Nicole 作文本子

clisalongUID: 2715802

2\22 作文
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities？

内容见word文章，方便大家修改！

clisalongUID: 2715802

2\26 作文：

Newspapers and magazines are the best way of learning about a foreign country.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

2.27网络出了点问题所以没有及时帮你修改，望谅~鞠躬~

Reading a newspaper in the morning, suddenly, a question, related to education, suddenly caught my attention (Even in Chinese, your original expression would read a bit awkward. 'Suddenly' modifies 'caught', therefore these two words should be close to each other.). With the American STS Endeavour OV-105 (STS is the official name for NASA's space shuttle program, and OV-105 is SS Endeavour's designation. What I'm saying is that for a general-purpose essay, this kind of technical details are slightly too technical for the average American, and they are not really very important details. 'Space Shuttle Endeavour', or 'SS Endeavour' is the term that most Americans would know, 'STS' may be known as well, but I doubt how many people would be interested to know that Endeavour's number is OV-105.) landing successfully, the Chinese Shenzhou VII spacecraft blasting off, a new model for the treatment of liver disease created, and so forth (This whole long section is not a complete sentence, because it simply reads 'With....and so forth.'). Technology plays an important role in each country in recent years, even (I'm very interested to know what you're trying to express by 'even'.) in the USA. Universities offer hundreds of talented and high-tech experts, who contribute themselves to national technology? (What kind of technology is considered 'national' technology, anyway?), thus governments prefer making colleges affordable rather than plan more budget on voluntary education? (By this logic, you're implying that colleages/universities are the only places that produce technology experts, and they only produce technology experts, nothing else.). As far as I am concerned, I prefer that the government should invest more finance on very young children's education rather than on universities.


To begin with, more money planned for young children's education is necessary. As increasingly more news about kids' problems are reported nowadays, like abusing or addicted to cyber games (Wow. Do you really think this is a 'kids' problem'?), we are confused about what happened to the younger generations. In recent years, each family is only supposed to have one child because of the overpopulation problem (1. This is only applicable in China. 2. It's widely regarded as a controversial policy in the context of human rights, so I'll say don't use it as an example. Just say people tend to have fewer children nowadays.). Each kid is treated as a prince or princess. their parents do their best to fulfill their needs. they are much easier to be vulnerable to social evils and err from the right path? (What is 'the' right path for a child anyway??). At this time, a good teacher becomes very important to them. President Obama's caught phrase ('catch phrase' is a fixed expression. The word 'catch' here is not an individual verb in itself.) in a television show for this topic is "No Child Left Behind left the money behind.” He supplements that, particularly at a time when our nation is facing a shortage in teachers due to retirement and retention problems; it is important to ensure that we can attract, support, and retain high-quality teachers. By experimenting with alternative preparation, mentoring and professional development programs, in addition to providing fresh incentives for serving high-need schools (This is a fragment.). Specifically, he plans to provide funding for 200 new Teacher Residency Programs, an idea he introduced in the Senate last year. (This is all very well written, but what does it have to do with 'good teachers are very important to VERY YOUNG CHILDREN?' Your description of President Obama's speech only illustrates a government's attitude towards teaching in the quality of education in general, and it didn't significantly relate to any particular age group.) Employing excellent teachers costs more money, and requires more budget from governments. I prefer to cite my example to support the idea. As When I was a child, the salaries of teachers are not provided high enough to support their families, I met a terrible teacher, who had to care about money more than education. Because of she was poor, she treated me so badly, and I could not study Chinese well at that time, even after gowning up?. That hurts my future (You can't 'hurt' a future. You can only 'damage' a future. Do you really think 伤害我的未来 is a good expression even in Chinese?) and left a negative effect on me. Hence, allowance on younger children's education is very urgent in every nation. On the other hand, college students are likely to study by themselves. Therefore, good or bad teachers have a negligible influence on college students. (The eventual purpose of the discussion is to argue which budget policy should be adopted 'for the successful development of a country', therefore your discussion should show that whatever the policy you choose, it leads to a more successful development of the country. The question doesn't, and your discussion shouldn't stop at describing and comparing the general merits and effects of the budget policies.)


