lain0119的作文~

annkeUID: 2605122

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement
People should be allowed to use cell phones on public transportation such as buses and trains.
In the era of communication tools[cell phones do not equal communication tools] making penetrated into every corner of people's life, there is[are] rising concerns on whether the use of these tools will give away individuals' privacy[give individuals’ privacy away] and intrude others' psychological space[传媒工具穿透隐私和侵犯心理空间，这个观点用中文来理解都很奇怪，是吧。我觉得你提出这个观点是基于现在网络人肉搜索及电话窃听，狗仔等提出来的，但作为话题大背景，这个观点太片面了。]. Among these, an issue, if people should be allowed to use mobile phones on public transportation, say buses and trains, emerges. From my perspective, using cell phone during one's traffic hours not only provides more fun for people's monotonous lives but also enables them to cope with emergencies more effectively. Therefore, it is necessary and even desirable, to use cell phones[前面是单数] on transportation.

Admittedly, some troubles[uc] might follow the use of mobile phones on public transportation. It is likely that loud ring tunes rung[ring 直接用电话响起吧，不重] suddenly will annoy passengers who want to stay silent. Plus, when people hold a phone talk on [a] public vehicle, they are also at the risk of divulging their personal information. However, the majority of people, in general, will, intentionally, turn off the ring tunes and are more likely to send messages rather than have a call, which actually guards their privacy from being revealed as well as from disturbing others. Accordingly, using cell phones on public vehicles should be permitted.[这段很混乱，想到哪里就写到哪里，没有围绕主题，一般来说，让步是为了突出转折。]

Further, using mobile phones on buses or trains enables people more enjoyable[chinglish~], liberating them from both work and living pressures temporarily. In the world full of ruthless competitions, modern people need an exit[valve] to let off their steam. While[?while表示并列是表示同时发生，伴随] Cell phones are portable, they are an excellent form of entertainment. For example, if one is on a long commute to work, which is common in China's big cities, [the]a person can surf the internet, play games or merely gossip with their[his/her] friends through messages with the cell phone. These leisure activities will not disturb other passengers but also lift the person's spirit coupled with ease his/her mind. Thus, using cell phones on transportation actually softens people's stress.[二三段都在说disturb，二段讲虽然真的会打扰，但是大家会静音关机并且防止隐私泄露所以不会打扰。三段讲的是用电话玩游戏不会打扰让人放松。但是人家规定不用电话的理由不仅是打扰别人。楼主又把题目范围缩小了。]

Moreover, allowing people to use cell phones during their traffic hours can prevent them from missing significant events. [这个观点第一段就简要提出了，此段如果再谈，那么应该深入了。]Take me as an example. Being a reporter, it is probably that I will miss vital news clues if not allowed to use cell phone during my traffic hours. After all, never does news wait for people, no matter whether they are on transportation. Hence, forbidding using cell phones on public vehicles indeed places a variey[variety] of troubles[uc] on people's lives.

To sum up, without disturbing others as well as protecting one's own privacy, it is reasonable to use mobile phones on public transportation. After all, no one intends to render the traffic hours a tedious trip and it is absurd for people to get on or off the vehicle frequently merely to check whether there is an important call.
[建议多读地道的文章，培养语感。]
30# jbc88

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.24.   Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People should live one city or in one country all their life instead of moving to live in different places.

In the era of rapid social and technological change leading to the dissolution of traditional stickiness to one place, there is rising concerning on whether people should live in different places. From my perspective, though the experiences brought by moving can broaden people's horizons, such benefit will be offset by drawbacks companying. Therefore, it is better for people to spend their lifetime in one place.

The first drawback caused by moving is that buying houses in different cities is indeed troublesome. Initially, it costs a large sum of money to purchase houses in different cities. So high is the price that people cannot afford it. For instance, in Shanghai the average estate price of an apartment is up to 8,000yuan per square, a sky-high price to most people. Moreover, it is also possible that unfamiliar to the urban planning of new city, such as transportation, hospitals, commercial centers, hardly can people select a convenient residence. Accordingly, owing to a series of trouble matters attributed to moving, it is sounder for people stick to one place.

