Daily Writing 作业 by hdchangie

hdchangieUID：2402936

2011年1月26日 周三：% ^- a; K2 `6 p  w1 E
独立：
0 D" j1 A" A- T& j7 j08.11.8NA
9 ^# r0 s5 B; N' ~Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Some scientists are responsible for the negative impacts that made by their discoveries.
综合： TPO16

As to whether scientists should take responsible for negative impacts caused by their discoveries, I would say no. I admit that there are scientists who invent technologies or machines deliberately that are harmful to society, most of discoveries made by scientists are neutral, without inclination of either positive or negative. The negative impacts that are made could not attribute to discoveries themselves, but those who take use of these discoveries.

Admittedly, there are some kind of scientists who are willing to find discoveries, by using their brilliant brain and knowledge in specific field, and taking use of discoveries they made to do things that are detrimental for whole society. However, the number of this example is small compared with scientists who are willing to make their discoveries be beneficial to the society.

I always believe that it is not the discovery itself but people who take use of it that decide whether the discovery is beneficial to the society or not. Discoveries are neutral by themselves, without showing any intrinsic inclination and those impacts, either positive or negative, are imposed on them. There is more moral meaning than pure scientific meaning as to this matter. Take, the significant discovery in the field of life science—clone, for example. As many people know, clone is a great discovery and advancement in the science field, however, when it was used on human, the discovery suffered crucial critics. Most people said that it was not moral to copy human’s gene and clone another person who was exactly the same as him or her. At this moment, when people criticize this great discovery, this critics didn’t mean it was the clone itself that was deteriorate, but the action of using clone on human is not ethnical, going against the regular human society’s rules.

So the boundary between negative and positive is morality. Without considering the angle, we can say that every scientist is great and every discovery is beneficial to the society. However, the link between pure science and social morality is so close and the boundary between these two is not quite clear. Due to the existence of morality and social judgment, science could not be pure anymore. So negative impact is not internal feature of discovery, but produced by other factors, the social judgment, the morality, etc. When we come to the example of atom, it is easy to clarify the matter. When scientist first discovered that atom could discharge such dramatic energy, it was a significant discovery, definitely. However, when Americans took use of atom to explode Japan, causing thousands of people’s death, whom should we blame? Who should take responsible for the terrible consequence? The scientist who discover the atom? Of course not, it is the person who takes use of it—Americans –that should take responsible for its negative impact.

All in all, due to the fact that every discovery is neutral, and they exhibit neither positive nor negative impact internally, it is the person or organization that takes use of discoveries that should take responsible for the consequences.


综合作文TPO16
In the listening, the professor states that new guideline that is adopted in the United Kingdom greatly improve the science of archaeology's work and status in Britain. The reasons given in the lecture are contradictory with information given in the reading material.

First, in the lecture, the professor gives the statement that when a construction
project is going to be built, the site must be examined first by archaeologist, and if the construction site was of archaeological value, then, archaeologists and local government officials would sit together to talk about plans, whether new constructions could be built around those valuable artifacts or away from them or other options. Finally, a plan that was agreed both by archaeologists and by project managers was made. This opinion goes against the idea in the reading that many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects.

Second, in the reading material, we get to know that many archaeologists felt the financial support given by government was not adequate. While in the lecture, the professor disputes the idea by saying that financial support is given by construction companies instead of government, the company has to pay for the initial examination for the site, and the work for preservation plan. So archaeologists have greater range for their research.

Finally, there are more payed works available in archaeology than ever before. Going against with the statement given in the reading that there were never many positions available in archaeology, the professor argues that government gives more positions in archaeology, and now archaeologists would involve every stage of the process. The increasing pay also improves the number of experts in archaeology in Britain, which reaches the highest ever.

