回报G友，开贴改作文，大家不用客气~（新人慎入，熟人快来）

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

唉你好辛苦啊，改那么多文。。。不过还是要来麻烦你。。。Issue221，历史的作用是能帮助我们发现不同时代人们的共通性。这篇我的论点什么的都比较少，例证为主。

大概看看思路和逻辑就行，我现在发现语言还真的是 ...
figuechen 发表于 2010-8-2 17:37

没关系~
你快考试了吧？感觉你的状态不错啊，加油呀

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

TOPIC: ISSUE153 - "Students should bring certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively."
WORDS: 571          TIME: 01:12:57    ...
guo0693 发表于 2010-8-2 11:08

With the popularization and ripeness of the Internet, the era of great explosion of the information has already come. So many students have lost themselves in the brimless sea of knowledge. At this moment, how to get rid of the fake and retain the genuine is fatal important. Therefore, student should keep certain skepticism to what they learn instead of accepting it passively.
看了开头就感觉作者跑题了。看了下面的内容果然如此
写前请仔细审题：学生应该质疑所学的所有东西Students should bring certain skepticism to whatever they study.
题目不是让你讨论质疑的好坏，而是让你讨论是不是应该所有的知识都要质疑。也就是说，对于教的所有知识，学生不应该被动的接受，而应该先质疑

然后你第一段说现在有很多伪科学，是来讨论质疑的必要性。这个思路很好，但是你举得这些例子都和学习没有关系。虽然你是想支持你自己的观点，但也应该和学习扯上关系啊。虽然有很多伪科学，但是学生不一定学啊，只是假广告而已。
To begin with, there are so many fake sciences in today's society that we must watch out and be suspicious to those we are not familiar with. If we take what others claim easily and those declaration turn out to be false, we will suffer heavy lose even at the cost of our health. For example, television advertisement can be seen every here and there nowadays, those productions are being overvalued to an unimaginable extent, such as some medical sellers claim that their medicine could help teenagers grow up at least 10 centimeters within just a few days, some weight-reducing aid is deeply believed by those girls who are so eager to lose weight that easily be deceived without any questions about the possible byproduct. Unfortunately, those medicines are not helpful but may bring some passive influence on our body. A survey shows that half of the customers reflect that they do not feel good about their stomach after took those pills. Since the worst situation will be an unexpected agony to ourselves, we could not easily believe those things which haven't been proved to be true or scientific.

Besides, the proposal of truth usually results from the suspicion to existent theory. Try to image such situation, if Copernicus just accepted the theory that earth is the center of universe without any skepticism, how could the truth that the all other planets move around the sun had been found? If we passively accept whatever we learn even though they are wrong, our science will impossibly advance. I still remember that one of the teachers of mine gave us a complex arithmetic problem to check our mathematic ability and introduce us a wrong answer on purpose. The result is very amazing: no one had suspected his answer and all of us accepted that the answer will do solve the problem. How pathetic it was! If we still keep on like this, we will always be fallacious to solve any questions like this. Therefore, suspicious attitude towards what we study will determine whether we could find the truth.
这一段讨论质疑的必要性或者好处就完全没有必要了。题目并没有否认质疑的必要性或者好处，只是问你是不是应该质疑所有的知识。

Last but not the least, passively accepting will deprive us of the ability to think and to learn. Argument will make a deep impression on us so we will not forget it when we face the same question by next time. And from the process of putting forward question, trying to find information to support our opinion and finally getting the correct conclusion, we will learn how to study by ourselves, how to think thoroughly and even how to cooperate to others, which are more important than the answer itself to our development. After all, we will depend on our own on the road to the unknown success in the future. At that time we will find that nothing can be more useful than the ability to find the truth by ourselves. Therefore, we should begin to study positively instead of accepting passively.
虽然通过质疑来学习有这样的好处，但是用这种方法来学习所有的知识可以吗？？应该讨论的是这个问题

In conclusion, to look for truth and to have better achievement in the field of study, we must keep certain skepticism to everything which hasn't been proved.


