Candyisthebest作文练习帖

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

1.本人gre  作文一战3，托福作文26分
2.本人为寄托ID3626719的持有人，现通过本论坛参与tesolchina的GRE写作研究，在这里授权tesolchina和hj1313的ID持有人使用本人的所有习作及互改记录做教学与科研用途。


issue https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1872759-1-1.html

argu https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 369&fromuid=3626719
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1749983-1-3.html
AW该如何保2争5——issue如何下笔及argument展开与破模板思考
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1073950&fromuid=3626719

review https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1777232&fromuid=3626719

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

Issue 34 49/76/79/146 (3楼)(已评)（已改） The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.

ISSUE 50 (4楼) Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.

issue33/109(7楼)（已评） As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.


Argument 28（8楼）(已评)Cure headache

Argument 78 (9楼) Pest Contro

issue 113（10楼）
Claim: The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists.        
Reason: The surest indicator of a great nation is actually the welfare of all its people.        

ISSUE 65 （11楼）(已评) just and unjust laws

Argument 15 （15楼）butter or margarine


issue 59  （16楼）（已评）Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.

ISSUE 134/133/74/57 (24楼) Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.
Reason:We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both.


Issue(26楼)Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.


ISSUE 7)（30楼）
Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.


ISSUE  111)  （32楼）
In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.



ARGU 3)  (34楼)
Plaza, skateboarder




issue 10) （35楼）（已评）
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

issue 34 49/76/79/146

34) In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who havecontrasting points of view.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagreewith the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. Indeveloping and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which thestatement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerationsshape your position.

49) Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share thanfrom those whose views contradict our own.
Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagreewith the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

76) We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than frompeople whose views contradict our own.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which youagree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for theposition you take. In developing and supporting your position, you shouldconsider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explainhow these considerations shape your position.


79) Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone withan opposing viewpoint.

Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against thedoubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value ofthat idea.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagreewith the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

118) We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from peoplewhose views contradict our own.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which youagree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for theposition you take. In developing and supporting your position, you shouldconsider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explainhow these considerations shape your position.

146) The best test of an argument is the argument's abilityto convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.

Write a response inwhich you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statementand explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing andsupporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement mightor might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.



原来写的习作，修改了以后用表格修改以后放上来~希望和大家一起进步~~

想知道你写的哪一道题   

ISSUE 146~ 第一版忘记说了，SORRY~

句子	动作分析	内容点评	句子点评
Some people believe that if there are people disagreeing with certain issues in every field, in order to defend the rightness of them, the best way to do is to convince the opponents.	重复题目		disagreeing with certain issues 选词搭配 defend the rightness of them 选词 them的指代 to do what? 整句问题多多
However, I maintain the idea that this argument is reasonable in science field. As far as politics or religion is concerned, this assertion does not make sense because not being able to convince others with different ideas does not necessarily mean the argument is deficient.	引入我的三个观点		maintain the idea  搭配 assertion does not make sense 选词
In science field, talking into opponents actually asks us to defend our ideas so we will have a deeper insight of our original idea.	TS1		talking into opponents 选词
The evolution of science itself is a progress of coming across problems, establishing new schools of science, casting doubt on the new theories and the process circles.	说理~感觉自己写的还蛮有道理		progress 选词 这里我想表达“进程”的意思，把progress改成procedure可以吗？我不知道这俩词的区别呃。
For example, the famous physician  Galileo first challenged Aristotle theory of gravity. That people at that time could not believe  Galileo's "heresy" forced  Galileo to carry out experiments in front of them on the spot to prove the rightness of his theory so by dismissing people's doubt,  Galileo, to some extent, put more thought on his idea and even put forward this idea.	实例 伽利略在说服别人的同时也发展了自己的观点	不太确定这个例子能支持你的分论点  看不出来你在写哪道题   146) The best test of an argument is the argument's abilityto convince someone with an opposing viewpoint.	伽利略的拼写 Galileo
When it comes to the political issues, things get twisted, unlike the scientific theories which is based on facts rather than opinions so it is all about objectivity, the political issues are sometimes mixed with subjectivity, whose opinions overweight facts.	ts2 从上文的科学界过渡到政界，不知道这样区分一下科学界和政界有没有必要？还是直接首句从政界开头就行了？		断句问题 mixed with subjectivity 选词
That is to say, convincing others with the opposite ideas is not the test of an argument.	重复题目
It's true that the pass of bills means two Parties finally convince each other. Yet, if people take a second thought of it, what's the impetus behind some of the bills? It's barely necessary for me to name all the rules and regulations enacted that are in favor of big companies at the expense of small companies interests. Those powerful corporations send their lobbies in Congress, let the money "talk" so as to exchange unjust priority between both Parties.	两党合作（convince others）也不能代表argu就是好的，所以convince others 不是best test		pass of bills 选词 bill's passage It's barely necessary for me to name all the rules and regulations enacted 完全不知道你在写啥 这里我想举大公司通过法案侵权小公司的例子（这样的例子一定有，可是我想不出来具体是什么法案，只用笼统的说了。。。。） 这样没法说出具体名字的法律是不是当例子不合适呃？
In the aforementioned case, the bill did make two parties work together, nevertheless it is not a good a test of the bill because the bill harms the majority of business owners in the first place.	总结例子		断句问题 你说的是什么bill？
In addition, whether convincing opponents is the best test of an argument also depends on what kind of people we are persuading into for the reason that some people are stubborn and will never change their religious belief until they die.	TS3
Since the day when Darwin published his evolution theory, the debate never stopped. Maybe telling a 90-year-old grandmother who is highly dedicated to Jesus her whole life that humans are monkeys will literally kill her. Another case is that, the crossfire over religious never die down, time changes, while people's strong will to risk their lives to defend their Gods never change.	展开例子
Personally, I am not zealous about religion but I do believe that although it is very likely that atheists cannot convince religious people regarding the origin of human beings nor can different religions persuade each other about their God, fail to convince each does not one hundred present means their belief is wrong, I believe we can still find a compromise to live with each other harmoniously.	结合自己经验，总结例子（感觉自己说的太多了。。。。）
In science field, it is highly recommended for scholars to share their ideas, debate each other in order to make reversions of their original theories so the science field flourishes. When it comes to political issues, thanks to lobbies of certain interest groups, even two parties cooperate with each other, if the criteria of the bill is not deprived from the benefit of most people, the bill should not be passed. In relation to religion, because everyone is entitled to stick to his or her belief, being unable to convince others does not equal one religion is inferior to another so treating other people's belief with respect is the sensible thing to do.	三个观点结尾