The second drawback following is that there are difficulties finding a satisfactory job in the new city. For most people, moving to another place means giving up their previous career, or at least struggling to adapt to their new working environment. Yet, either the experience of seeking a new job or the process of adjusting, in general, might be somewhat miserable. Take China's labor market as an instance. In most cities, employers tend to hire natives rather than migrators in that they are unfamiliar to the local regulations. Plus, staffs in the company are likely to be hostile to those aliens, subconsciously or consciously regarding their new colleagues as potential contestants instead of teammates. Hence, people would rather stay in a city rather than move.

A subtler drawback, but perhaps just as serious, is that people might suffer from mental discomfort in the strange environment. For one thing, due to the misunderstanding of different contexts, there is a strong likelihood that people cannot fuse themselves to the local society. For another, since hardly can these migrators contact to their previous relatives or friends as usual, their nostalgia springs up. All of these might cause pent psychological pressures rather than delights people initially conceive.

To sum up, lives in different cities are not as ideal as people once considered. After all, newcomers have to burden plenty of heavy stresses, both physical and psychological, in different cities. What's more, such pressures might dissolve their initial happiness. Thus, it is naive to assert that people should live in different places.

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.25.     Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Printed books have greater effects on society than television has.

With the birth of printing, the dawn of information generation approached-knowledge was not dominated by the aristocratic class. Such glory, however, paled when the television was introduced. The printed book merely enables people to get insight into the world; the television can lead an individual to the world. The printed book barely records historical facts; the television can report present news. The printed book just makes sense to educated people; the television, to everyone. Therefore, televisions play a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.

To being with, in comparison with the printed book, the television is more likely to alter people's destinies. Traditionally, it takes years for people to be knowledgeable to enhance their social status by reading books. The television, however, introduces an individual to the public, which enables a Cinderella to be a princess in a single night. Recall the instance of Chris Lee, the champion of "Super Girls", a reality show in China. Before she took part in the "Super Girls", she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a well-known entertainer. Hence, it is the television, rather than the printed book, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.

Further, the television has a significant advantage over the printed book. The television helps people know what is happening around the word through a live report, whereas written words have to be first directed, and then printed, finally when they reach the hands of people, it may be several days after the event have occur. Who nowadays would like to be still unaware of the results of the Olympic Games until paper media have come out while others have already enjoyed the whole game on a television? Accordingly, informing people of more fresh news, the television plays a more fundamental part in understanding the world.

Moreover, unlike the printed book, which is only available to literate people, television makes difference to every people due to its combination of pictures and sound. Consider the various television programs. Not to mention "Discovery", driving a bunch of people disinterested in abstract science readings to the screen to learn the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", imparting elementary language education to young children, even "American Idol" brings about a cluster of talented musicians into people's eyes, giving vivid music lectures to the public. Thus, the television is competitive with the printed book in education.

To sum up, since the printed book creates the splendid era of mass media, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more active, informative and literate.

s499992008UID: 2688967

' _- R" X- R7 PWith the birth of printing, the dawn of information generation approached-knowledge was not dominated by the aristocratic class. Such glory, however, paled when the television was introduced. The printed book merely enables people to get insight into the world; the television can lead an individual to the world. The printed book barely records historical facts; the television can report present news. The printed book just makes sense to educated people; the television, to everyone. Therefore, televisions play a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.3 I' P# b( U5 D$ E6 M

