Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Some people think children should study and play, other people think children should help with household chores.
Interestingly, nowadays people are prone to debate whether students should study and play or help with household chores, which seems a question-that is, virtually not for they both essential to a juvenile, devoid of each of them, an adolescent will grow up sinuously.
It seems true that study is the main job of students and play is a tributary method to enhance their study. However, this theory will cultivate quantities of scholars who can do research pretty good, whereas have no idea about their own life. For example, currently, there is a common situation that college students, even some elite students in the key college, can not merely wash their clothes, fold their beds, not to mention make a meal. So, what factors contribute to this consequence at all? It's over spoil; it's the misconception of the most of people that when a student do a good job in his study, he will act well in his life and later have a brilliant future. In this case, many college students can't even get job after graduating from university owing to the lack of experience of surviving alone, that's so called independent.
Of course, there is no way around the fact that students only do housework at home will perform better, which appears ridiculous in some way. In China, there are nonetheless some parents who prohibit their children, especially girls, from going to school to accept education. Instead, they drive their kids accompany with them to do household chores everyday, which accordingly can decrease their workload to support a family. What a irresponsible and selfish deed it is! Neglecting their kids' future, benefiting themselves ephemerally. Seriously, I really fell humiliate at these parents. In so doing, China's labor markets that are always teemed with a great number of working force who without even little technique, so much so that they will have a strenuous and harsh life as a result.
In sum, contrasting the above two cases, we can clearly conclude that each option of the dispute, actually, is an sort of extreme, resulting in predicament to the students undoubtedly when grow up. Thereby, only by combining the intelligence of study and the practice of common chores could students grow up healthily in their lifetime.作者: mpromanus 时间: 2010-2-3 02:19:53
Interestingly, nowadays people are prone to debate whether students (The very first important lesson to learn: if you rephrase a question, you MUST NOT change its meaning. Here, the question's wording uses 'children', and you changed it to 'students', probably because you see 'study' in the question. But not all students are children. They're not equal. Your mind must be very clear of what the question is exactly about. If you alter the meaning of the question like this, it shows that you don't really understand the question fully, and you risk of going immediately into the wrong direction..) should study and play or help with household chores, which seems a question-that is, virtually not for they (Who? Students? or What?) are both essential to a juvenile. devoid of each of them (This means both are missing. This is a classic example of AND/OR vs. NOT AND/NOT OR relationships in terms of discrete mathematics..For this particular case, if you wish to express 'if either one is missing', then you should use 'any' instead of 'each'.), an adolescent will grow up sinuously (I'm totally baffled by this word here. This is often used to describe wavy, torqued physical shapes, especially that of an elderly person, rather than personality.).
It seems true that studying is the main job of students and playing is a tributary (This word, in the 'contributing' sense, means contributing to something that's more inclusive, i.e. it comes with a sense of 'submission' and 'smaller in scope'. While you might indeed use it in this case, I'd choose a more neutral 'contributory'.) method to enhance their study. However, this theory will cultivate quantities of scholars who can do research pretty good well, whereas having no idea about their own life. For example, currently, there is a common situation that college students, even some elite students in the key college? (Are you trying to translate 重点学校?), cannot merely wash their clothes, fold their beds (I doubt if anyone would be able to fold a 'bed'. You either 'make' your bed, or fold your 'bedsheet'.), not to mention making a meal. So, what factors contribute to this consequence at all? (What are you trying to express by adding 'at all' here?)? It's over spoiling ('study and play' doesn't necessarily become spoiling. The degree of severance in 'spoiling' is quite significant.); it's the misconception of the most of people that when a student does a good job in his study, he will act do well in his life and later have a brilliant future. In this case, many college students can't even get jobs after graduating from university owing to the lack of experience of surviving alone, that's the so-called independence. (First, you're cramming too many things into this paragraph without organizing your information well. Second, the question is not about independence or anything about a student's personality. It's about what people think children should do. You're making moral judgements out of a descriptive question. Such judgements are not relevant at all.)
Of course, there is no way around the fact that students who only do housework at home will perform better, which appears ridiculous in some ways. In China, there are nonetheless some parents who prohibit their children, especially girls, from going to school to accept ('Accept' is a choice. It's not a state of being given something. The word here should be 'receive'.) education. Instead, they drive their kids to accompany with them to do household chores everyday, which accordingly? ('according' to what?) can decrease their workload to support a family. What a irresponsible and selfish deed it is! Neglecting their kids' future, benefiting themselves ephemerally. (This is a fragment.) Seriously, I really fee?l humiliated at? (I can't guess what you're trying to express here. Do you feel 'humiliated' by these parents? If you feel 'humuliated', that means someone has given you a direct insult or defeat. I would probably say you're just feeling 'ashamed' by these parents.) these parents. In so doing, China's labor markets that are always teemed with a great number of working force who without even little technique?, so much so that they will have a strenuous and harsh life as a result. (This is better than the previous paragraph, but still I'd advise against using examples and wordings that are overly emotional and/or moral-oriented. There's nothing right or wrong about any opinion on this question.)
In sum, contrasting the above two cases above, we can clearly conclude that each option of the dispute, actually, is an sort of extreme, undoubtedly resulting in predicament to the students undoubtedly when they grow up. Thereby, only by combining the intelligence of study and the practice of common chores could students grow up healthily in their lifetime (The conclusion is not about how students can grow up well. It's about what children should do. As I've warned you in the first paragraph, you replaced the keyword 'children' with 'students', therefore you're already horribly off the topic. But, even if we consider this question to be of 'students', it's still not seeking any conclusion about their healthy development. You could say it the other way round - that because both will constitute a healthy development of children, children should do both - but not that because children do both, they would grow up well. The eventual focus is on the 'do' part, not on the 'grow well' part.)