[习作点评] Candyisthebest作文练习帖 [复制链接]

bit_liang
UID: 3643530

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 60
寄托币: 336
注册时间: 2015-8-3
精华: 0
帖子: 49

31楼

发表于 2015-9-23 15:47:27 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 bit_liang 于 2015-9-23 18:58 编辑

ISSUE 7)
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.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

From my perspective, it is necessary for the government to fund arts otherwise some kinds of arts may disappear, however on the other hand, I can't deny the government might stifle arts against their ideologies, so I come up with a solution to fix this paradox, which is establishing an art committee including independent artists.
(1. however 和 on the other hand 两个连接词同时出现是否有不妥？
(2. Otherwise 表示“否则、另外”，楼主这里是否想表示“除非”？可不可以用only？)
(3. “stifle arts against their ideologies” 是表示使艺术向政府的意识形态屈服的意思么？感觉表达有点奇怪。)

Firstly, that some arts do not get sponsored from other sources entices their doom due to the lack of money. Take the traditional Chinese art, Piying as a case in point. Piying was firstly formed around hundreds of years ago, which was the essence of folk arts. Unfortunately, the art is vanishing because the artists are unpaid so a decreasing number of young people are willing to inherit（inherit 主要表示继承遗产方面的继承，建议为succeed） it. Not only does Piying is facing the horrible situation, but also other traditional folk art（arts） is disappearing from the earth perpetually owning to financial problems. In addition, the establishment and maintenance of museums cost the government a large amount of money indeed, nevertheless, it’s all（always？） worthwhile to educate people and nourish their good senses of art. Otherwise, the public is less likely to enjoy the beauty of artistic masterpieces if there are little museums. Taking what I mentioned above into account, government is obliged to fund arts (traditional folk art in particularly) in order to keep all kinds of art in existence and then furthermore, make them available to people.

On the other hand, some people are worried that the government is going to fund certain arts that suit their political agenda so the “selected” art is, as a matter of fact, regression in the art filed. I am totally aware of their concerns; admittedly, it’s true that political groups tend to hire artists to promote their policies. Here’s an extreme example, publications in North Korea are under severe censorship and contexts that harm the region of government are curtailed immediately. We can safely arrive at the conclusion that art is nothing more than a tool of the government to brainwash its people in North Korea, there is definitely no diversity or integrity of arts at all.

To bridge the gap between government’s fund and free wills of artists, I can think of no better solution than setting up art committee. To elaborate my point of view, the committee is funded by the government, consists of renowned artists and served for the people. The committee functions independently, which indicates the government per se can’t determine what to fund or what not to, i.e. the committee finances arts without political bias.

In conclusion, arts need the financial support from government while it may happen that the government overrides arts by smothering voices of different political stances. In my opinion, art committee will perfectly fix this problem for the sake of art flourishing.
总结一下：
1. 楼主的很多表达很是高大上，标注的一些表达可能是我没有接触过；
2. 一些细节的地方，比如学术文章里尽量不要缩写以及一些单复数的问题；
3.结构上很符合老师的1+3结构，但是委员会的这一点有点生硬；
4.第二段中体现“ flourish and be available to all people”这一点有些敷衍。
我是作文新手...还希望与楼主多交流，谢谢！

Candyisthebest
UID: 3626719

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 53
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2015-6-10
精华: 0
帖子: 107

32楼

发表于 2015-9-23 17:13:01 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 Candyisthebest 于 2015-9-24 09:07 编辑

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

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.

I strongly disagree with the statement that powerful people in any profession should step down after five years. When it comes to business and education fields, the assertion holds true because people in high positions still make remarkable contributions to the companies or schools. Nevertheless, as far as politics is concerned, leaders are supposed to step down after certain years in order to prevent the abuse of power.

In the realm of business, powerful people know how to let the cooperation function well and deserve the trust of shareholders. For example, a manager works like Trojans for decades so he knows what’s best for the company. In addition, his excellent work gains reliance of shareholders, namely, shareholders support his decisions concerning management. In this case, I can’t think of a single reason why the company will dismiss the valuable manager in five years for the reason that the manager has already become a significant asset to the company.

The same logic applies to education as well, principles of schools should not leave office after five years. Likewise, the principle may take years to build connections with the educational circle. It’s entirely likely that the principle is good at fund-raising, however, if another person replaces him, the investors are familiar with the new face, he may not get as much as support as the previous one, which, as a matter of fact, impedes the development of the whole school. That is to say, powerful people in education field should not be laid off since the substitute is probably not competent enough.

Some people argue that people with great power in the government should get tenured too because they are dedicated to their jobs and no one could be as capable as he is. However, from my perspective, staying in a high position in government is the home of power abuse. The tenured dignitary may set up his own wings and take bribes without worrying about the impeachment. Judging from this, the government should not keep people in power for a long time at the expense of democracy.

In conclusion, experts in business and education field could stay on positions after five years because they are more experienced and capable, yet in government, so as to limit power and keep it in the “cage”, powerful people should step down after certain years.

Trueyang
UID: 3642895

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 50
寄托币: 355
注册时间: 2015-8-1
精华: 0
帖子: 88

33楼

发表于 2015-9-24 23:01:42 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 Trueyang 于 2015-9-25 01:08 编辑

Candyisthebest 发表于 2015-9-23 17:13
ISSUE 111) In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step ...