* n+ Y& ?) N* I2 aTo being with, in comparison with the printed book, the television is more likely to alter people's destinies. Traditionally, it takes years for people to be knowledgeable to enhance their social status by reading books. The television, however, introduces an individual to the public, which enables a Cinderella to be a princess in a single night. Recall the instance of Chris Lee, the champion of "Super Girls", a reality show in China. Before she took part in the "Super Girls", she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a well-known entertainer. Hence, it is the television, rather than the printed book, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.
3 f" y& p- D' o7 x
: u, I* u: d1 J2 U4 U/ ^Further, the television has a significant advantage over the printed book. The television helps people know what is happening around the word through a live report, whereas written words have to be first directed, and then printed, finally when they reach the hands of people, it may be several days after the event have occur. Who nowadays would like to be still unaware of the results of the Olympic Games until paper media have come out while others have already enjoyed the whole game on a television? Accordingly, informing people of more fresh news, the television plays a more fundamental part in understanding the world.
6 T, l  a+ L* B- J$ Q
6 D8 ^& _6 Z* b5 E  FMoreover, unlike the printed book, which is only available to literate people, television makes difference to every people due to its combination of pictures and sound. Consider the various television programs. Not to mention "Discovery", driving a bunch of people disinterested in abstract science readings to the screen to learn the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", imparting elementary language education to young children, even "American Idol" brings about a cluster of talented musicians into people's eyes, giving vivid music lectures to the public. Thus, the television is competitive with the printed book in education.6 ?) b/ G7 l  X& Y
  `* {6 L& ~3 g0 O( v7 K
To sum up, since the printed book creates the splendid era of mass media, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more active, informative and literate.

s499992008UID: 2688967

With the birth of printing, the dawn of information generation approached-knowledge was not dominated by the aristocratic class. Such glory, however, paled when the television was introduced. The printed book merely enables people to get insight into the world; the television can lead an individual to the world. The printed book barely records historical facts; the television can report present news. The printed book just makes sense to educated people; the television, to everyone. Therefore, televisions play a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.

3 I' P# b( U5 D$ E6 M
To being with, in comparison with the printed book, the television is more likely to alter people's destinies. Traditionally, it takes years for people to be knowledgeable to enhance their social status by reading books. The television, however, introduces an individual to the public, which enables a Cinderella to be a princess in a single night. Recall the instance of Chris Lee, the champion of "Super Girls", a reality show in China. Before she took part in the "Super Girls", she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a well-known entertainer. Hence, it is the television, rather than the printed book, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.
Further, the television has a significant advantage over the printed book. The television helps people know what is happening around the word through a live report, whereas written words have to be first directed, and then printed, finally when they reach the hands of people, it may be several days after the event have occur. Who nowadays would like to be still unaware of the results of the Olympic Games until paper media have come out while others have already enjoyed the whole game on a television? Accordingly, informing people of more fresh news, the television plays a more fundamental part in understanding the world.

Moreover, unlike the printed book, which is only available to literate people, television makes difference to every people due to its combination of pictures and sound. Consider the various television programs. Not to mention "Discovery", driving a bunch of people disinterested in abstract science readings to the screen to learn the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", imparting elementary language education to young children, even "American Idol" brings about a cluster of talented musicians into people's eyes, giving vivid music lectures to the public. Thus, the television is competitive with the printed book in education.6 ?) b/ G7 l  X& Y
  `* {6 L& ~3 g0 O( v7 K
To sum up, since the printed book creates the splendid era of mass media, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more active, informative and literate.

s499992008UID: 2688967

With the birth of printing, the dawn of information generation approached-knowledge was not dominated by the aristocratic class. Such glory, however, paled when the television was introduced. The printed book merely enables people to get insight into the world; the television can lead an individual to the world(怎么感觉和上一句都是一样的意思那。。是我没理解上去). The printed book barely records historical facts; the television can report present news. The printed book just makes sense to educated people; the television, to everyone. Therefore, televisions play a much more crucial role in affecting people's lives.3 I' P# b( U5 D$ E6 M

