这个作文啊。。。

waiting1UID: 2997856

Do you agree or disagree? A job with more vacation time but a low salary is better than a job with a high salary but less vacation time.


Some people argue that to take a job with more leisure time would be better since it could provide people with more opportunities to talk with others, which could lead to the improvement of individuals’ relationship. But in fact, I believe that a high salary, though sometimes with less vacation time would be more beneficial.

To begin with, a high salary would be ideal for young adults. This is because youngsters, especially those who would soon establish their own families, are eager to make their life more decent and comfortable. In China, a young male is always in great pressure to purchase a house or a car in order to get married which is often the requirement put forward by his fiancee’s parents. Without a high salary, it is almost impossible for young people to afford an extremely expensive apartment in cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou.

Also, most our young people have depended on our parents for over 20 years and they have made great sacrifice to us in terms of time, energy and money. Thus, it is better for us earn more money in order to afford our own life as well as our parents' life. One TV report once portrayed a young man who struggled in Shanghai. He was eager to live on his own without the help from his family. At the same time, he wanted to repay his parents' love by means like financial supports to them. But, he just did not earn a lot to achieve his goal.

It is true that receiving a high salary would be ideal. But at the same time it is also true that less vacation time brought about by a job with a high salary would have some negative effects. By that I mean, couples might divorce and families might be destroyed. According to a recent survey conducted among young adults, the primary cause of their divorce or just quarrels is the lack of personal communication, which often results from the busy work life of both husband and wife.

Taking all factors into account, I am still convinced that a high salary is more essential, as people firstly need plentiful money to create a family for themselves. Besides, individuals need adequate money to support their old parents, too.

谢谢^_^

mpromanusUID: 2565872

16# waiting1

Do you agree or disagree? A job with more vacation time but a low salary is better than a job with a high salary but less vacation time.

Some people argue that to take a job with more leisure time would be better since it could provide people with more opportunities to talk with others (Um..this sure isn't the only thing people do during their 'leisure' time, is it? It's not actually wrong to cite talking with others, but this is your opening paragraph, which sets the scope of discussion for the entire essay. And if you mention specific points like 'talking with others', your reader would then expect you to elaborate on it. Is that what you intend to do?), which could lead to the improvement of individuals’ relationships. But in fact, I believe that a high salary, though sometimes with less vacation time, would be more beneficial.

To begin with, a high salary would be ideal for young adults. This is because youngsters, especially those who would soon establish their own families, are eager to make their lives more decent and comfortable. In China, a young male is always in great pressure to purchase a house or a car in order to get married, which is often the requirement put forward by his fiancee’s parents. Without a high salary, it is almost impossible for young people to afford an extremely expensive apartment in cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou. (So does the merit of a high salary only apply to the young Chinese males in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou? You need to make some more general, decisive conclusion on the merit of a high salary after your example. If not, your conclusion is still only applicable to your example's case.)

Also, most of our young people have depended on our parents ('Your' young people have depended on 'your' parents? I'm a bit confused by who 'we' are in this paragraph..) for over 20 years and they have made great sacrifice to us in terms of time, energy and money. Thus, it is better for us to earn more money in order to afford our own lives as well as our parents' lives. One TV report once portrayed a young man who struggled in Shanghai. He was eager to live on his own without the help from his family. At the same time, he wanted to repay his parents' love by means like financial supports to them. But, he just did not earn a lot to achieve his goal.

It is true that receiving a high salary would be ideal. But at the same time it is also true that less vacation time brought about by a job with a high salary would have some negative effects. By that I mean, couples might divorce and families might be destroyed. According to a recent survey conducted among young adults, the primary cause of their divorces or just quarrels is the lack of personal communication, which often results from the busy work lives of both the husband and the wife.

Taking all factors into account, I am still convinced that a high salary is more essential, as people firstly need plenty of money to create a family for themselves. Besides, individuals need adequate money to support their old parents, too.

