lawrencelan的独立作文

mpromanusUID: 2565872

13# lawrencelan

Basic sciences, like general mathematics, general physics and general chemistry, are the fundamentals (Semantically speaking, it's arguable whether a plural is needed here, but I'm inclined to use one if there's an 'are' in front.) of the modern society. Some people hold a point that university students should not take basic science classes if they are not part of the field of their studies (Again, semantically, 'study' can be used, but I'm inclined to use a plural if there's a 'their' right in front of the word 'study'.). Because they think college students should spend all time on their own study. (This is a fragment. 'Because' can't lead a sentence on its own. Merge this with the previous sentence. FYI: I'm surprised to see this error in your essay as you rank among the most capable writers I've seen on this board.) I oppose this point of view. I think university students should be required to take basic science classes even if they are not part of the field of the study.

To start with, taking basic science classes benefits university students' own study. Basic science is of course the base of many modern sciences. Students cannot understand modern sciences profoundly if they have little knowledge of basic sciences. For example, students of Compute Science usually study essential classes like data structures, operation systems and compiling theory. All of them are based on mathematics. If a student was not good at mathematics, he or she might feel those classes were obscure. Besides those classes, books on Computer Science theories, like "the Art of Programming", one of the most classic books on Computer Science, usually require readers to have very strong mathematics background. In fact, top students in Computer Science are very good at mathematics. Furthermore, Students who major in other sciences, like economy, also can benefit from studying basic science classes. (Now you're getting awry. The question specifically mentions that students should take basic sciences even if 'they are not PART OF THE FIELD of the study'. Your examples of modern sciences, unfortunately, do not quite fall into this category, because mathematics and all are PARTS OF THE FIELD, as you've said, 'all of them are BASED on mathematics'. It's hard to imagine a course on CS or economy that does not include any mathematics as a prerequisite. Therefore you've only covered half of the question that's not in the 'even if'. You'll need stronger examples that are less directly related with the basic sciences to cover the 'even if' part.)

Another good reason is that basic science classes help students a lot in their daily lives, no matter which subject they major in. Excel, a very excellent office tool to make tables and charts, is adopted widely nowadays. Students usually use it in their study life. However, students cannot take full advantage of Excel if they are not good at general mathematics. Excel provides a lot of mathematics formulas to help users to make complicated and flexible tables and charts. Obviously the prerequisite is that users should have the basic knowledge of general mathematics. Besides general mathematics, other basic science classes, like physics and chemistry, also help students in their daily lives. Students who have the basic knowledge of general physics might understand the principle of automobiles easily, and such understanding might help them out when their cars breake down. Even more, the knowledge which students learn from basic science classes continues to works in their whole life.

To sum up, taking basic science classes not only benefits university students in their study but also their daily life. To that extent, I think university students should be required to take basic science classes even if they are not part of the field of the study.

总结：

你的语言功底很好，但是第一个论点段不完整 - 问题特别提出和basic science无关的主修来问，但你一直用modern science来举例，也就是只论述了和basic science有关的主修，那这个论述是不能完全说明问题所涵盖的全部的，所以对论述的完整度要注意一下。

lawrencelanUID: 2173940

he best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide.

Most people like travelling around to see different view and experience different culture. Some of people choose to travel along with a group led by a tour guide, while others prefer to travel without a tour guide. From my part, I am inclined that the best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide.

Firstly, a tour guide can help group members to plan a most optimized tour way. A tour guide is very familiar with destinations his/her group travels to. He or she usually has visited his/her destination several times, and may study where his/her group will go comprehensively before travelling. Thus, a tour guide can lead group members to places where are most worthy of visiting so that group members visit as many places as they can in a limited period. In China, travelling around Europe becomes hot recent years because Chinese are richer. People usually wants to visit many European countries to see different beautiful views and experience diverse cultures in a short time. Travel agencies provide many tour ways, like visiting 10 European countries in 11 days, to satisfy such customers, especially those who have never been Europe before. In such groups, people can visit many places as they wish by following a optimized tour plan made by a tour guide.

