[作文] 【Daily Writing作文特训小组】paulpaul56作文 [复制链接]

paulpaul56
UID: 3004007

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 71
注册时间: 2011-2-7
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-10-20 19:27:37 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

这个主题活动我一直很想参加，但是不大会用，如果有问题的话希望大家多多帮我！THX!
10.20
TPO16
The lecture raises serious counterarguments against the reading passage by providing drastically different evidences about the preservation of valuable sites, the new regulation on financial resources, and the availability of archeology jobs.
First, UK government requires that examination by archaeologists should be conducted before new construction projects start. If the examination successfully find sites to be archaeologically valuable, archaeologists and local officials will work together to either excavate those sites or let construction projects move to a neighboring area. This directly contradicts what the reading contends that construction can lead to great loss of crucial artifacts.
Second, construction companies are responsible for the pay of archaeologists in the examinations. The passage suggests that the archaeology have rare financial resources, only from government and grants. However, the lecturer points out that the requirement in 1990 has provided substantial fund for archaeology research.
The rule requires that not only should construction companies pay the initial check, but also pay all other following procedures of archaeological preservation.
Moreover, regulation in 1990 substantiates the availability of archaeology jobs. The reading considers the jobs of archaeology limited, only the ones in government and in universities. However, the lecturer holds that, according to the regulation, archaeologists are needed to perform at all stages of research, ranging from site preservation to data processing. The improvement of research fund and the increase of job availability attract scores of promising applicants, making the number of archaeology research staff to highest in the history.

相关帖子 Updated by 2025.01.20

回应
0

使用道具举报

paulpaul56
UID: 3004007

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 71
注册时间: 2011-2-7
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2011-10-20 19:28:25 |只看该作者

10.20
TPO17:
The lecture raises serious counterarguments against the reading passage by providing drastically different evidences about the effect of human urbanization, the influence of agricultural growth, and the impact of pesticide on populations of birds.
First, urbanization offers a better and bigger habitat for birds. This view contradicts what the reading states that human settlement has squeezed the traditional place of birds and thus decreased bird populations. The lecturer points out that, on the contrary, citizens find the increasing amount of birds a little annoying, such as pigeons on the roads. Even sometimes, you can see hawk and falcon in city, because their preys abound in city. The lecturer further reasons that some birds’ populations may decline and some may increase, but not all the birds' populations will fall.
Moreover, growing agricultural activities will not harm birds in the way stated in the reading. Lecturer admits that agriculture may jeopardize bird populations, but not in the way the reading assumed. The professor reasons that nowadays less land is for agricultural use, and the newly-introduced crops can produce more grains per land. The introduction of productive crops, not the rise in agricultural land, contributes to advancement of agriculture.
In addition, several measures of pesticide have been taken to protect birds. Whereas pesticide poisoned birds in the past, the newly-developed pesticides have much less effects on birds. The lecturer says that the passage commits a false fallacy by drawing conclusion from history to future, regardless of the growing awareness of the effects of pesticides. Moreover, genetically pest-resistant crops have been designed, and they have a promising market to apply. Therefore, these new crops do not require pesticides, and make birds less exposure to pesticides.

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

paulpaul56
UID: 3004007

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 71
注册时间: 2011-2-7
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2011-10-21 20:12:37 |只看该作者

10.21
TPO18:
The lecture raises serious counterarguments against the reading passage by providing drastically different evidences about the reestablishment of Teorreya in original place, the assisted migration, and the preservation of it in research center.
First, to reestablish Torreya in the original location seems unlikely to success. This view contradicts what the reading states that the wet and cool climate of Northern Florida is preferable to Torreya. The lecturer points out that this area is seriously susceptible to larger area's climate change. Not only do global warming makes the area hotter, but also the drainage of neighboring wetland cause the area drier, making the place unfavorable for the Torreya's growth.
Moreover, assisted migration may cause unexpected result. Even though Torrey has a good chance to thrive in a different location, as the reading states, the lecturer uses the example of Black Lotus to illustrate her point of view. Since it has moved to an unfamiliar condition, it spread so fast that it takes places of other plants and trees, some of which are endangered species, and cause them to extinct.
In addition, research centers are not capable of holding enough Torreya. While the reading deems that planting Torreya in centers would facilitate scientists to protect and do research, the lecturer points out one shortcoming of the centers. That is, Torreya should be kept in large quantity and genetically diverse conditions to prevent disease. However, research centers cannot such a large quantity and diverse condition, therefore making centers a unfavorable place to protect Torreya.

使用道具举报