每日写作特训wtl

wtl_wtl221912UID: 2682919

12.28 TPO10 综合写作一篇

The lecture and the reading passage offer two diversified theory to explain the decrease population of the sea otter.

First, the lecturer claims that the predators are more likely responsible to the decline of the sea otters. Since their there are no evidence, such as the numbers of dead bodies, to prove the sea otters are killed by the pollution. However, the lecture, on the other hand, states that the increasing pollution is deadly to the sea otters. So the sea otter would certainly disappear in the polluted sea.

Second, the lecturer opines that the fishers capture too much sea animals that have influenced the diet of the mammals and their population. It directly causes the increasing of predators of the sea otter. But the reading passage considered that the populations of the whole species in the area are affected by the pollutions.

Third, the lecturer believe the pattern of otter decline caused by the predators have certain habits. So the sea otter population reduces in those areas instead of the entire Alaskan coast. The reading passage is on the opposite side of this theory. It holds that the pattern is caused by the distribution of the population. And the areas that the sea otters' number reduces heavily are as well as the heavy pollution areas.

mileschen2008UID: 2771287

呵呵，已修改好，见附件。一起加油！

wtl_wtl221912UID: 2682919

1月25日 独立
When it comes to the issue of new technologies, some people hold that fully considerations should be done to values the risks that new discoveries may lead to. In weighting up the potential risks and prospective benefits, I am on the opposite side of the statement.

First of all, I should be concept of the claim. For one thing, scientists, on some cases, run a big risk to achieve the undiscovered field which is not supported by the public. For another thing, scientist, on some views, should be able to predict the potential risks before it appears.

However, to large extent, I maintain that the claim naturally run the rise of messing up the advance of civilization. In my opinion, if the scientist are responsible to bad results of their inventions. When they get close to a new field which maybe benefit human a lot, on the other hand, with risks  on some cases, the scientists would make the decision to stop and miss the most important parts of human discovery history. We should admit that nothing is  good all the time. Just like the cell phone which make the world small, new studies recently found that its radiation is very  harmful to our brain and other organs. No one can predict it.

The next point is that the impacts and the discoveries are actually not connected directly. Scientists' discoveries come from part of their thinking and part of luck. They could not suppose the whole field in which the new inventions can be used. For instance, the basement theories of the nuclear weapons are discovered for pure science purpose. But they are used to produce a powerful killing weapon. The scientists, as Einstein, were very angry and contradicting to the decision.

To sum up, there is no point to claim that the scientists are responsible to the bad ends which are led by others.

wtl_wtl221912UID: 2682919

1月25日 综合 TPO15

In the reading and lecture, they are talking about the measures to control the cane toad in current areas. However, the lecturer hold opposite  view about  the effectiveness of the three methods metionedmentioned in the passage.

The first way, to prevent the spread of the cane toad, is to build a national fence in the areas. And it has been proved by the past case to stop the spread of the rabbits. But the lecture argue that the evidence is not correct and the solution comes with some flaws. For instance, the national fence can not cut the rivers. Therefore, the small toad and the eggs of the toad can flow out of the fence with the river.

Second, the lecturer claims that the volunteers who are gathered to capture the young toads might be harmful to a kind of native toad, since they lack of the ability to identify the differences between the imported toads and the native ones which are in dangerous of extinction. Therefore, the lecturer rise doubts on it, while the passage states that it is a solution to control the population of the cane toad.

Finally, the passage gives a virus to infect the cane toad in order to kill them. Also, this virus is not harmful to the native animals. Thus, the passage holds that it would be effective to control the population of the cane toad. Nevertheless, the lecturer maintains an opposite view on the impact of the virus. She claims that this virus could spread to South American by the immigration of the birds. And it would lead a disaster to the native eco-system where the cane toad is a critical element of the native food chain.

a08805436UID: 2725634

When it comes to the issue of new technologies, some people hold that fully considerations should be done to values the risks that new discoveries may lead to. In weighting up the potential risks and prospective benefits, I am on the opposite side of the statement.

First of all, I should be concept of (貌似没这个词组把 )the claim. For one thing, scientists, on some cases, run a big risk to achieve the undiscovered field which is not supported by the public. For another thing, scientist, on some views, should be able to predict the potential risks before it appears.

However, to large extent, I maintain that the claim naturally run the rise of messing up the advance of civilization. In my opinion, if the scientist are responsible to bad results of their inventions. （红色的貌似是一个不完整的句子 ifxxxxx就怎么样呢？）When they get close to a new field which maybe（最好改成may，用maybe呢 语法上也没错 但是实在有点不顺） benefit human a lot, on the other hand, with risks  on some cases, the scientists would make the decision to stop and miss the most important parts of human discovery history. We should admit that nothing is  good all the time. Just like the cell phone which make the world small, new studies recently found that its radiation is very  harmful to our brain and other organs. No one can predict it.（这一段的论证缺乏内在逻辑 如：We should admit that nothing is  good all the time，这句话是为了论证哪个点就应该加点连词）

The next point is that the impacts and the discoveries are actually not connected directly. Scientists' discoveries come from part of their thinking and part of luck. They could not suppose the whole field in which （whole field in which····）the new inventions can be used. For instance, the basement theories of the nuclear weapons are discovered for pure science purpose. But they are used to produce a powerful killing weapon. The scientists, as Einstein, were very angry and contradicting to the decision.（没说完···这么好的例子  后面继续说他为什么不应该负责撒··）

To sum up, there is no point to claim that the scientists are responsible to the bad ends which are led by others

总的来说 大体结构有了   但是一定要注意 你的例子是为你的论点服务的

CoryanUID: 2993557

我的综合悲剧的没了。。。。。。。
改好了你的作文啦
写的真不错的说~~~继续加油啦

theflyfishUID: 2101420

改好了。
有几个地方没看明白，不知道是不是比较native的用法。
还有，爱因斯坦那个例子有问题。他是写信建议罗斯福总统制造原子弹。而他态度的转变则是在战后。