best to visit a place just because of its forest or prairie, you only see crops or bald ground at last, how disappointed you will be! But, it is reality. For the sake of increasing population, a growing number of people exploit more land to grow crops or herd using modern agriculture methods at the cost of environment. Some people support this behavior. However, for me, it is totally a mistake. The reasons are as follows.

First of all, environment is irreversible. If you damage it deeply, it will have difficulties to recover or maybe cannot recover forever. This is horrible, since we depend on this steady environment to survive. And the most evident example recently is the heavier and heavier smog in China, the country who has the most people and the fastest developing speed in the world. At the beginning, in order to feed 130billion people and make them live better, the government developed uncountable factories and industries, not considering the environment at all. As time goes by, the problems emerged: more people have been ill, more creatures have been extinguished. They need to be changed as soon as possible. But, the terrible environment cannot be purified only in one day or in one month, even in ten years. It needs so long a time that no one would know when it will finish. So, comparing with the controllable population, I would rather choose the more precious environment.

At the same time, food—the necessities for people is an effective tool to control the population and our Earth is filled with too many people, giving rise to a lot of problems. So, if we can control the newborns step by step, it does good to our world. Assuming that we maintain the existing producing scale and no more food is available, do large quantities of people are willing to deliver more babies? Of course not. In that way, the population will go down naturally and the problems could be solved. Granted that, this way has some disadvantages. However, if you damage the environment to feed more people and the more people must ask for more resources to grow up and you will exploit more land to get more crops, this situation is an endless vicious circle. Provided that you are not determined to end one of the part in the circle, the Earth must go into a day that no can save.

Last but not least, even though the reality forces you to provide food for the growing people at the cost of environment, I bet the quality of the food must be bad and will get worse and worse in the future. This judgment is not intended to frighten you: it is scientific because if you reclaimed land or damage the environment, the nutrition in the land will go away with days and cannot support the growth of the food certainly. So, this way to feed people is useless.

In conclusion, not only from the environment’s perspective, but also from the food suppliers’ perspective, this action is not a wise choice. We should and need to put environment ahead of the food.

sweetyecho

6.6 综合 TPO23

The reading passage and the listening lecture deals with an argument that whether the cedar bark beetles, brown bears and the gradual changes of the climate give rise to the decline of the yellow cedar. The two offer two opposing opinions.
First of all, the lecturer said owing to the poisonous chemicals stuck to the bark of the yellow cedar, the yellow cedar can protect itself from the threats of the insect parasites than other trees. In that way, the view in the reading passage is totally wrong: if it is safer than other trees, why only the yellow cedar is likely to decline?
Furthermore, the author stated that it is brown bears that have eaten these yellow cedar trees. However, the listening lecture provided the evidence that even if in the islands which brown bears cannot step into, the yellow cedar also suffer to decline.
Finally, the reading passage blamed the decline of the yellow cedar to the changes of the climates, because of the frost damage. But the reality is that in a higher area, which means in a lower-temperature area, fewer trees die than that in lower area. So according to the lecturer, this view is also problematic.
In a word, these explanations offered by the author are not adequate to explain for the decline of the yellow cedar.

xhbhxhbh

很好 建议或修改

The reading passage and the listening lecturedeals with an argument that whether the cedar bark beetles, brown bears and thegradual changes of the climate giverise to the decline of the yellow cedar. These two offer two opposing opinions.
First of all, the lecturer said owing to the poisonouschemicals stuck to the bark of the yellow cedar, the yellow cedar (they) can protect itself(themselves)from the threats of the insect parasites more than othertrees. In that way, the view in the reading passage is totally wrong: if it is safer than othertrees, why only the yellow cedar is likely to decline? （能补充点阅读中的内容更好）
Furthermore, the author stated that it is brownbears that have eaten these yellow cedar trees. However, the listening lectureprovided the evidence that even if in the islands which brown bears cannot stepinto, the yellow cedar also（still） suffer to the decline. （这一段也需要再充实一下）
Finally, the reading passage blamed (attributed )thedecline of the yellow cedar to the changes of the climates, because of thefrost damage. But the reality is that（As a matter of fact,） in a higher area, which means in a lower-temperature area,fewer trees die than that in lower area. So according to the lecturer, thisview is also problematic.
In a word, these explanations offered by theauthor are not adequate to explain for the decline of the yellow cedar.

