[求助] 【独立写作】Sinbo_Chan的作业贴 [复制链接]

B因子大片段
UID：3383323

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 5
寄托币: 196
注册时间: 2012-10-12
精华: 0
帖子: 54

16楼

发表于 2012-10-13 10:12:31 |只看该作者

积分终于赚到51分，可以发附件了！
lz看这里~~~

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

使用道具举报

TinaWang1
UID：3211080

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 114
注册时间: 2011-11-27
精华: 0
帖子: 41

17楼

发表于 2012-10-13 23:41:45 |只看该作者

已改

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

使用道具举报

April181
UID：2782403

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 266
注册时间: 2010-3-17
精华: 0
帖子: 104

18楼

发表于 2012-10-15 11:07:40 |只看该作者

改好啦~~

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

使用道具举报

mpromanus
UID：2565872

长老一袋

Rank: 8 Rank: 8

声望: 762
寄托币: 12296
注册时间: 2008-10-30
精华: 4
帖子: 907

19楼

发表于 2012-10-16 01:32:11 |只看该作者

10.14

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? To increase economic growth, government can neglect environmental concerns.

Nowadays there is a fierce debate (a debate about what?) and someone consider that the government can neglect the damage of environment (This means the damage is done BY the environment..what you wanted to express would actually be 'the damage TO the environment'.) to develop its economy and they (Who are THEY? 'someone' is singular, 'the government' is also singular. There's no plural noun in this sentence that 'they' can refer to.) can list sound reasons to support that. However, I vote for the statement that it's stupid to talk about this topic (You're talking about it right now..What others have to say about this issue are their 'opinions', not 'topics'. The issue you're discussing, regardless of the opinions you or other people have about it, is 'the topic'. And, please learn to never call anything 'stupid' in public. You can insult people's opinions by saying things like 'unfounded' and 'irrelevant' and 'incorrect', but 'stupid' is an insult to the person – and that's politically incorrect.) because the truth is absolutely that we should protect the environment not to be damaged (Repetition with 'protect'.), it's helpful to each person, generation, and country.

To begin with, the damage of environment will do harm to each person who is the basis of the national industries and economy. Maybe people can get big wealth ('big' refers to physical size and not the size of abstract things like 'wealth', except in idiomatic expressions like 'big money'. If you must use the word 'wealth', it should be 'a large amount of wealth' – but I'd say just use 'wealthy', or 'very wealthy', or 'extremely wealthy'.) from the environment, For example, they kill the animals and sell them, or cut down the timber (Wood only becomes 'timber' after it's cut down, so you can't cut down 'timber', but only cut down 'trees'.) to make furniture, or even use a (If you say 'THE toxic chemical', you mean there's a particular, specific chemical that you expect the reader to know – you don't mean that, so the article is 'a'. You have a rather poor grasp on articles so please revise their usage.) toxic chemical material ('chemical' itself is a noun.) to obtain gold from rocks, and so forth. But such actions will make more people easily ill, because of the muddy air, and polluted water. At this time, people have to spend more money to take care of their health, let alone to make contributions to the economy. Each person's life will suffer seriously threats.(I don't see how this sentence relates to the previous one.) So in this case we can see the important influence of the environment, which is the fundamental stone construct the building of society (This, is a very direct translation. In English you simply don't say things like that – you'd say '..which is a cornerstone in the construction of a society'.). Only when people have the long horizon (No, this is not the way to say what you want to say either. It should be 'foresight'.) and protect the environment, it will do good to economic development.

Secondly, the damage of environment also will do harm to the next generation which is also detrimental to the development of economy. As we all know that, In some African countries, people dig holes everywhere to find the gold sand (I'm not sure exactly what kind of gold you're talking about, because gold doesn't always naturally occur in 'sand' form, but if you mean the kind of gold mining where people sift for small gold pieces in rivers, it's called 'placer gold'. Otherwise, you could just say 'to find gold'. Whether it's 'sand' or not doesn't really have much importance for this discussion.), and fire trees ('fire' as a verb does NOT mean 'to set on fire' any more, except in 'to fire a beacon'. Now it mostly means 'to set an explosive' as in 'fire a gun/cannon'.) to fertileize the land. We can image that what their children generation could depend on to develop economy when they grow up in the future. There is no tree they can fire, no gold they can find, only barren and polluted land left. From this we can conclude that how the importance of recycle of environment (I'm not sure what this phrase means.) is which can determine aeconomy's lifetime.

The last but not the least I want to say is that, more concerning (This is a progressive form, NOT a noun/gerund that means the same thing as 'the act of being concerned'.) of the environment also increases the rise (You can't 'increase the rise' of something. You can only 'increase the rate of the rise' of something.) of a nation's economy directly. For example, a favorable environment can attract many tourists to visit or live and which can promote the income of the country. For instance, today more and more Chinese people like to visit Japan. Japan is a country which has little resource that it's impossible they can develop economy by consuming nature. On contrast, a/the picturesque natural environment helps a lot to the Japanese economy.(You can say 'helps the Japanese economy a lot', but 'helps a lot to the Japanese economy' is bad.)

To sum up, the environment is a main factor people should concerned when there is a ramification (A 'ramification' is a consequence that grows out of something else as if a branch grows from another branch. So a ramification is not 'between' two things but is one thing 'from' another.) between environment protection and economy development, because the environment have a far-reaching significance on each person, generation, and country.

总结：

你的论述没有问题但是全篇表意很费力，就是，我知道你想说什么但是你说的方式要么非常中式表达化，经常有累赘的现象，要么是不顾词性地把词语用在一起。。另外语法上对冠词的掌握和对动介词组搭配的掌握比较差。还有很重要的一点：千万不要直接说对方的观点stupid，这属于政治不正确，咳咳。。

2016 fall语言学Phd申请情况叨叨帖
DMC 3表忠心花痴帖！