Using no limit as a limit—speedzshaw作文

speedzshawUID: 2556376

Playing sports teaches people lessons about life.

Perhaps no other thing has such power to lift the poor out of his poverty, the wretched out of his misery, to make the burden-bearer forget his burden, the sick his sufferings, as sports. The very nature of sport, which has a natural origin, reveals the laws regulating real world, and people recognize life in doing sports. And for me, I agree entirely that people can learn lessons from sports.

To leap off, in doing sports, of course, the primary thing is to be the winner. Human beings are also animals, evolved after numerous generations yet retain some of traits of animals, which is pursuing the priority. Just as the motto of Olympic Games teach us, higher, faster, and stronger, then we have mount-climbers gallantly surmount the Qomolangma and treat every difficulty with ease. In doing sports, we, taking continuous formal exercise and maybe receiving professional inculcation, enhance our capacity and thus the probability to win on the courts. While in real life, similarly we have to pursue for better achievement in examinations or work. Besides, not only does winning a game but also how to adjust one’s feeling when nervous, formidable or after failure teach us how to behave. And that well explains why Bruce Lee could use his Jeet Kune Do to unveil philosophical ideas in life.

Secondly, in doing sports, everyone shows a spirit of teamwork. Due to improved science technology and complicated modern society, people in increasing number are demanded to work accompanied with others to make an achievement. Needless to mention the world striking projects, like the Human Genome Project or the Apollo Project, in which scientists from all over the world majored in distinctive fields gather to do research funded by the government, we ourselves in our universities, when taking a competition, are obliged to work side by side with partners, regulated by captain, to strive till the end. In sports, solitary life is always not welcome. How could, say, when we form a soccer team, ever win a game if every of us who took the pride of personal performance and got the ball hogged it to themselves and took whatever shot they could? No, it's the team score at the end that matters and determines who wins the game. If the team wins, they all win.

Furthermore, doing sports reveal the depth of athletes' determination which accounts for the persistence of people's doing sports and of course physical fitness. Earnest Hemingway once wrote in his the Old Man and the Sea, man can only be destroyed but not defeated. People in the plight always burst out surprising conviction. Yet we’re acknowledged always   cases people committing suicide, especially juveniles, who are much more vulnerable to pressure. However, compared with the fighters on the sports field, their behaviors appear so ignorant. Lance Armstrong, champion of Tour de France, suffering from testicular cancer fear nothing and precipitant ventured to win over the cancer and laurel seven times in row; eyes back on the UEFA EURO in 2000, French players stuck to every fiber of persistence they could muster and tied the match right before the match was about to end. Could they ever be shuttered by difficulties in real life characters? I don’t think so. Only the fortitude can be winner in sports field, only the valorous can be the winner in life.

To sum up, no matter engaged in ourselves or solely watching others doing, we can catch a glimpse of our own, and until we spell out our whole individuality. Doing sports interprets life.

yqw8616UID: 2769928

不好意思，昨天我电脑问题没看到你的作文，还有你帮我修改我作文是乱码，没法看，如果可以的话可以发到我的邮箱yqw8616@163.com吗？实在不好意思

hulinlin24UID: 2731389

Playing sports teaches people lessons about life.$ ^6 t' i8 m8 |( ?# g# `. D
. H2 m7 R( g& j" d
Perhaps no other thing has such power to lift the poor out of his poverty, the wretched out of his misery, to make the burden-bearer forget his burden, the sick his sufferings, as sports. The very nature of sport, which has a natural origin, reveals the laws regulating real world, and people recognize life in doing sports. And for me, I agree entirely that people can learn lessons from sports.