你好像6月28号就要考了吧  恕我直言 我觉得你的语言表达问题很大  你写的句子基本上就是凭感觉编出来的 完全不符合英语的习惯 完全没有借鉴平时阅读的文章句型、用词的痕迹 所以写出来的文章完全不通

  






原来未修改习作：


According to the statement, the best (no other way) way all arguments regardless of they are concerning science or politics is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. In my opinion, the statement is partially right and whether it applicable depends on the situation.

As a matter of fact, when the argument is made by certain people, talking into opponents actually asks us to defend our ideas so we will have a deeper insight of our original idea. Take the physics field as an example in point. The evolution of science itself is a progress of coming across problems, establishing new schools of science, casting doubt on the new theories and the process circles. For example, the famous physician Galilei first challenged Aristotle theory of gravity. That people at that time could not believe Galilei's "heresy" forced Galilei to carry out experiments in front of them on the spot to prove the rightness of his theory so by dismissing people's doubt, Galilei, to some extent, put more thought on his idea and even put forward this idea.

When it comes to the political issues, things get twisted, unlike the scientific theories which is based on facts rather than opinions so it is all about objectivity, the political issues are sometimes mixed with subjectivity, whose opinions overweight facts. That is to say, convincing others with the opposite ideas is not the test of an argument. It's true that the pass of bills means two Parties finally convince each other. Yet if people take a second thought of it, what's the impetus behind some of the bills? It's barely necessary for me to name all the rules and regulations enacted that are in favor of big companies at the expense of small companies interests. Those powerful corporations send their lobbies in Congress, let the money "talk" so as to exchange unjust priority between both Parties. In the aforementioned case, the bill did make two parties work together, nevertheless it is not a good a test of the bill because the bill harms the majority of business owners in the first place.

In addition, whether convincing opponents is the best test of an argument also depends on what kind of people we are persuading into for the reason that some people are stubborn and will never change their religious belief until they die. Since the day when Darwin published his evolution theory, the debate never stopped. Maybe telling a 90-year-old grandmother who is highly dedicated to Jesus her whole life that humans are monkeys will literally kill her. Another case is that, the crossfire over religious never die down, time changes, while people's strong will to risk their lives to defend their Gods never change. Personally, I am not zealous about religion but I do believe that although it is very likely that atheists cannot convince religious people regarding the origin of human beings nor can different religions persuade each other about their God, fail to convince each does not one hundred present means their belief is wrong, I believe we can still find a compromise to live with each other harmoniously.

To sum it up, the kind of argument determines whether convincing skeptics is a good test. In science field, it is highly recommended for scholars to share their ideas, debate each other in order to make reversions of their original theories so the science field flourishes. When it comes to political issues, thanks to lobbies of certain interest groups, even two parties cooperate with each other, if the criteria of the bill is not deprived from the benefit of most people, the bill should not be passed. In relation to religion, because everyone is entitled to stick to his or her belief, being unable to convince others does not equal one religion is inferior to another so treating other people's belief with respect is the sensible thing to do.





