- 最后登录
- 2021-2-22
- 在线时间
- 4673 小时
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 声望
- 762
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 907
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 6161
- UID
- 2565872
![Rank: 8](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif) ![Rank: 8](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif)
- 声望
- 762
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 907
|
本帖最后由 mpromanus 于 2011-6-13 00:29 编辑
11# maoqiu007
是否同意,团队合作中,不能接受批评的人是不会成功的。
Every one might remember a sentence that "one for all, all for one," which comes from the well-known novel, The Three Musketeers, and from this classic line (‘lyrics’ are lines of a song.) we can sense that cooperation is a very vital part in today or yesterday (I know in Chinese you can use 昨天
to literally mean ‘the past’, but you usually don’t do that in English. Just use ‘in the past’ will suffice.). So when it comes to criticism in the team work, everyone has their own ideas. (I don’t get why it is a ‘so’ relationship between these two sentences. Why must the importance of cooperation cause everyone to have different ideas about criticism? This is a very typical problem of essays I read – you’d make a great effort to use connecting words like ‘so’, ‘therefore’, etc. but the sentences you are connecting have no actual connections whatsoever in meaning. The connecting words are thus not effective at all. Use connecting words only when it’s really meaningful to do so.) Majority hold such a view that someone who is unwilling to receive criticism, even to ignore it (Put your subject together with this part, it reads ‘someone who is unwilling to receive… even (unwilling) to ignore it..’), will never succeed. However, some people opposite this view. From my own perspective, I stand up to (Or you can just say ‘agree with’.. choose something simple but you know how to use correctly, rather than something you are not absolutely sure about.) the former view and (If you use ‘which’, remove ‘my viewpoint’..you are proving ‘the former view’.. or else just don’t use ‘which’. This is another example of connecting word abuse, where you simply use a connecting word for the sake of using connecting words as much as possible (as told by someone, I suppose). But you would need to understand why exactly you are using it..) I will prove my viewpoint by the following factors and facts.
First and foremost, we should classify criticism into two different kinds which contribute us to figure out?? (What are you trying to express?). For one thing, if the criticism was right, and accurate, we should accept whatever it is. It is universally acknowledged that a valued or useful (a ‘valued or useful’ what?) can make a difference to the important project we are devoting ourselves to doing. For example, The Three Gorges, the largest hydraulic structure in the world, is exposed to some severe problems recently (What are ‘some’ severe problems? This is vague, and doesn’t really add much value to your discussion.). Building a hydraulic structure, especially such a huge one, usually drives people who have lived in the region for a long time to other places. However, immigration results in other ecological problems, because they feel reluctant to move to distant villages, and finally choose to carry their family to the hills, which leads to the problems such as vegetation deterioration and so on (If you can’t cite more than one problem, then simply say ‘immigration result in vegetation deterioration as people are reluctant to move distant villages and choose to settle in the hills instead’. Adding ‘problems such as..’ then only citing one problem, is like telling people you have a few points to say then only talk about one. It doesn’t make your reader think that you know a lot about the issue. It only shows your reader that you pretend to know a lot but actually only knows a little – or else why can’t you talk more about the ‘problems’?). Many scientists strongly disputed this project and also gave the evidence that it would damage the ecological systems severely. However, the leaders and engineers ignored what scientists said and persisted their foolish plan. If they considered criticism from the team members (scientists) one more time, the end (‘the end’ of what?) would be absolutely different. For another thing, if the criticism was wrong or wrong, it also could benefit the whole team. For instance, there are various voices existing in the team, no one can deny the fact that there is no such a team can accomplish a project or goal without once. (Four consecutive negations! I won’t bother to understand this sentence if I’m the examiner. I’ll just pass it as ‘nonsense’, because, simply, no one speaks or writes like this. Express your ideas clearly should be your primary aim – even if it means using simple structures and shorter sentences. If you can’t get your ideas across, whatever fancy structures and phrases you use would amount to nothing.) Thus, even though the criticism is wrong, it also can stimulate every member to engage to the discussion, sparking our (Were you talking about ‘we’? Weren’t you talking about a team as a 3rd person?) passion. (One big paragraph and you didn’t even get to any point for the question.. You’re expected to prove ‘in a team, people who don’t accept criticism will fail’, so what you need to argue is simply ‘in a team, people who don’t accept criticism will fail because AAA, BBB and CCC’, then use one paragraph each to prove/demonstrate with an example why AAA, BBB and CCC are good reasons for the main argument. What you did, however, is to talk about ‘if the criticism is right, we should accept it; if it is not, we should still accept it’ – and look, this is totally different from your question.)
Of course, we admit that if a venomous criticism rising up is raised to attack someone, which no one can accept it. However, it is a rare situation that members who dislikes each other, should be arranged in the same team.
Hence, from above what we have discussed, we can safely draw a conclusion that people who reject to receive criticism will never succeed.
总结:
我看得出你有很努力地在使用各种句式词汇的变化,很好。但是,在语言方面,有些时候你用连词并不是因为上下句之间有什么联系,感觉更像是为了用而用。不是说有了连词逻辑就通顺了。。如果上下句之间本身没有合适那个连词的意思上的联系(有指代,有明显的表意上的关联,等等),那么用个连词也没法帮你凭空造出逻辑关系来的。特别是表因果意的so, therefore这类需要很强的上下文联系的连词,请特别注意。
另外,请注意扣题。你这篇文章的主体段所论述的(如果批评是对的我们要接受;如果批评是错的对团队也有好处)和问题要你论述的(团队中不能接受批评的人不能成功)完全不是一回事。三峡的例子也是完全语焉不详:什么是some severe problems? The end would be absolutely different是什么样的different? 我能知道你的意思是如果三峡那些人接受了批评,他们就不会面对今天三峡的失败,但是,你的语言中哪里有说明到这句话?你的意思是severe problems == 失败?absolutely different == 成功?你有说明这些定义吗?没有的话,如何指望一个对失败成功和批评的定义可能跟你完全不同而且完全不理解三峡问题的美国人能明白你这个例子和问题的关联在什么地方呢?把你的论点清晰地表述出来,不要为了争取表现你的词汇和句式还是文学性就去转弯抹角,不要指望考官去领会你的精神。。
最后,希望我的批评不会吓倒你啦。。我们的起点也许比别人低,一开始也许会比别人收到更多的批评,但是也正是因为如此,如果能认真地去改正,进步会比别人大很多~比如你这次在我上次提出的句意的分割上面就进步很多哦~所以我希望你不要因为被我说太多而灰心啦~要继续努力~如果我有说话太冲的话,还是请谅解~鞠躬~ |
|