03的 独立写作 练习帖（欢迎走过路过的拍两下）

mpromanusUID: 2565872

29# happyfaith2008

The topic about usage of land, recently, becomes very hot recently. With the a growing number of endangered animals, some individuals believe that saving land for endangered animals is much more essential than human needs for farmland, housing, and industry. However, from my perspective, I disagree with this opinion.

In the first place, there are serious problems caused by the shortage of land for farming, housing, and industry. We should admit that there are thousands of people suffering from starvation, lack of lodging and jobs in the world, especially after a disaster like the serious earthquake in China at in 2008. Human (A generic noun cannot be used alone to refer to the collective group. You need to use either 'humans', or 'the human'.) needs farmland to generate more grain and corn to supply those people in famine. Human needs land to construct more housing for the people in bleak (This is an adjective so you should use in 'the' bleak.). Human also needs land to build industry areas to provide more jobs for unemployed people (Interesting. So do you mean only 'industry areas' can provide jobs for the unemployed?). With so many serious problems needing to be solved by using land, how can we just be blind to these and care about saving land for endangered animals? (The question is asking whether such human needs are MORE important than animals' needs. It doesn't necessarily mean that if you save land for one, you mustn't save land for the other. The way I see it, it's about priority, not possibility. At the very least, the comparison needs to be there.)

In the second place, we save land for endangered animals to protect them from extinction. But can we really slow down the increasing number of endangered animals by saving land for them? I do not think so. We all know that there are so many factors to influence the survival of those endangered animals. Some animals will die out just because they do not adapt to the changing climate. Also, some animals will disappear on the earth because of the shortage of food. Just saving land for those endangered animals cannot help to protect those animals from dying out. Instead it will be a waste of land if we save land for those endangered animals. (Again, this question is not necessarily saying that ALL land must be saved for human use or else it'll be a waste, or vice versa. Your argument is verging on the side that's becoming a little too absolute.)

Of course, we should admit the fact that human's requirement of land has occupied many animals' habitats. But at most times human beings take those animals to some other better places to live, such as some national parks, where those animals can get a good protection. (Interesting. Where do you fancy that land for the 'national parks' come from? I would imagine that some humans saved those pieces of land, didn't they?) In addition, giving up the need for farmland, housing, and industry and saving land for endangered animals means giving up those poor starving people's right to survive. That is not what we want to see. In sum, human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals.

总结：

语言上没有什么很大的问题，论述上来说感觉有些过于极端 - 我个人认为这个问题的两个选项不是选A就不能选B的那种，而应该是一个更加温和的比较性质，不是说水火不容，是资源有限的时候优先权的问题，所以如果我要写成只能单选，那么最好在开头段点明一下对于资源有限的情况来说，没法两者都考虑，在这个基础上考虑的话，我认为只能优先A放弃B，这样。当然对于托福的要求来说你的举例和论证水平都已经完全足够了，所以我的评论只作为参考。

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

我仔细想想，我这里论述得的确不严密。
Instead it will be a waste of land if we save land for those endangered animals. 这句话，我琢磨一下也觉得不好，应该再加点对现实土地资源的紧张的分析，需要充分合理的利用土地资源，这样再简单的说saveing land for endangered animals不仅解决不了濒危动物的问题，也是不合理利用资源的体现. Instead,根据上段已经论述的当下的实际的经济情况，the human needs for land is MORE important than........

我可以在最后一段修改改一下，变成“saving land for animals is important, while it is not as important as the human needs at least at present. "
关于national parks,我可以改一下，the human needs for land 虽然比the animal needs for land 更重要，但是和保护动物不冲突。我们有national parks，我们尽量在考虑人类利益的时候同时兼顾动物的需要，make a balance.

国宝看看这样怎样？

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

4.5作业 by 03
Students at university or in college should choose the most difficult classes even if they cannot get top grades (marks) in them.