由于你的文章是我认为的典型的偏题，所以关于语言方面就没有细看。
建议好好看看imong的追星剑特训或者下笔之前仔细读题

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

呵呵， 美女，你好。
说明你挺强的~~
24# 追梦小木耳

我有个建议：我们一起帮他们修改作文吧？
我也打算开个修改铺，不过可能每天只能修改2篇左右。可能忙不过来。俩人合作每天应该能改4篇左右吧，而且不会占 ...
wdx19861106 发表于 2010-8-2 13:50

额(⊙o⊙)…我计划改到4号~之后可能就没有时间了
而且我们可能对题目的理解和思路不同，不好合作吧~~
我只是想回报一下帮助我过我的G友~不是要一直改下去的

guo0693UID: 2540167

呵呵 辛苦你了~ 不过关于这文章我有些想法和你不同。
我觉得这个是定位关键词的问题，如果把关键词定为should，那么就应该讨论的是为什么should or should not,
一开始说有很多伪科学，所以时常需要怀疑，不过确实我举得那些例子有问题，我当时想找与学习有关的，可是没怎么想出来，后来又怕时间拖太长就写了那个。
然后说因为怀疑能带来好处 所以才should怀疑，不是吗？
最后说写不怀疑带来的弊端，所以才更要should。

如果关键词定位为everything 那么讨论的就是你所说的那个方向。呵呵 也怪我观点不明确，第一段有些乱了，没有确定好真正的主题。

回过头来再看一遍我这篇文章确实有很多漏洞

首先 主题不够鲜明。第一段中的结论是Therefore, student should keep certain skepticism to what they learn instead of accepting it passively.
结果写到最后一段却变成了we must keep certain skepticism to everything which hasn't been proved其实算是两个不同的观点了。一个是怀疑所学 一个是怀疑没被证明为真。明显感觉在写的过程中产生了分歧。由于对第一段观点的支撑不够，所以东拼西凑的找了些论据，发现原来并没能有力的支撑本来的观点，所以为了自圆其说又在下文把观点偷换。看来有必要好好在提纲上下功夫了。否则写着写着就跑偏了。

此外，分论点的缺乏也是我写作时一个头疼的问题，往往一个大的观点就那么几句话，好的例子又想不出，这时就显得无话可说。如果有分论点的支撑，文章主体就不会这么苍白了。

你对第二段有关伪科学的例子和我自己的总结有什么好的建议吗？或者有没有好的提纲可以让我参考下？
非常感谢~
47# 追梦小木耳

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

49# guo0693
那个关键词，我认为不是自己想定哪个就定哪个的~
不过既然你坚持认为你自己对题目的理解是正确的，我也无话可说

大家对题目的理解不一样，再讨论内容就没有意义了~呵呵，可以请高手再帮你看看喽

cyci90UID: 2717086

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
WORDS: 677          TIME: 00:37:44          DATE: 2010/7/29 17:59:30

