Penguin Come In~~~作文求拍ing。。。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The best way to travel is being in a group led by a tourist guide.

In this day and age, do-it-yourself travel is becoming more and more prevalent. Indeed, it can allow us to master our time freely which we'd rather not make it something formal and structured, while from my own perspective, I prefer join in a group led by a tour guide than take a DIY tour. Here are reasons followed.

To begin with, following a cicerone can be more convenient for us, especially on the aspect of time-saving. A vast majority of people often complain that they have to spend much time on booking tickets and finding hotels which disturb them through the whole trip，for the booking office are always congested and rumbustious and the guesthouse have already have no vacancy. However, if we have a tour guide, the entire nuisances mentioned above are inexistent. The guide will get everything ready for our journey. Meanwhile, during the trip, with the leading of a guide, we, who is unfamiliar with the roads, will not worry about where way should to go. Besides, it also can reduce the rate of unpredictable danger when we hike with guide. Therefore, tourist guide can bring dozens of convenience for us.

What's more, travelling with a group of person can be more economical as well. Because only the tour guides know the latest information about the price in food, shelter and transportation. They can prepare a way of saving money for us. Besides, the tickets price and hotel charge with a large number of people, can be much lower than a person alone, and sometimes even the half of the primary one. And we can also save more money enjoying the local food not only in a delicious taste but also a low price.

Last but not the least; travelling isn't just for fun, while with a tour guide, we can get a deeply understanding about the local culture and customs. For example, if we take a visit on an ancient relic，we should not just see it and then go away. On the contrary, we should know "when did it start" , "how did it disappear" and "is there any amazing stories during the time" And only follow the guide, can we learn from all the things which mentioned above which The tour guide can explain to us in detail. In this way, we can have a better cognition about the area.

To sum up, after several careful arguments, I do claim that we should have a conducted tour instead of a self-service trip.

请国宝同学告诉我如何增加作文开头和结尾的长度。。。

mpromanusUID：2565872

In this day and age era, do-it-yourself travel is becoming more and more prevalent. Indeed, it can allow us to master our time freely which we'd rather not make it something formal and structured (You can't make 'time' formal and structured..you can only make a 'schedule' so. When using such clauses, keep your subject in mind. Don't lose sight of WHAT you're talking about just because you keep using 'it'.). while (This signals that you're going to do something like 'while we all agree he's a good programmer, his arrogance irritates us.' - that your idea is going to take a turn. It doesn't simply mean 'at the time of'.) from my own perspective, I prefer joining in a group led by a tour guide than taking a DIY tour (Well, this is NOT what the question is asking you for..The question is asking whether you agree/disagree with a statement, and the statement is about whether a certain form of travel is the best. It's not about your preferences. Your preferences are implications of whether a certain form of travel is good. You can use your preferences in examples, but not as direct replies to the question.). Here are reasons followed.

To begin with, following a cicerone (This is an archaic word for 'tour-guide', especially a knowledgable one who guides visitors around museums, galleries, or archaeological sites. So note: a cicerone usually doesn't handle your bookings and all that. If you don't really mean to specify the kind of tour-guides in your discussion, you should stick to the more generic word.) can be more convenient for us, especially on the aspect of time-saving. A vast majority of people often complain that they have to spend much time on booking tickets and finding hotels, which disturb them through the whole trip, for the booking office are always congested and rumbustious (Now I'm starting to wonder where you learnt all these very British words from..=.= At the very least, remember that you're writing for an American reader.), and the guesthouses have already have? no vacancy. However, if we have a tour guide, all the entire nuisances mentioned above are inexistent. (You don't seem to know the difference between a tour guide and a travel agent/agency. The agent/agency is the person/company that handles your bookings. A tour guide's primary job is to guide tourists, although he/she may also liaison with the agent/agency or even stand in to make bookings - but still that's not the primary function of a tour guide, or the tour-guide is not purely a tour-guide in that sense.) The guide will get everything ready for our journey. Meanwhile, during the trip, with the leading of a guide, we, who is are unfamiliar with the roads, will not worry about where way should to go? (I think you mean 'where to go', and my guess is that you probably were thinking about both 'where to go' and 'which way we should go' as candidate expressions when you wrote this..). Besides, it (What?) also can reduce the rate of unpredictable dangers when we hike with a guide (This use of 'it' is not correct. Don't try to master too many sentence constructs at one go.). Therefore, tourist guides can bring dozens of conveniences for us.