To leap off, in doing sports, of course, the primary thing is to be the winner. Human beings are also animals, evolved after numerous generations yet retain some of traits of animals, which is pursuing the priority. Just as the motto of Olympic Games teach us, higher, faster, and stronger, then we have mount-climbers gallantly surmount the Qomolangma and treat every difficulty with ease. In doing sports, we, taking continuous formal exercise and maybe receiving professional inculcation, enhance our capacity and thus the probability to win on the courts. While in real life, similarly we have to pursue for better achievement in examinations or work. Besides, not only does winning a game but also how to adjust one’s feeling when nervous, formidable or after failure teach us how to behave. And that well explains why Bruce Lee could use his Jeet Kune Do to unveil philosophical ideas in life.. V/ a6 R# K! B7 J4 |& `' k. \
: q( @0 D. y2 p; |7 P% f

Secondly, in doing sports, everyone shows a spirit of teamwork. Due to improved science technology and complicated modern society, people in increasing number are demanded to work accompanied with others to make an achievement. Needless to mention the world striking projects, like the Human Genome Project or the Apollo Project, in which scientists from all over the world majored in distinctive fields gather to do research funded by the government, we ourselves in our universities, when taking a competition, are obliged to work side by side with partners, regulated by captain, to strive till the end. In sports, solitary life is always not welcome. How could, say, when we form a soccer team, ever win a game if every of us who took the pride of personal performance and got the ball hogged it to themselves and took whatever shot they could? No, it's the team score at the end that matters and determines who wins the game. If the team wins, they all win.

Furthermore, doing sports reveal the depth of athletes' determination which accounts for the persistence of people's doing sports and of course physical fitness. Earnest Hemingway once wrote in his the Old Man and the Sea, man can only be destroyed but not defeated. People in the plight always burst out surprising conviction. Yet we’re acknowledged always   cases people committing suicide, especially juveniles, who are much more vulnerable to pressure. However, compared with the fighters on the sports field, their behaviors appear so ignorant. Lance Armstrong, champion of Tour de France, suffering from testicular cancer fear nothing and precipitant ventured to win over the cancer and laurel seven times in row; eyes back on the UEFA EURO in 2000, French players stuck to every fiber of persistence they could muster and tied the match right before the match was about to end. Could they ever be shuttered by difficulties in real life characters? I don’t think so. Only the fortitude can be winner in sports field, only the valorous can be the winner in life.

To sum up, no matter engaged in ourselves or solely watching others doing, we can catch a glimpse of our own, and until we spell out our whole individuality. Doing sports interprets life.

童鞋你很强大。。。这是很完美的文章，俺无从下手给你挑刺了。。。祝你考试27+

speedzshawUID: 2556376

Do you agree or disagree that scientists should be responsible for the negative impacts of their discoveries?

The world has been devastated by inventions and discoveries of scientists. People annoyed at this develop repulsion to scientific discoveries and argue that scientists are to blame for all the negative impacts. For my part, whether or not scientists should be responsible for those impacts needs full consideration instead of unanimously negation.

To begin with, under most circumstances, when making discoveries, it’s unlikely for scientists to hold hostilities against human beings and would stop at nothing to hamper their growth. Rather, in the first place, science is laden with mysteries that no one would be able to recognize what results their discoveries may lead to. Scientists always have precipitant ventured to their discoveries, intrigued by internal appealing of unresolved questions in sciences. When Maria Curie, rather set aside attention to her first Nobel medal, continued to discover the radium, when Michael Faraday was fascinated by compelling phenomenon and threw light upon electromagnetism, when biologists are all mustered to launch the Human Genome Project, scientists persistently pursue their life in scientific world and continually challenge the boundaries of nature Furthermore, many scientists are accidentally stricken by new idea and make new discoveries historically conducive to human beings. Fleming's earthshaking discoveries of penicillin saved numerable lives since the First World War. Consequently, it’s absurd to depreciate their discoveries as counterproductive to society.