The issue at hand is whether college students should opt the toughest classes even if they are not good at those subjects. Personally speaking, I believe that the bad effects of such choice far overwhelm the benefits of it. I do not agree with this opinion that college students should choose such kind of difficult classes.

In the first place, learning the most difficult classes can easily discourage students from building self-confidence in university, especially when they can not get top grades.
We should admit that to study well at those most tough classes needs students work pretty hard. Suppose that a student has not got top grades after a period of time's hard work on the most difficult class. What does he feel? I think a normal student feels upset and even loses the confidence about learning tough class. This kind dismay will be definitely influence their self-confidence.

In the second place, since some students want to get further study after graduation from college, they will not be competitive as applicants, with unsatisfied marks on some classes, even if these classes are the more difficult ones. We all know that the academic ability is one of the important aspects that universities consider when they recruit graduate students or PhD candidates. An applicant’s top grades on classes can show his or her this kind of ability. However, if a student does not have top grades on some subjects or courses, this student will be not competitive to other applicants in terms of academic ability.

We can not ignore some people's assertion that learning the most difficult classes can promote students' ability, but that does not mean students should seek for some difficulties, which is not only ridiculous, but also painstaking. On the other hand, the easy classes can also improve students' ability. Furthermore, in my work experience, I believe students need to learn some classes which are practical for their future career, instead of choosing the most difficult classes to study. If students can not learn some practical skills in university, they would be hard to find attractive jobs after graduation.

In sum, students at university or in college should not choose the most difficult classes, especially when they cannot get top grades in them.

ningzhithmUID: 2680175

Students at university or in college should choose the most difficult classes even if they cannot get top grades (marks) in them.

The issue at hand is whether college students should opt FOR the toughest classes even if they are not good at those subjects. Personally speaking, I believe that the bad effects of such choice far overwhelm the benefits of it. I do not agree with this opinion that college students should choose such kind of difficult classes.

In the first place, learning the most difficult classes can easily discourage students from building self-confidence in university, especially when they can not get top grades.
We should admit that to study well at those most tough classes needs students work pretty hard. Suppose that a student has not got top grades after a period of time's hard work on the most difficult class. What does he feel? I think a normal student feels upset and even loses the confidence about learning tough class. This kind dismay will be （be 应当去掉）definitely influence their self-confidence.

In the second place, since some students want to get further study after graduation from college, they will not be competitive as applicants, with unsatisfied marks on some classes, even if these classes are the more difficult ones. We all know that the academic ability is one of the important aspects that universities consider when they recruit graduate students or PhD candidates. An applicant’s top grades on classes can show his or her this kind of （可以改为academic )ability. However, if a student does not have top grades on some subjects or courses, this student will be not （not be）competitive to other applicants in terms of academic ability.

We can not ignore some people's assertion that learning the most difficult classes can promote students' ability, but that does not mean students should seek for some difficulties, which is not only ridiculous, but also painstaking. On the other hand, the easy classes can also improve students' ability. Furthermore, in my work experience, I believe students need to learn some classes which are practical for their future career, instead of choosing the most difficult classes to study. If students can not learn some practical skills in university, they would be hard to find attractive jobs after graduation.

In sum, students at university or in college should not choose the most difficult classes, especially when they cannot get top grades in them.
思路很清晰，也很切题。 尤其是紧紧抓住了“difficult”，围绕着 不应该选择最困难的课程这一点来写。非常好的作文。虽然我觉得提供应当如何选择课程会更完整，但并不是必须，且有画蛇添足之嫌。总之，作文写得很不错。 受教了。

nexthopUID: 2744929

4.5 03作文 modified by nexthop

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

4.6 作文分析
Do you agree or disagree: Most people prefer others making decision for them than making a decision for themselves.. v0 l%


目的是论述大多数人喜欢别人给自己做决定.

