《美利坚写作小组》 作文互改 nexthop

nexthopUID: 2744929

3.26
For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities?


Not long ago, there was a survey on a government website asking people which group should be paid more attention about education, young children or university students. Some people consider that university students who are the main force of society should be concerned more than young children. There may be some reasons universities have; However, I believe that very young children should be more focused.

The most impressive advantage that focuses on young children education is easier to establish their correct attitude of life. Undoubtedly, the period which young children are now in is the most crucial time for them to create the feeling that may affect their entire life. For example, a young child who is participating a story competition wants to get the prize which is a pretty Bobby. And the instructor may tell him/her that only a outstanding presentation could bring he/she the Bobby. So the child may have a deep impression that only hard working could bring him/her what he/she wants. However, a instruction like this could make no effect on university students who are already grown up and may refer to this as is a naive trick.

Another instrumental reason that children should be paid more attention is their growing bodies. The body of young children is in a vital period, which may influence their physical body on several decades later. The child who attended well in nutrition may lead to a excellent physical state. It is physical healthy that sharply improve the development of society. For instance, people whose physical are in a better state then before could have a higher sense of happiness.

Although I agree that there may some positive affection when government focuses its budget on university education, I feel like the advantages of education on young children are more obvious. people who are taken good care in both mentally and physically in their childhood may have a excellent state, which could make a major contribution to the development of society.

写的很痛苦……哎……

tqidtestUID: 2766196

Not long ago, there was a survey about education on a government website asking people which group should be paid more attention , young children or university students. Some people consider that university students who are the main force of society should be concerned more than young children. There may be some reasons universities have (have什么reason呢？？让人搞不清楚); However, I believe that (very) young children education should be more focused..


The most impressive advantage that focusing on young children education has is easier?? to establish their correct attitude of life. Undoubtedly, the period which young children are now in is the most crucial time for them to create the feeling that may affect their entire life. For example, a young child who is participating a story competition wants to get the prize which is a pretty Bobby？？（Barbie？？）. And the instructor may tell him/her that only a outstanding presentation could bring （he/she）  him or her the Bobby. So the child may have a deep impression that only hard working could bring him/her what he/she wants. However, a instruction like this could make no effect on university students who are already grown up and may refer to this as is a naive trick.  这段论证有问题。。不清晰。

Another instrumental reason that children should be paid more attention is their growing bodies. The body of young children is in a vital period, which may influence their physical body on several decades later. The child who attended well in nutrition may lead to a excellent physical state. It is physical healthy that sharply improve the development of society. For instance, people whose physical are in a better state then before could have a higher sense of happiness.

Although I agree that there may some positive affection when government focuses its budget on university education, I feel like the advantages of education on young children are more obvious. people who are taken good care in both mentally and physically in their childhood may have a excellent state, which could make a major contribution to the development of society.

论述的不够完整。。。题目说投资哪方面好。。你可以继续说，如果政府不花钱给孩子们建体育设施，保健措施，会影响孩子们的健康。而锻炼身体也是教育的一部分。。。关键是体育设施要花钱，而且请老师要花钱。所以budget should be focused。。。可能我说的也不够清楚。多想想吧。平时多写点教育类的作文，积累些素材会好些。而不要举像是barbie娃娃之类的例子

lawrencelanUID: 2173940

3.26
For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities?
I
Not long ago, there was a survey (just curious, really?)on a government website asking people which group should be paid more attention about education, young children or university students. Some people consider that university students who are the main force of society should be concerned more than young children. There may be some reasons universities have; However, I believe that very young children should be more focused.

The most impressive advantage that focuses on young children education is easier to establish their correct attitude of life. Undoubtedly, the period which young children are now in is the most crucial time for them to create the feeling that may affect their entire life. For example, a young child who is participating in a story competition wants to get the prize which is a pretty Bobby. And the instructor may tell him/her that only a outstanding presentation could bring he/she the Bobby. So the child may have a deep impression that only hard working could bring him/her what he/she wants. However, a instruction like this could make no effect on university students who are already grown up and may refer to this as is a naive trick. (I agree on your point and your supporting example. But there is nothing to do with budget....Do you imply that young children education needs more budget to buy Bobby? Hehe, just kidding:))

Another instrumental reason that children should be paid more attention is their growing bodies. The body of young children is in a vital period, which (what do you want to refer to here by "which"? The vital period?  I don's think saying "period may influence bodies" makes sense.)may influence their physical body on several decades later. The child who attended well in nutrition may lead to a excellent physical state. It is physical healthy that sharply improve the development of society. For instance, people whose physical (physical what?) are in a better state then before could have a higher sense of happiness.