Of course, apart from improvements of human's lives, scientists’ inventions or discoveries do serve a disservice to us. One may still wonder that whether the world would not advance itself in turbulent nuclear competition without the atomic bomb. Even Einstein, who led a team of gifted scientists in the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Projects, spent the rest of his life regretting his then behavior when shuddered at the tragedies in Hiroshima. However, they initiatively intended to emulate with Nazi in atomic bomb to counterbalance Germans’ force and should not the one to blame for. To be accurate, scientists are just scientists, they aren’t politicians or militarists. Personally, Nobel risked his life to invent dynamite, yet didn't live his life to see any of the impacts of his inventions on human's lives. Then how could we dare to blame him for what we ourselves unscrupulously abuse the deadly force. And if we really did and dynamite was eventually abandoned, who else could be found for the disparity between what we have today and the assumed halcyon without dynamite? And where else could we ever find Nobel Prize winners to esteem for? In that case, these scientists have no faults.

What's more, instead of raged controversies on who was responsible for the impacts, we should concentrate our eyes on more actual ways. It's unexceptionable to do researches. Only undisciplined scientists like those who worked for the Nazi or at the expense of the balance of ecosystem should be blamed. Yet when all is set and done, it no longer makes any sense to do that, the aftermath of which shall never be adequate to redeem for due to their discoveries. Around new epoch, what' should assume priority is to learn lessons from past experiences. And besides, scientists are obliged to not only be equipped with outstanding research levels, but also complete personal characters and always have an eye for potential effects on others. Only through this can science really do a service on humans and push forward human civilization.

To sum up, though still scientists who arduously cost everything they have access to exist, what really makes sense is to fix our eyes on how to recruit excellent scientists, technically and spiritually alike, for improved life materials.

amanda_qinyyUID: 2632170

首先要谢谢你帮我及时修改的作文，说的很在理，我考场一定注意这些写作上的问题，很感谢！
昨晚12点断网前，来瞄了下你的作文，我是被深深shock到了，文章里很多很多的例子，还有无数高级词汇和丰富的句型，我想我只有考完细细拜读学习的份儿了，膜拜大牛啊！！！所以，你不介意的话，我可以在考完发一份学习笔记上来。。。我的水平有限，实在没有我能改的地方了~~~还有，600+的字数啊，30分钟是怎么写出来的，太神奇了！

半夏之北UID: 2517498

The world has been devastated by inventions and discoveries of scientists.doc (27 KB, 下载次数: 5)

2010-3-6 16:02:11 上传

下载次数: 5

speedzshawUID: 2556376

Human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals.

In Earth Song, trembled at the scene where elephants are killed for their tusks, forests torn down for housing or room for farmland, Michael Jackson grieve screams: what we've done to the world, look what we've done. Indeed, we are satisfying basic human needs and prospering our society at the expense of demolishing the earth. Yet in terms of civilization itself, whether human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more critical, or saving lands for endangered animals? For my part, it needs full consideration.

For need of existence, human needs for farmland and the like are of crucial nature. It would be safe to say that every leap forward in civilization of human beings bestows much content. For people who get used to eat seven-course meal, sleeping between fine linen sheet, commuting hither and thither by modern means of transportation, a change to life under primitive conditions like what many African people are suffering must have been very hard indeed. Entering modern civilization in particular, along with the rapid growth of industry, mechanical production, exploitation of natural resources, all make it more convenient for people's fundamental habitats. Furthermore, the extent of how much a country is industrialized is universally considered emblem of the strength of it. That’s what many countries are emulating for. With only one limitation that shortage of land resulted from population explosion and the like, people have complemented from devouring land for animals. Generally, human needs shouldn’t be left unsatisfied.

Nevertheless, saving land for endangered animals is also indispensable, and even pressing. From the original society to civilized world of what we are now living in, resistance to natural disasters and attacks of bests, requirements for subsistence conspire to nurture an idea, an autocrat idea that we can conquer the nature. It may call forth us to fail to see the basic fact that we are not alone on this planet. We are surrounded by plants and animals, which constitutes an important part of biosphere. Without them, either externally, we are disfranchising posterities' right to these valuable species, with the rationale that once extinguished, animals in native habitats shall never be accessible to; or essentially, earth we rely on living is threatened, and even this generation on earth. Besides, desperate animals' reprisal attack on human is no more news. Thus it's unwise a choice to set land for endangered animals for human needs.