先分析：
为什么让别人给自己做决定？
1、
自己决定不了的时候（其实这个说服力比较弱，因为文章问的是prefer。例子很多的，你说的都可以算。还有就是我们有时候会抛硬币决定事情，让God决定我们的选择，呵呵~~）


2、
懒得决定（这种情况很常见吧，尤其是对于一些无关紧要的事情或者是很麻烦的事情。比如和寝室同学一起吃饭，我经常是不想操脑筋想吃啥，通常是由室友决定。


3、
对别人的依赖和信任（有时候对某个人会有依赖感，家庭里面丈夫替妻子做决定，父母替孩子做决定。小时候，我喜欢我哥帮我做决定，因为有哥哥在就不用我费事喽~~这个原因好温馨，呵呵）


4、
减少风险（在组织投票的时候经常有人弃权，其实就是让别人决定，自己想少承担一些。还有的情况是，面对择业择校，我们会找中介机构，这为了降低风险，他们比我们专业
，让也节省精力。出现不良后果，他们要负一定责任，先不管国内这种责任他们会承担多少。）


5、
给自己失败找借口：至少我们失败了，可以找个借口说，都怪某某不好。
原因还有很多。。。。

分析题目：1、要体现大多数。可以思考不同身份的人，学生、孩子、能力差的人、时间紧的人等等喜欢让别人做决定。最后什么样的人会自己决定，不喜欢别人插手。强调那是少数人。或者不同年龄阶段的人的角度思考。2、注意prefer，也就是说，这些人是愿意让别人帮忙做决定的。这里注意一下即可。所以论述尽量不要体现无可奈何的感觉。基调是欢快的，是喜欢的。3、结合你的人群的分类的特点和人们让别人替自己做决定的原因，好处等，组织文章构架。人群结合原因，最后体现大多数人。

结构：总——分——分——分（中间有几个分论点自己决定）——让步（也有人喜欢自己做决定，但是是少数）——总

提醒自己注意：分论点论述简洁凝练。文章可以写长，但是是分论点多，理由充分，而不是每段很罗嗦。

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

4.9Universities should give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project.

The debate at hand is whether universities should think every member of a team has created the same value and give each memeber the same grade after the team accomplishes a project. In pratical, the case that each team member creates the same value is quite rare. So, it is usually pretty unwise to give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project. In other words, I do not agree with the statement above.

In the first place, it is unfiar to just simply believe that every member should get the same grade when the team finishes a project. Obviously, every member of a team has different position, which palys dissimilar role in finishing the project, as well as the importance.  For example, in a company, we should amdit that the manager is much more important than the common employee. Without the presence of the manager, the company would not operate even for one day. Similarly, there are also some significant persons in a team. So, how can we just ignore those important persons in a group and regard them as the same roles as others in a project? If the universities do so, that would be definitely unfair for those key persons in a team.

In the second place, giving every team member the same grade when the team finishes a project has negtive effects on the universities' reputation. What  would people say if they see an university just be blind to the difference of every team member and give each the same grade after finishing the project？Some people may assert that this university is so irresponsible that even has not seriously  assessed every team member's performence. Some people may even consider that maybe it is because that this university has no ability to evalue each team member's work result. I believe that either of the  asseverations has adverse effects on an university's reputation.

Of course, some individuals would refute that distribution according  to work is not rational and it is very hard to give the grade according to every group member's performence. This statement is reasonable. However, that does not mean we should quit the  attempt to make everyone satisfied with his or her contribution and gain. It is not an easy work, but it is worthy, since people would get motivation to perform well in next project when they get the fair treat.

In sum, I believe that universities should not give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project. At least, if I was a group member and I had got a such treat, I would never believe the university again and might perform much bad in next project.

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

为什么我同组的不给我改作文，呜呜~~~

jackenjunUID: 2776522

不懂，哈哈。。。。


学习学习

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

发现有论证不充分的地方，又修改了一下4.9的作文

larryywdUID: 2766172

4.9Universities should give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project.

The debate at hand is whether universities should think every member of a team has created the same value and give each member the same grade after the team accomplishes a project. In practical, the case that each team member creates the same value is quite rare. So, it is usually pretty （这个pretty我个人感觉多余,）unwise to give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project. In other words, I do not agree with the statement above.