笑会计UID：2872606

As to whether scientists should take responsible（be responsible/ take responsibility） for negative impacts caused by their discoveries, I would say no. I admit that there are scientists who invent technologies(machine是invent的, technology好像不能用invent吧，感觉怪怪的) or machines deliberately that are harmful to society, most of discoveries made by scientists are neutral, without inclination of either positive or negative. The negative impacts that are made could not attribute to discoveries themselves, but those who take use of these discoveries. ) Z" i, c4 W: q5 b) X
7 m) F. b1 Y/ d- R+ j& e
Admittedly, there are some kind of scientists who are willing to find discoveries, by using their brilliant brain and knowledge in specific field, and taking use of discoveries they made to do things that are detrimental for whole society. However, the number of this example is small compared with scientists who are willing to make their discoveries be beneficial to the society. : t" f+ h( f" J( X4 X5 Z
+ X: e: o3 k* b% ?
I always believe that it is not the discovery itself but people who take use of it that decide whether the discovery is beneficial to the society or not. Discoveries are neutral by themselves, without showing any intrinsic inclination and those impacts, either positive or negative, are imposed on them.（感觉这篇很烦的一个问题就是discovery这个词，严格说来discovery和invention是不一样的，像克隆就不应该算在discoveryd范畴里。。。但是不管举例还是论证时都会混掉，我一直很纠结这个问题。。） There is more moral meaning than pure scientific meaning as to this matter. Take, the significant discovery in the field of life science—clone, for example. As many people know, clone is a great discovery and advancement in the science field, however, when it was used on human, the discovery suffered crucial critics. Most people said that it was not moral to copy human’s gene and clone another person who was exactly the same as him or her. At this moment, when people criticize this great discovery, this critics didn’t mean it was the clone itself that was deteriorate, but the action of using clone on human is not ethnical, going against the regular human society’s rules.
4 V/ ^+ h0 P/ _; h4 _; |9 E/ ~
  Q9 p4 X1 q9 L8 a* YSo the boundary between negative and positive is morality. Without considering the angle, we can say that every scientist is great and every discovery is beneficial to the society. However, the link between pure science and social morality is so close and the boundary between these two is not quite clear. Due to the existence of morality and social judgment, science could not be pure anymore.（这几句很有思辨的感觉，嗯嗯） So negative impact is not internal feature of discovery, but produced by other factors, the social judgment, the morality, etc. When we come to the example of atom, it is easy to clarify the matter. When scientist first discovered that atom could discharge such dramatic energy, it was a significant discovery, definitely. However, when Americans took use of atom to explode Japan, causing thousands of people’s death, whom should we blame? Who should take responsible for the terrible consequence? The scientist who discover the atom? Of course not, it is the person who takes use of it—Americans –that should take responsible for its negative impact. 6 ^% R0 z( Q' A% @0 J$ h1 e2 j

/ t- R! Q3 b& }; P; C8 v+ kAll in all, due to the fact that every discovery is neutral, and they exhibit neither positive nor negative impact internally, it is the person or organization that takes use of discoveries that should take responsible for the consequences.
那个道德分界线的那个点很好，写得蛮有深度的
感觉这篇挺难写的。。好纠结的问题，说不清道不明
写得蛮不错，加油~

hdchangieUID：2402936

大谢笑会计的修改！~这篇确实很不好写，写的时候还超时了。。。而且自己对于science这方面的例子储备不够多。。以后还要加强练习！~

a08805436UID：2725634

In the listening, the professor states that new guideline that is adopted in the United Kingdom greatly improve the science of archaeology's work and status in Britain. The reasons given in the lecture are contradictory with information given in the reading material.

First, in the lecture, the professor gives the statement that when a construction
project is going to be built, the site must be examined first by archaeologist, and if the construction site was of archaeological value, then, archaeologists and local government officials would sit together to talk about plans, whether new constructions could be built around those valuable artifacts or away from them or other options. Finally, a plan that was agreed both by archaeologists and by project managers was made. This opinion goes against the idea in the reading that many valuable artifacts were lost to construction projects.

Second, in the reading material, we get to know that many archaeologists felt the financial support given by government was not adequate. While in the lecture, the professor disputes the idea by saying that financial support is given by construction companies instead of government, the company has to pay for the initial examination for the site, and the work for preservation plan. So archaeologists have greater range for their research.

Finally, there are more payed works available in archaeology than ever before. Going against with the statement given in the reading that there were never many positions available in archaeology, the professor argues that government gives more positions in archaeology, and now archaeologists would involve every stage of the process. The increasing pay (increasing job opportunities    听力中并没有说工资涨了 只说工作机会增多)also improves the number of experts in archaeology in Britain, which reaches the highest ever.