What's more, travelling with a group of people can be more economical as well. Because only the tour guides know the latest information about the price in food, shelter (I wouldn't say this is wrong but the normal vocabulary would be 'accomodation'..) and transportation. (This is a fragment.) They can prepare a way (You don't prepare a 'way'. 'Way' is very much abused by Chinese students because its association with 道, but know that there are more solid words than 'way'. 'method' for example.) of saving money for us. Besides, the tickets prices and hotel charges with a large number of people, can be much lower than a person alone, and sometimes even the half of the primary one (This whole sentence is assembed from Chinese translations with total disregard of grammar and semantics..If you can't say it in one sentence, don't force yourself to. Cut your ideas into shorter phrases and put them down one by one, like 'If there're a lot of people, ticket prices and hotel charges can be much lower. If there's only one person, the prices are higher. Sometimes the lower price is half of the higher one.' Keep things simple but correct.) . And we can also save more money enjoying the local food that is not only in a delicious taste but also a low price cheap (I'm also wondering why you seem to be sticking to the same noun phrases over and over without ever considering some rephrase work. Use your vocabulary well - vocabulary is not just about difficult words but the range of words that you can confidently and creatively command. If you can fully utilize a small number of words, you'd not lose out to people who know a lot of words but can only properly use a small fraction of them.).

Last but not the least, travelling isn't just for fun. While with a tour guide, we can get a deeply understanding about the local culture and customs. For example, if we take a visit on an ancient relic, we should not just see it and then go away. On the contrary, we should know "when did it (I'm kind of baffled by what this 'it' is. If you're talking about a 'relic', it's a physical object, a 'souvenir' of the past, like an ancient vase, a statue of a god..so it can't 'start'.) start" , "how did it disappear?" and "are there any amazing stories during the time" And only by following the guide, can we learn from all the things which mentioned above, which the tour guide can explain to us in detail. In this way, we can have a better cognition (This is NOT the same as 'understanding'. In fact, 'cognition' is an entirely different brain activity from 'understanding'.) about the area? (Now this makes me guess that you don't really mean 'relic' when you said 'relic'..).

To sum up, after several careful arguments, I do claim that we should have a conducted guided tour instead of a self-service trip. (There are two issues here: 1. a guided tour doesn't necessarily mean the tour guide takes a group. It can well be a guided tour to a single person. So you're not addressing the 'in a group' part of the question. 2. Throughout the essay you're talking about the merits of travelling in a group, or travelling with a tour guide, but the question is not asking for merits of such travel methods. The question is whether this is the best way to travel. Your main focus point then would be the comparative value of a group guided tour versus all other forms of travel. It's not about your preferences, it's not about whether a group guided tour is good or bad. The comparison needs to be there.)

总结：

你的语法和词汇满有些心有余而力不足的感觉，就是非常想使用一些复杂的句式或者词汇，但是你又没有完全掌握怎么用是对的，所以会变成很奇怪的语言。。请记住不要勉强自己写难句难词，文采是建立在话能说正确的基础上的。。

逻辑上来说，在最后一段的评语中指出的，这个问题是比较性的同意/不同意，而不是你的喜好，或者单纯的团队导游有什么好处。你要把你的观点句放在题目下面看一看，问自己，我的观点回答了这个问题了没有？你现在的写法就像是说问你 你同不同意牛肉是世界上最好吃的东西，你说，我喜欢吃牛肉多过吃羊肉呢~然后开始谈牛肉有多么好吃，最后说，按照我说的，大家都应该不吃羊肉，吃牛肉。。问题没问你羊肉什么事儿啊。。你当然可以在文中纵横对比，但是最终结论要和问题保持一致。

关于开头结尾：

开头的作用是破题，就是解释题目的意思，解释你的讨论的假设/边界/限制，然后给出你的观点。你如果能做到比较完整清楚地解释明白题目的背景和你的讨论的大概轮廓，基本上字数也就够了。结尾用不着想太多，总结简述你的主要论点，最后再明确给一次你的观点就可以了。字数不是靠开头结尾凑的。。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should not pay to the public transportation

The point-“people should not pay to the public transportation” is an ideal condition. That is, people living in all standard, both the people who are on low-income and the people who are wealthy, hope the transportation fee are free. But it would not work in real world, both in developed country and in developing country. As a matter of fact, it is a complicated problem. Why is it complicated? Because it must be concerned not only the background of the nation’s policy, economic and culture, but also the benefit of people form different levels of income. Here are my points in detail from both sides, both from countries and from individual.

From the government of country aspects, firstly, we must consider the costs of the previous period in public transportation, for example, the expenditure on buses and trains, and the expenditure on road building. etc. And the costs during the public transport have been used, for example, the drivers wages, fuel costs, vehicle maintenance fees, worn-out parts replacement fees and so on. All the cost mentioned above are indispensable for mass transit. If it is all paid from government, it is impossible. In fact, government allocates funds for the construction of education and medical security.

Secondly, nothing is free. We must pay for what we consume. If we break the normal economic regulation, such interference in the natural market of transportation will distort incentives and take away the power of consumers to direct the meet their needs. Furthermore, it is a moral which we must obey. Everyone has the obligation to the society. And it is also our responsibility to our society. We can’t live as a parasite on society.