Although I agree that there may some positive affection when government focuses its budget on university education, I feel like the advantages of education on young children are more obvious. people who are taken good care in both mentally and physically in their childhood may have a(an) excellent state, which could make a major contribution to the development of society.

总结：可以加强一下论证, 在这篇文章的论证里面很少提到successful development of a country和budget.加油：）

nexthopUID: 2744929

3.27 (08.11.30)
People who do not work because they get enough money are rarely happy?

Not long ago, there was a survey on a city forum asking people whether they support the idea that wealthy people who do not work are rarely happy. Some people argue that no working means there may too much time to kill with, and then result in a boring life. However, I believe that people could make a happy life with a lot of time and money even though they do not work.

First of all, people with a mount of money and time are more likely to make a colorful life. For example, some rich individuals could make a travel plan around the world at any time they wish, experience different cultures and enjoy sorts of landmarks everywhere, such as Mountain Rushmore in US and Pyramid in Egypt, which could absolutely leave extraordinary impression. And these beaming experiences could not only provide them great pleasure memories but also widen their visions, which make a major contribution to their colorful life.

In addition, people who have enough money and time could make them happy in pursuing their interests. For instance, some people may like invention. As we all know, inventions indeed consume a mount of time, which is vital factor that most people who have to work could not obtain. So with careless time and money people could devote all their attention to the inventions which they think are fascinating. Undoubtedly, in this course, they may experience various emotions such as excitement, agitation and encouragement, which consists a meaningful life for them.

Although a lot of money and time may result in some negative feelings such as boring which may also appear in those working individuals' lives, I feel that wealthy people could live a happy state. People with enough money and time could make their life fulfilled and substantial, which make the working negligible.

pochun111UID: 2608867

People who do not work because they get enough money are rarely happy?

Not long ago, there was a survey on a city forum asking people whether they support the idea that wealthy people who do not work are rarely happy.你的开头好像总是用这个 但这个大部分情况似乎都不大适用 因为这个调查是无据可寻的 建议你换一个开头 Some people argue that no working means there may betoo much time to kill with, and then result in a boring life. However, I believe that people could make a happy life with a lot of time and money even though they do not work.

First of all, people with a mount of money and time are more likely to make a colorful life建议变换句式. For example, some rich individuals could make a travel plan around the world at any time they wish, experience different cultures and enjoy sorts of landmarks everywhere, such as Mountain Rushmore in US and Pyramid in Egypt, which could absolutely leave extraordinary impression. And these beaming experiences could 去掉not only provide them great pleasure memories but also widen their visions, which make a major contribution to their colorful life.

In addition, people who have enough money and time could make them happy in pursuing their interests. For instance, some people may like invention. As we all know, inventions indeed consume a mount of time, which is vital factor that most people who have to work could not obtain. So with carelesstremendous amount of time time and money people could devote all their attention to the inventions which they think are fascinating. Undoubtedly, in this course, they may experience various emotions such as excitement, agitation and encouragement, which consists a meaningful life for them.

Although去掉 a lot of money and time may result in some negative feelings such as boring which may also appear in（to） those working individuals' lives, however,I feel that wealthy people could live a happy state（in a condition of happiness. People with enough money and time could make their life fulfilled and substantial, which make the working negligible.
观点明确 而且理由也很充分 一些用词也不错 建议都标志出来了
改晚了 不好意思 我的作文写跑题了 我会重写 感谢你的建议

chailybaiUID: 2741896

People who do not work because they get enough money are rarely happy?

Not long ago, there was a survey on a city forum asking people whether they support the idea that wealthy people who do not work are rarely happy. Some people argue that no working means there may （exists）too much time to kill with, and then result in a boring life. However, I believe that people could make a happy life with a lot of time and money even though they do not work
First of all, people with a mount of money and time are more likely to make a colorful life. For example, some rich individuals could make a travel plan around the world at any time they wish, experience different cultures and enjoy sorts of landmarks everywhere, such as Mountain Rushmore in US and Pyramid in Egypt, which could absolutely leave extraordinary impression. And these beaming experiences could not only provide them great pleasure memories but also widen their visions, which make a major contribution to their colorful life.

