【请Ｒ大继续指教】

月明日暗UID: 3400027

请大大看一下1.17的作文～～

秋雨荆州UID: 2903781

可能要等一段时间了~ro老师最近休息啦~

月明日暗UID: 3400027

秋雨荆州 发表于 2013-1-4 23:50
可能要等一段时间了~ro老师最近休息啦~

嗯嗯不着急，写作是个长期提高的过程，老是慢慢改就好。哈。

mpromanusUID: 2565872

Famous entertainers and athletes deserve to have more privacy than they have now.

Recently there has been a controversial topic that was debated by a lot of people about whether the privacy of famous entertainers and athletes should be protected better than at present (There are two clauses in this sentence: 1. there has been a controversial topic; 2. the topic was debated, blah. You can't roll them into one like you did, because the 2nd clause is too long to fit. You need proper 'clause embedding' like the 'that was' I added.). It would appear that such a suggestion is unnecessary since public generations (I'm not really sure what this phrase means here. If you want to refer to the population of the public as a whole, then it's just 'the public'.) show great interest in their daily lives and if they know celebrities more, they would be favorable of them more (This is not necessarily true. The 'ugly truth' can sometimes cause a celebrity to fall out of public favour very soon.). Nevertheless, I definitely believe that they deserve to have more privacy, for the two primary reasons I will outline below.

First and foremost, keeping famous entertainers and athletes from being harassed is essentially helpful for them to achieve a new peaks in careers. One fundamental way to open the gate of success is to stay calm in daily life in order to create extremely excellent products (I'm not sure what you think 'entertainers' are but entertainers definitely don't produce 'products'..unless you meant 'productions', as in theatre/film..) or break the world record (And that is not the only goal of an athlete either, since not all sports are measured by 'records', e.g. a boxer is an athlete but boxing is more about winning matches than to 'break the world record'..) via hard training. Considering why the celebrities stepped into the sight of public initially: when they are still among the general public, they devoted themselves to a favorite career, thus being able to provide audiences with a feast of eyesight (The phrase is 'a feast for the eyes', and it's more or less idiomatic i.e. a fixed phrase, so don't try to rephrase it. Also, this seems to only apply to entertainers. What about athletes?) then achieving success. In this sense, if they are exposed to the external pressure due to the invasion by immoral journalists or crazy fans, hardly can they guarantee the time of training and creating, which is likely to hinder the further development.

Apart from the conditions of success, no one could deny that people, no matter famous entertainers and athletes, the general public, or (If there was no 'no matter', you can use 'even' here. But with 'no matter' you need to have an 'or'.) the criminals, should have their own privacy, that is the right laws permit us (1. I'm not sure what this sentence meant to look like because a correction could work either way: '…privacy, that the laws permit us', or '..privacy, that is what the laws permit us'; 2) you don't talk about 'right' laws because laws are not - and in my opinion should not be - judged by morals. What you meant to say is perhaps more like '..the laws rightfully permit us'.). Too much concentration (I understand what you are trying to say but the word you're looking for is really 'attention'.), especially making use of some tiny tools to peep at the celebrities, is illegal (This is illegal, yes, but it doesn't make 'too much attention' illegal as well. The proper subject of this sentence is 'too much attention', not the peeping bit.), but in fact, a large number of people do this nowadays. Besides, another negative gravity of inadequate protection of famous entertainers and athletes is that they have to conceal their lovers, or even fear to get in touch with the other gender (What makes you think they must get in touch with 'the other gender' for lovers..okay this is meant to be a joke. Do not take it seriously :P). Love is the appropriate right and emotion for everyone in the world, so they deserve to have more privacy so as to be able to love as general people do.

All in all, I firmly regard entertainers and athletes as the victims whose privacy is not guaranteed enough. Hence, their privacy should be protected better than today. And if anyone out there still doubts the significance of protection their privacy, this essay is my answer.

