小C的作文贴

candis712UID：2824089

3.3 TPO11
In the reading passage, the writer claims that people tend to read less literature nowadays which has negative influences on reading public, culture in general, as well as the future of literature. However, in the lecture, the professor refutes those so-called negative effects with sufficient supports.

To begin with, the professor points that reading less literature won't lead a decline in book reading. The text seems to worry about the quality of other reading materials except the literature. But the truth is there are many other books, evolving with science, history or politic, which are also worth to read. These books could also evoke readers' imaginations as the literature does.

Secondly, the professor argues that reading less literature won't lower the level of culture, too. The definition of valuable culture in the reading passage doesn't fit the development of modern culture any more. Many other forms of culture, such as music, movies, have appeared, which are all great alternative choices for literature, even more impressive and direct than literature. So it is no a waste of time enjoying these new forms of culture.

Finally, the professor disagrees with the statement in the reading passage that it is the readers' fault which causes the less support for literature. In fact, one important reason that why fewer people prefer to read literature is because modern literature is too difficult to understand for common readers.

In conclusion, the professor states a totally different attitude toward the situation of reading less literature with the text. And she confirms her ideas through powerful and reasonable analyzing.

sEven_zhUID：3007258

3.1独立修改！
写得很好

sun3mayUID：2574771

改TPO-9综合：

In this reading passage, the writer assumes that as an alternative source of energy for cars, the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines（engine应该不能算是一种source吧） will replace the internal-combustion. However, the lecture disagrees with this optimize statement and disputes the three main reason in the text., b  

Q. I2 L: b7 A' k
* X0 M  b: I  t( A/ [& w; `
To begin with, the speaker argues that the hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines is not as available as described in the reading passage. Though the hydrogen could be generated from common objects, it demands a difficult process to produce it. One problem during such process is that the temperature should be very cold in order to generate pure liquid hydrogen. Therefore, using this artificial resource to power cars is very unpractical.

N6 v8 o# b) y3 h. _; c* r
Secondly, the speaker refutes the idea that hydrogen-based fuel cells could save many pollution problems. Although the byproduct of fuel-cell engines is harmless water, it is unreasonable to ignore its other negative influences on the environment. In fact, the process of making pure hydrogen requires lots of energy（貌似不只是“耗费能量”，还有“释放污染”，如果把这点加在including前就更好了）, including burning oil which would definitely harm the environment.

! l2 n% a* t3 k& ?; j1 Y# M7 {
Furthermore, the speaker also mentions that fuel-cell engines lack powerful financial competition（这个归纳的好！） compared with internal-combustion engine. In the text, the writer cites an evidence that fuel-cell powered car could save half of energy than internal-combustion powered car. But the speaker notes another perspective that weakens this advantage. The cost of making a fuel-cell engine is pretty expensive since it needs a special dear metal which cannot be effectively replaced by cheaper metal so far.

主要的点都归纳进来了，语言不错的，没有什么大问题。
绿色的地方是觉得写的比较好的，学习了。

beangtUID：2691375

In this reading passage, the writer assumes that as an alternative source of energy for cars, the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines will replace the internal-combustion. However, the lecture disagrees with this optimize (optimal) statement and disputes the three main reasons in the text.# ~! p! w4 s1 [, G, x2 s