很少发现语法错误，  有的用词我觉得换一下更能表达一些逻辑， 内容可以再多点， 因为我听过的所有建议都是 要尽量包括听力中的细节。 但是楼主的文章似乎属于短小精悍型的。还是希望多加点听力中的细节， 争取250-300字吧。

我确实看错了是 Bear。。。

小蘑菇开始打怪

6.6 独立 Modern agriculture methods damage the environment, but providing food for the growing population around the world is more important than protecting the environment.

Imagine the situation that when you try your best to visit a place just because of its forest or prairie, you only see crops or bald ground at last, how disappointed you will be!（这句语法觉得怪怪的，imagine是不是应该变成imaging？） But, it is reality. For the sake of increasing population, a growing number of people exploit more land to grow crops or herd using modern agriculture methods at the cost of environment. Some people support this behavior. However, for me, it is totally a mistake. The reasons are as follows.（开头写得真文艺！）

First of all, environment is irreversible. If you damage it deeply, it will have difficulties to recover or maybe cannot recover forever. This is horrible, since we depend on this steady environment to survive. And the most evident example recently is the heavier and heavier smog in China, the country who has the most people and the fastest developing speed in the world. At the beginning, in order to feed 130billion people and make them live better, the government developed uncountable factories and industries, not considering the environment at all. As time goes by, the problems emerged: more people have been ill, more creatures have been extinguished. They need to be changed as soon as possible. But, the terrible environment cannot be purified only in one day or in one month, even in ten years. It needs so long a time that no one would know when it will finish. So, comparing with the controllable population, I would rather choose the more precious environment.（我不太清楚，这个题目里面说的重点是modern agriculture method的优缺点比较，所以重点应该讨论由于method而带来的两方面哪一个更重要是嘛？但是你这一段的逻辑我觉得只是在说环境，然后这个环境的改变也不是因为agriculture method带来的，所以。。我疑惑了。。）（例子写得很好啊！什么语言啊什么什么的！）

At the same time, food—the necessities for people is an effective tool to control the population and our Earth is filled with too many people, giving rise to a lot of problems. So, if we can control the newborns step by step, it does good to our world. Assuming that we maintain the existing producing scale and no more food is available, do large quantities of people are willing to deliver more babies? Of course not. In that way, the population will go down naturally and the problems could be solved. Granted that, this way has some disadvantages. However, if you damage the environment to feed more people and the more people must ask for more resources to grow up and you will exploit more land to get more crops, this situation is an endless vicious circle. Provided that you are not determined to end one of the part in the circle, the Earth must go into a day that no can save.

Last but not least, even though the reality forces you to provide food for the growing people at the cost of environment, I bet the quality of the food must be bad and will get worse and worse in the future. This judgment is not intended to frighten you: it is scientific because if you reclaimed land or damage the environment, the nutrition in the land will go away with days and cannot support the growth of the food certainly. So, this way to feed people is useless.（这段的逻辑就很给力！）

In conclusion, not only from the environment’s perspective, but also from the food suppliers’ perspective, this action is not a wise choice. We should and need to put environment ahead of the food.  

果然是组长，写得真的很好哇！各种词用得艾玛！

xhbhxhbh

我还欠 你一篇独立 作文的修改。。。但是没找到要修改的亲。。

sweetyecho

xhbhxhbh 发表于 2014-6-19 15:40
我还欠 你一篇独立 作文的修改。。。但是没找到要修改的亲。。

亲 你太客气了，谢谢你～～～我如果有要修改的，就站内信给你哦，多谢了～

sweetyecho

xhbhxhbh 发表于 2014-6-19 15:40
我还欠 你一篇独立 作文的修改。。。但是没找到要修改的亲。。

亲 你太客气了，谢谢你～～～我如果有要修改的，就站内信给你哦，多谢了～