The speaker asserts that there exist two types of laws: just and unjust, and that every individual in society has the responsibility to obey the former one and equally to disobey and resist the unjust one. Some people, along with the speaker, believe that such assertion is reasonable. From my viewpoint, however, I can barely consent to this contention for the following two reasons. Firstly, there is no clear distinction between just and unjust laws. Secondly, by disobeying unjust ones the entire law system may be in danger of collapsing and being violated.
As for the first reason, it is necessary for everyone to realize that the essence of laws is to satisfy and serve the majority of the public. What laws try to do is to utilize social resources and institutions to maintain the commonly accepted moral standards and justifiable deeds. In this sense, laws are always in accordance with most people's judgments and feelings. And since such judgments and feelings are mostly subjective, it is invalid to label such objective words as "just" or "unjust" upon laws.
For example, many people consider abortion equals murder , and that a law prohibiting such behavior is a kind of just law. Yet, this law might not be viewed as just if others looked from another perspective of the unfortunate mother and the poor baby perhaps. It is likely that this newly-pregnant mother is coerced into pregnancy, or immature; or perhaps the baby she is bearing has been detected some hereditary disease which is almost incurable, e.t.c. In this sense, how could a law simply forbid abortion if the detrimental consequence is obvious to be seen.  Moreover, try think about death penalty. Death penalty, as the most severe penalty, has already been rescinded in several countries for these policymakers are convinced that it is illegitimate for anyone to deprive others' basic human right to live. Had such policy so humane, why are there still so many nations keeping death penalty? Perhaps from the perspective of those lawmakers, such penalty is an effective method in order to frighten criminals and deter them from further stepping into criminal mires. Otherwise, could you imagine a world with many felons or serious offenders around? Therefore, I maintain that different people view the law system from diverse viewpoints, and thus no clear distinction exists between just and unjust laws.
Considering the second reason then, even though some laws do not seem reasonable, it is not justifiable for disappointed people to disobey and resist these laws. For one thing, the entire law system or the function of the society is only viable as long as people strictly obey orders. However, if a certain law is overtly dismissed because it is unjust, many more orders will follow its destiny of being discarded based on the same excuse, while the underlying purpose of these violations might be more sophisticated and wicked than the superficial frankness.  Thus, the final outcome could seriously undermine the solemnity of the law system, which in turn hampers the function of a society.  For another, even if the law is unjust and subject to amendment, it is the duty of lawmakers to rectify and perfect it instead of that of the masses by means of disobeying and repressing. Any underhanded contumacy could result in the collapse of the law system, even more serious and counterproductive aftermath which in turn severely worsen the situation and toughen the difficulty to tackle that issue. Thus, when confronted with such incompatibility, we  should act like a mature adult and help lawmakers perfect these issues rather than like a naive child abandoning anything undesirable.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the speaker concerning the statement since I do not think there exist any distinction between just and unjust laws, and that viewed from diverse perspectives this issue would turn out to be an entirely different one. Moreover, overt contumacy against unjust laws often yield to more counterproductive problems, which is in contrary to the original purpose of law to maintain social order and solve social problems.


楼主辛苦啦 issue 17  正义与不正义的法律那篇~ 再下谢过 明儿就考试了 快帮忙看看吧 不胜感激

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

TOPIC: ARGUMENT89 - The following appeared in a newspaper published in the state of Celera.

"Speed limits on our state's highways should be eliminated in order to increase our state's prosperity. B ...
Maydaysj 发表于 2010-8-2 16:14

The author suggests an elimination of speed limits on highways of Celera to increase its prosperity. However, all demonstrations about the economic benefits of high speed and safety guarantee are full of flaws.


First of all, high speed elimination does not necessarily lead to commercial benefit and revenue increase. Greater speed can make commercial delivers faster only on the condition that the traffic is in good order. If there is no speed limit, it is quiet possible that some highway drivers want to overtake others which may cause the traffic condition into chaos. If it's this is the case, high speed elimination will not increase but decrease the travel efficiency and thus give a bad effect on business profit. Furthermore, vehicles for commercial deliver on Celera’s highways may not belong to Celera and therefore cannot make contributions to the state’s financial increase whatever their business benefit blossom. As for the point that Although high speed attracts more motorists and thus[这个词用太多了，换个句型吧] can increases toll revenue, however, the increasing number of motorists also means heavier burden on the maintenance. Suppose that another 100 motorists can get only $200 toll revenue while will cost $500 for maintenance, then could we say it’s worthwhile? Without weighting the cost and revenue of traffic flow increase, it is unconvincing to conclude that great speed will do increase economic benefits.