0 j8 K4 E' M% E  ?+ o; _1 l) a2 dTo begin with, the speaker argues that the hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines is not as available as described in the reading passage. Though the hydrogen could be generated from common objects, it demands a difficult process to produce it. One problem during such process is that the temperature should be very cold in order to generate pure liquid hydrogen. Therefore, using this artificial resource to power cars is very unpractical (impractical)., L) o9 p+ {  l1 f1 B, A2 H9 A
* `4 j. i( I9 C! n9 w. ]0 V
Secondly, the speaker refutes the idea that hydrogen-based fuel cells could save many pollution problems. Although the byproduct of fuel-cell engines is harmless water, it is unreasonable to ignore its other negative influences on the environment. In fact, the process of making pure hydrogen requires lots of energy, including burning oil which would definitely harm the environment.
$ Q' J) X7 b5 @1 {  a/ G7 p9 D2 j* \5 L2 V1 J
Furthermore, the speaker also mentions that fuel-cell engines lack powerful financial competition compared with internal-combustion engine. In the text, the writer cites an evidence that fuel-cell powered car could save half of energy than internal-combustion powered car. But the speaker notes another perspective that weakens this advantage. The cost of making a fuel-cell engine is pretty expensive since it needs a special dear metal which cannot be effectively replaced by cheaper metal so far.
语言流畅，听力的基本要点也都有了~

keaishuUID：2213233

才意识到综合和独立是分开分组的。。。

把你们的放一起了。。第二篇是你的

candis712UID：2824089

3.1 独立
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? the government should spend more money on education of very young children than the education of universities

There is a public debate about the different priorities of higher level education and the lower ones. Whether the education of universities deserves more money and attention from government than education of young children? I can hardly agree with it considering the following reasons.

First, spending more money on education of young children could improve young people's academic developments more effectively than focusing entirely on education of universities. Scientist researches show that the interest for academic study usually forms between 5 to 12 years old. So government needs to pay more attention on this period time of education from a long term perspective. Only with sufficient financial support, could elementary schools provide diversity of interesting programs to attract children’s attentions, and employ enough teachers to look after every student’s special requirements. Otherwise, if the government did not offer proper support to guarantee the quality of this level education, education of colleges, which provides more professional knowledge, could not perform its function well.

Secondly, education of young children covers a much broader scope throughout the population than advanced education, therefore, it is reasonable and essential for it to require more public financial support. Nowadays the significance of literacy is high valued, every child is supposed to receive at least basic education. While a comparatively lower number of people want to attend university. As in China, the number of people who has taken elementary education is nearly four times than those who finally go to college. Consequently, with so many children need to be taken care, the total amount of expenditure for young children' education is undoubtedly higher.

Last but not least, the financial system of universities provides many alternative methods for them to sustain their function by themselves. For instance, many professors could gain economic aids from scientific programs or private organizations. Meanwhile, they could also apply their patents or scientific discoveries into implement, which enables them to make profits and cover the cost of universities. On the contrary, fundamental education of young children is lack of such advantage, and more reliable on government's support.

In conclusion, I posit that it is wise for government to spend more money on education for young children, rather than education of universities according to the three statements discussed above.

candis712UID：2824089

3.1  综合 TPO9
In this reading passage, the writer assumes that as an alternative source of energy for cars, the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engines will replace the internal-combustion. However, the lecture disagrees with this optimize statement and disputes the three main reason in the text.

To begin with, the speaker argues that the hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines is not as available as described in the reading passage. Though the hydrogen could be generated from common objects, it demands a difficult process to produce it. One problem during such process is that the temperature should be very cold in order to generate pure liquid hydrogen. Therefore, using this artificial resource to power cars is very unpractical.

Secondly, the speaker refutes the idea that hydrogen-based fuel cells could save many pollution problems. Although the byproduct of fuel-cell engines is harmless water, it is unreasonable to ignore its other negative influences on the environment. In fact, the process of making pure hydrogen requires lots of energy, including burning oil which would definitely harm the environment.

Furthermore, the speaker also mentions that fuel-cell engines lack powerful financial competition compared with internal-combustion engine. In the text, the writer cites an evidence that fuel-cell powered car could save half of energy than internal-combustion powered car. But the speaker notes another perspective that weakens this advantage. The cost of making a fuel-cell engine is pretty expensive since it needs a special dear metal which cannot be effectively replaced by cheaper metal so far.

hcp4715UID：2697633

27# candis712
In this reading passage, the writer suggests thatChevalier's memoir was inaccuracy, and points out three events in the memoirwhich were possibly made up(文章说是distorted or invented，可能有些只是夸大，有些是“发明”的，不一概认为是make up吧) by Chevalier. However, the lecturedemonstrates a different opinion toward this memoir, and confirms the accuracyof it with sufficient evidences.

