daisy的写作楼

daisy333

9.4 综合
While the reading material lists three reasons to support that salvage logging is a good way of dealing with aftermath of forest fires, the professor in lecture disagrees at all and thinks that salvage logging will cause more serious and longer problem.

First, as the writer of the material argues that salvage logging removing the dead tree makes space for fresh growth and avoids the problem that the dead trees will take long time to decompose. However, the lecture points out that clearing up all dead tree from forest doesn't create a right resolution. Because dead trees decompose in the forest, producing soil nutrient which will enrich the forest's soil and offer a better environment for future generation tree to grow.

Secondly, the author of the article states that decaying wood provides spruce bark beetles, which damage healthy spruce trees, a superexcellent environment to live. So removing these decaying wood may be a good idea. The lecture illustrates that this point is not comprehensive. Since rotting wood is also a suitable place for bird and other good insect to live and the amount of spruce bark beetles have never caused any big disaster, decaying wood will not be a real problem.

Last but not the least, the economic benefits mentioned in the reading material is small and temperary according to the lecture for two reasons. The first reason is that salvage logging requires professional equipment such as helicopter, which is expensive. Another reason is that workers need in salvage logging is in short time. And the workers at local may not be hired because experienced workers are the person who are needed in salvage logging.

mygirlzini

daisy333 发表于 2014-9-5 19:59
9.4 综合
While the reading material lists three reasons to support that salvage logging is a good wa ...

个人观点,仅供参考

daisy333

0908综合


In the writing, three methods have been raised to improve the decline of Torreya. However, the professor claims that all these three ways are unlikely to solve the problem.

First, the writing suggests that to reestablish Torreya in the same location, where are Torreya used to be found in abundance. The professor disputes this method, stating that as the influence of the global warming, the climate in the original location where used to be cool and wet, has became drier. Therefore the same location is not suitable for the growth of Torreya anymore.

The professor continues to discredit the writing's second method by arguing that relocate Torreya to an totally different location may cause serious chain damage to the whole environment system. The professor raises an example of another kind of tree which has been moved to a totally different environment. The sudden arrival of this new kind of tree kills many other endangered species that used to live there. So the second methods may cause an unpredictable disastrous consequence.

The professor's third argument is that the writing's third method is not practicable either. Preserving Torreya in research centers are not able to keep Torreya from diseases. Since the population of the Torreya in the nature environment is big, the research centers can't offer an environment for Torreya to resist virus, so the Torreya won't live long in research centers.

In summary, all the above-mentioned reasons of the lecture illustrate that the professor disagree with the three methods raised in the reading passage.

daisy333

0907 综合

As the writing lists three reasons to persuade us that the number of birds in the United States will definitely decline. The professor, however, claims that all these three reasons are unconvincing.

First, the professor admits that human populations and settlements will continue to expand, which mentioned by the reading passage, but the professor states that urban development will not reduce bird's habitat but offer better and larger habitats for some kind of birds, such as pigeons and rodents. For example, pigeons, rodents and other kind of birds can live in the street or on the landfill in city. So the result is the population of some kind of bird will eventually increase.

The professor continues to discredit the writing's assertion that increasing agricultural activities will result in the destruction of  bird habitats. Although the professor agrees that the agricultural activities will increase, the way the agriculture development is not like the writing's presume but to produce more productive crops while using less agricultural areas. So the bird habitats won't be influenced at all.

Last, the professor contradicts the view of the writer that the increasing use of chemical pesticides will contribute to the continuous decline of the number of birds. The professor points out that as the people have awareness that chemical pesticides are harmful to most of animals, they find two ways to improve this problem. One is using new less toxic pesticides, and the other is growing pest resistance crops.

angla

抱歉啊，好晚才改完。。。。

daisy333

929 家里网总算能稳定点了 回归小分队 每天练习作文！一战写作24 独立是fair TAT 要求不高只求下次一定要上25！

daisy333

929独立 让孩子自己做决定更好

As every child is the apple of parents' eyes, issues involved with children never fails to attract people's attention. That should parents let children make decisions on their own is always a hot topic among daily conversation. Some people who seems more open-minded believe that letting children choose for themselves show fully respect to children, thus should be encouraged. However, other people, including me, hold different opinion that letting children take responsible for themselves all the time may not be as ideal as it seems.

First, lacking of knowledge and experience becomes a unavoidable factor that makes youth unable to make right decision. Compared to adults, children generally are less experienced and more naive. Then still too young to form a reasonable outlooks on the world, life and values and make rational decision. Every child nearby us can be a good illustration. Little children always incline to choose colorful food or fast food. However, us adults know that most of colorful food and fast food contain food additives, which are unhealthy for people, especially for children. If there is not parents who regulate their children's eating habits, forcing their children to eat more vegetables and fruits, children may choose fried chicken or pizzas every single meal and become overweight. What's more, children cannot discern potential danger as well as adults. For example, my neighbor, a 13-year-old girl, was planning to meet her net friend in another city. Thanks to her mother, who came to know her bold plan by chance and prevented her from meeting a totally stranger, she was not able to meet her net friend at the last. And not that surprise, her so called net friend is to be found a fraud who tricked young girls specially several months later. Without adults' supervision or suggestion, young children may make stupid decisions.