Second, the author cites an example of the western stats to claims that high speed has little to do with safety. However, the testimony that "no significant increase “is vogue.vague Whether there is a great increase in traffic accidents or not in fact is unknown. Does Is it possible that researchers didn’t conduct a precise calculation survey and thus gave this inaccurate statistic result? Or does it possible that the proposers or officers supporting speed elimination conceal the fact deliberately? In a nutshell, the author should provide more convincing information to support that high speed has little thing to do with safety. In addition, even we concede the point mentioned above, it does not mean the same situation will do take effects in state of Celera. There may be some differences between them in states population, conditions of highway, and climate ect. Maybe the western states are in peripheral areas where there are little smaller population and thus less fewer vehicles on the highway which alone can guarantee low ratio of accidents. And if the climate in western states is stable, while state of Celera are full of hazards weather like tornadoes and rainstorm, then the traffic accidents will be undoubtly more in the latter. If so, eliminating speed limit will add insult to injury there. And since the western states only adopt speed limits elimination on daytime, it is inappropriate to extend it to Celera to night when the traffic accidents are more likely to happen.


Finally, even elimination of speed limit can boost commercial benefit and not affect traffic safety, it dose may not lead to prosperity of Celera state. Toll revenue makes up of only negligible proportion of the almost every state revenue let alone commercial vehicles may not belong to Celera. To really effectively increase Celera’s prosperity, what should be done is adjusting measures to local conditions, for examples, exploiting local resources, developing local state industry, and strengthening exchanges and cooperation with outside through the full use of highways.
To sum up, before hastily eliminate eliminating speed limits, the local officers should carefully weight the benefit and cost to ensure economic propensity and traffic safety.

逻辑错误都找的不错
但是语言有待加强~几个基本的句式都用错了~语言缺少变化。全文出现了无数个increase.找其他的词替换吧

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

51# cyci90

The speaker asserts that there exist two types of laws: just and unjust, and that every individual in society has the responsibility to obey the former one and equally to disobey and resist the unjust one. Some people, along with the speaker, believe that such assertion is reasonable. From my viewpoint, however, I can barely consent to this contention for the following two reasons. Firstly, there is no clear distinction between just and unjust laws. Secondly, by disobeying unjust ones the entire law system may be in danger of collapsing and being violated.


As for the first reason, it is necessary for everyone to realize that the essence of laws is to satisfy and serve the majority of the public. What laws try to do is to utilize social resources and institutions to maintain the commonly accepted moral standards and justifiable deeds. In this sense, laws are always in accordance with most people's judgments and feelings. And since such judgments and feelings are mostly subjective, it is invalid to label such objective words as "just" or "unjust" upon laws.
For example, many people consider abortion equals murder , and that a law prohibiting such behavior is a kind of just law. Yet, this law might not be viewed as just if others looked from another perspective of the unfortunate mother and the poor baby perhaps. It is likely that this newly-pregnant mother is coerced into pregnancy, or immature; or perhaps the baby she is bearing has been detected some hereditary disease which is almost incurable, e.t.c. In this sense, how could a law simply forbid abortion if the detrimental consequence is obvious to be seen.  Moreover, try think about death penalty. Death penalty, regarded as the most severe penalty one, has already been rescinded in several countries for these policymakers are convinced that it is illegitimate for anyone to deprive others' basic human right to live. Had such policy so humane, why are there still so many nations keeping death penalty? Perhaps from the perspective of those lawmakers, such penalty is an effective method in order to frighten criminals and deter them from further stepping into criminal mires. Otherwise, could you imagine a world with many felons or serious offenders around? Therefore, I maintain that different people view the law system from diverse viewpoints, and thus no clear distinction exists between just and unjust laws.
Considering the second reason then, even though some laws do not seem reasonable, it is not justifiable for disappointed people to disobey and resist these laws. For one thing, the entire law system or the function of the society is only viable as long as people strictly obey orders. However, if a certain law is overtly dismissed because it is unjust, many more orders will follow its destiny of being discarded based on the same excuse, while the underlying purpose of these violations might be more sophisticated and wicked than the superficial frankness.  Thus, the final outcome could seriously undermine the solemnity of the law system, which in turn hampers the function of a society.  For another, even if the law is unjust and subject to amendment, it is the duty of lawmakers to rectify and perfect it instead of that of the masses by means of disobeying and repressing. Any underhanded contumacy could result in the collapse of the law system, even more serious and counterproductive aftermath which in turn severely worsen the situation and toughen the difficulty to tackle that issue. Thus, when confronted with such incompatibility, we  should act like a mature adult and help lawmakers perfect these issues rather than like a naive child abandoning anything undesirable.