To begin with, the speaker refutes the statement in the text that borrowingmoney from a merchant indicated Chevalier's poverty. In fact, Chevalier didhave a large amount of money as well as spending much on parties and gamblingas described in his memoir. While in order to get such considerable sums ofmoney, he needed to convert his assets into cash. So when he was waiting forthe money, he had to borrow some from others. It did not mean that he was notwealth.

Furthermore, the speaker argues that the conversationbetween Chevalier and Voltaire was definitely accurate, instead of lacking ofprecise as mentions in the reading passage. Chevalier was used to writedown the content of the conversation every night after he met Voltaire, andmeanwhile he had kept the records for many years, that's why he could rememberevery detail. Moreover, many witness confirmed that Chevalier had reserved suchmaterials. This fact really reduces the persuasion of the text.

Thirdly, the speaker also claims that the way how Chevalier escaped the prison,described in the reading passages, is ungrounded. The reading passages pointsthat he left the prison through bribing with friends’ help. But there were manyother prisoners there（those） who had more powerful friends, why did not others bribe, too? Inaddition, documents showed that the ceiling of Chevalier's room needed torepair after his escape. It was pretty possible that he destroyed the ceiling(this confirmed that he did make a hole in the ceiling as he claimed in hismemoir). Therefore, the two evidences both suggest that he escaped the prisonthrough breaking, rather than bribing.

伶女UID：2797207

2.28 综合 TPO8: \4 W9 R  Q+ L* U In this reading passage, the writer suggests that Chevalier's memoir was inaccuracy, and points out three events in the memoir which were possibly made up by Chevalier. However, the lecture demonstrates a different opinion toward this memoir, and confirms the accuracy of it with sufficient evidences. To begin with, the speaker refutes the statement in the text that borrowing money from a merchant indicated Chevalier's poverty. In fact, Chevalier did have a large amount of money as well as spending much on parties and gambling as described in his memoir. While in order to get such considerable sums of money, he needed to convert his assets into cash. So when he was waiting for the money, he had to borrow some from others. It did not mean that he was not wealth.+ {5 E7 a" r$ D( W1 X5 \ Furthermore, the speaker argues that the conversation between Chevalier and Voltaire was definitely accurate, instead of lacking of precise as mentions in the reading passage（后面这句可以去掉的）. Chevalier was used to write down the content of the conversation every night after he met Voltaire, and meanwhile he had kept the records for many years, that's why he could remember every detail. Moreover, many witness confirmed that Chevalier had reserved such materials. This fact really reduces the persuasion of the text.& d& S! D8 Q+ {# X2 R Thirdly, the speaker also claims that the way how Chevalier escaped the prison, described in the reading passages, is ungrounded. The reading passages points that he left the prison through bribing with friends’ help. But there were many other prisoners there who had more powerful friends, why did not others bribe, too? In addition, documents showed that the ceiling of Chevalier's room needed to repair after his escape. It was pretty possible that he destroyed the ceiling（没有说他break了天花板吧，我的理解是正好那间的天花板有问题）. Therefore, the two evidences both suggest that he escaped the prison through breaking, rather than bribing. 整体很好，很流畅，红色是学习啦的，觉得整体可以再简洁一点呢

candis712UID：2824089

2.28 综合 TPO8
In this reading passage, the writer suggests that Chevalier's memoir was inaccuracy, and points out three events in the memoir which were possibly made up by Chevalier. However, the lecture demonstrates a different opinion toward this memoir, and confirms the accuracy of it with sufficient evidences.

To begin with, the speaker refutes the statement in the text that borrowing money from a merchant indicated Chevalier's poverty. In fact, Chevalier did have a large amount of money as well as spending much on parties and gambling as described in his memoir. While in order to get such considerable sums of money, he needed to convert his assets into cash. So when he was waiting for the money, he had to borrow some from others. It did not mean that he was not wealth.