While, in the personal factor, there is alsoexist some tough problems. For instance, according to the statistics from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, the fee of public transport is pretty expensive in some metropolis of China, like Shanghai and Chongqing. People who live in these cities have been complaining all the time for the unaffordable fee, so it may be a large burden for people, especially who are on a low income. Thus I claim that fee must be paid by the nation’s people, but it must be affordable to people from every living standard. In other words, the price should be nominal-just enough to pay for the service provided, and not a for-profit venture.

The reality in China is that public transportationis acing as a crucial role between the government and the public. Therefore, for my part, we should solve the problems from both sides. Only in this way, can we make a all-around method.

mpromanusUID：2565872

The point (A more formal word would be 'statement'.) -“people should not pay to the public transportation” (I'm kind of wondering whether this is the original phrasing of the question, because people don't usually pay 'to' transportation but pay 'for' or pay 'to use' public transportation.) is an ideal condition. That is, people living in all standards (I understand what you're trying to express but you can't live 'in' a standard. 'standard of living' is more or less a fixed expression and generally we don't break it up. A rephrase like 'people with different standards of living' would be more natural.), both the people who are on low-income and the people who are wealthy (This is repetitive of what you just said at the beginning of this sentence. Unless you mean to express special concern on such details, I'd suggest to cut this kind of repetitions.), hope the public? transportation fee are is free (If something is free, then it comes at no fee. There's no such thing as a 'free fee' just as there's no such thing as a 免费的费用). But it (WHAT? public transportation? Be specific and precise in expression. It would only take a few extra words like 'such an ideal condition' to make this sentence much clearer.) would not work in the real world, both in developed countries and in developing countries (This pretty much means 'all countries'. Again, when you add details to descriptions, think about how much meaningful weight such details would add to the discussion. This selection process is especially important in the opening paragraph because things you say in this paragraph will be used to construct an overall mental model of your essay. If details are randomly mentioned, your reader can be distracted, confused or even misled. In this case, specifically mentioning both developed and developing countries would signal to your reader that this division might be of importance in your essay, and if you never come back to address this part, your reader would likely feel unsatisfied.). As a matter of fact, it (Again, what?) is a complicated problem. Why is it complicated? Because it must be concerned not only the background of the nation’s policies, economics and culture, but also the benefits of to people form? (It's very easy to spell 'from' as 'form', but this kind of errors could kill the meaning of a sentence, so I'd suggest you pay special attention to avoid it.) different levels of income. Here are my points in detail from both sides: (I'm not sure what kind of 'sides' you're referring to here, but from the next few words, you seem to mean 'perspectives'.), both from the countries (I understand that the Chinese expression 从国家的角度考虑 is a very powerful one, but it simply doesn't translate to English, because 'country' is largely a geographical concept, and normally refers to the populace rather than the governance of a nation. Simply put, a 'country' is not a political concept, while 国家 in Chinese happens to be both geographical and policital. A 'country' usually has no perspectives in terms of policies; it's the 'nation' that has this administrative power. This topic itself is a lot larger than this, of course, but for the purpose of this essay, let me just say that it's probably better to use 'nation' instead of 'country' when talking about policies and politics.) and from the individual. (You've written a lot but you still never answer the question. The question is asking whether you AGREE with the given statement. You need to answer whether you agree or disagree, then explain why.)

From the government of country aspects of the government, firstly (You have an interesting habit of using broken attributive clauses, which is a sign of non-native usage. 'Firstly' would almost certainly be the first word in this kind of sentences.), we must consider the costs of the previous period? in public transportation, for example, the expenditure of buses and trains (What exactly do you mean by 'expenditure on buses and trains' anyway? The cost of buying buses and trains? The cost of maintaining them? The cost of riding them?), and the expenditure of road building. etc. And the costs during the period in which public transport have been is in used, for example, the drivers' wages, fuel costs, vehicle maintenance fees, worn-out parts replacement fees and so on. (I now start to see that your 'previous period' probably means something like 'intial set-up period'..) All the costs mentioned above are indispensable for mass transit. If it is all paid from by the government, it is impossible (You need to prove this. There are wealthy governments in this world who are indeed able to pay for public transport. Whether they want to do it is another matter.). In fact, government allocates funds for the construction of education and medical security. (I see where you're trying to get with this, but you're not expressing what you're trying to express - that governments are not able to spend all their money on public transportation alone because they have other priorities and projects.) (You're making an obvious but unspoken assumption in this paragraph - that free public transportation, if it exists at all, must be provided entirely through government funding. Is this assumption even valid? Why do you have this assumption in the first place? Think about it.)

