2.1 综合独立 by 静音

静音UID: 2893385

TPO3综合先


The reading passage explores the issuewhether the painting of the woman’s face was indeed created by Rembrandthimself. The professor’s lecture deals with the same subject. However, shethinks that the painting is original Rembrandt’s but there are several pointsconfusing people, which contradicts what the reading states. And in thelecture, the professor uses three specific points to support her idea.

Initially, the professor asserts that thefront color was else added about 100 years after the painting was created atfirst place. The professor supposed that why some people made this change isbecause he wanted this piece to enhance its value. This to some degree explainswhy inconsistent clothing subjects occurred in master’s piece mentioned in thereading. In the light of professor, the servant’s hat didn’t exist in theoriginal painting and thus people couldn’t conclude that Rembrandt didn’t coin thatpiece. This is incompatible with the article’s notion that unified style in thepainting pointing out that this is not Rembrandt’s work.

Moreover, despite the claim of the reading thatthe light shadows in that painting was a huge mistake, which didn’t usuallyseen in Rembrandt’s. The professor proves that claim is indefensible by pointingout that because of the added layer, the initial light shadow structure wasdestroyed. Then she supported this point with the fact that if we move thefront layer, we can discover the perfect light shadow structure. The wrongshadow in the woman’s face wasn’t a mistake made by Rembrandt but by the laterfixer.

The professor’s last point concerns on thefinal notion of the reading referred to back wood of this painting whichcomposed of several panels sticking together. The professor argue against thereading point that this was abnormal considering Rembrandt’s style that peopleexamined other piece of Rembrandt, a self-portrait and found out the same wayconstructing the back panel. Obviously, the professor’s argument disproves itscountpart in what reading.

In conclusion, the contents in the readingare completely refuted by the lecture and the lecture advocates totallydifferent ideas on the central standpoint of the reading.

静音UID: 2893385

独立


People who go outside are more successful and happier than people who stay in villages.

Nowadays more and more people living in the city envy the slow life pace in the villages. They envision the tranquil environment and beautiful natural surroundings in the pristine dwelling. Is that means urban life is so depressed that people are all desperate to return to the villages for a happier life? The answer is definitely no. From my own perspective, the reasons why it is NO for the answer involve two factors.

The main reason for my propensity is that city life goes a long way towards exploring people’s potential as much as possible. The reason almost speaks itself that there are tons of challenges filled in the city, whereas there are nearly none in the villages. In my opinion, people are here to create, create new dimension of life, create novel culture of life, and create the whole world. So how could people fulfill this exceptional talent while they live in a place which barely needs any brilliant thoughts? All in all, inexhaustible challenges in the city will incentive people’s potential to coin more fancies, and this, I believe, is human’s responsibility and fate.

A more essential factor why I advocate that people who go outside will obtain more satisfaction than villagers is that the life outside in the city has much higher quality than that in the village. With years of efforts from the former generations going outside, the urbanization and modernization now is developing into a peak. Consistent with this situation, people in the city could get order-in food in 3 am in the midnight while there is a whole black scene 8 pm in the village; people in the city could send out their own messages the minute they want to, while the communication is often blocked by huge mountains in the villages. Embracing by the advantages given rise to new technology, people who go outside are definitely having a more wonderful life than people who still live in village nowadays.

So is the trend of people’s wanting to go back to village is fictional? The answer is no again. Due to the pressure in the city, people miss the tranquil life they lost. However, the natural places are only popular for holidays because fighting is the theme in the one’s life. Peace life shares smaller portion.

In nutshell, via the illustration I presented above, we could draw safe conclusion that people who go outside explore a wider world and enjoy a more colorful life than people live in the village.

WoYaoChiJiTuiUID: 2850295

2.1独立已修改，请查收
写的真的很棒，值得学习呢
2.1 revised by WoYaoChiJiTui.doc (29.5 KB, 下载次数: 10)

2011-2-3 19:59:44 上传

下载次数: 10

a08805436UID: 2725634

Nowadays more and more people living in the city envy the slow life pace in the villages. They envision the tranquil environment and beautiful natural surroundings in the pristine dwelling. Is that means urban life is so depressed that people are all desperate to return to the villages for a happier life? The answer is definitely no. From my own perspective, the reasons why it is NO for the answer involve two factors.

