30# 狐狸大叔
谢谢大叔！
嗯，我这篇的题干是这个，我就多注重了点youth：
The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.
所以我的主要毛病是太啰嗦…其实我也发现了，好多时候可以用主动的地方总用被动；可以用动词的地方用从句。。。习惯问题，之后会注意的。
in contrast to原来是对比的意思……这里改成contradict就比较合适了吧？
请问观点上有没有问题呢？另外如果像这样一篇里面只有一些抽象的例子，没有具体的实例会不会有问题？
倒不是说你非要用被动，从句。要视情况而定吧。总的原则是动词比be动词好，简单点比复杂点好。
英文之所以有很长的句子是因为有从句，中文写个两行的句子就没法看了。应该说英文有从句导致了有长句，而不是大家为了写长句要凑从句。
观点么，本身还行吧，但是你只写一面的话，观点数量少一些。为什么很多人要两面都要写，因为这样可以展现出更多的观点和分析。例子也还凑合吧我觉得。
很多人觉得写的长分数高所以使劲啰嗦多写几个词，这个理解是不对的。如果你的观点多，分析多而深入，还有几个恰当的例子，那必然写得比较长（即使你尽量以最简洁的语言写). 没有好的观点和分析只有说车轱辘话还不如不写那么长。
32# 狐狸大叔
嗯，我主要是觉得本来时间就不够充裕只能写三段左右，还拿出一段的空间写相反论点有些浪费。所以更希望能在每一个角度里渗入一些对方论点的内容，然后让步或者驳倒，感觉这样更能体现出辩证的发展。
这一篇写的时候是开始写issue以来的第8篇，到现在已经写到第20篇了，看了很多人的想法也有了一些新的体会。527考试前希望能写到40篇！
谢谢大叔指教~
33# popol1991
你的观点恰好和我的相反，果然是看问题的角度可以多种
这几天我也在思考ISSUE该怎么写
刚发了篇习作，说道
“文笔不重要，逻辑是王道”
地道的文笔，出去之后，生活个两个月也就学回来了，但是严密的逻辑思维很难练就
所以，我觉得应该重点我们考生逻辑思维的优越性，看问题的复杂度
34# sitting-dog 嘻，ets对issue的要求本来就是自由观点的，主要考察的是论述自己观点的能力。单纯的想拿高分的话，两者都重要。但是文笔地道是一个熟练问题，逻辑就是一个能力问题了。
我陆续列了将近60篇issue的提纲，经常一下午才能写完两个，就是一直在跟自己较劲，怎么才能理清关系、理顺逻辑。
issue就是要百家争鸣，自己的idea和无懈可击的逻辑才是拿高分的利器。人云亦云实在不可取。
楼上两位童鞋加油啦
狐叔居然在这改a娃....
文笔提高没那么容易的，而且就你们两个的水平来说英文水平差距还很大，别说提高文笔了，语法正确表达清晰都还有相当一段路走。
语言方面的建议还是别追求复杂的东西，而是注意到自己语言的错误尽量改掉。
38# 狐狸大叔
狐兄，有木有时间看一下这篇？
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1366355
被冷落一天了
38# 狐狸大叔
哈哈…汉语作文写的都没有文笔可言，别提英文了，火候还差的远呢……
10# 狐狸大叔
大叔~~~！ 5.27 的GRE才开始写作文 帮我看看吧，实在是着急了，随便看看都行 好不好
我贴上来了 斑竹帮我看看吧~~~觉得 语言 语法 逻辑都有问题，大家帮我看看吧 5.27就要考了:funk:
Issue 59 Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the largest number of people.
I agree that research should be aimed at making contributions to our society; however, it doesn’t mean that scientists or researchers should be required only to focus on the researches which are likely to benefit the most people. In my view, scientists should be free to choose their research approach, as long as their researches start on the positive point.
Admittedly, the value of science research is always judged by its practicability and the contribution to our society. As Watt invented the steam engine, Edison invented the light bulb, Galileo proposed the heliocentric, all these are described as the significant discoveries for their incompatible contribution. However, there are also many researches which may seem useless or provide no value to the society at the first glance but showed vital value behind those significant achievements. Theoretical mathematics is the best example. As for many recondite math formulas or profound calculate methods, we may have no idea whether these math researches are worth to do when it start, even mathematicians cannot tell the intrinsic value. However, these math formulas contribute a lot to various fields (such as physics, engineering, mechanics, computer programming and so on.) as a theoretical foundation. Meanwhile, many calculate methods showed their value in solving math problems among different fields even if they seem useless at start.
Besides, as for many basic, purely ideological subjects, such as philosophy, they have no practical value to society at all, but for the necessary of human ideology, they need to exit and be profound explored. Therefore, it’s unreasonable and impracticable for us to determine whether a research is likely to benefit the society.
Furthermore, if we adopt the recommendation in the topic, putting the benefits to the greatest number of people as essential criteria for researches, may contribute a lot of problems. First, the extent of human explores the inside and outside world will surely be narrowed. Scientist are pursuing to explore the unknown frontiers of the world, even scientists themselves cannot tell how big achievement will be brought by their research, not to mention eliminating the worth of the research. Actually many notable discoveries were born by accidents, or were the byproducts in other researches. By this reason, it’s entirely possible that by following the recommendation in the topic many valuable researches will be strangled in the cradle. Second, many scientists can be forced to give up their original researches and turn to those ostensibly beneficial research. Therefore, the substance of exploration will be covered by interests and a great number of subjects will gradually disappear for “lacking of use”. Finally, our recognition of the world will become narrower and narrower. It’s entirely foreseeable that human civilization will surely deteriorate.
To sum up, if their intrinsic are good and do not harmful for our world, government should encourage all the kinds of researches without counting their value. Meanwhile, when scientists are pursuing their interested explores they should take the value, moral and ethic into concerned and spare no effort to push our society moving forward.
忍不住来膜拜大叔的，我嘞个去啊，墙贴刘明啊
43# 萝卜须根多
不是啦 我校园网有点慢 老是没反应 就多点了两下 多的都删了啦 新手求见谅
拜拜狐神...一鞠躬，二鞠躬，三鞠躬...