11月!!!!

windslpUID: 2903140

11.10!!独立~
Do you agree or disagree with the statement? People will spend less time on cooking food.


Currently, it is commonly accepted that the behavior of less cooking time is suitable for the rapid development of the society or living rhythm. It seemed it was right without any controversy, however, I wonder whether it equal to be a good choice for the quality of the people's health, to improve the relationship with family friends, our grandparents and so forth, what's more, to assure that we had a happier life instead of losing one of the most essential experience in our life?

First of all, it was more accurate to claim that there was no doubt that the food which cooked by ourselves were much healthier than the food outside. There was sufficient evidence to in favor of it, for example, we were able to examine the quality of the cooking materials as well as to choose the cooking confident what we preferred because we were able to do these things by ourselves. On the other hand, if the people who preferred to have a dinner maybe in a restaurant, it was hard to indentify the food which they were eating whether fresh or not. In this way, why did we have to work hard to get a glorious future, at the same, having some food which were trustless, even reduced our life-span.

Furthermore, it was a good way to close the relationship with others, like our grandparents, friends or anyone else. To illustrate this point, let us consider a common activity in our daily life "family party time", which conducted that we had a free time to have the food cooked by the elders. Usually, in China, we were accustomed to be altogether in order to have a dinner when the Spring Festival came, in that time, we talked to each other, shared the happiness or sadness all year around, escaped from the busy jobs as well as studies to have a precious time with the family numbers.

The last but not least, having a skill of cooking had great influence in our life. There was a strong evidence to show that, as an abroad student, it was a good tool to care themselves if they could not fit the food of different culture. As we all knew, Chinese were used to having rice and noodles, drinking tea, on the other side, most of the Americans were in favor of fast food like hamburgers, cola. In this way, it was hard to find some Chinese Restaurants as usual as in China, special in some small villages of The United States. Thus only when had we a talent of cooking by ourselves, were these problems no longer as an adversity.

In conclusion, although maybe cooking food was a way of wasting time, in addition, quiet boring for most people, from the stand of caring our health, the impact on our future or the relationship with others, it could extremely affected us a lot in many aspects. What I wondered to emphasize was that utilizing the talent of cooking to make our life better, to create some unexpected pleasure in our daily life.

windslpUID: 2903140

11.15独立,我错了T T。真的,,

Movies and televisions should always show audience good people are being rewarded and bad people are being punished.

There was a general controversy nowadays as to the issue on whether movies and televisions should give the audience a impression which good people are being rewarded, at the same time, the bad people are being punished. Those who criticized to this view contended that they believed that people should not be lied by the rewritten the story in order to educate them something, however, they had the power to realize the reality. Nonetheless, people who advocated maintained that the influence of media was so wide, in that case, we had to control the contend of what we wanted to show to the audience in order to protect them, especially the children. Therefore, I will explain three aspects of the reason why I took the same stand with the second point.

First of all, to get a full appreciation of why I did not oppose it, we must have a bird's eye view of the influence of the media. Currently, the TV were widely used in almost every house in a city, in this way, what reported, what showed, what appeared on TV could easily be noticed by the public, spread in a high way without a doubt. I could think no better illustration of the idea than the example of the advertisement. When something appeared in front of us for many times, we got to connive it unconsciously which just liked the effect of the advertisement whether we assure that’s good for us. In one word, maybe people could indentify what's wrong or good, however, after many times, it was hard to say.

On the other hand, it seemed quite inevitable that people preferred to imitate their idols on the TV, what they said, what they did. However, sometimes, their idols had to play a role of a bad person, for example, a movie about a criminal escaped from the prison and had a happy life as a result of it, which would give the public a connotation that maybe they could become a lucky person, or else trying to imitate the like their idols in the movie. Consequently, it was no use for the public security at all, what's more, it brought some wrong examples to the fans.

The last but not the least, the influence on the teenagers would be a big problem. When we were teenagers, we had little abilities to identify what's wrong or good, in this way, children were favored to imitate what they saw, learned from the TV to ideal with the problems. Hence, we had to make some limits to the media in order to give a better environment of growing up to the children.

In conclusion, although what we did maybe contort the fact of something, what's more, we utilize those contorts to establish a cleaner as well as more suitable media life to the public, extremely the children.

windslpUID: 2903140

11.15综合.