To being with, in comparison with the printed book, the television is more likely to alter people's destinies. Traditionally, it takes years for people to be knowledgeable to enhance their social status by reading books. The television, however（nevertheless）, introduces an individual to the public, which enables a Cinderella to be a princess in a single night. Recall the instance of Chris Lee(春哥？), the champion of "Super Girls", a reality show in China. Before she took part in the "Super Girls", she was merely a nameless student. It is the television program that makes her a well-known entertainer. Hence, it is the television, rather than the printed book, that endows people power to be in charge of their fates.
Further, the television has a significant advantage over the printed book. The television helps people know what is happening around the word through a live report, whereas written words have to be first directed, and then printed, finally when they reach the hands of people, it may be several days after the event have occur. Who nowadays would like to be still unaware of the results of the Olympic Games until paper media have come out while others have already enjoyed the whole game on a television? Accordingly, informing people of more fresh news, the television plays a more fundamental part in understanding the world.
FMoreover, unlike the printed book, which is only available to literate people, television makes difference to every people due（duing） to its combination of pictures and sound. Consider the various television programs. Not（这个not我怎么理解不上去，不提？？） to mention "Discovery", driving a bunch of people disinterested in abstract science readings to the screen to learn the secret of the earth, or "The Sesame Street", imparting elementary language education to young children, even "American Idol" brings about a cluster of talented musicians into people's eyes, giving vivid music lectures to the public. Thus, the television is competitive with the printed book in education.6 ?) b/ G7 l  X& Y
  `* {6 L& ~3 g0 O( v7 K
To sum up, since the printed book creates the splendid era of mass media, it is the television, in fact, that takes the step further, shaping people's lives at a deeper level. With the television, people become more active, informative and literate（楼主让我见识到了什么是好作文了，而且词的广度另我羡慕啊。。对你的作文我实在没什么可改的了，标准的每段一个观点。。后面一堆例句。。佩服。。）.

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.27    Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Scientists should be responsible for the negative impacts of their discoveries.

In the beginning of 21th century, scientific discoveries have been taking place, but the condition of humanity appears not enhanced-war, violence, and poverty are still with us. Some individuals, therefore, ascribe such sufferings to scientific discoveries and scientists should be responsible for the negative effects of their discoveris, asserting that it is those seemingly progresses that make the production of weapons possible and enlarge the economy gap between the wealth and the poverty.  Nevertheless, such statement includes three critical problems and thus it goes too arbitrary.

A threshold problem involved in the statement is that the definition of "negative" is unclear. For people benefiting from discoveries, they might consider these discoveries to be "positive" and vice versa. Since the criteria of discoveries' effects varies, how can people dichotomize scientists into the evil or the benevolence? For example, the discovery of wind being kinds of available resources of electricity pits environmentalists who champion renewable wind energy against those advocating the protection wild animals in that the wind turbines not only produce a large amount of electricity but also interfere with the flight patterns migratory birds in certain areas. In this case, hardly can people judge whether the influence of wind electricity is simply right or wrong, let alone to demand the explorer of this discover to receive the punishment.

Another problem is that scientists are, potentially,  compelled to take the indictment that they should not be responsible for. After all, scarecely do scientists intend to apply their discoveries to vandalizing. Recall Einstein as an instance. Never did the person consider to apply "the reletively theory" to producing nuclear weapons and to strike when he initially discovered the axiom. If Einstein is forced to be responsible for the aftermath of the relatively theory, does it mean manufacturers of guns should likelihood be in charge of murders though the person has never joined the case? If so, it seems that the development of discovery might cease for the simple reason that scientists, possibly, dread to be accused of vandalists. Hence, it is unnecessary and perhaps even unfair to burden so much responsibilities on scientists.

The third and most potent problem is that the feasibility of the statement is open to doubt. For one thing, to what degree does the scientist for his/her sin to relieve the anger of the public? For another, how can dead scientists be executed? Accordingly, without answering these problems, the statement merely renders itself to the ethical buzz.

To sum up, unless the statement can cope with problems discussed above, hardly can people convince that scientists should be responsible for the untoward consequences following their discoveries.

