小C的作文贴

笑会计UID：2872606

According to the speaker, the expected benefits to the three perspective(s) led by the four-day week plan are all unreasonable. Oppositely, changing work pattern from five days a week to four day would bring negative effect(s) to all roles involved, including the companies, economic as well as employees.  
/ U0 K5 c( j1 R* P& u4 _
0 z$ _5 S, ]3 A2 U' ]/ {6 r8 cTo begin with, the speaker believes that it is very possible that the four-day week pattern would reduce the profits of individual companies. If all employees shorten their work time to four days a week, companies need to hire a larger number of employees than before in order to finish the same amount of work. While the health care and medicine benefits, training fees for each employee stay on the same level. If taking all those payments into consideration, the companies' profits would be cut off dramatically.
: J/ m* O4 V6 t" U9 |7 h: \: s% h: V7 K* j) \: F( @0 k% A
To strength his opinion, the speaker also mentions that the so-called improvement of economy lacks sufficient support. Even under the situation of four days a week, no insurance could make sure the appearance of additional labor requirement.(insurance和make sure连用感觉有点重复，而且感觉insurance用在这里不太合适。这句话后半部分的意思表达的也不太清楚，如果改为there’s no guarantee that additional labor will be needed更好). For example, if the company enforces all the employees to finish all the work in four days, which is used to be done by five days, there is definitely no need for any new workers.
' ?9 t" R1 W) R2 }5 u6 w" M2 k! e6 `+ V- X) X8 W
Finally, the speaker points that the personal interests of employees would get hurt to some extent, from a long term view. Though employees could have extra private time, it doesn't necessarily improve qualities of their lives because of the relatively lower salary. Besides, their career might be in danger since short work time is not competitive enough. It is less likely for a four-day week employee to get a promotion, if there are many five-day week as well as skilled and devoted employees available for that position.
+ `/ V# K$ E, e8 j8 E) q) ?
$ q8 E$ S0 [# ?% D5 DIn conclusion, the speaker refutes the three main points made in the reading passage with powerful evidence and logical analyzing.
内容都写清楚了，没什么遗漏，不过是不是每段里加一下这一段和阅读材料的具体哪一点冲突呢？除了开头段，都没再提过阅读材料

candis712UID：2824089

多谢笑会计，第一次发综合，意见积极采纳！

伶女UID：2797207

晚了 不好意思呀

candis712UID：2824089

Tpo 2 综合写作 2.21
The reading passage argues that team work could have positive effect on both the projects and team members. However, the speaker in the lecture denies such advantages and points out several disadvantages led by team work.

To begin with, the speaker doubts the efficiency of the project if a group of people are in charge. With so many people, who have various opinions, working on the some project, it is necessary to hold lots of meetings to debate every attitude. Instead of responding fast to the problems of the project as described in the reading passage, the group has to spend lots of time on planning and judging in order to get an agreement.

Furthermore, the speaker argues that team members will be punished because of others’ fault. During the process of making decisions, influencing people will decide the final choice, even if others argue against that plan. While, when the project fails, the whole team is supposed to take responsibility together, including those members who disagree with this idea. It is unfair for those people. If that is the case, the situation mentioned in the reading passage that more risk decisions will be made under team work doesn’t make any sense.

Another point made by the speaker is that team work will result in unreasonable distribution of rewards. Because some team members, who do not devote themselves completely to the group, could also get rewards according to other’s hard work. Moreover, if the prize goes to group as whole, it would dismiss individual's contribution and provides each single member few chances. It contradicts with the statement in the reading passage that members will get better recognitions through sharing the fruit of the whole team.

In conclusion, the speaker refutes the advantages of team work demonstrated in the reading passage with persuasive analyzing and sufficient support.

笑会计UID：2872606

The reading passage argues that team work could have positive effect on both the projects and team members. However, the speaker in the lecture denies such advantages and points out several disadvantages led by team work.4 }: Y" _0 e% i# x) u4 a# i' D
* H. ]  X: J3 w" l6 Y
To begin with, the speaker doubts the efficiency of the project if a group of people are in charge. With so many people, who have various opinions, working on the some project, it is necessary to hold lots of meetings to debate every attitude. Instead of responding fast to the problems of the project as described in the reading passage, the group has to spend lots of time on planning and judging in order to get an agreement. / M$ i/ d% S% j/ X& m- W0 c不太
* `8 ]5 E) p" ^: l( c
Furthermore, the speaker argues that team members will be punished because of others’ fault. During the process of making decisions, influencing people will decide the final choice, even if others argue against that plan. While, when the project fails, the whole team is supposed to take responsibility together, including those members who disagree with this idea. It is unfair for those people. If that is the case, the situation mentioned in the reading passage that more risk decisions will be made under team work doesn’t make any sense（感觉这一段满难写的，老是找不到听力和阅读之间是怎么对应的，比如when the project fails, the whole team is supposed to take responsibility together还有in the reading passage that more risk decisions will be made under team work 感觉不是很对应，哎，很纠结）.4 N: R7 e9 Z7 S3 O  `

( p1 H6 v' c# w1 Y" g  O3 |7 pAnother point made by the speaker is that team work will result in unreasonable distribution of rewards. Because some team members, who do not devote themselves completely to the group, could also get rewards according to other’s hard work. Moreover, if the prize goes to group as whole, it would dismiss individual's contribution and provides each single member few chances. It contradicts with the statement in the reading passage that members will get better recognitions through sharing the fruit of the whole team.
2 f% K# T+ E7 ^  U- b& [, [9 f
8 e) r+ Q/ \& C. q! ]In conclusion, the speaker refutes the advantages of team work demonstrated in the reading passage with persuasive analyzing and sufficient support.
细节、内容上都写清楚了，但是感觉听力阅读两者之间的冲突关系讲得不太明确。。。哎，这篇是挺难理清的。。。继续加油~

candis712UID：2824089

2.23 综合写作
In the reading passage, dinosaurs are thought to be endotherms according to three major reasons. However, the professor in the lecture notes lots of evidences that contradict the theory demonstrated in the reading passage.

To begin with, the professor refutes the statement in the text that the discovery of dinosaur fossils in polar region indicates this specie was able to keep a constant body temperature, like endotherms did. When dinosaur still existed, the polar region was much warmer, which allowed many non-endotherm animals to habitat there. In addition, when the temperature turned colder, these animals could migrate to other places in order to survive. So even though dinosaurs once lived there, it wasn't necessary for them to be endotherms.

Furthermore, the lecture points that instead of sustaining physical activity mentioned in the reading passage, the position of leg had different functions for dinosaurs. In fact, having legs underneath the bodies was essential to support their weights, and they could grow big enough to live. Therefore, one cannot conclude that dinosaurs need their legs locate underneath the body to provide energy for running merely because of the same position of leg.

Finally, the professor argues that the bone structure of the dinosaurs had nothing to do with their speed of growth. Admittedly, dinosaurs do have Haversian canals, which is one feature of endotherms. But the growth speed of dinosaurs was not as constant as normal endotherms. Evidences show that gross rings could be found in dinosaurs’ bodies, which indicated that dinosaurs grow in different speed during various temperature of environment, especially slow when cold. This truth really contrasts with the endotherms’ traits of growth as described in the text.

In conclusion, the lecture overturns the reading passage though denying each point made in the text, including the existence of polar dinosaurs, position of legs as well as the speed of growth.

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.

sEven_zhUID：3007258

2.23综合修改~~

candis712UID：2824089

2.25 独立写作

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～～

bibby00888UID：2908529

小C同学 不好意思 先占座 下午还有党课。。。晚点传

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.

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

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.

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.