在这个地盘上混得按规矩来。
那么就按照王老师的点评框架。

首先是1. 按照1+3模型对开头段、主旨句及主题句的点评。
主题是非常清晰的，而且明确地回应了题目的要求，也没有冗长的铺垫。

接下来是中间段的点评。
我记得之前看过LZ的文章，英文的功底是相当深厚的，但是从字数上来看似乎没发挥出来，可能是限时的关系吧。
我能看到的最大的问题是例子没有充分展开。
LZ借鉴了王老师的范文，同样的观点，在没有深入的时候，各个例子似乎放在哪里都没有问题，但是一旦具体描绘了之后，就容易跟每段的TS发生更紧密的联系。因此具体化例子非常重要。
我觉着要是多花点儿时间再扩写BODY，这一定是一篇切题又丰满的好文章。与LZ共勉。

Candyisthebest
UID: 3626719

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 53
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2015-6-10
精华: 0
帖子: 107

34楼

发表于 2015-10-19 18:04:32 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 Candyisthebest 于 2015-10-20 09:34 编辑

ARGU 3

The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.

"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels.”

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

(时态用什么？？)
According to the letter, the store owner holds the idea that the increasing skateboard users in the plaza accounts for the decrease in the business. So in order to thieve the business, skateboarding should be forbidden in Central Plaza. However, to evaluate the recommendation, questions should be answered concerning the reasons why people did not come to Central Plaza, what increased the amount of litter and vandalism and why the business decreased.

We need to investigate why fewer shoppers has come to the Plaza. The store owner assumes that the more skateboard users made shoppers unwilling to come. Nevertheless, it is entirely like that, the customers find it very difficult to park in the Plaza, in addition, other public transportations are not convenient either. What’s more, that the prizes in the Plaza is getting higher and higher could drive away the shoppers as well. If people did not go to the Plaza were for the aforementioned reasons, prohibiting skateboard users will not win shoppers back.

Plus, questions need to be answered regarding what caused the increase number of litter and vandalism. Chances are that it was the local residents rather than the skateboard skaters who dropped litters and did damage to public facilities constantly. Judging from this, if skateboard skaters did not did bad deeds, there was no using keeping them away from the Plaza with the aim of banning the behavior of dropping litter or vandalism, nor could the recommendation flourish the business.

Last but not the least, we should also question why really decreased the business in the Plaza. The letter assumes that skateboard users had negative effect on the business yet the store owner fails to take other possibilities into account. There is a possibility that, the shopping assistants were mean to the customers, which explained why fewer customers would like to shop in the Plaza. If the shopping assistants kept the arrogant attitudes, merely banning skateboard users would not promote the business.

老师范文 https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 767&fromuid=3626719

Candyisthebest
UID: 3626719

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 53
寄托币: 304
注册时间: 2015-6-10
精华: 0
帖子: 107

35楼

发表于 2015-10-26 18:01:41 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 Candyisthebest 于 2015-10-27 15:22 编辑

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

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

It goes without saying that, with the advance of industry and technology, human beings have compelling -in many cases catastrophic - impacts on nature. In order to preserve our planet, some people urge that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas. Nevertheless, the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague, from my perspective, countries under poor financial condition should not pass such laws, nor do countries with limited land. On the other hand, affluent countries are supposed to conserve rather than preserve remaining wilderness areas so as to balance between economical benefits and environment protection.

Developing countries whose nations are under horrible threats should not preserve all wilderness areas. In these countries, people are struggling to make both ends meet so I believe the most salient problem the government should solve is to improve the life standards of the people. For instant, the government could permit to build more factories so as to provide more job opportunities. Some people may argue that, the preservation of industrial land does good to future generation, however, it is ironic that this “sustainable ” effort only entices starving contemporary generation into famine.

It is also counterproductive to implement preservation policies in countries or areas lack of natural resources. Take Hong Kong as a case in point. Well-known as the highest house prices all over the world, Hong Kong is undergoing the grudge of its people all the time. It is not practical to preserve natural landscapes at the expense of urbane houses and infrastructures. Plus, not only is there not enough room for living people, but also not enough graveyards for dead bodies, let alone the preservation of wilderness areas for other creatures. From the other point of view, if the government passes laws to preserve natural areas against people’s will, the economic will shrink without doubt and more serious political riots will come into being.

When it comes to rich countries of ample natural resources, it is more sensible to reserve instead of preserving wild areas. There is a clear-cut difference between preservation and reservation. Preservation means keeping the original landscape unconditionally while reservation stands for using the natural resources wisely and sustainably. As far as I am concerned, I recommend the government go for the second choice. To illustrate, I can think of no better example than the Yellow Stone National Park, which is the paradigm of conservation. The most amazing of it is that, it maintains the untainted natural world as well as presents its beauty to the world. In addition, the tourism greatly blossoms local economics. In conclusion, the government could learn from the exemplary case to achieve both financial and environment-friendly goals.

To sum it up, poor countries and countries of scarce natural resources should not preserve wilderness areas because the nation’s well-being ought to be guaranteed in the first place whereas developed countries are supposed to take actions conserve rather than preserve natural lands in order to thrive the economics harmoniously.

老师评语：
Nevertheless, the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague, from my perspective, countries under poor financial condition should not pass such laws, nor do countries with limited land. On the other hand, affluent countries are supposed to conserve rather than preserve remaining wilderness areas so as to balance between economical benefits and environment protection.

the identity of “nations” in the statement is very vague 什么意思
而且这里断句也有问题
估计考官看到这种句子就直接判3分了

affluent countries are supposed to 这里应该表明是你的观点
is supposed to一般用来描述大家都认同的规则 Chinese students are supposed to be good at math ...

语言表达不过关啊

老师范文：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... amp;fromuid=3626719