In addition, people who have enough money and time could make them happy in pursuing their interests.(这句子语法有点问题，改成more money and time could make people happy in pursuing their interests吧) For instance, some people may like (这里最好放个动词，比如creating之类的。。)invention（s）. As we all know, inventions indeed consume amount of time, which is (the) vital factor that most people who have to work could not obtain. So with careless (countless?) time and money people could devote all their attention to the inventions which they think are fascinating. Undoubtedly, in this course, they may experience various emotions such as excitement, agitation and encouragement, which consists(consist是由什么什么构成。。不能这么用吧，composes/leads/provides。。。) a meaningful life for them.(这段可以提一下知识的收获，感觉比情感收获更有说服力。。)   
Although （devoting）a lot of money and time may result in some negative feelings such as boring which may also appear in those working individuals' lives,（这句长句太繁琐了也有点弱化了转折的语气，分成两句吧） I feel that wealthy people could live a happy state. People with enough money and time could make their life fulfilled and substantial, which make the working negligible.

不好意思改晚了。。。前两天一直忘了这事=。=。
词汇语句的运用组织都不错，注意下语法和用词的准确性。适当运用长句（有的长句稍显繁琐了，和我一样的问题，呵呵~~）总的来说很不错，LZ加油吧~~

nexthopUID: 2744929

4.3 It's better to watch serious movies to get deeper think or watch movies that amuse or entertain you.

Movies, as a vital way of entertainment, are an integral part in people's life. A group of people prefer watching serious movies, because they would like to enjoy the deeper thinking while watching movies. From my perspective, however, I feel that it is better to watch movies that amuse people. My specific reasons are as follows.

The remarkable reason is that people could release their pressure when they watch funny movies. As the working task becomes massive and hard to accomplish, people feel more pressure in contemporary society than ever. Thus, to keep mental healthy and keep pace with this rapid tempo of life, a suitable way of release pressure becomes more and more significant. Funny movies, which could make people enjoying hearty laughter, are considerably common way to satisfy people's demand. For example, after a whole day's arduous working, people could watch their favorite funny movies without much thinking. All they should do is enjoy the movies and totally relax themselves.

Another persuasive reason that funny movies bring about is the sense of humor. Undoubtedly, humorous people are more popular not only with their colleagues but also with their friends. So, humorous is a indispensable character of those people who wish to be welcome. Watching funny movies could make people build the sense of humor. People could unconsciously remember the interesting lines or conversation when they watch enough amusing movies, and they could apply them in their daily life and make themselves humorous.

Admittedly, watching serious movies may lead to deeper thinking, which could help people know more about their lives. And deeper thinking may make people wiser when they face various problems in daily life. However, watching serious movies is not the best way to get deeper thinking, and some mistakes could find in most movies especially in history movies.

In conclusion, watching movies, which amuse and entertain people, could release their pressure and help them building up their sense of humor, which is a vital character in modern society. That is why I believe it is better to watch amusing movies.

Word: 344
Time: 50 min

ningzhithmUID: 2680175

Movies, as a vital way of entertainment, are an integral part in people's life. A group of people prefer watching serious movies, because they would like to enjoy the deeper thinking while watching movies. From my perspective, however, I feel that it is better to watch movies that amuse people. My specific reasons are as follows.
0 ]# [1 y  E6 q4 Y7 U" G8 S
( i: R- U3 b; a7 @7 |1 t# v
The remarkable reason is that people could release their pressure when they watch funny movies. As the working task becomes massive and hard to accomplish, people feel more pressure in contemporary society than ever. Thus, to keep mental healthy and keep pace with this rapid tempo of life, a suitable way of （TO）release pressure becomes more and more significant. Funny movies, which could make people enjoying（enjoy） hearty laughter, are considerably common way（把 way 去掉） to satisfy people's demand. For example, after a whole day's arduous working, people could watch their favorite funny movies without much thinking. All they should do is enjoy the movies and totally relax themselves.
- [# q' A# ?0 ]% f9 s# M! D+ \0 j! \
( j* `9 ?. }+ @: I2 d' S( {( _
Another persuasive reason that funny movies bring about is the sense of humor. Undoubtedly, humorous people are more popular not only with their colleagues but also with their friends. So, humorous is a indispensable character of those people who wish to be welcome. Watching funny movies could make （help）people build the sense of humor. People could unconsciously remember the interesting lines or conversation when they watch enough amusing movies, and they could apply them in their daily life and make themselves humorous.' f3 a1 m& U, i, r4 N3 \
$ G* j+ w8 f. E
Admittedly, watching serious movies may lead to deeper thinking, which could help people know more about their lives. And deeper thinking may make people wiser when they face various problems in daily life. However, watching serious movies is not the best way to get deeper thinking, are some mistakes could find in most movies especially in history movies. 后半句是不是这个意思：In funny movies with a history background, many mistakes of basic knowledge of history could be made.% k, W0 N9 C4 |" {$ B& H
3 @9 Z# j- |2 x- u6 c
In conclusion, watching （funny）movies, which amuse and entertain people, could release their pressure and help them building up their sense of humor, which is a vital character in modern society. That is why I believe it is better to watch amusing movies
文章条理十分清楚，所用例证也恰到好处，是篇十分优秀的问章。文章结构是 娱乐电影好 1 它使人消减压力 2 它增加人的幽默感 然后总结。 明了 有力。 不足之处，我觉得是你提到了严肃电影，只说它能够使人深入思考 我觉得原题有两种电影比较的意思 不提它显得有些极端&严肃电影 {+ c4 j- q$ z$ g