范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 310&fromuid=3626719

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

ISSUE 50 Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.

（同上篇问题：老师好~我在写这篇作文的时候时间其实用了40多分钟，我本身打字速度不快呃，老师能不能帮忙看看每个例子应该如何精简呢？谢谢啦~）

Whether the statement holds true or not depends on what decisions the government officials are going to make and what the will of the people is. In most cases, as Lincoln said about the purpose of the government, "of the people, by the people, for the people", it is government's holy duty to enact bills that people are in favor of, if the officials do whatever they want, it may actually harm the whole society. Yet in some cases, government officials have a better understanding of some issues so even the public opinions are at odds, the government should still hold on to their own belief.

The government is elected by people so as a matter of fact, it represents people so it is supposed to pass laws to benefit people. I believe the majority of American parents want their children to pursue college degrees if they want to (and they are eligible to) even they could hardly make both ends meet. Due to parents' wished to provide their children with college education, the Obama government recently have passed laws to exempt the first two years tuition fees in community college for American citizens. This act gained remarkable praise all over the country especially among hundreds of thousands of parents, in the long run, this law could high the educational level of the whole nation.

In addition, government officials should not merely rely on their own judgment to conjure what people need and want. A case blowing my mind is, The Prism. The main reason why the government put forward this project is to "protect" our fellow citizens, in order to achieve that goal, the government spy on our emails, phones and other digital devices. The government hopes to find clues in our messages that might lead to booms so that they can forestall terrorists. What a fanciful idea! The fact is we don't want to be "invaded", we urge to have our own privacy! Thus if the government naively depend on their perspectives, maintaining the idea that they are doing good deeds, in contrast, it will only produce counterproductive effects, which indicates that people feel nothing but offensive,

Admittedly, people's will is not sensible all the time because some people are easily influenced by some radical groups so they have zealous vicious wills, under this circumstance, the government should stay calm, use their knowledge and wit to deal with ticklish problems. In some countries, an overwhelming number of war lovers are ready to instigate wars from time to time, some extremists even want to use nuclear weapons. It's fair to say that these ignorant war fans are ill-educated so they have no idea how deadly the nuclear weapons are not only to one country but also to the whole planet, nevertheless, the government should realize that nuclear weapons have the power to destroy the Earth just in several seconds, so these weapons are never supposed to be used, that is to say, some people's aims will never be carried out by the government.

To sum it up, the government represents and serves people, they should speak on behalf of people, if they make their own decisions regardless people's interest, it is very likely that, the decisions will jeopardize the society. Whereas in some cases, the will of people is so provincial without taking account of the sustainable development, the government should look at the big picture and rely on their own judgment.

tesolchinaUID：2191404

为了批改效率，请参加每天的同主题练习 今天恰好休息

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

tesolchina 发表于 2015-6-10 20:40
为了批改效率，请参加每天的同主题练习 今天恰好休息

恩恩~那我刚发的两篇老师会看吗?

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

6月11日同主题练习 issue33/109~希望和大家共同进步！
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3626719

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

6月12同题写作-Argument 28
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3626719


第一次练ARGU就遇上这种呃 ~~任重道远！加油~


范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... ge=11#pid1779037011

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

Jun 9th同题写作Argument 78
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3626719


范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... ge=12#pid1779053849

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

issue113
Claim: The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists.        
Reason: The surest indicator of a great nation is actually the welfare of all its people.        

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.



范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... ge=16#pid1779293370

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

issue 65
65) Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

用时45min
正文段1是说，要obey just laws,因为可以说维护社会秩序
正文段2是说，disobey unjust laws可以促进社会发展
正文段3是说，虽然有些公司认为某些法律是unjust，因为损害自己利益。但是因为这些laws有利于广大人民，还是要obey
第三个观点我是从对unjust的定义和every individual的定义来说的，感觉有点说不清楚，希望老师能多提意见~~谢谢老师