总的来说 细节把握很到位
4/5 - 5/5

hdchangieUID：2402936

2011年1月27日 周四：- {' p# H* z9 {* W+ N) E
独立：
09.6.270 g! s0 T+ h/ T
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use?
There is permanent debate as to the matter that whether government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use. It is tempting to say that if scientific researches have no practical value, government should not fund them at all. However, I would agree that even though some scientific researches are of no use, they should be supported as well.
Admittedly, especially taking the limit resources available in our nation into consideration, government has lots of other matters to take care, such as improving the environment, protecting animals from extinction, improving the rate of employment and so on, which require lots of money from government. Nobody should deny that these matters are more emergent than scientific researches, however, it doesn’t necessarily mean that scientific researches that have little or no practical value shouldn’t be supported. The value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, in fact, scientific researches have more potential values in the long term.
Everybody will never forget the great discovery given by Copernicus that the sun is the center of the universe, rather than the earth. It brought revolutionary changes of people’s mind toward the world. Now let’s check this scientific discovery, is it useful or practical? Of course not. Nobody’s daily life would be influenced by this great discovery, however, it was so crucial in the aspect of changing people’s mind and stimulating the progress in the field of astronomy. Great scientific researches, without changing people’s daily life, would instead change our way of life gradually, even without noticing. We can find that the mind modern people have changes significantly with mind of ancient people, and it is the scientific researches that are responsible for the changes.
Besides, it is not easy to see whether one scientific research is practical or not. As the whole society changes, those researches that were not useful at all would become practical in the future. History is replete with examples to support my statement. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physical scientists in the world, was famous for his theory of relativity. However, when the theory was first introduced, nobody would able to imagine how great it is today. However, now people could make use of this theory to explain atmosphere that cannot be explained before. In another word, as time goes, researches that were once thought to be useless would turn out to be practical.
Last but not least, scientific researches could be a sign for the strength of a nation. The obvious example would be projecting satellite. As everyone knows, projecting satellites into universe is of no use, and we cannot become richer by doing this, however, our nation injects large amount of money and preeminent scientists to the study of this field, why? Just because projecting satellites is a sign for the strength of a whole nation. It represents the level of scientific research and ability to explore new things autonomously.
All in all, it is attempting to say that as long as there are more other matters that government has to deal with, scientific researches of no use could be omitted. However, the value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, there are more aspects that we have to take into consideration. Scientific researches, especially those great ones, would change people’s view toward the world, they would turn out to be useful in the future, and they are one aspect that could prove the strength of a nation.

TPO17综合作文
In the lecture, the professor claims that the information provided in the reading material is unconvincing. She gives three reasons to support her idea.
First, it is true that as human populations and settlements continue to expand, more bird's habitats give way to homes and malls and so on. However, urban provides better and larger areas for some birds, and the population of birds grows after human's settlement. There is no uniform declination of bird's population, although populations of some birds decline while other species of birds have more populations.
Second, although agricultural activities increase as human population grows, the pace of growth in agriculture is not as soon as mentioned in the reading. In fact there are fewer lands used for agriculture. One of the reasons for the slow growth is the emergence of more productive crops, which can provide more food for humans, so they don't need to take wild areas, which are bird's natural habitats.
Third, admittedly, the use of chemical pesticides increases as human settlements expanded and agriculture increase, however, people are more aware of the possible consequence of using pesticides, so they make two changes. The first one is to develop new pesticides; the second one is the invention of pest-resist crops. This new kind of crops is not attractive to pests so no pesticides will be used, as a result, there will be no harm to birds at all.
In conclusion, although in the reading material, the author argues that with the steady growth of human population and the increase in agriculture and pesticide, wild lands which are natural habitats for birds would be destroyed and the population of birds would decline correspondingly, the professor casts doubt on the statements in the lecture. She illustrates her opinions by giving three reasons which are contradictory with messages given in the reading.