总结：

语法论述什么的不错，但是表意上有不少比较糊涂的地方。。而且有个倾向是长句子写着写着就忘了自己前面写的是什么顺着尾巴一路写下去，于是有时就会前言不完全搭后语。。

mpromanusUID: 2565872

学校大雪封山各种基础设施出问题网络不稳定ing。。发晚了请见谅~鞠躬~

Do you agree or disagree with following statement? Students are more interested in politics than before.

Recently there has been a controversial issue debated by a lot of people about whether students are more gravitated toward politics than before. It would appear that students participate in numerous politics activities today, which gives other people an illusion that they are more interested in politics than several decades ago. Yet in my perspective, I definitely believe that students have (If you use the simple present, it's saying 'students become less interested in politics' is a normal, constant state of affairs, as if they are constantly in the process of 'becoming less interested'..which doesn't quite make sense.) become less interested in politics than before, for the two primary reasons I will outline below.

First and foremost, students' spare time is taken up by discount things of many fields (I'm not really sure what 'discount' means here but it definitely doesn't mean 'uncountable'..). No one could deny that the modern society is developing at such a roaring speed. Therefore, everything keeps changing; everyone has to go to great lengths to improve him/herself in order to catch up with the majority ('change' doesn't necessarily mean 'improvement', so the society changing at great speed doesn't necessarily mean everyone's going forward or you need to 'catch up' with the rest..), especially for students. They have to read a lot so as to perfect an essay or acquire a second language so as to get a better job (I personally don't think this has changed much from 50 years ago. Especially the reading for an essay part.). In this way, they have to equip themselves with a myriad of knowledge (I don't see the connection. They have to read a lot, or learn a 2nd language, but it's not necessarily a 'myriad' of knowledge, which implies knowledge from many different fields. Reading a lot doesn't necessarily mean you have to read from different fields. Neither leaning a 2nd language does – you can learn it solely for business purposes and disregard the rest of the vocabulary.) as soon as possible, leaving them little time to care about politics. The phenomenon that my elder brother, a freshman in university, is extremely busy with his assignments and dance groups serves a crucial example (1. If you say the reason that contemporary students have become very busy is that they have to learn a lot of things in order to be competitive in the job market, then I don't see why your brother is doing 'dance groups' at all, unless his target career is in the entertainment business, I guess; 2. and therefore I don't see why it is a 'crucial' example at all.). However, in the past, students have more time to talk about politics in the spare time (They might have had more spare time in the past, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily talk about politics more. Who says you must talk about politics if you have spare time? They could have well done anything else that's available for them to do in the universe – read poetry, or sing in a choir, for example.). Therefore, it is undeniable that students are less interested in politics than before.(This is a typical non sequitur 'something that doesn't follow' of the p->q != q->p type. All you have managed to prove is that students nowadays have less spare time to discuss politics. That doesn't necessarily mean they have less interest in it. People nowadays generally have less spare time to cook very elaborate, good meals, but that doesn't mean they definitely have less interest in very elaborate, good meals. The reason that your reasoning is a non sequitur is that if you have less interest in something, you'll probably talk less about it, but the reverse is not necessarily true – that's what I mean by p->q != q->p, where -> means 'implies' and != means 'not equal to'. It's one of the most common logical mistakes people make. Think about it. You have to add something like 'if you don't discuss something then you'll lose interest it, so students having less spare time to discuss politics would lose interest' to make this work.)