The main reason for my propensity is that city life goes a long way towards exploring people’s potential as much as possible. The reason almost speaks itself that  there are tons of challenges filled in the city, whereas there are nearly none in the villages. In my opinion, people are here to create, create new dimension of life, create novel culture of life, and create the whole world. So how could people fulfill this exceptional talent while they live in a place which barely needs any brilliant thoughts? All in all, inexhaustible challenges in the city will incentive people’s potential to coin more fancies, and this, I believe, is human’s responsibility and fate.

A more essential factor why I advocate that people who go outside will obtain more satisfaction than villagers is that the life outside in the city has much higher quality than that in the village. With years of efforts from the former generations going outside, the urbanization and modernization now is developing into a peak. Consistent with this situation, people in the city could get order-in food  in 3 am in the midnight while there is a whole black scene 8 pm in the village; people in the city could send out their own messages the minute they want to, while the communication is often blocked by huge mountains in the villages. Embracing by the advantages given rise to new technology, people who go outside are definitely having a more wonderful life than people who still live in village nowadays.

So is the trend of people’s wanting to go back to village is fictional? The answer is no again. Due to the pressure in the city, people miss the tranquil life they lost. However, the natural places are only popular for holidays because fighting is the theme in the one’s life. Peace life shares smaller portion.

In nutshell (in a nutshell?), via the illustration I presented above, we could draw safe conclusion that people who go outside explore a wider world and enjoy a more colorful life than people live in the village.

两点个人意见
1.第一个主体段的例子可以再充实些 觉得有点泛
2.后两个自然段可以合为一段 这样我认为布局上更漂亮

总的来说 这篇文章 很不错

静音UID: 2893385

3# WoYaoChiJiTui
是看了你的作文之后写的，其实我模仿了许多你的用词呐。。向你学习才对～
查了一下，order-in是指外卖送到家的那种，take out多指从餐厅带走回家，中国人都叫外卖。。

hdchangieUID: 2402936

不好意思，过年忙翻了。。。。。。。sorry。。。。


TPO3综合& E& s8 A: B' K0
: e4 n+ v, O, {

, I) Q& G6 R8 P/ }$ ?' v/ K( dThe reading passage explores the issuewhether the painting of the woman’s face was indeed created by Rembrandthimself. The professor’s lecture deals with the same subject. However, shethinks that the painting is original Rembrandt’s but there are several pointsconfusing people, which contradicts what the reading states. And in thelecture, the professor uses three specific points to support her idea.- J% b9 n' }# S9 [5 Z, j! u- R8 U
4 V7 v1 J- d% |: [( [
Initially, the professor asserts that the front color was else added(added by someone else会不会好些？) about 100 years after the painting was created at first place. The professor supposed that why some people made this change isbecause（why…is because的搭配感觉怪怪的） he wanted this piece to enhance its value. This to some degree explainswhy inconsistent clothing subjects occurred in master’s piece mentioned in thereading. In the light of professor, the servant’s hat didn’t exist in theoriginal painting and thus people couldn’t conclude that Rembrandt didn’t coin thatpiece. This is incompatible with the article’s notion that unified style in the painting pointing out that this is not Rembrandt’s work., f3 l! @4 B6 M& D6 T& |

0 _7 m% J" T: ?. EMoreover, despite the claim of the reading that the light shadows in that painting was a huge mistake, which didn’t （wasn’t）usually seen in Rembrandt’s. The professor proves that claim is indefensible by pointingout that because of the added layer, the initial light shadow structure wasdestroyed. Then she supported this point with the fact that if we move thefront layer, we can discover the perfect light shadow structure. The wrongshadow in the woman’s face wasn’t a mistake made by Rembrandt but by the laterfixer.
4 D! ^' {- x$ M2 E& M % l8 i) o( `0 }. J) H3 ^# E+ m
The professor’s last point concerns on thefinal notion of the reading referred to back wood of this painting whichcomposed of several panels sticking together. The professor argue against thereading point that this was abnormal considering Rembrandt’s style that peopleexamined other piece of Rembrandt, a self-portrait and found out the same wayconstructing the back panel. (这句感觉不太对)Obviously, the professor’s argument disproves itscountpart in what（that） reading.+ m$ S; A, O8 J# Z0 M
6 K( E4 x8 v1 f+ f
In conclusion, the contents in the readingare completely refuted by the lecture and the lecture advocates totallydifferent ideas on the central standpoint of the reading.

语言很棒！学习了~
三个点也抓得很准，说实话这篇不是很好写，加油哈！