句子	动作分析	内容点评	句子点评
Para.1
I partly agree with statement that each individual is obliged to  obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.	表明观点	partly agree使得观点很不明确
We citizens  are definitely encouraged to  follow just laws in order to maintain good social orders. On the other hand,  we can not truly evaluate the assertion without defining “unjust” laws, are  some laws are partisan to certain interest groups or harmful to the whole  nation? The answer to the question needs further discussing.	提示三个正文段		are encouraged表达有问题 by whom  (who are you to decide?) On the other hand 严重的句子结构问题   请往句子加油站 你怎么会写出这么不负责任的句子？
第二段
My first point is, people’s behaviors should be restrained to some  just laws so that the world functions well and will not be in chaos.	TS1		restrained to some  just laws什意思
A case  blowing my mind is that it goes without denying that everyone is supposed to  follow the traffic rules. People stop when light is red and move when it  turns green, the obeisance of  traffic rules keeps people in safety. Imagine a world people do not  follow the traffic rules, car accidents are  ubiquitous, hundreds of  thousands of lives are claimed. Thus, just laws  that are made to protect people should be obeyed anyway for our own sake.	正反举例		blowing my mind？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？ Imagine a world people do not  follow the traffic rules  语言表达问题非常严重
第三段
When  it comes to unjust laws, people’s opinions vary from person to person. From  my perspective, unjust laws that impede the progress of human beings should  under no circumstances be obeyed.	过渡+TS2
I can think  of no better example of unjust laws concerning race discrimination. There was  once time, African American people were not allowed to seat in the front of  the bus, the law was nothing but racist so one African American person stood  up, fought against the unjust law and more and more people were aware of the  serious situation, after unremitting efforts, the law was banned in the end. If everybody followed  the unjust law, the anti-racist campaigns will not have such a remarkable achievement so we may still  live in world full of prejudice and ignorant.	举例
第四段
In addition, when facing unjust laws that hampers the advance of  the whole nation, we are supposed to disobey and resist it so as to make a  huge leap to a more just society, however, some interest groups, such as  powerful multinational corporations, always want to break “unjust” laws at  the expense of the majority of people, in the case “unjust” laws ought be  followed.	TS3
For  example, one of the leading tobacco companies urge some small countries to  abandon the warnings on the package of cigarettes because they believe these warnings and sick pictures violates  their freedom of packaging and lower their interests in the end. It seems to  look at the first glance, the compatory warnings on cigarettes packages transgress their freedom whereas the main purpose of  package law is to keep citizens from cigarettes, the evil of lung cancer, so in the long run, the companies  should obey the “unjust” laws.	举例
末段
Taking into  all analysis made above, we may firmly arrive at the conclusion that it’s  everybody’s duty to obey the just laws, when it comes to unjust laws, as long  as they jeopardize the whole  nation, it is praise-worthy to disobey and resist them, however, for those  who believe some laws are “unjust” because the laws contradict their own interests  regardless of other people’s welfare, this kind of people should obey the  “unjust” laws anyhow.	总结

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

6月15日同主题练习 issue 65
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3626719

范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... age=4#pid1778936164

句子订正：

jingyuege1UID：3598309

你的表格太奇特了。。。。。

tesolchinaUID：2191404

Candyisthebest 发表于 2015-6-15 16:57
issue 65
65) Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey a ...

第一 你的句子语言表达问题非常严重
第二 你的动作分析是在敷衍  

呵呵呵呵

CandyisthebestUID：3626719

argument 15

15) The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.
Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine.

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.


用时30min

句子	动作分析	内容点评	句子点评
According to the memorandum, the manager thinks that butter has been replaced by margarine has had little impact on his customers because there were not many customers complaining about it. However, to evaluate this argument, several questions have to be answered.	总结作者观点	你的主旨句没有回应题目的要求 即提出其他可能的解释	butter has been replaced by margarine has had little impact句子结构问题
To begin with, the manager assumes that only about 2 percent of customers have not complained so the rest of the customers are happy with the change.	提出作者假设	这是第二段开头么？ 这道题是要求提出其他解释 你为什么要写假设？
Nevertheless, the manager fails to take into account the possibility that, other customers complain to their families and friends rather than to the restaurant so they are actually upset about the change.	举出其他情况
In addition, we do not know whether the reports are reliable or not.	第二个攻击点	题目要求啊 你的讨论必须紧扣题目要求
If the reporters are hired by margarine companies, then it is very likely that the reports are made up in order to favor the change. In this case, we can not take the results seriously.	怀疑研究人员的公正性
Even if the results are convincing, we still do not know the the real reason why the customers do not complain when they are served margarine instead of butter.	攻击文中最后一句话
The manger hold the assumption that people may not tell from margarine to butter because they taste margarine the same flavor like butter, whereas we do not know the body conditions of the participators, if some of them have heavy cold, which means they can not distinguish the taste of food anyway, so the manager’s assumption is unreasonable.	反例否定either前面的一部分	问题同上 如果你不按题目要求答题会死的很惨
Moreover, the manager also thinks that customers may use term “butter” to refer either butter or margarine, yet this hypothesis is out of nowhere. It is entirely possible that customers know exactly what they want and margarine is not a substitute of butter.	反例否定either后面的一部分

范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... age=4#pid1778932898