--

arimidyUID: 2673973

Friendship has never failed to fascinate people and in some people’s mind, friendship is to them what perfume is to flowers. However, it is by no means easy maintaining friendship. Otherwise, there would not be the dicussion on when a friend makes a mistake, is it better to point it out in the danger of destroying this friendship, or let it go? My view is that it depends.

As the proverb says, a true friend always tell the truth. However, gone are those days when the whole country prefer（prefers） to speak bluntly in history. Nowadays, merely people can bear a friend always point out their minor mistakes which is no harmful at all, such a friend may think to be a captious (good word) person. If a person persist to indicate friend’s mistakes, without considering friend’s mind(feeling就好了), there would be no one prefer to be friend with him or her. So as a intelligent person, when we see a little mistake of our friend in daily life, may be the best way is to let it be, which could protect him or her self-pride and do not destroy the atmosphere.

By contrast, I prefer it depends bacause there are also some conditions people must correct their friends` mistakes. For instance, your friend is doing a low breaking activity which is a grisliness（grisly) mistake, as a true friend, it is your responsibility to indicate his or her mistake, cause if you do not correct it, he or she would get a severe punishment. Therefore, in this situation, although friends would angry with you, they could understand that you are doing what a veriest friend should do and that is the best help for them sooner or later. Do not point out mistakes does not mean impermissibility, it means do it in the right conditions.

On balance, I should admit honestly that I can not give a yes-no answer to this perplexing question. It mainly depends on how we analyze it. When your friend doing(这句话没动词了) wrong in a minor thing during daily life, maybe the best way is not to tell him or her. But if your friend are（is） doing some serious mistakes, as a friend, your responsibility is help him or her stop doing that.

条理还是比较清晰的，但是文字的驾驭还不够，很多句子中国化。

liunian1031UID: 2670872

8.28.2009． 综合写作  295~~~

Clearly, there is no consensus on the question whether it was an asteroid exploded or a “swampt gas” explosion above the Tunguska. All the three points mentioned in the reading are seriously doubted by the lecture.

The first point mentioned in the reading is that if an asteroid exploded happened above Tunguska, there should have some traces, since none of the traces have been found, it`s reasonable that it`s not an asteroid. But in the lecture, the professor believes that the traces must be detroyed by force of nature, because it`s already 90 years later since scientists found this accident, these clues were hard to remain.In contrast, the same thing happened in Canada was researched only two weeks after the accident, so it`s easier to find traces than Tunguska.

Another factor in the passage is that a large asteroid`s impact on land would caused a huge crater, so the asteroid impact theory could not be hold because there is not any crater. Nevertheless, it is once again doubted by the lecture. The professor said, the asteroid were not crash the Earth as an intect rock, and it was in a low atmosphere before hit the Earth, then it`s possible that no crater can be found today.

The third element in the reading passage is that the scientists point out the truth is there could not be comets and meteors do not explode when encountering Earth`s atmosphere. On the contrary, the lecture contradicts it. The professor introduced the single destruction of the trees in Tunguska, and by researching, the destruction is more likely destroy rather than some small sumpt gas.

To sum up, through the concrete examples of the professor`s argument, it refuted the theory in the reading material powerfully.


无语了……为什么越写越少……

liunian1031UID: 2670872

哎……

qz163zUID: 2599115

Clearly, there is no consensus on the question whether it was an asteroid exploded or a “swampt gas”(沼气拼错了) explosion above the Tunguska. All the three points mentioned in the reading are seriously doubted by the lecture.
(我喜欢这个开头，很简练但很开门见山)


The first point mentioned in the reading is that if an asteroid exploded happened above Tunguska, there should have some traces, since none of the traces have been found, it’s reasonable that it’s not an asteroid. （建议把这句独立成一个句子否则有点怪怪）But in the lecture, the professor believes that the traces must be detroyed by force of nature, because it’s already 90 years later since scientists found this accident, these clues were hard to remain. In contrast, the same thing happened in Canada was researched only two weeks after the accident, so it’s easier to find traces than Tunguska.# x- G+ r2 ): C; ^1 Z$ c6 Z4 m0 L



Another factor in the passage is that a large asteroid’s impact on land would caused a huge crater, so the asteroid impact theory could not be hold because（太中式话了） there is not any crater. Nevertheless, it is once again doubted by the lecture. The professor said, the asteroid were not crash the Earth as an intect rock, and it was in a low atmosphere before hit the Earth, then it’s possible that no crater can be found today." h, F* i) ^4 )7 g
; ~/ T: j$ L1 c1 S* W9 f: n
The third element in the reading passage is that the scientists point out the truth is there could not be comets and meteors do not explode when encountering Earth’s atmosphere. On the contrary, the lecture contradicts it. The professor introduced the single destruction of the trees in Tunguska, and by researching, the destruction is more likely destroy rather than some small sumpt gas.（小沼气？）
这段点到是抓的很好，赞一个n5 F( B7 o0 v2 `! b) f"

这段Y2 S这2 a( Y
To sum up, through the concrete examples of the professor’s argument, it refuted the theory in the reading material powerfully.5 )* L0 x7 [; Z
8 f3 r' G# S0 Q: x