Secondly, a tour guide can help group members to understand local cultures profoundly. An experienced tour guide often knows a lot of funny stories, legends or history regarding groups' destinations. Group members can learn indigenous cultures from these kind of matters because they are usually based on local cultures. I once travelled to Tokyo alone. I was fascinated by this big city which mixes modern and traditional attributes and visited a lot of famous places like the royal garden, the Mikado's Palace and Ginza. In front of the Mikado's Palace, I happened to hear that a tour guide was introducing the history of it and Mikado's daily life in it to his group. His speech was attractive and I learnt a lot about this Palace. Unfortunately, I did not met other tour guides in other places. Now, the Mikado's Palace is more impressive in my mind than other places in Tokyo because that unnamed tour guide helped me recognize the Mikado's Palace as not only a building but also a historical culture symbol.

In conclusion, the best way to travel is in a group led by a tour guide, who will help group members to plan a optimized tour way and understand local cultures profoundly.

nexthopUID: 2744929

4.7 lawrencelan by nexthop

lawrencelanUID: 2173940

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."
We have met a lot of teachers since we were a little child. Which kind of teachers is more effective in teaching, serious and strict teachers or humor and easygoing teachers? From my part, I think a teacher who is a humor and easygoing person is more effective.

Firstly, a humor teacher's classes are more attractive. Humor is one of the most affecting characteristics, so students are usually fascinated by a humor teacher in his classes. As I know, most teachers in the New Orientation School, the most famous English training agent in China, are humor persons and they are good at imparting knowledge in a humor way. They involve a lot of jokes, funny stories and their interesting experience in their classes in order to help students to understand contents they are presenting. Students are not easy to distracted. They listen carefully because they don't want to miss any of those funny speeches. More important, students learn a lot after they laugh, and knowledge imparted in such humor way is usually more impressive to them. In fact, most students in the New Orientation School are big fans of their teachers, because these humor teacher's classes are very attractive.

Secondly, a easygoing teacher is more welcome. Students always have a lot questions which need their teachers to answer, but they are more willing to ask  easygoing teachers. When I was in the elementary school, my mathematics teacher is very serious and strict. He never laughed with us in my mind and he usually criticized students in his classes. As a result, I hoped his classes got over quickly and I did not like to ask him questions because I was afraid that he might be angry on my questions. I would rather spend much more time on studying those questions by myself, or ask classmates, but both of these ways were less effective than asking my mathematics directly. If my mathematics teacher was easygoing, he should be more welcome.

In a word, I disagree that a teacher who is a serious and strict person is more effective in teaching than a teacher who is a humor and easygoing person, because a humor and easygoing teacher is more welcome by students and his or her classes are more attractive.

hulinlin24UID: 2731389

We have met a lot of teachers since we were a little child. Which kind of teachers is more effective in teaching, serious and strict teachers or humor and easygoing teachers? From my part, I think a teacher who is a humor and easygoing person is more effective不完整.

Firstly, a humor teacher's classes are more attractive. Humor is one of the most affecting characteristics, so students are usually fascinated by a humor teacher in his classes. As I know（用for example好一点，举例子嘛）, most teachers in the New Orientation School, the most famous English training agent in China, are humor persons and they（去掉） are good at imparting knowledge in a humor way. They involve a lot of jokes, funny stories and their interesting experience in their classes in order to help students to understand contents that they are presenting. Students are not easy to distracted. They listen carefully because they don't want to miss any of those funny speeches. More importantly, students learn a lot after they laugh, and knowledge imparted in such humor way is usually more impressive to them(语法有问题). In fact, most students in the New Orientation School are big fans of their teachers, because these humor teacher's classes are very attractive.整段都在说新东方，虽然例子非常好，可是也要适当的论述以理服人啊M2 i

Secondly, a easygoing teacher is more welcome. Students always have a lot questions which need their teachers to answer, but they are more willing to ask  easygoing teachers. When I was in the elementary school, my mathematics teacher is very serious and strict. He never laughed with us in my mind and he usually criticized students in his classes. As a result, I hoped his classes got over quickly and I did not like to ask him questions because I was afraid that he might be angry on my questions. I would rather spend much more time on studying those questions by myself, or ask classmates, but both of these ways were less effective than asking my mathematics directly. If my mathematics teacher was easygoing, he should be more welcome。我觉得这段的TS不够明确，和上一段类似，你都在讲例子，应该要论述啊论述

In a word（in conclusion，你那个词不够书面化）, I disagree that a teacher who is a serious and strict person is more effective in teaching than a teacher who is a humor and easygoing person, because a humor and easygoing teacher is more welcome by students and his or her classes are more attractive.
例子够生动，细节也有，就是论述不足，句式变化不大，语言过于简单
加油。。。