caoxuemeiUID: 2629828

by caoxuemei 4,3

nexthopUID: 2744929

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

Scientific discoveries, as a major impulsive force of human development, play a vital role in contemporary society. Basic different kinds of impacts of discoveries, there may positive and negative. Thus the issue whether scientists should be responsible for the negative impacts of their discoveries has triggered a heating debate. From my perspective, I believe scientists should not be responsible for the negative influence of their discoveries. My specific reasons are as follow.

The most persuasive reason is that the obligation of scientists is just research the technology but not how to use it. For example, when we talk about clone at first, it is just a biological technology, which is a huge progress in the biology area. Meanwhile, the scientists may not consider the result of the discoveries lead to. However, some other scientists develop this technology, they want to apply it not only on animals but even also on human, which is strongly opposed by most scientists. So, how to use this technology is nothing to do with the initial purpose.

Another remarkable passive result that being responsible for the negative impacts brings about is decelerating the speed of scientific progress. With the fear of responsibility of negative influence of their research, scientists are more likely to be prudent with their research. For instance, the Internet bring us not only convenience but also violence and high level technical crime. If the scientists who invent the Internet should be responsible for the passive impact, they may stop constantly perfecting the Internet technology or even abandon it. In this case, technology of human society will decelerate.

Admittedly, scientists should be responsible for the ferocious result from their initial wrong purpose. Take the nuclear weapon for example, Einstein and other scientists invent the nuclear weapon just for the world war, and finally bring about disastrous calamity. This is not what we expect.

In conclusion, the negative result of scientific research is not caused all by scientists, and being responsible for the passive impact of their research could decelerate the technology of human society. So, these are the reasons of why I believe scientists should not be responsible for the negative influence of their discoveries.

ningzhithmUID: 2680175

4.4 Do you agree or disagree that scientists should be responsible for the negative impacts of their discoveries?9 N2 x( P9 ]2 I# |/ u7 g
2 w$ |9 y$ M- T: Y* o+ ^( W* l
Scientific discoveries, as a major impulsive force of human development, play a vital role in contemporary society. Basic different kinds of impacts of discoveries, there may positive and negative. (这句话不通)Thus the issue whether scientists should be responsible for the negative impacts of their discoveries has triggered a heating（heated） debate. From my perspective, I believe scientists should not be responsible for the negative influence of their discoveries. My specific reasons are as follows.$ j! A5 @$ T; n% n
. T: E! B* ]5 ?# I& E! |4 S$ ^
The most persuasive reason is that the obligation of scientists is just research the technology but not how to use it. For example, when we talk about clone at first, it is just a biological technology, which is a huge progress in the biology area. Meanwhile, the scientists may not consider the result of the discoveries lead to. However, some other scientists develop this technology, they want to apply it not only on animals but even also on human, which is strongly opposed by most scientists. So, how to use this technology is nothing to do with the initial purpose.
Another remarkable passive result that being responsible for the negative impacts brings about is decelerating the speed of scientific progress. With the fear of responsibility of negative influence of their research, scientists are more likely to be prudent with their research. For instance, the Internet bring us not only convenience but also violence and high level technical crime. If the scientists who invent the Internet should be responsible for the passive impact, they may stop constantly perfecting the Internet technology or even abandon it. In this case, technology of human society will decelerate.
Admittedly, scientists should be responsible for the ferocious result from their initial wrong purpose. Take the nuclear weapon for example, Einstein and other scientists invent the nuclear weapon just for the world war, and finally bring about disastrous calamity. This is not what we expect.! M4 H7 u; r6 z
In conclusion, not all the negative results of scientific research are caused all by scientists, and being responsible for the passive impact of their research could decelerate the technology of human society. So, these are the reasons of why I believe scientists should not be responsible for the negative influence of their discoveries.
你写得挺好的，很值得我学习。尤其是文章的架构，特别清晰。
美中不足是例证论证得不是很充分。比如克隆，说科学家们根本想不到克隆人，而是其他人利用克隆技术 有些牵强。毕竟克隆人也需要科学家。

wyacUID: 2633619

4.4 nexthop.doc (26 KB, 下载次数: 8)