Furthermore, the speaker argues that the conversation between Chevalier and Voltaire was definitely accurate, instead of lacking of precise as mentions in the reading passage. Chevalier was used to write down the content of the conversation every night after he met Voltaire, and meanwhile he had kept the records for many years, that's why he could remember every detail. Moreover, many witness confirmed that Chevalier had reserved such materials. This fact really reduces the persuasion of the text.

Thirdly, the speaker also claims that the way how Chevalier escaped the prison, described in the reading passages, is ungrounded. The reading passages points that he left the prison through bribing with friends’ help. But there were many other prisoners there who had more powerful friends, why did not others bribe, too? In addition, documents showed that the ceiling of Chevalier's room needed to repair after his escape. It was pretty possible that he destroyed the ceiling. Therefore, the two evidences both suggest that he escaped the prison through breaking, rather than bribing.

bibby00888UID：2908529

小C同学 不好意思 先占座 下午还有党课。。。晚点传

伶女UID：2797207

2.24 综合tpo59 e# i! M( I8 I/ \' D- x, r0 c
In the reading passage, it suggests three possible functions of the great houses in New Mexico. However, the professor in the lecture points that each explanation is ungrounded学习～.
To begin with, the professor argues that no efficient（what？） could support the first theory that they were used for residents in the reading passage. Admittedly, the outside of the house do look like the later apartment buildings in New Mexico as cites. But inside of the building, evidences contrast with the theory. If the houses were residential, many fire places used for cooking are supposed to be found in the houses. While, in fact, (there were only a) few fire places were去掉 left inside great houses.5 Q. R/ y' O4 _
Furthermore, the professor also disputes another theory in the reading passage which mentions that the great houses were used to store food supplies. According to the professor, this explanation is unsupported. Because if it is true that the houses were once filled with lots of maize, then maize and larger containers should be found in the houses, while no sufficient food remains or containers had been excavated from the houses.
Finally, the professor disagrees with ceremonial function of the great houses due to lack of persuasive information. The pots in Pueblo Alto, noted in the text, was only a small part of old materials been identified there. Archaeologists also found building materials, such as sand, building tools through excavation. Therefore, it is more likely that the pots were used (for concentrating the building waste) by workers during the construction of the house, instead of used for other purpose, not even for ceremonies.
`$ \' d1 O1 a6 t, x
In conclusion, the professor claims that three theories about the function of great houses are all unbelievable after careful analyzing.

改晚了 不好意思～～

candis712UID：2824089

2.25 独立写作

sEven_zhUID：3007258

2.23综合修改~~

candis712UID：2824089

2.24 综合tpo5
In the reading passage, it suggests three possible functions of the great houses in New Mexico. However, the professor in the lecture points that each explanation is ungrounded.

To begin with, the professor argues that no efficient could support the first theory that they were used for residents in the reading passage. Admittedly, the outside of the house do look like the later apartment buildings in New Mexico as cites. But inside of the building, evidences contrast with the theory. If the houses were residential, many fire places used for cooking are supposed to be found in the houses. While, in fact, few fire places were left inside great houses.

Furthermore, the professor also disputes another theory in the reading passage which mentions that the great houses were used to store food supplies. According to the professor, this explanation is unsupported. Because if it is true that the houses were once filled with lots of maize, then maize and larger containers should be found in the houses, while no sufficient food remains or containers had been excavated from the houses.

Finally, the professor disagrees with ceremonial function of the great houses due to lack of persuasive information. The pots in Pueblo Alto, noted in the text, was only a small part of old materials been identified there. Archaeologists also found building materials, such as sand, building tools through excavation. Therefore, it is more likely that the pots were used by workers during the construction of the house, instead of used for other purpose, not even for ceremonies.

In conclusion, the professor claims that three theories about the function of great houses are all unbelievable after careful analyzing.