From the reading material, we have noticed that the reason why the number of sea otters became smaller and smaller is environmental pollution as well as predations. However, the professor hold another point that the decline was caused by predation mainly.
First of all, the reading passage showed the water sample from the sea area which most of sea otters lived suggested that it was suitable for them to exist any longer. On the contrary, the professor claimed two truths to against the decline caused by pollution. First reason was that no one found plenty of dead otters in the share or coastland. Besides, there was only one explain to this appearance that the predators hunt them, at the same time, ate them.
Therefore, the reading passage argued that other small mammals in the sea like sea lions, seals supported that pollution caused that. But, from the view of the professor, we achieved that although orca used to hunting big mammals as whales, the group of whales became smaller. Due to the human hunting, in this way, the orca had to change the diet of them, and they had to eat smaller mammals instead.
Finally, the lecture appeared that the uneven concentrations were produced by pollution. Moreover, the professor explained that these observations were totally arisen from the habitat of otters. Because they preferred to live in the seaside instead of living in the shallow, rocky locations. In this way, it was not hard to understand why human were easy to hunt for them.

windslpUID: 2903140

11.16综合,

The reading passage and the professor were arguing about the decline of literature.

Previously, the lecture showed that the literature was the only way to improve one’s intellectual stimulation or get most of reading benefits from it. However, the professor emphasized that other form of books were able to create the same effects as literature as well. Like historical stories, science fictions also cultivated an ability of it at the same time

After that, the lecture focused on the reason why literature books turn to be less was that the prevalence of self-help books which had a lot of disadvantages for the readers had taken the seat of them. The professor first admitted that the decline of books, on the contrary, replied that it was also caused by the decline of readers, what’s more, the form of literature had changed into others things like musician as well as movie. People were received the same experience as reading literature directly in the modern society.

Finally, the lecture blamed that the lowing standard of the pubic led to the decline of it. Moreover, the professor introduced that we could not put all responsibilities into the readers, since the books which were edited by overly complex language was too difficult to understand. It was the major fault of authors’ not audiences.

windslpUID: 2903140

11.16独立~

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities?

Nowadays, it is widely recognized that the government should pay more money on the education quality of university instead of the young's. They claimed that only when the effort of universities' has been improved, did the country become stronger as well as prosperous. However, I wonder whether the education on the young should play a much more essential role, worthy to be emphasized or invest in current society.

To get a full appreciation of why the education of the young was so necessary, we must turn first step to the fundamental issue that the causality between the primary education and universities' one. Let’s establish an assumption that if we have a lot of well-done equipments, plenty of experienced the professors, a beautiful campus or a perfect study environment. However, the students are the people who had no devotion to study at all, having a dreary commitment to mean ambitions or love of comfort. Thus what's the reason of this phenomenon? That was because that these students did not ascertain a right position about themselves in their life due to the lack of education when they were young. In this way, we could realize that it was no doubt the young's education was the basic one which had a greater influence than the universities'.

On the other hand, it was perhaps quite accurate to say that the time when we were young was the best time to learn the new skills or receive the knowledge.  There was a reliable data of playing basketball justify this view. The most precious time of enlightening a child to become a standout basketball player was when he was young, at that time, his latent capacity could be found or cultivated in the best sense, which was the most efficient period for him than at any other time on the way of becoming a basketball star. Nonetheless, if the school did not have enough money to build a basketball court for the children to practice, holding the game without the government's support, in this way, it would maybe kill a great basketball player even like Michael Jordan.

The last but not the least, I asserted that the well education on the young brought more benefits than the universities'. To illustrate this point, let us consider that when our dreams was enlighten. While we were a child, we always were asked which profession you would choose when you entered the university. Maybe the responses included a policeman, a president of a country, a canning businessman and so forth. In that case, it helped to enlighten to a heart of engaging in some career for the whole life and insist it since then. It was no strange that the young who stick at catching his dream would easily suit the life of universities' study, perform well than other students.

In conclusion, I did not want to blame the investment of university was meaningless or a way of wasting money absolutely, moreover, what I desired to put the emphasis on which was much more critical or the first step in systems of education. In this way, the teenagers would achieve a most suitable as well as accurate education when they were growing up as much as we could.

windslpUID: 2903140

11.17独立~


Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Younger school children (ages five to ten) should be required to study art and music in addition to math, science, history and language.