蔓落UID: 2779470

In the beginning of 21th century, scientific discoveries have been taking place, but the condition of humanity appears not enhanced-war, violence, and poverty are still with us.(appears,are...重复了） Some individuals, therefore, ascribe such sufferings to scientific discoveries and scientists should be responsible for the negative effects of their discoveris, asserting that it is those seemingly progresses that make the production of weapons possible and enlarge the economy gap between the wealth and the poverty.  Nevertheless, such statement includes three critical problems and thus it goes too arbitrary. （很牛。。。）

A threshold problem involved in the statement is that the definition of "negative" is unclear. For people benefiting from discoveries, they might consider these discoveries to be "positive" and vice versa. Since the criteria of discoveries' effects varies, how can people dichotomize scientists into the evil or the benevolence? For example, the discovery of wind being kinds of available resources of electricity pits environmentalists who champion renewable wind energy against those advocating the protection wild animals in that the wind turbines not only produce a large amount of electricity but also interfere with the flight patterns migratory birds in certain areas. In this case, hardly can people judge whether the influence of wind electricity is simply right or wrong, let alone to demand the explorer of this discover to receive the punishment.（其实我觉得这个分论点有一点偏题了。。。不过真的很牛。。。佩服）

Another problem is that scientists are, potentially,  compelled to take the indictment that they should not be responsible for. After all, scarecely do scientists intend to apply their discoveries to vandalizing. Recall Einstein as an instance. Never did the person consider to apply "the reletively theory" to producing nuclear weapons and to strike when he initially discovered the axiom. If Einstein is forced to be responsible for the aftermath of the relatively theory, does it mean manufacturers of guns should likelihood be in charge of murders though the person has never joined the case? If so, it seems that the development of discovery might cease for the simple reason that scientists, possibly, dread to be accused of vandalists. Hence, it is unnecessary and perhaps even unfair to burden so much responsibilities on scientists

The third and most potent problem is that the feasibility of the statement is open to doubt. For one thing, to what degree does the scientist for his/her sin to relieve the anger of the public? For another, how can dead scientists be executed? Accordingly, without answering these problems, the statement merely renders itself to the ethical buzz.

To sum up, unless the statement can cope with problems discussed above, hardly can people convince that scientists should be responsible for the untoward consequences following their discoveries.

哎~我只能说楼主很牛。。。其实我真的改不出什么问题。。。或者对于我来说看你的文章更多的是在一个欣赏学习的角度上~
楼主词汇，长句都很厉害~观点也很独特。。。不过我想这些都是废话吧。。。
我会经常过来学习楼主的学习的~可以的话楼主也希望可以偶尔去帮我改一下作文，或者和我说下怎么写。。。
我想我唯一能给楼主的就是鼓励吧~~~
楼主大牛加油加油~！！！

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.28   Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should only play sports for fun, not in competition or contests

In the era of rapid social change leading to the rising significance of cultivating children, an issue, whether children should be permitted to play competitive sports, emerges. Some individuals believe that children should only play sports for enjoyment in that contests will only render children physical injures and psychological discomforts. This statement, however, overshadows the benefits of competitive sports, such as giving youngsters lecture concerning life, being expert at information, cooperative and well-behaved. Therefore, it is necessary, even desirable for children to take part in sports contests.

The first benefit is that competitive sports teach children the value of information processing. For example, before a baseball game, each team needs to collect and analyze deficiencies and advantages both its rivals and itself to make the optimal arrangement. Equally, in the relentless commercial competition, owners need to speculate their rivals' strategies and to make responsive plans to compete for the market. Therefore, playing competitive sports, actually, equips children with ability of information processing benefiting their careers.

Another benefit is that taking part in competitive sports helps children learn cooperation. While competitive sports, to a large extent, consists of team sports, it is critical to be a team player in that only consolidation can help the team altogether overcome challenges in the face of adversity. Plus, since cooperation has been an indispensable quality of a good staff, the experience of being a good team player in the competition game since one's childhood might promise the person to be both a popular colleague and an efficient employee.

A subtler benefit of competitive sports, but perhaps just as essential, is that playing competitive sports teaches children to lose and win gracefully. During a contest, throwing one's tantrum if the person loses a match may be considered as a behavior that is looked down upon; likewise, being blissful and laughing at losers might also be regarded uncouth. The same is true in the society. Therefore, children can apply controlling their outward emotions learning from the competition to cope with their latter life.

To sum up, rather than repress children's nature, competitive sports actually teaches them lectures about life. Hence, children should be allowed to play in the sports field, trying their utmost to rival those competitors.