Apart from the huge burden from university, the increasing amount of entertainment is the second conditions that should be taken into consideration. the Computer, as an outstanding representation of advanced technology, provides students easy access to various ways to relax. Videos and PC games are filled in every corner of students’ lives. Students are more engaged in such entertainment rather than caring about politics or searching for relevant information on the Internet (What does 'searching the Internet' has to do with the discussion, anyway?). A study conducted by Peking University on July 4, 2010 shows that 87% students gain easy access to computers, among whom 92% are interested in videos or games. As a result, students are inclined to have fun on the Internet once they have enough time.(Another non sequitur. Students interested in videos or games don't necessarily always access them online. Nor do they necessarily spend their spare time more on videos/games than anything else just because they are interested in them. A student could have, for example, indicated interest in books, videos/games and politics in this survey, but his most dominating interest that he spends most time on is politics, which you can't get from the survey if it just asked the students to tick off boxes that match their interests. Now if you actually straight-forwardly said that this survey showed that politics had the least interest rating out of some 20 choices, while a similar survey 50 years ago showed politics ranking among top 10, and that the more recent survey's top 10 are almost all various novel kinds of entertainment related to computers, then it's better reasoning, even though your survey is still the same fake one. In other words, you need to think about what kind of examples and arguments will reasonably lead back to the conclusion you eventually want to have for the paragraph, rather than just following the keywords in your arguments one by one, because these keywords will drift from one sentence to another linearly, and if you don't have an overall picture of how everything actually relates to one another, you'll end up with a string of sentences among which each adjacent pair are logically more or less well related, but the 1st one and the last one are not reasonably related at all..) In this way, we have to admit that owing to the conspicuous gravity of modern technology, students gradually discard the habit of caring about politics at present.

Admittedly, modern governments do provide more possibilities for students to know what happen in the parliament or the nation. They utilize different kinds of ways to inform students the great events regarding politics, perhaps making some students become interested in politics. But we must be consciously aware of the obstacles placed in front of the students, which block them to be further interested in politics. (Now it's unclear whether you meant to say the two reasons you have discussed are the 'obstacles', or something else is.)

Taking all these factors into consideration, I firmly regard politics takes the unimportant place in students’ lives (Again, this is not relevant – politics being unimportant in students' lives doesn't necessarily mean they can't have great interest in it. It's like quantum physics, again..). If anyone out there still doubts my view, this essay is my answer.

总结：

语法神马的都很好了，最大的问题是论述挠不到痒上嘛。。你的论据论证到底怎么能一步步理到论点上的，这是很关键的一步，你总是在这一步上差了几层。不是说你写了因为所以这些词，两个概念之间的逻辑关系真的就是因为所以了。。论据最终是用来支持论点而不是别的东西用的，所以逻辑必须是个圈圈，不能是一句话接着一句话往下写，写到差不多一半了找个论据，又没有联系这个论据到你的分论点，也没有联系到你的总论点，于是论证变得非常勉强。。

mpromanusUID: 2565872

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To solve the problems present and future, is it necessary to understand the past?

Recently there has been a controversial issue debated by a lot of people about whether it is important to understand the past in order to better tackle problems in the present and the future. It would appear that the experience of previous people is precious, and we indeed could extract some hints from it to solve present problems. Yet in my perspective, I definitely believe that it is unnecessary to refer to the past to solve problems present and future, for the two primary reasons I will outline below.

First and foremost, certain problems have never occurred in the past hundreds of years. For example, environmental problems (This term covers a myriad of things from pollution to biodiversity. Some of them actually did happen in the past and quite seriously, e.g. desertification and soil erosion due to over-farming had, to a large extent, destroyed the productivity of quite a few important cities of the great Roman Empire and potentially contributed to its eventual downfall. So not all 'environmental problems' must only happen in modern times, and basing your argument on 'environmental problems' is too sweeping. Keep your sentences qualified, especially when dealing with such huge topics like 'environment', e.g. 'some environmental problems..'), as a representative of troublesome issues at present, cannot be tackled via understanding a similar phenomenon in the past. No one could deny that environmental problems are deteriorating at such an unprecedented speed. A large area of water is polluted, ozone holes become increasingly bigger and non-renewable energy resources are about to be used up (We talk about energy resources, not just energy, because you don't get energy directly from the environment.). Such problems in the past were never as serious as they are today.(Indeed. This is what I mean by 'qualified'. These particular problems do illustrate your point, not because they never happened in the past, but because they are happening at a speed much faster than in the past. So usually I'll try to be safe by qualifying my topic sentence carefully.) If the last generation could be able to solve these problems, environmental problems would not be so severe today.(So your point is not really that these problems never occurred in the past, but rather they never get solved in the past..these are different concepts.) Therefore, hardly can we find effective ways in the past to apply to solve these problems present and future. That is to say, understanding the past is not essentially helpful to solve certain problems present and future.(Good closing argument.)