To be more accurate, striking a balance between the two sides is especially urgent. True, on one hand, the development of industry aims at the continuity of human civilization ourselves. What's more, for people are facing famine and exposure, the reluctance of them to save land for endangered animals is understandable. Yet on the other hand, human activities in industry, farming and housing diminish the forests that they native to, deprive the climate they adapt to, even use them as industrial materials. In that senses, we owe the nature. Consequently, it's reasonable for industrialized countries to focus more on saving land for endangered animals while less ones basic human needs but with under cooperation to regulate everything for the best. That might possibly heal the world.

To sum up, solely concentration on one partial side would worsen the already grave situation, only out of relatively perfect balance could probably guarantee the perpetuation of coexistence on earth.

dphenixyUID: 2657199

Yet in terms of civilization itself, whether human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more critical, or（这里是than吧） saving lands for endangered animals?
其它实在看不出什么问题，对我来说看懂已经不容易了，惭愧啊。这样的作文要不拿满分就太没天理了~~

zhisnoopyUID: 2703722

渺小的群众在颤抖中仰视的爬过……
（dphenixy说的没错，能看懂我就安慰了……）

speedzshawUID: 2556376

Many teachers assign homework to students every day. Do you think that daily homework is necessary for students? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

On campus, complaints could be heard everywhere concerning too much homework amongst students who seem to be overburdened and tortured. They take for granted that they shouldn't be assigned that much labor. Yet as tradition for teachers regulating the students, homework is always exerting its effects on teacher-student relationship. Then should homework be eliminated? For my part, a full consideration ought to be counted for.

Admittedly, homework does function as effective incentive to exhort students into their study. In that case, perhaps the only exact counterpart of homework is exams, believed to have a notorious name too. On one hand, for students, the reluctance to immerse oneself all in study is reasonable. Even the assiduous, who always perceive homework as no more than another normal exercise, would develop unfavorable feelings, needless to say the less ones. An urge to force them into study, to be accurate. Also, to work out the obscured problems whose answers have long been eluding you, one has to make the most out of his mind, recourse for more materials, or work together with other people. It cultivates good habitats. On the other, to guarantee the quality of teaching, teachers also aren’t likely to treat students differently, and then turn to homework, synthesized as standard to evaluate how much the students have mastered. Compared with assignments students set for themselves, it’s relatively more oriented on the pivotal point of the course. Besides, the contents and forms of the homework won't be confined merely to the stereotyped paper work, as many people categorize for exercise. In that sense, homework is effective historically.

Whereas, sometimes, undisciplined homework would do unfavorable effects on students. It's little chance for teachers to misperceive what should be imparted to students, yet a kind of efficacious communication may be hindered, hampered by various possibilities. The teachers sometimes fail to take into account the actual capacity of students, and besides, it is not the only course that students have to take. Difficulty, amount, form, requirement of certain course conspire with exhausting homework of the other to deform a student's learning procession. For instance, last semester, for me, majored in traditional electrical engineering, the course computer software is comparatively minor. However, the teacher, not knowing how many courses that semester were, blindly assigned so many experiments with even harsher requirements. They greatly devoured time allocated for other courses in the overall learning procedure for almost all the students in his class. This illustrates that homework also needs consideration.

Of course, when it comes to homework, level of education the students are in should also be considered. Different ages of students have different abilities, goals. For elementary students, a little bit of common course homework would be conducive to their recognition; homework grows for students in high school, who maybe fix eyes on universities, especially in China. Chinese students have to do large amount of exercises to prepare them for the NMET. Homework surely should form a proportion for its virtues. College or university students' homework need not to be over-simplified. Teachers can provide more opportunities for students in innovative researches or so to hone their integrating skills. In that manner, we take full advantage of homework.