2010-4-5 14:25:45 上传

下载次数: 8

nexthopUID: 2744929

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

Students at university or in college always are hesitating about which courses they should choose. Because they could either take difficult classes and get relatively low grades or take easy classes and get top marks. A fair proportion people claim that students should choose the most difficult classes even if they cannot get top marks. As far as I concerned, I believe the most difficult classes, apart from the marks, will result in lower level study efficiency and mental pressure. My specific reasons are as follow.

The most persuasive reason is that the most hard classes may lead to low study efficiency. The ability of learning is differing from person to person. Some students may be able to choose the most difficult classes and could keep pace with the professor; however, other students may not. That is to say, not all the students are suitable for the most difficult courses. So, for the ordinary students, the most difficult courses may result in low efficiency of learning. For example, a university student has chosen a hard class, which may be suitable for him/her. Then he/she will find that he/she is struggling to understand his/her professor and thus after every class he/she could learn only little knowledge about this area, which is not his/her initial expect.

Another remarkable result that choosing difficult classes bring about is negative mental impact. For instance, a student who always cannot keep pace with his/her professor may encounter the pressure from his/her classmates or professor or perhaps even himself/herself. As a result, he/she may become unconfident of himself/herself and disgusting about any kinds of learning. Moreover, this negative attitude may influence his/her other courses.

Admittedly, take the most difficult courses may make the students try their best to accomplish the task, which could be the impulse of their great progress. The students may spend much more time and energy on researching in the library and doing experiments in the lab.

In conclusion, choosing the most difficult, apart from the probability of low grades, may lead to low study efficiency and negative mental influence. Considering these main points hardly can I agree that students at university or in college should take the most difficult courses.

ningzhithmUID: 2680175

Students at university or in college always are（are always） hesitating about which courses they should choose. Because they could either take difficult classes and get relatively low grades or take easy classes and get top marks. A fair proportion (of ) people claim that students should choose the most difficult classes even if they cannot get top marks. As far as I am concerned, I believe the most difficult classes, apart from the marks(并不太通顺), will result in lower level (level 可以去掉)study efficiency and mental pressure. My specific reasons are as follow.

/ b! v/ H0 T' X- j; X
The most persuasive reason is that the most hard classes may lead to low study efficiency. The ability of learning is differing from person to person. Some students may be able to choose the most difficult classes and could keep pace with the professor; however, other students may not. That is to say, not all the students are suitable for the most difficult courses. So, for the ordinary students, the most difficult courses may result in low efficiency of learning. For example, a university student has chosen a hard class, which may be suitable for him/her. Then he/she will find that he/she is struggling to understand his/her professor and thus after every class he/she could learn only little knowledge about this area, which is not his/her initial expect.5 U! X0 B) z& b* o9 C, A
) u4 V+ a- {) w' S. O. ]# ~3 [
Another remarkable result that choosing difficult classes bring about is negative mental impact. For instance, a student who always cannot keep pace with his/her professor may encounter the pressure from his/her classmates or professor or perhaps even himself/herself. As a result, he/she may become unconfident of himself/herself and disgusting about any kinds of learning. Moreover, this negative attitude may influence his/her other courses.- r3 ~( r6 {0 J0 n: n0 a$ n  m
: X7 I' n- T+ ~% E- r
Admittedly, taking the most difficult courses may make the students try their best to accomplish the task, which could be the impulse of their great progress. The students may spend much more time and energy on researching in the library and doing experiments in the lab. This process helps develop the students’ abilities of research and auto-learning.
: Z6 a9 `$ T3 H* e

! n0 T( ~# J- z: I  Z' I7 KIn conclusion, choosing the most difficult, apart from the probability of low grades, may lead to low study efficiency and negative mental influence. Considering these main points hardly can I agree that students at university or in college should take the most difficult courses.

思路很清晰，结构清楚。但我猜你写作的时候有点困。句子读起来有点涩涩的，不流畅。

nexthopUID: 2744929

哈哈 楼上你太逗了
这都被你看出来了。
其实是在一边看音乐会一边写的
所以写的比较烂