字数变少了,时间反而用多了...sigh...
还有...这篇文章有paraphrase李笑来的句子,我实在写不来这个题材= =打我

nexthopUID: 2744929

3.28   Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should only play sports for fun, not in competition or contests.

In the era of rapid social change leading to the rising significance of cultivating children, an issue, whether children should be permitted to play competitive sports, emerges. Some individuals believe that children should only play sports for enjoyment in that contests will only render children physical injures and psychological discomforts. This statement, however, overshadows the benefits of competitive sports, such as giving youngsters lecture concerning life, being expert at information, cooperative and well-behaved. Therefore, it is necessary, even desirable for children to take part in sports contests.

8 G$ W9 O0 k/ ]The first benefit is that competitive sports teach children the value of information processing. For example, before a baseball game, each team needs to collect and analyze deficiencies and advantages both its rivals and itself to make the optimal arrangement. Equally, in the relentless commercial competition, owners need to speculate their rivals' strategies and to make responsive plans to compete for the market. Therefore, playing competitive sports, actually, equips children with ability of information processing benefiting their careers.

Another benefit is that taking part in competitive sports helps children learn cooperation. While competitive sports, to a large extent, consists of team sports, it is critical to be a team player in that only consolidation can help the team altogether overcome challenges in the face of adversity. Plus, since cooperation has been an indispensable quality of a good staff, the experience of being a good team player in the competition game since one's childhood might promise the person to be both a popular colleague and an efficient employee.

A subtler benefit of competitive sports, but perhaps just as essential, is that playing competitive sports teaches children to lose and win gracefully. During a contest, throwing one's tantrum if the person loses a match may be considered as a behavior that is looked down upon; likewise, being blissful and laughing at losers might also be regarded uncouth. The same is true in the society. Therefore, children can apply controlling their outward emotions learning from the competition to cope with their latter life.

To sum up, rather than repress children's nature, competitive sports actually teaches them lectures about life. Hence, children should be allowed to play in the sports field, trying their utmost to rival those competitors.

我又悲剧了，看完了发现只能学习，不知道该改什么。杯具啊
这种论证用中文还可以想想，用英文想就瞬间变成小学思维了。
好好向楼主学习。

lain0119UID: 2695504

3.31        Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and televisions have more negative effects than positive effects on young people.

In the era of mass media making penetrated into people's daily lives, some individuals complain that movies and televisions dull the brain and take up time that young people could otherwise use for interacting with others. However, these criticisms are far more exaggerated. Virtually, far from turn young people's brain into smash, these mass media benefit young people much as a whole.

The first benefit of movies and televisions is that they provide a panorama of the reality with vivid pictures and real sounds, helping youngsters understand important events around the world. For example, the movie “Schindllr’s List” teaches young people the history facts of the slaughter during the World War two, while the live report of the Bay War reveals the latest process of the battle that far away from their homeland. Without movies and televisions, these significant facts might be totally unfamiliar to youngsters.

Another benefit brought by movies and televisions is that young adults have more access to education. Consider various television programs. Not to mention the scientific educational program "Discovery", driving a bunch of young people previously disinterested in abstract science readings to the screen to learn the secret of the earth, or the movie "Pride and Prejudice", depicting the picture of Britain's lifestyles in 18th century, even "American Idol" brings about a cluster of talented musicians into people's eyes, giving vivid lectures to the public. Thus, movies and televisions, indeed, provide educational feasts for the youths.

A subtler benefit of movies and televisions, but perhaps just as significant, is they prosper young people's communication to their friends and family. For one thing, people always go to the cinema or watch televisions with their acquaintances. Moreover, the plot and news conveyed by the movie or the program actually create topics to the "dinner table" discussion. What better way to bond with one's acquaintances than to share and compare one another's views on the topic that they are interested in? Hence, rather than alien young people from the society, movies and televisions strengthen their interactions.

To sum up, movies and televisions receive too much undue blames. In fact, with these mass media, young people have become more informative, literate and closer than ever since.