In conclusion, I do not agree with the speaker concerning the statement since I do not think there exist any distinction between just and unjust laws, and that viewed from diverse perspectives this issue would turn out to be an entirely different one. Moreover, overt contumacy against unjust laws often yield to more counterproductive problems, which is in contrary to the original purpose of law to maintain social order and solve social problems.


写的很不错呀！
我就是有个小问题，感觉body1和body2没有什么联系。1说了没有绝对的公正与不公正的法律，那么制定法律的人应该修改哪些法律呢？？难道只要有人觉得某个法律不公平，制法者就应该修改吗？

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

43# janneth

不好意思，错误太多了
你写完先放word里自己检查一下吧

jannethUID: 2769502

呃～不好意思哈，太急了，所以没查就直接贴上来了，这篇查过了，帮忙看看吧～
TOPIC: ARGUMENT220 - The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.
"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."
WORDS: 584         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-8-3 19:26:04
In this article the writer draws his conclusion that the future writer should have more training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media merely based on the recent study concerning the preference for the television and fiction. In my viewpoint, this evidence is unsubstantiated and groundless as it stands. And I will have a careful analysis in turn.

As I see this study, there is a significant question in my mind, whether the study is scientific or not. The writer merely informs us the style of studying is based on a typical day's conversation, however, the writer fails to provide us more concrete information concerning the characters of the participants, such as the occupation, interest, and so forth. It is entirely possible that the participants of the study is practitioner in television field, it is easy to understand why they talk more about the television. What is more, the writer overlooks the fact that this study is about the comparison between the TV and fiction, the program of TV is always concerning the recent news and current affairs, these topics are closely related to the real life in society. As a result, people could communicate these affairs in TV naturally, it does not mean that the individuals have no interest in fiction.

And for this comparison between TV and fiction, it is unequal and unreasoning. The TV is the broad based media, the spectators are more and always get together to watch it, so people have common topic frequently. Nevertheless, fiction rests with the different interest, it is not easy to discuss. It is equally possible that the people who talk TV above still put their attention in the fiction. There is not the direct relationship between the number of reference and preference for media.

Granted that people pay more attention on the TV, it could not represent that the profits of publishing and bookselling industries will decline. At first, there is a close line with profit and cost. From this argument, we do not receive any information about the coast of the TV and publishing and bookselling. As we know, the cost of TV program is very high, compere, stars, post production, all need to pay a lot of money. At the same time, the publishing would have less step than TV and cost less. And further, there is not the only one style in publishing, magazines, newspapers all including in it. No evidence proves the attentions of them declining, and then the profits would decline. Without ruling out these alternatives, the writer could not claim that the profits of publishing and bookselling would decline.

Last, even if the evidence mentioned above is accurate and sound, the writer could not recommend that the people who want to have a career as a writer should have more training and experience in writing for television rather than for print area. Actually, these different writing fields could communicate with each other, and the training and experience of print area could be also significantly useful for writing in TV field. There are many literary works rearranged to TV program, such as Harry Potter. The writer’s recommendation is extremely partial and absolute.

As I analyzed above, the argument is fulling of fallacies and logical flaws. If the writer wants to reinforce the argument, he should make a scientific study concerning the real interest for the media. For better evaluating the conclusion, I also need to know the cost of these medias and  advertisement investment of them.