hdchangieUID：2402936

这篇写的也是超时啊超时。。。囧。。。啥时候可以自如的在规定时间内完成！？？？PS：这题的题目感觉似曾相识，感觉跟G里面的某个作文题目相似的举手~~

蝶飞依依UID：2905269

6# hdchangie
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use?
There is permanent debate as to the matter that whether government should support scientific researches even though there is no practical use. It is tempting to say that if scientific researches have no practical value, government should not fund them at all. However, I would agree that even though some scientific researches are of no use, they should be supported as well.
Admittedly, especially taking the limit resources available in our nation into consideration, government has lots of other matters to take care, such as improving the environment, protecting animals from extinction, improving the rate of employment and so on, which require lots of money from government. Nobody should deny that these matters are more emergent than scientific researches, however, it doesn’t necessarily mean that scientific researches that have little or no practical value shouldn’t be supported. The value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, in fact, scientific researches have more potential values in the long term. + ?* L  ]2 d( I! j# ^9 G$ M
Everybody will never forget the great discovery given by Copernicus that the sun is the center of the universe, rather than the earth. It brought revolutionary changes of people’s mind toward the world. Now let’s check this scientific discovery, is it useful or practical? Of course not. Nobody’s daily life would be influenced by this great discovery, however, it was so crucial in the aspect of changing people’s mind and stimulating the progress in the field of astronomy. Great scientific researches, without changing people’s daily life, would instead change our way of life gradually, even without noticing. We can find that the mind modern people have changes significantly with mind of ancient people, and it is the scientific researches that are responsible for the changes. ! `" G3 P0 Y( M$ R
Besides, it is not easy to see whether one scientific research is practical or not. As the whole society changes, those researches that were not useful at all would become practical in the future. History is replete with examples to support my statement. Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physical scientists in the world, was famous for his theory of relativity. However, when the theory was first introduced, nobody would able to imagine how great it is today. However, now people could make use of this theory to explain atmosphere that cannot be explained before. In another word, as time goes, researches that were once thought to be useless would turn out to be practical.
Last but not least, scientific researches could be a sign for the strength of a nation. The obvious example would be projecting satellite. As everyone knows, projecting satellites into universe is of no use, （这句话如果严谨较真一点说的话，，，卫星真的有用啊，可以观测天气，遥感地形，在外太空做各种实验。。。只是和实际生活联系不那么紧密。。not practical）and we cannot become richer by doing this, however, our nation injects large amount of money and preeminent scientists to the study of this field, why? Just because projecting satellites is a sign for the strength of a whole nation. It represents the level of scientific research and ability to explore new things autonomously. ; s- d' D( j4 d4 M; [" f
All in all, it is attempting to say that as long as there are more other matters that government has to deal with, scientific researches of no use could be omitted. However, the value should not be judged merely by whether it is practical or not, there are more aspects that we have to take into consideration. Scientific researches, especially those great ones, would change people’s view toward the world, they would turn out to be useful in the future, and they are one aspect that could prove the strength of a nation.
写的真好，举得例子都很生动，描述推理也都很棒，举例时候用词不那么绝对就更好了。 超时写的未免字数有些多，下次写的例证精简一些就好。。。感觉是考完G的前辈写的哇~~

w龙ol杨fUID：2779438

前辈的写作太棒了~~ 5# hdchangie

hdchangieUID：2402936

不会啦，独立那篇是超时了，综合这篇确实是在时间内写完的~大概是因为我打字比较快吧。。。写得多确实不是啥好事情，会暴漏自己的缺点，下次争取言简意赅~~~大榭Wendy~~~ 8# w龙ol杨f

hdchangieUID：2402936

你说得对，发射卫星严格来说确实是有用的，只是not that relevant to daily life。这个例子我再想想哈~~~上一篇就是写science的，让我这个文科生情何以堪。。。要加强这方面的 例子储备才是王道！大谢蝶飞依依~ 7# 蝶飞依依

hdchangieUID：2402936

2011年1月28日 周五：
! J& z9 B7 M- O" o4 f2 d独立：& s5 q" l5 R% y( d* j6 O8 {; y; J
08.12.20/ H. i7 y) z9 Q# j
Do you agree with the following statement? People with different interests and personalities cannot be friends.




Some people may claim that people could only make friends with those who share same interests and personalities and we cannot get along well with those who are ignorant with what we like and those have different personalities. However, personally speaking, the relationship between friends depends on factors far beyond same interests and personalities. In another word, people, even without same interests and personalities, could become friends.

It is tempting to assert that it is more easy to make friends with those who share same interests and personalities with us, due to the fact that once we have similar interests and personalities, we can communicate much easier than other people. At least, we have topic to discuss, which facilitate us for further understanding with each other. I met one of my best friend in Pingpong class. Because we had similar interests—playing pingpong, so we got the chance to know each other. We enjoyed our time and felt happy with talking to each other, and later on we became good friends.

However, it is not equal to say that people with different interests and personalities could not make friends. Furthermore, it is not sharing same interests and same personalities that determine whether two people could become friends. I would like to say that same interests and personalities are factors that could lead people to know each other more quickly than others. As I mentioned before, I could meet my friend due to the fact that we share the same interest so we get the chance to know each other, but the qualities that friends should have go far beyond these two. In my opinion, best friends could care about my thinking and my feeling, when I feel upset, he or she could feel it and comfort me; when I am success and happy, I could share with him or her too. Friends are the bay of my heart. It has little relations with whether he or she has similar interests or personalities with me.

Besides, people with different interests and personalities could make friends too for they can compensate with each other and learn from each other, which is beneficial for every individual. It is quite common to see that a couple with quite different, even opposite interests and personalities but they get along very well, why? Just because their personalities are compensate with each other. Even couples with different interests and personalities could get along well, let alone friends. I remembered another friend of mine, who has opposite personalities with me. I am relatively shy while she is open minded. Admittedly, we can’t agree on some matters sometimes, however, most of the time I could learn from her how to be optimistic about life, how to get along well with others. Now my personalities change a lot. Thanks to my friend, I could express myself confidently in front of many people.