In the first place, it is unfair to just simply believe that every member should get the same grade when the team finishes a project. A just university(一个刚刚的大学？) would considers one’s value and importance in a team to give every team member grade. Obviously, every member of a team has different position, which plays dissimilar role in finishing the project, as well as the (这个the 可以不加吧)importance. For example, in a company, we should admit that the manager is much more important than the common employee. Without the presence of the manager, the company would not operate even for one day. Similarly, there are also some significant persons in a team. So, how can we just regard those important persons as the same roles as others in a project and give them the same grades as other team members? If the universities do so, that would be definitely unfair for those key persons in a team.

In the second place, giving every team member the same grade when the team finishes a project has negative effects on the universities' reputation. What would people say if they see an university just be blind to the difference of every team member and give each the same grade after finishing the project？Some people may assert（assert人们可能主张？） that this university is so irresponsible that even has not seriously assessed every team member's performance. Some people may even consider that maybe it is because that this university has no ability to evaluate each team member's work result.  I believe that either of the asseverations has adverse effects on an university's reputation.

Of course, some individuals would refute that distribution according to work is not rational and it is very hard to give the grade according to every group member's performance in practice. This is true. However, that does not mean that we should quit the attempt to make everyone satisfied with his or her contribution and gain. It is not an easy work, but(,) it is worthy, since people would get motivation to perform well in next project when they get the fair treat.

In sum, I believe that universities should not give every member of the team the same grade when the team finishes a project. At least（无论如何，我觉得有点别扭，用however是不是好的？）, if I was a group member and I had got such a treat, I would never believe the university again and might lose enthusiasm to perform well in next project.
总结：
不好意思哈03 给你改的时间有点晚了 最近有点特殊原有 下不为例。 嘿嘿  语法上没有问题，语言组织的很好，结构清晰，举例和论证很得体，有很多我要学习的地方，加油！

happyfaith2008UID: 2709856

5.3 08.3.30    by  03
Students would receive a better, effective education if they were required to attend classes for 11months of a year.

Recently, education issues have aroused hot debates among students, teachers and parents. How to make students receive better and effective education?  Some individuals assert that having classes for 11 months every year would be better for students. However, considering the advantages and disadvantages of taking such a long term, I do not agree with the statement above.

There is no doubt that a long time study is good for students to concentrate on it. A long term means less holiday and breaks during a year. Without the temptation of holidays student can put their heart on study and get rid of the entertainment in holiday which can distract them. An authority survey shows that students, especially children, can easily be distracted by recreation, such as the computer games and parities. But, we can not affirm that as long as 11 months study every year is suitable for students.

In the first place, if students study for 11 months every year, they can easily be tired of study.  Scientists have proved that human beings can not continuously study with high efficiency over three months, because they would feel tired both mentally and physically which can make them feel bored about study, or even get tired of it. Among teenagers, this situation would be worse, since they like changes and differences and focusing on one thing for 11 months, like study, seems impossible. If those teenagers are enforced to study for 11 months, they would be absent at class, let alone failing to get effective education.

In addition, since attending classes is not the only effective way to get education, we can not require students to go to school for 11 months every year, which almost occupies most of students' time. We can have many different ways to get effective education, such as home education and self-learning. Take home education as an example. Parents company with their children from their birth. They can teach their children whenever they are free. At the same time children can not only get knowledge from parents' words but also from parents' behaviors. As the saying goes, parents are students' best teachers. Home education is definitely quite effective.  Since attending classes is the only way to get education, we should not require students to study for 11 months which can easily make students feel tired about study and also leaves no extra time for students to get other kind of effective education.

From what have been discussed above, the advantages and disadvantages of requiring students to attend classes for 11 months of a year are evident. Obviously, the disadvantages far overwhelm the advantages. So I oppose the statement that Students would receive a better and effective education if they were required to attend classes for 11months of a year.