Secondly, nothing is free (Yeah, not even air and sunshine..although you might have indeed predicted the future.). We must pay for what we consume. If we break the normal economic regulations, such as interferingnce in with the natural free market of transportation (This is still ambiguous because 'intefereing...' is an example of 'break', not 'regulations', but it follows 'regulations' immediately rather than 'break'.), we will distort incentives? and take away the power of consumers to direct the meet their needs? (I hate to be harsh, but sometimes I do think that probably you aren't even quite aware as to what exactly you're talking about in Chinese..). Furthermore, it (WHAT?) is a moral which we must obey. Everyone has the obligation to the society (And what might that be? Pay taxes on time and don't lie about your incomes?). And it is also our responsibility to our society. We can’t live as a parasites on society. (This seems to imply that if anything is free in a society, it means people are ripping off 'the society' and not working hard enough for what they enjoy. Still you talk about free markets and the power of consumers. Talk about when capitalism meets Chinese communism..but of course I don't mean to get all political here. My point is that you don't seem to have any solid understanding of what you're talking about in this paragraph.)

While, in for the personal factor, there is also exist some tough problems also exist. For instance, according to the statistics from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, the fee of public transport is pretty expensive in some metropolises of China, like Shanghai and Chongqing. People who live in these cities have been complaining all the time for the unaffordable fee, so it may be a large burden for people, especially who are on a low incomes. Thus I claim that this fee must be paid by the nation’s people? (By ALL people of the nation?), but it must be affordable to people from of every living standard. In other words, the price should be nominal-just enough to pay for the service provided, and not a for-profit venture. (The question is whether people should or should not pay, not how much the price should be. You're basically arguing the wrong point without any good reason for changing the topic.)

The reality in China is that public transportation is acing as a crucial role between the government and the public (And what about other countries? See my comment about how to select details to present in the opening paragraph. To put such specific details in the conclusion is an immediate sign that you don't have a well-rounded overall concept of the topic.). Therefore, for my part, we should solve the problems (What problems?) from both sides. Only in this way, can we make a all-around method (to do what?).

总结：

其实真的不想太不厚道，但是这篇写得实在只有不知所云四个字可以描述。。=.=

你有一个整体框架的意图，但你的框架太高屋建瓴了，你说，我要从政府和个人的角度讲啊，很好，很全面，很大气，但是你到底为什么想从这两个方面区别来讲呢？这样排布有什么特别的含义呢？没有概念。你要从政府的角度讲什么，又想从个人的角度讲什么呢？没有概念。然后你从政府和个人的角度讲了，但是来来去去感觉无非是钱，那么政府还是个人的角度有什么区别呢？还是没有概念。然后描述的方面，没有那个认知水平说能够很清晰地解释清楚那些政策层面的东西，就更没有把它用英语表达清楚的可能了。。说白了就是你其实不知道自己在写什么，只是把印象中看到的东西翻译成英文写上去，这样。所以整体的感觉就是全篇忙着翻译，一忙着翻译就什么都不管了，顾不上语法，顾不上举例，顾不上论证，更顾不上检查自己说的是否切题。

那么这样的文字我觉得没法代表你真实水平。。托福的作文不需要想得跟人民日报社论一样复杂，简单直接现实甚或是所谓的白痴一点反而比较容易，最重要的是你要明白自己在写些什么，为什么要写这些，为什么要这么写，而不是只顾着埋头写。。=.=

nuaanuaaUID：2708618

我突然有信心了，谢谢

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

我突然有信心了，谢谢
nuaanuaa 发表于 2010-2-24 12:16

呃。我明白的意思。。。>=<！！！
没事儿，不用谢了，我已经习惯当反面教材了。
你有信心就好！加油！！！

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

4# mpromanus
企鹅同学。呃。。。我现在又仔细看了一遍，才发现其实我也不知道自己写的什么。。。 不好意思，又浪费您时间了。。。

mpromanusUID：2565872

啊呀，说浪费我时间就太重了。。我想这篇至少是让你有个警醒吧，就是有时候你觉得你自己想得明白的时候其实并不代表你写得明白甚至不代表你真想得明白。。=.= 所以一定要花时间读自己写的东西，花时间去真正想明白自己在写什么。。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Visiting museums is the best way to learn about a country.

Is visiting museums the best way to understand a country? Actually, it varies from person to person. But as for me, I’m in favor of the opinion that museums can not contribute to learning more information about a country. Here are my reasons.

To begin with, it isn’t convenient and economical for youth to visit a museum. If the museum is just a little far from where I live, I may manage with an effort to go there and have a visit. But if the museum which I’m interested in is in another city, I have to give it up. For I’m a college student, I should take the majority of time on my schoolwork and I don’t have enough time on the road. In a word, the time which spends on driving is a waste of time. What’s more, an admission fee can be quite a sum or money, especially like fine works exhibition. The costs will be a heavy burden for students to afford, like me. So for young students, visiting museums is not the first choice.