To sum up, homework, under new circumstance nowadays, still has its responsibility to fulfill, whether it is for elementary students or university students, with only one requirement that teachers actively consider more factors when assigning it.

jacknonplusUID: 2703793

啊。。。。。。。感觉到差距了，怎么看怎么是issue啊。。。。。。学习学习之。。。。。

howard_hhqUID: 2648506

现在我深刻体会到了“能看懂就已经安慰了”，细节没看懂，大概知道你在分析什么，感觉自己真的很惭愧....

mpromanusUID: 2565872

5# speedzshaw

Education defines a country. Outstanding education is an indispensible part of a successful country. A Large amount of budget is spared to improve education, but debates over whether (What is 'oriented' here? Budget? Education?) oriented on very young children or universities rages over across the world. Some argue that governments should focus more on very young children education instead of universities. As for me, I hold the view that universities should have priorities to funds set for education, but where the emphasis of government be laid needs full consideration.

Admittedly, any governments that are blind to the education of very young children shall pay a heavy price, and even at the expense of the future of their countries. As an old saying goes, children are flowers of the country, they represent the future of the country, and are at the same time the supply line of talents for the construction of a country. Besides, cultural continuity within the context of the country is dependent on importation and perpetuation of children?? (I literally shudder at the thought of 'importation of children'. You seem to misrepresent the idea 'importation and perpetuation of CULTURE through children' here.). Furthermore, no matter how much success this generation, universities students included, achieved, the torch of a country shall finally be passed on to the next generation, namely the then very young children. Apart from that, education nowadays on very young children differs from what it used to be, and is not confined to merely knowledge from books but as well as things like after-class activities, things like that. These activities serve useful purposes for the development of personal characters, which in turn contributes to the social merit system? (What is a 'social merit' system? Are you trying tosay 'meritocracy'? ). In that case, government can't afford to turn a deaf ear to the education of very young children. (Very pretty, but the problem is that I'm not getting any overall idea of what you're trying to express in this whole paragraph. Everything is beautifully written and very fluid, but I'm not getting any solid impression of whatever points you made, or what this whole paragraph had to do with illustrating your main point, that is, you think that universities should have priorities to funds.)

Yet, it would give way to universities when compared on? importance?? with its ability to promote a country (What do you mean by 'promote' a country, anyway? 'promote' in the sense of advertising the country, or 'promote' in the sense of advancing?). The very young children represent the future, universities students the current. Imagine that: could the Hanging Gardens really exist? Universities directly supply talents to their countries. (What do the Hanging Gardens have to do with universities directly supplying talents??) Science and social researches counts on professors and students on the campus. Largely, it should be modified?? into that university defines the country. (I'm basically not getting any of your logic here. The four sentences starting from 'the Hanging Gardens' till here just show no connection whatsoever with each other.) The time the definition of higher education was illustrated and plan manifested over universities marked America’s skyrocketing. Another implicit merit of funding universities is that such universities continue to attract excellent students from all over the world, just as in America. Another thing we need to take into account is the actual costs of universities of course. Science researches and experiments, social surveys or investigations, all these add to the expenditure of universities. The university alone is hard to bear. So it's even more important to focus budget on universities (Again, I'm not getting your reasoning at all. Not to meantion the huge confusion in your use of singular/plurals. There's also another inherent flaw in your very beautifully written essay: you've illustrated that education of very young children and universities both have their own very important merits in shaping a country, but the question you need to argue is that universities need MORE funding than education of very young children. I'm not seeing enough of such COMPARISON here.).

Of course, to achieve successful development of a country, entirely focusing on education is not enough, and sometimes misleading. As a whole, development of a country depends on overall development. Talking about budget, so where does it come from? Primarily, it's from economic growth, and the factor itself also correlates to various other factors. The government should figure out an outline of how funds should be allocated. (Now that's totally uncalled for. The question is NOT asking you to discuss what other things should be considered. It is explicitly asking you about two choices, and your job is as simple as to choose and defend one.)