Apart from lacking of experience, referring to the past experience (You are talking about 'past experience' in a general sense here, so you don't need a definite article.) suffers from another deadly flaw--it will give people at present a mistakenly hint that the problems present can be solved in the completely identical method which was used to tackle the similar problems in the past. A typical example is The Great Depression happened in the 1930s. The most conspicuous reason causing this economic crisis is that President Hoover took the same measures which were adopted to alleviate the previous economic crisis without analyzing the situation of America at that time. Experience in the past would give the later generation an illusion that it can be applied to dispose the same problems present and future directly. However, different times have distinct characteristics. In most cases, the exact method to deal with the problems in the past cannot tackle the problems decades of years later. In this way, I prefer to spend comparatively more time and energy solving problems rather than referring to the past.(Your preference in this doesn't really have as much bearing on the discussion as your actual argument has..in the sense that your argument is complete and persuasive enough without this 'I prefer' sentence.) Therefore, sometimes understanding the past may not be efficient and expedient, but instead, it would direct us to the deep abyss of despair.(Very good paragraph.)

Taking all these conditions into consideration, I firmly regard that understanding the past has minor important role (You could have just said 'minor importance'. Your use of language tends to be cumbersome at times.) in solving the problems present and future. Previous experience would help us to deal with current situation in some cases, but what is essential to tackling the problems is our own endeavor.

总结：

很不错的文章~~第二个论点段尤其好。第一个论点段主要的问题是1.‘环境问题’这个话题太大了，不是所有的环境问题都一定没在过去出现过。。比如水土流失和沙漠化，从古至今都是非常严重的问题。2. 结果最后你这一段其实不是说现在出现的问题过去没出现过，所以我们没有过去的方法可以参考。。实际上是现在遇到的问题过去没解决过，或者现在遇到的问题比过去的同样问题要严重得多，所以过去的方法不能照搬。。所以你写完了一段也要回头去看看你这段最初的topic sentence到底是什么。。

月明日暗UID: 3400027

mpromanus 发表于 2013-1-23 21:47
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To solve the problems present and future, is  ...

天啊，大大你知道我看到你的评语，实在忍不住要笑开花了。从第一次拿出一篇自认为不错的文章，结果被你laugh at，然后我自己根据你的评语再看，也忍不住尴尬的笑【就是羔羊跪乳那篇。。不知道你记不记得】，到现在这一篇，能得到“很不错的评语”/..真的太激动了!!!昨天搜了一下你帮B因子改得文章，最后说excellent work。唉，这也是我最希望得到的评语呀！为了这个目标我一定会接着努力的。26号要考试了，考完估计有段时间不回来了。谢谢大大帮我修改三次作文，尤其最近快成我的私人教师了【好爽:)】考完以后会开始看看逻辑方面的书了，弥补一下我这个都是逻辑窟窿的大脑，有时间继续向你请教:）

最后祝大大学业顺利工作顺利爱情美满生活开心~~~

mpromanusUID: 2565872

月明日暗 发表于 2013-1-23 14:23
天啊，大大你知道我看到你的评语，实在忍不住要笑开花了。从第一次拿出一篇自认为不错的文章，结果被你la ...

啊~你有进步是实实在在自己练出来的瓦所以说你好是应得的瓦~如果我那些不给人面子的评语有激励你那么一点点，我也就很高兴了瓦~祝考试顺利~继续努力的时候要注意身体哦~