Besides, the number of objects which displayed in museum is limited. We can not have a deep understanding of a country. For example, there is no museum showing the materials about the great famine in China during early 1960s. However, it is an unforgettable memory for most Chinese aged people and it also an important event in history of China. Some people may argue that visiting a museum is the best way to have a quick view of a country. It is true to some extent. But it is also true that if we want to learn more about a country, we should know what the real life is- a life which people of that country once lived. Therefore, only by some projects what is exhibiting in museums can not reflect the people’s real life. ---这个only应该后用倒装，可是不知道我写的句子倒了没？呃。。。

In summary, according to what has been discussed above, visiting a museum may overspend and limit to visitors. So it is not the best way to learn about a country. Instead, I suggest that the Internet can be the best way to understand a country. In the Internet we neither spend much more time nor spend much more money. What we do is just sit at home inputting the key words and then clicking the "go", and all information about the country we concerned will display on the screen. In this way, you will know the country fully and deeply.

呃，企鹅同学，我在提交给你之前又改了一小哈，本来想给你上传改前和改后的比较版本的，但是想了想，怕您老看晕了，嘿嘿。。。所以，只传了修改后的版本。
恩，的确发现了好多错误。。。
有个关于文章结构的问题：我只写了支持的两点。这结构行吗？我看大家一般都写三点的。如果不是写三点的，也都是写两个支持+一个让步段（让步段就是你不支持观点的好处）的。。。
如果不好的话，应该怎么改呢？？？
谢谢~~~ 鞠躬~~~

mpromanusUID：2565872

啊~这是我当年考托的作文题目~好怀念一下~

Is visiting museums the best way to understand a country? Actually, it varies from person to person. But as for me, I’m in favor of the opinion that museums cannot contribute to learning more information about a country. (The question has the word 'best', and you used the word 'more' here, but I still can't see what are you comparing 'museums' with..) Here are my reasons.

To begin with, it isn’t convenient and economical for youth to visit a museum. If the museum is just a little far from where I live, I may manage with an effort to go there and have a visit. But if the museum which I’m interested in is in another city, I have to give it up. For I’m a college student, I should take spend the majority of time on my schoolwork, and I don’t have enough time on the road. In a word, the time which I spends on driving is a waste of time. What’s more, an admission fee can be quite a sum of money, especially like fine works? (Do you mean 'fine arts'?) exhibition. The costs will be a heavy burden for students to afford, like me. So for young students, visiting museums is not the first choice. (There are two issues here: 1. I don't blame you for not knowing this but most famous museums in the USA are free, or very cheap. Yes, I said free. Free in the sense that the admission is either on a pay-as-you-wish basis, or has a weekly free day/time e.g. free on every Friday 6-9pm, or is indeed free/half priced for students. 2. the way you describe how you don't have time to travel to museums seems to imply that this 'museum' is probably your local, or national museum, and you're not talking about visiting museums when travelling to another country, or 'learning about a country' in that sense - which basically means you're only discussion the 'museum' half of the question. Plus, if you don't have the time and money to visit museums, are you implying that there are better ways to learn about a country, cheaper and more convenient? The idea here is that you can't stop at picking out the shortcomings of museums. The question is essentially a comparison, and your essay needs to be framed around some comparisons, too.)

Besides, the number of objects which are displayed in museum is limited. We cannot have a deep understanding of a country. For example, there is no museum showing the materials about the great famine in China during early 1960s (Oh, there are objects about that..they are just either not in China or not often displayed in Chinese museums though.). However, it is an unforgettable memory for most senior Chinese aged people and it is also an important event in the history of China. Some people may argue that visiting a museum is the best way to have a quick view of a country. It is true to some extent. But it is also true that if we want to learn more about a country, we should know what the real life is a the life which people of that country once lived. Therefore, only by some projects what is are exhibiting in museums cannot reflect the people’s real life. (You don't even need to use that 'only' here..But that's not the important issue. The important point is that I'm going to ask you: is 'learning more about a country' the same as 'the real life of people'? You can't just swap phrases around without qualifying their equality. At least you need to say something like 'you can only truly learn about a country through the real life of people', which connects the two ideas. This is the so-called logic flow, which means you need to show how exactly one idea goes to another. Simply heaping phrases together is like building a brick house without mortar. There'll be leaks between the bricks.)

In summary, according to what has been discussed above, visiting a museum may overspend ('visiting' a museum doesn't overspend. You may overspend by visiting a museum.) and limit to visitors? (Where did you talk about this in the essay?). So it is not the best way to learn about a country. Instead, I suggest that the Internet can be the best way to understand a country. In the Internet we neither spend much more time nor spend much more money (Than visiting a museum?). What we do is just sit at home inputting the key words and then clicking the "go", and all information about the country we concerned will display on the screen. In this way, you will know the country fully and deeply. (I see that you're doing the comparison here, but the conclusion paragraph is not where you should do this. This kind of comparison and all these details about how surfing the Internet is better should be spread throughout your essay and related with all your examples. Then you make a high-level conclusion that 'there're indeed cheaper and more convenient ways to learn about a country, so visiting museums is indeed not the best way' in the last paragraph.)