Nowadays, it was widely recognized that the younger ought not to be taught about art and music. They claimed it was a limited time of arousing their curiosity as well as capability when they were younger, in that case, we should not waste our time on cultivating other things. However, from my perspective, I wondered whether it was the best choice for us to do so? Was the captivity of art and music when a child was younger was meaningless, helpless at all? Of course not, in following essay, I will contend why I oppose it in three aspects.

First of all, what I desired to claim was that it was dreamed period for the children to learn instructions, to study painting. All the undoubted facts had piled to justify that most of the greatest musicians were enlightened the devotion of enjoying as well as loving in the music, when they were as a little child. Since then, they devoted themselves into arts career, so that we could have an opportunity to see a picture like smile of Mona Lisa, in addition, to listen to a piece of musical composition played by Beethoven which gave us the power to live, sometimes, enlighten the hope in one's life. Thus what we were doing now maybe was an another way to kill a glorious musician in the future.

Furthermore, music, arts also provided a different to communicate with other people who had the same interest with us, in that case, perhaps we could make a new band to chaste musical dream altogether just like what the young always were doing currently. I meant that was a good appearance of the society's open, along with, civilization.

The last but not the least, the music, arts have brought us more than just a picture or music, which was some apartments during the revolution of human being, the well-being bequest of the varying culture, a medicine of one's injury. For example, there was a new treatment method to the people who had some adversities in psychological, in that case, we mainly utilized the music to close the patient, to let them the feel as happy as the experience when the musician created it at that time.

In conclusion, although the maths, science, history and language seemed to be more instructive to the children at that time, the art and music also played a role of enlarge the influence of it at the same time!

嘉木香草UID: 2805584

见附 11.17 windslp independent.doc (23.5 KB, 下载次数: 3)

2010-11-17 23:32:56 上传

下载次数: 3

ttuuttuuUID: 2299729

1118的綜合寫作呢~~~  我的昨晚寫好了   
你要快上傳 不能我沒東西改

windslpUID: 2903140

11.22独立~
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Sports teach people lessons about life

There was a public discussion nowadays over the issues on that whether the sports taught us lessons about life. Those who criticize this view contended that sports was just a lecture time during the busy and boring whole day study or work, in addition, if we really want to learn something from the sports, it was meaningless as well as a waste of time for the reason was we had to utility lots of our time on practicing it instead of focusing on our research. However, people who advocated it, maintained that the sports was more than an activity, on the other hand, it extremely helped us gain the key of success, what's more, a creed on whatever we were doing in the future.

First of all, I can think of no better illustration of the idea that sports brought us a spirit which we could achieved during the game than the example of Allen Iverson, my favorite basketball player. Iverson was a person who was only 1.83 meter, one of the shortest players in NBA at that time, most people predicted that he could do nothing to help the team to win the final champion when he first entered the NBA as the top pick in 1996's draft. Nonetheless, he just tried his best in every game, not giving up the game until the last minute, just like the thing what he did to Michael Jordan who was known as the god in field of basketball, as the fright between the big name and new one. To every body’s surprise, he just dribbled past Michael Jordan and scored in front of him without any afraid or shame. That was not difficult to understand from the words what he always said "Nobody can beat me, the only way you can beat me is to kill me." With the impression of his spirit, I tried harder in playing basketball, made the spirit of never giving up on the things whatever I was doing. From then on, once I had met some adversities, I was used to tell myself "just stick it! Like Iverson, like what I did when I was playing basketball.”

Afterward, there were undoubted facts piles up to show the opinion that taking part in sports was a good way for us to communicate with others, making new friends who had the same hobbies or interests. For example, while we were playing football, as we all knew, football was a game which composed by 11 people, in that case, if we desired to win the game, we had to trust the teammates, put a team altogether. In this process, the sports played a role which helped us close the relationship with the stranger, shared the happiness and sadness, cultivated a ability of communicating with others.

The last but not the least, the sports also enlighten the power for chasing the dream. It was no surprise that we enjoyed a king of sports like tennis, swimming, basketball, at the same time, we would have a devotion to treat it as a career for the whole life, which meant to become an athletic who frightened for the sports which he loved, tried his best to bring the gold medal to his country as the most glorious ambition in one's life. Hence, why did not we join in taking a sport, which perhaps was the key of one's success, the goal of the reason why one exist.

In conclusion, although the sports maybe brought us some pain like injure or ill, at the other side, it also gave us a place to forget the sadness, a place to by comfort or encouraged from others, a place which made us insist on what we were doing in our heart.