Nevertheless, financial investment in universities is paid overdue attention in recent decades. The current American Science Research (I only know of the journal called American Science. Is your 'Research' meant to start with a small letter 'r'?) indicates that qualified researchers are too much many to in the scientific labor market, leading to the limitation of available positions and dramatically increasing number of unemployment of qualified researchers. In retrospect to, they are more likely to find a job as a college students (There are two issues here. 1. I think you mean 'as college graduates'. 2. You're assuming that 'qualified researchers' must hold qualifications that are higher than 'college graduates'.). But now things are entirely different. We (Who? Are you not talking about 'researchers' anymore?) are trouble in finding a jobs, even though (I don't see where your 'even though' leads the turn to. Do you mean 'even as'?) graduate students or returned students?, attributing to opening universities too much. The real crisis in education is not young people's inability to learn, or the schools' inability to teach, but a distorted job market's inability to provide them with careers worthy of their abilities. Thus, in order to ensure that the society is free of a difficult or hazardous situation that college students have difficulty finding a jobs difficultly, it is the only way to for the government to do is that to reduce funding on universities (You're distorting the discussion to fit with whatever materials you have in mind. The question is about focus of a budget. Focusing on young children's education doesn't necessarily mean that fundings on universities must be reduced. They're two different policies. Also, you never quite address the relationship between cutting the universities' fundings with 'successful development of a country'. Finally, the massive difficulty in finding jobs as universities graduates is again more or less a percularity in China, and if you're not aware of what exactly happened, this phenomenon has very little to do with fundings to the universities. I don't intend to start a political discussion here so my point is simply that anything you know about your country might not be the same in other countries, therefore don't write as if what you know applies to the whole world, especially when citing examples and details. You need to very clear about the boundaries of those details and examples.)


Judging from all evidences offered, we may safely arrive at a conclusion that governments should pay spend more money on the education of young generations. Although universities can provide countries with more people to contribute, it is much more important and urgent to a society and a government to pay spend more funds for on voluntary education (I think I finally get what you mean by 'voluntary education' - 义务教育 - which you think to be the same as 'education of young children'. Well, that's just another example of what I just said after the previous paragraph - don't assume what you know about your country applies to other countries too. In this case, 义务教育 is a completely Chinese system, and it simply doesn't translate to an American audience.).

总结：

这位童鞋我觉得你的问题不仅仅是说结尾还是哪里。。你对于议论性文章的总体把握有待提高。。特别是语法方面，你对于句子的结构变化有很好的感觉，但是你对语法的无视和滥用中式表达翻译的写法让文章完全没有可读性。像Because of poor, she treated me such badly这种句子，完全和你使用的材料和句子结构的高度不相称。

逻辑方面最大的问题就是想当然尔，想到什么就写什么，完全不管和题目的关联，也不管美国人是不是看得明白，这样。。这个题目有一个大前提就是for the successful development of a country，但是你自己回头再看看总结段的话你就会发现你整篇文章都完全没有意识到这个大前提。议论文不是说胡乱地堆砌材料就可以了，你要细心选择你的材料，也要细心选择和题目相关的表达方式来叙述你的材料，这才能显示出你思考的能力和对语言的掌控，否则只是需要堆材料的话岂不是拿本百科全书来就行了，还叫你写篇议论文干什么呢，对吧。所以这方面请多加注意。

tqidtestUID: 2766196

17# clisalong

clisalongUID: 2715802

3月2号 （08.5.17）+ T, P7 }$ U4 m/ a  L1 I- Z* K) H
It's better to watch serious movies to get deeper think or watch movies that amuse or entertain you

见附件，方便筒子们修改，谢谢！

nathanycUID: 2551974

3.2 Nathan 修改
不好意思，迟了