总结：

我发现你好像总是很关心作文形式的问题。。写两个还是三个论点还是双正一反，理论上来说完全不重要。重要的是你的论述是否完整、清晰、有说服力。就你这篇来说的话，最后一段你写的关于网络的，其实应该散布在你的论点段中作为比较来写，总结段不是提出新论点的地方，而是-总结的地方。另外暴露出来的主要问题是一开始你对题目中learn about a country的概念完全木有，只知道自己要反驳，反驳的话就是写不好的地方，所以你就很happy地去写博物馆的短处了。。第二个论点才反应过来说要根据learn about a country来写，这样。作文一定要随时注意自己的想法有没有偏移。。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to spend money on traveling and vacation than to save money for the future.\


Whether spending money on traveling or saving money for our future? Which is better? In fact, this situation varies from person to person. But if I must choose one, I think we should save money for our future life rather than spend money on vacation. Here are my reasons.

As is known to all, housing problem is always a problem difficultly to solve in China. For example, according to the information from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, the price of housing in metropolis such as Beijing and Shanghai is increasing rapidly during the recent years, especially in 2009, the year after holding the Olympic Games in 2008. So what’s the consequence? People have to spend more hours on work in order to earn more money for their “future” house and cost little per month in order to save more money for their “future” house. Then how can they spend the money on touring? It is so ridiculous!

Besides, after having a house, if we married, we have to save the money for our children about their education. This is also a heavy burden for today’s young parents. Everyone wants his own child to accept a better education so that the kids can adapt to the competitive society. Taking my own experience as an example, when I was small, my mom often took me to all kinds of training classes, including piano class, painting class and English class. The cost of the classes is also very expensive at that time, almost cost half of my mother’s each month wages. So if we don’t save money, but spend money on travelling, how can our children accept a better education?

Last but not least, everyone will be aging. And when we become older and older, we can not do job and earn money at all. Who will pay our money for the rest of our life? Ourselves, actually! So we must save as much money as possible so that we can live an abundant life when we are old. But if we spend money on vocation, we will not have enough money for the sunset of our life.

Of course, travelling will give us a rush of eye-opening experience. We can appreciate the beautiful scenery and enjoy the delightful life. We can also make friends from all-around world.

But when we consider the problems, which I mentioned above, we have to save money for our future.

mpromanusUID：2565872

11# 皇甫秋荻

Whether spending money on traveling or saving money for our future? (This is not a complete sentence. You really need some work on proper sentence construction..I'm still thinking about how you could really go about improving it though. Sentence construction is one of the most difficult hurdles in learning English but I sincerely hope that you could put in some serious effort into it, because it will benefit you tremendously.) Which is better? In fact, this situation varies from person to person. But if I must choose one, I think we should save money for our future life rather than spending money on vacations. Here are my reasons.

As is known to all, housing problem (What problem is exactly this 'housing problem' you're talking about here? A shortage of houses is a housing problem, true, but too many houses is also a problem. The catch here is we are all very familiar and used to assumptions of such phrases like 房价问题 in Chinese - we know and assume the 问题 is that the prices are too high, which is true in China's context, but please understand the actual phrase 房价问题 itself DOES NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS mean what we think it should mean. It's the same with phrases like 'housing problem'. Simply put, the word 'problem' doesn't translate to anything specific. You need to point out what exactly the problem is.) is always a problem difficultly to solve in China. For example, according to the information from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, the price of housing in metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai is increasing rapidly during the recent years, especially in 2009, the year after holding the Olympic Games in 2008. So what’s the consequence (Of what? the Olymphic Games?)? People have to spend more hours on work in order to earn more money for their “future” house and cost spend little per month in order to save more money for their “future” houses. Then how can they spend the money on touring? It is so ridiculous! (The question is about whether it is BETTER to spend money on travelling. It's not about whether people CAN or cannot spend money on travelling. It's then an entirely different question. Of course, you can INFER that if people can't afford spend money on travelling and have this dire need to save, then it's better to save because saving would serve their dire need - but you must pen this very clearly. This is where your logic circle comes to a completion. You can't stop at scratching the surface.)