Second, allowing children do whatever they want may result really bad consequences. When an unreasonable request be satisfied, children are likely to ask more and think everything they want to do is permitted. A girl who is a big fan of Liu Dehua attended almost every concert of her idol, no matter how expensive the tickets prices are; followed his footstep to many different cities, no matter how far the cities are away from her hometown. To our surprise, she lived in an ordinary family and her father makes every effort to satisfy her luxury requirements. But the girl doesn't feel grateful at all but ask her father for more money to chase her idol. She even forced her father to sell blood to get money! How unbelievable it is! If her parents didn't let herself make excessive decision, this scene may not happen.

All in all, with the reasons I mentioned above, I do think that letting children always make decisions on their own is not a good idea. Proper advices from family members and friends are necessary.

橙圆

改好 么么哒

daisy333

写完才发现写错题目了。。。哭 先把10.1的贴上来 等会就补9.30的

10.1
Do you agree with the statement that the opinions of celebrities, such as famous entertainers and athletes, are more important for the young than they are to the older people?

Recently Emma Watson, the famous movie star who acted in movie Harry Potter, gave a speech about feminism in the United Nation. Not only was her speech infectious but also she looked so gorgeous that many of my friends reposted the video on social network. I think that is so called celebrity effect. Some people believe that the opinions of celebrities have equal effect on both youth and older people; however, I hold different point that celebrities, such as famous entertainers and athletes, play more significant roles on effecting younger people.

First, as older people generally already formed a comparably more fixed concept of life, youth are easily impacted by others. Youth can't determinedly choose what they really want. Maybe when they see a TV drama about doctors saving patients’ lives, they will think doctors are heroes and they want to be doctors in the future. However, after coming back from a Rock & Roll concert, they change their mind to be cool Rock singers. Take myself as a vivid example. I choose accounting as my major when I entered university. However, after I saw the Emma's speech, I take a serious consideration that I should choose to be a scholar focusing on feminism research. I really impressed by Emma and be touched by her speech. I really think there should be more people to stand out to support the idea that men and women shall be equal. When I told my mom about my thought, I knew the same story would not happen when it comes to my mom. She already has a successful career and doesn't want to make any change. The opinion of celebrities mean nothing to her and actually she hardly care about celebrities.

What's more, people generally incline to trust who are older than themself. A 20-year-old guy may take advises from a 25-year-old senior, thinking 25-year-old guy is more experienced than himself. Needless to say, people like my parents, who are now nearly 50 years old, will definitely reluctant to accept suggestions from 25 years old guy. And majority of celebrities, especially entertainers or athletes, are at comparable young ages. To youth, celebrities are elders who are full of experience and really successful in specific area. So the opinion of celebrities is so meaningful to them. On the contrary, older people may regard celebrities as the younger generation and their successes are not that big deal. As a result, celebrities opinions seem weigh less to them. That’s why the advertisements targeting older people seldom invite celebrities to get involved. Celebrities’ opinions are not important to them.

As the reason I mentioned above, it is safe to make a conclusion that the points of view of celebrities are significant to younger people than to older people.

daisy333

930
Do you agree with that government should support the scientific research even there's no practical use.

With the rapid development of science and technology, people nowadays enjoy an increasingly convenience and efficient life. Thanks to the great amount of scientific researches, which make everything is impossible. We can see the faces and hear the voices of family members through a smart phone application, no matter if we are in different states or even in different countries. We all appreciate these genius scientific creativities. However, when it comes to impractical scientific researches, people hold different views. From my perspective, I don’t think scientific research with no practical use should be supported by government.

First, the energy and financial support of government is limited, thus should be used for more practical scientific research, which can improve people’s life quality directly. Focusing on medical care researches is a better option. In China, there are still a great number of people died because of diseases, no mention in other poorer countries. Putting limited energy and financial support on medical researches enables us human to find out more effective cures for many types of diseases. Hence, more valuable lives can be saved. Compared to lives, nothing is more important. Scientific researches contributing on environmental protection is also a good alternative. The environmental problems have become severe. People who live in Beijing can’t see blue sky for months, who live in Shanghai can hardly drink pure water and who live in small islands are worried about losing their home in future decades. Finding out ways to purify atmosphere, water or to deal with greenhouse gas is more urging than figuring out if there is alien in our planet.

Moreover, government supporting scientific researches with practical use shows fairly respect to every citizen. Our citizens pay taxes, which should be used for our citizens in return. The government budget derived from citizens, and most of citizens really don’t care about some abstract impractical researches. Instead, citizens care more about food security and health care system. Thus, supporting impractical researches with much financial support instead of supporting more practical researches concerned about commonweal will arouse anger and disappointment of a part of citizens.

Admittedly, some impractical researches are equally important and they may be the preparations of the future practical researches. But only after fulfilling the financial support of practical researches, can impractical researches be discussed. Since, we should make the most use of limited government supportive.

Generally speaking, scientific researches with no practical use are not our current consideration, and what we should do now is concentrating on practical researches, including medical researches or environmental protection researches. Only in this way, can our society be stabilized and prospering.


一到关于government就写不粗。。。TAT 昨晚写到一半睡着了。。。。。。