From what has been discussed above, it's easy to conclude that in order for successful development of a country, funding education is pivotal, especially on universities, yet a carefully planned collaboration of various other factors guarantees a successful country. (Now if you put this paragraph together with your question, you'll see how this conclusion doesn't answer the question at all.)

总结：

这位童鞋你的语言灰常华丽美妙但是你的单复数乱得也很华丽。。

另外就是托福作文不等于GRE作文，不需要你全面深刻严肃地讨论多么大的一个问题，更不需要你多么高瞻远瞩的思考，问题问你是不是同意A比B应该要更多钱，你就直接简单回答这个问题就可以了。想得太多不仅会影响你的写作时间，更会让你到最后回答的是一个更大的问题而不是原本那个细节的问题。建议你多看一些真正的托福例文找找感觉。。

speedzshawUID: 2556376

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A teacher who is a serious and strict person is more effective in teaching than a teacher who is a humor and easygoing person.

Students and parents disagree over whether a teacher who is serious and strict is prone to teach effectively in class. An implicit consensus among many parents is yes, for students, no. For my part, I hold that whether it is serious teacher or easygoing one, it needs full consideration.

To leap off, serious teacher tend to have perfect control of what they are teaching in class. We can often hear what parents complain how much they desired to have their mischievous children controlled. Indeed, teacher who pushes hard on students far less readily build prestige among students, thus shudders some students out of playing tricks in class or whatever. Also strict requirements are demanded in doing homework and taking exams. Besides, for such teachers themselves, their willingness to immerse their effort in teaching paves way for a better environment in class. Furthermore, students could be encouraged to try their best to be harsher on themselves and cultivate the same meticulous attitude towards study. Imagine that, how could a feeble teacher constrain the seemingly obsolescent students? In that sense, strict teachers do enjoy an advantage.

Notwithstanding, exactitude teachers would discourage students’ intentions to study or even do a disservice in teaching. In particular, nowadays, teachers in growing number are beginning to develop empathy with their students. They behave more naturally and approachable, which leaves good impression in students. For instance, my classmates and I, when taking our math teacher who is so humorous, compared to the strict teacher in computer software, are more engaged in class. It’s occasional sense of humor in class that extends the tension in class and makes it possible for him to hold student's attention; this greatly motivates students actively involved in and thus facilitates the progress of teaching. Besides, it's counterproductive or even deleterious for teachers to stick relentlessly on students and kind of hampering normal exchange between students and teachers, under which circumstances, amicable teachers always have their advantages. As a consequent, teachers who are easygoing ease the hurdles in teaching.

Although it's been possible to infer from the commentaries and controversies actually held what kind of teachers enjoy more reputation amongst students, only a analysis of teacher-student relationship could give a precise picture of who wanted what. All in all, teaching an inter-exchange procedure that engages teachers and students alike, a procedure without either side would be worthy of its name. No matter what teachers' characteristics are, severe or lenient, they have a simple aim, a solitary and unanimous goal: better students. Besides, students’ performance directly correlates with their salaries and promotion opportunities. Yet what really matters is the attitudes of students their own, in spite of the fact that students favor not that rigor. If they can't stand the teachers, however teachers try is futile. In the eyes of students who really want to learn more, severity and lenience are no difference. With respect to the former, students tend to get the most out of themselves to make teachers' requirements meet, which in return galvanizes teachers to be more passionate and effective in teaching; with respect to the latter, they can have more communication with the teachers, and it's no bad choice to catch a glimpse of themselves in teachers' eyes. Teachers also get acquainted with what's in students' hearts and thus can regulate efficacious teaching for the best.

To sum up, what kind of teachers students have to face is relatively minor thing, despite that still disagreements exist, students' attitudes finally defines the effectiveness of teaching progress.

speedzshawUID: 2556376

28# mpromanus
谢谢指导  暂时缺的就是定位 我看了ETS的官方范文 里面有正反论证的 I mean 中立态度的 只是没有像你说的 所谓的高瞻远瞩
很多问题其实平时和同学探讨过 所以一写起来就有点那个了
有所改正了再请指教