Besides, after having a house, if we marry, we have to save the money for our children about for their education. This is also a heavy burden for today’s young parents. Everyone wants his own child to accept receive a better good education so that the kids can adapt to the competitive society. Taking my own experience as an example: when I was small ('small' refers more to a person's physical size. If you meant to say 'when I was young', then say 'when I was young', or 'when I was little'.), my mom often took me to all kinds of training classes, including piano classes, painting classes and English classes. The cost of the classes is was also very expensive at that time, almost cost half of my mother’s each monthly wages. So if we don’t save money, but spend money on travelling, how can our children accept a better education (See previous correction.)? (What I infer from your point is that people should choose to have no children so they have money to spare on travelling XD The problem is that the question is not asking about how you should allocate your money and what are the various needs of your wages, but a simple comparison between two methods to deal with your money. You need to keep in mind that this is a comparison, not a condemnation of any particular choice. Again, you need to think about how your arguments RELATE BACK to the question and your main point. Or else you just keep scratching the surface.)

Last but not least, everyone will be aging. And when we become older and older, we cannot do jobs and earn money at all. Who will pay for our money spendings for the rest of our life? Ourselves, actually (Aww. You don't know how the pension system works, do you? XD)! So we must save as much money as possible so that we can live an abundant life when we are old. But if we spend money on vacations, we will not have enough money for the sunset of our life. (Now this is getting totally absurd. One vacation and your whole retirement package is gone? I could hardly imagine that. I once went on a 10-day trip across the USA from its east coast to its west coast and back, and I spent a mere 3k USD for 2 people. That's not even as much as what an entry-level job in my field pays monthly. Note that I'm not trying to show off how much I earn or how cheap things are in the USA. My whole point is that you seem to be really over-reacting to the question and not thinking clearly about whether your statements really make sense.)

Of course, travelling will give us an rush of eye-opening experience. We can appreciate the beautiful sceneries and enjoy the delightful life. We can also make friends from all-around the world. But when we consider the problems, which I mentioned above, we have to save money for our future.

总结：

主要的问题还是你的逻辑论述 - 问题是旅行是不是比存钱好，但这个问题没有任何 选择花钱去旅行不存钱的话钱就一定会不够用 或者类似的假设，而你的整篇文章都在激情澎湃地论述钱是多么重要重要去旅游就会完全没钱买房养老 =.= 你要说旅行会造成该用钱的地方缺钱花也可以，但你得把这个事情联系到题目的 哪一个比较好 上面去 - 因为旅行花钱会造成其他更加需要的地方缺钱，所以存钱比较好 - 否则，你的逻辑论述就是不完整的。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Renewable sources of energy (sun, wind, water) will soon replace fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal).

Do renewable sources of energy will soon replace fossil fuels? In fact, it varies from person to person. A large majority of people may claim that compared with renewable sources of energy such as sun, wind and water, fossil fuels will continue to play an indispensable part in their daily life in that it is both cheap and convenient. However, as for me, I am in favor the opinion that renewable sources of energy will replace the fossil fuels immediately. Here are my reasons.

Admittedly, renewable sources of energy do have some disadvantages. For example, it is not convenient and economical for our citizens to use. Because we should set several new equipments and systems in the areas and we may spend large amounts of money on them. The money may be trivial for some metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai, but for some remote area which is poor and undeveloped, it can be a large sum of money. One of my classmates who live in a rural area in China once told me that food in his hometown is pretty scarce even now. The improvement in agriculture isn't able to meet villagers' needs which people in his village have to work in urban area. Then how can rural people have the money building the facilities of renewable sources of energy?

However, its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages. Firstly, renewable sources of energy are environmental-friendly. According to the information from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, environmental experts point out that increasing pollution like exhaust emission not only causes serious problems such as global warming but also could threaten to end human life on our planet. And I still remember when I was young, in my hometown, the sky was blue and water was clear. But after a few years, the sky was becoming black and water was becoming dirty because of the incomplete burning and emission of fossil fuels like gasoline. Moreover, the source of fossil fuels is limited and it can be used up someday. But renewable sources of energy can be recyclable and inexhaustible which we won't worry about its exhaustion.

To sum up, from what has been discussed above, I strongly support that renewable sources of energy will act an important role immediately instead of fossil fuels in our future.

恩。企鹅姐姐。我感觉结尾可唐突了。你觉得行不？有什么好建议么？

mpromanusUID：2565872

13# 皇甫秋荻

Do Will renewable sources of energy will soon replace fossil fuels? In fact, it (What? 'the answer'?) varies from person to person. A large majority of people may claim that compared with renewable sources of energy such as the sun, wind and water, fossil fuels will continue to play an indispensable part in their daily life in that it is they are both cheap and convenient. However, as for me, I am in favor of the opinion that renewable sources of energy will replace the fossil fuels immediately. Here are my reasons.