All in all, I admit that people share same interests and personalities are much easier to know each other, and hence, are more inclined to be friends with each other. However, it is too hasty to jump to the conclusion that people with different interests and personalities could not be friends any more. In my opinion, the criterion for becoming friends varies and the most significant factor is being kind and helpful with each other, whether they share same interests or personalities is not that important. Besides, people with different interests and personalities could compensate with and learn from each other, which is beneficial for each member in the relationship.


独立作文TPO18

The professor challenges the three solutions given in the reading material. She thinks none of the three solutions would be successful to address the decline of Torreya.

First, to reestablish Torreya in the same location in which it thrived for many years is unlikely to be successful, because the microclimate would be affected by the change of the larger regions in which it exists. Due to global warming, the temperature becomes higher, and at the same time, wet land are drained, the microclimate changes which is not suitable for Torreya's growth any more.

Second, the professor argues that moving Torreya to an entire different location does not work neither. She gives an example of another kind of tree, which was relocated to a new location. This kind of tree spreaded quickly in the new region and those plants and saplings that used to live there became extinct. Through this example, the professor proves that the outcomes of assistant migration don't go well as people expected.

Third, preserving Torreya in research centers is not applicable neither. According to the professor, trees can survive when they have large and diverse populations, while Torreya in research centers could not have the ability to resist diseases, so they couldn't have large and diverse population. So Torreya could not survive in the long term.

In conclusion, in the reading, the author gives three solutions to address the decline of Torreya, while the professor in the lecture gives three reasons to challenge three solutions presented in the reading material.

tuxinyiUID：2921399

写得很好加油啊

a08805436UID：2725634

Some people may claim that people could only make friends with those who share same interests and personalities and we cannot get along well with those who are ignorant with what we like and those have different personalities. However, personally speaking, the relationship between friends depends on factors far beyond same interests and personalities. In another word, people, even without same interests and personalities, could become friends.

It is tempting to assert that it is more easy to make friends with those who share same interests and personalities with us, due to the fact that once we have similar interests and personalities, we can communicate much easier than other people. At least, we have topic to discuss, which facilitate us for further understanding with each other. I met one of my best friend in Pingpong class. Because we had similar interests—playing pingpong, so we got the chance to know each other. We enjoyed our time and felt happy with talking to each other, and later on we became good friends

However, it is not equal to say that people with different interests and personalities could not make friends. Furthermore, it is not sharing same interests and same personalities that determine whether two people could become friends. I would like to say that same interests and personalities are factors that could lead people to know each other more quickly than others. As I mentioned before, I could meet my friend due to the fact that we share the same interest so we get the chance to know each other, but the qualities that friends should have go far beyond these two. In my opinion, best friends could care about my thinking and my feeling, when I feel upset, he or she could feel it and comfort me; when I am success and happy, I could share with him or her too. Friends are the bay of my heart. It has little relations with whether he or she has similar interests or personalities with me.

Besides, people with different interests and personalities could make friends too for they can compensate with(性格互补应该可以有其他的表示方法吧~) each other and learn from each other, which is beneficial for every individual. It is quite common to see that a couple with quite different, even opposite interests and personalities but they get along very well, why? Just because their personalities are compensate with each other. Even couples with different interests and personalities could get along well, let alone friends. I remembered another friend of mine, who has opposite personalities with me. I am relatively shy while she is open minded. Admittedly, we can’t agree on some matters sometimes, however, most of the time I could learn from her how to be optimistic about life, how to get along well with others. Now my personalities change a lot. Thanks to my friend, I could express myself confidently in front of many people.

All in all, I admit that people share same interests and personalities are much easier to know each other, and hence, are more inclined to be friends with each other. However, it is too hasty to jump to the conclusion that people with different interests and personalities could not be friends any more. In my opinion, the criterion for becoming friends varies and the most significant factor is being kind and helpful with each other, whether they share same interests or personalities is not that important. Besides, people with different interests and personalities could compensate with and learn from each other, which is beneficial(与最后一个正文段主题句重 建议同义改写) for each member in the relationship.

这字数很吓人了~  文章的展开很成功  小的细节修改了下
学习了

adj-remyUID：2974851

已改

hdchangieUID：2402936

大谢~~complementary character,that's it! 14# adj-remy