Admittedly, renewable sources of energy do have some disadvantages. For example, it is they are not convenient and economical for our citizens to use, because we should set several new equipments and systems in the areas? and we may spend large amounts of money on them. The money may be trivial for some metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai, but for some a remote area which is poor and undeveloped, it can be a large sum of money. One of my classmates who live in a rural area in China once told me that food in his hometown is pretty scarce even now. The improvement in agriculture isn't able to meet villagers' needs which (Shouldn't this be something like 'so'? What is this 'which' referring to, anyway?) people in his village have to work in urban areas. Then how can rural people have the money to building the facilities of renewable sources of energy? (Now, this is weird. If his hometown is so poor and undeveloped, people there might not even have fossil fuels like coal or oil as energy resources. Building facilities for renewable or non-renewable energy sources will make no difference in terms of cost in this case because both would be costly for them..and, where's the 'convenient' part that you mentioned in the topic sentence?)

However, its (What's?) advantages far outweigh its disadvantages. Firstly, renewable sources of energy are environmental-friendly. According to the information from ifeng.com, the largest portal website in China, environmental experts point out that increasing pollution like exhaust emission not only causes serious problems such as global warming, but could also could threaten to end human life on our planet. And I still remember when I was young, in my hometown, the sky was blue and water was clear. But after a few years, the sky was becoming black and water was becoming dirty because of the incomplete burning and emission of fossil fuels like gasoline. Moreover, the source of fossil fuels is limited and it can be used up someday. But renewable sources of energy can be recyclable and inexhaustible, which (Again, 'so' seems to be what you actually want to say.) we won't worry about its exhaustion. (Now, this question is asking whether renewable energy sources will SOON replace fossil fuels. What you're doing is a pros/cons summary of each, which doesn't serve the purpose of the discussion directly. Yes, renewable energy is good and divine, but its merits have no absolute causal effect on whether it will replace fossil fuels in a short time.)

To sum up, from what has been discussed above, I strongly support that renewable sources of energy will act an important role immediately instead of fossil fuels in our future.

总结：

除了比较诡异的which用法之外，你之所以会觉得结尾很唐突，是因为你的论述主体偏离了题目，所以再在结尾回去抄题目的时候就感觉咦怎么好像现在我在写的跟刚才我写了那么多的不一样啊。。但是其实是你刚才写了那么多的和结尾写的不一样 =.= 这个题目问的是renewable energy sources会不会很快取代fossil fuel，你一直都在论述双方的好处坏处，这也没什么要紧，可是你得最终把好处和坏处都联系到真正的问题 - 是不是会很快取代 - 上面去，而不是停留在好处坏处上。

总体感觉就是你一直倾向于片面论述，就是抓住题目里几个名词，然后就顺着一条正好处反坏处的路子走到黑。题目要审，要看清题目要求你论述的真正的关键字是什么，写什么都要归于题目，而不是每次把题目里所有的名词的好处坏处全面论述一遍就可以了。。

不过撇开扣题这方面的话，你的举例和论述有很大进步，表意上基本已经不会有太大问题。

皇甫秋荻UID：2638790

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governments should spend more money on improving public transportation than on improving accessing internet.



When asked about whether our governments should spend more money on improving public transportation than on improving accessing internet, a large majority of people may claim that compared with public transportation, accessing internet should be improved by spending more money on it in that the internet has play an indispensable part in our modern life, which make our life and work more comfortable and less laborious. However, from my own perspective, I’m in favor of the opinion that public transportation and accessing internet should advance side by side for the following reasons.

Public transportation is a fundamental in our daily life. For example, we go shopping by car, go on a journey by plane or train, and even go to workplace by bus or by bike. In a word, people, from everywhere, can not live without vehicle. But there are also a lot of problems should be solved efficiently and effectively. Take my experience as an example, many city residents in my hometown always complain that there is so few buses in the city that they have to spend much more time waiting for a bus, which is usually crowded with a large number of passengers. Thus, our government should pay more attention on this matter that amounts of money should be spend on public buses. Besides, the road condition is also a limitation for the traffic. The highway is so narrow that it cannot allow enough transports to get through, especially at busy intersections, which it undoubtedly worsens the already grave situation. Therefore, the government should appropriate sufficient funds for building the appropriate roads. What's more, the government should also concentrate on pollution problems which caused by public transportation. If we don't care the air pollution, it also has to cost a large sum of money for us to improve it. So, the public transportation is a matter which no country can afford to ignore.

In addition, accessing internet is also an essential part in people’s daily life. Public transport is a path for material transportation which accessing internet is a path for knowledge communication. Because a lot of information, including both our study and work, can be searched effectively and efficiently, what we have to do is just input the key words and click the "go", then all related information we want to search for will display on the screen. Meanwhile, if government spends more money on the accessing internet, it will be convenient for our daily communication. For example, we can send e-mail to our boss or colleague for the job problems, or chat online with our relatives and friends to promote emotional touch. Moreover, internet also exists some negative factors, like internet fraud, social desolation, violence tendency and so on. Therefore, the government should spend money to curb the whole harmful things.

On the whole, only in this way can we boost our social development in an all-around way. And any government which is blind to either of them may pay a heavy price.

恩，谢谢企鹅姐姐~