总结：

有几个表意不清的地方请注意一下。论述方面不错~

waiting1UID: 2997856

Only movies that can teach us something about real life is worth watching. agree or disagree.
While some people maintain that only movies which reflect our real life are worth watching, I, personally do not think so. In fact, all genres of movies are worth watching if they can help a person in some way.

To begin with, according to the most well-known movie site - IMDB, a majority of the top 250 pictures are not based on real people or incidents. This is because these fake plots which differ from what individuals encounter in everyday life are what
audience like. One good example is Forrest Gump. In this epic, despite Gump's below average intelligence quotient, he is really a successful man in many fields; he becomes an All-star football player, he is the hero in the war and he
is the winner of many Ping-Pong matches. All these seems to be unlikely in our life, as we have seen most slow- witted person show the inability to even live on their own.

More importantly is the fact that a large number of people regard watching films as a form of entertainment and they want to escape from their stressful life by watching their favorite movies. Stephen Chow is famous for his comical movies such as A Chinese Odyssey and King of Comedy. When watching his films,
the audience always cannot help laughing. Hence, there is no denying the fact that it is a great way for the audience to relax themselves.

However, producers should also pay great attention to what they offer to our ordinary people since some movies may even mislead their audience. In 2009, a film called 2012 shocked the world with its portrayal of the end of the world. Because of its fidelity, NASA had to announce to the world that there is no factual basis for the prediction of the doomsday in this film. Unfortunately, many people who have watched 2012 are now afraid of a real end of the world because of the frequent catastrophes happening these years.

Taking all factors into account, I still prefer to watch more entertaining virtual films, as those movies could enable us to know a world from different angles. Besides, movies should be a source of joy because our life now is full of pressure and anxiety. (377)

thanks a lot^_^

mpromanusUID: 2565872

18# waiting1

Only movies that can teach us something about real life are worth watching. agree or disagree.

While some people maintain that only movies which reflect our real life (This might not be the same as 'movies that can teach us something about real life'. A lot of movies that do teach you something about real life do not 'reflect' real lives. The question throws a very vague and broad expression at you, so you need to be careful not to twist its scope during your rephrases. If you change 'teach about real life' to 'reflect real life', you need to explain in this paragraph why you think these two are the same or similar.) are worth watching, I, personally do not think so. In fact, all genres of movies are worth watching if they can help a person in some way.

To begin with, according to the most well-known movie site - IMDB, a majority of the top 250 pictures are not based on real people or incidents. This is because these fake plots which differ from what individuals encounter in everyday life are what audience like. One good example is Forrest Gump (Exactly. It is the evergreen example of a fictional movie that TEACHES you a lot about real life, yes? So you end up somehow agreeing with what you are not agreeing with, because you intepreted the question as 'only movies that are about real life are worth watching'..It's probably hard to see the exact difference so I'll give a good example of a movie that does not really teach you things about real life: Inception.). In this epic, despite Gump's below average intelligence quotient, he is really a successful man in many fields; he becomes an All-star football player, he is the hero in the war and he is the winner of many Ping-Pong matches. All these seems to be unlikely in our life, as we have seen most slow- witted person show the inability to even live on their own.

More importantly is the fact that a large number of people regard watching films as a form of entertainment and they want to escape from their stressful lives by watching their favorite movies. Stephen Chow is famous for his comical movies such as A Chinese Odyssey and King of Comedy. When watching his films, the audience always cannot help laughing. Hence, there is no denying the fact that it is a great way for the audience to relax themselves. (Right, but what does 'people like to replax with entertaining movies' have to do with your point that 'all genres of movies are worth watching'? Yes, it might be too obvious to mention for you - this is an example of a genre of movies being worth watching, so you're illustraing your main point - but you need to make this connection clear in writing.)


However, producers should also pay great attention to what they offer to our ordinary people since some movies may even mislead their audience. In 2009, a film called 2012 shocked the world with its portrayal of the end of the world. Because of its fidelity, NASA had to announce to the world that there is no factual basis for the prediction of the doomsday in this film. Unfortunately, many people who have watched 2012 are now afraid of a real end of the world because of the frequent catastrophes happening these years. (Now this is almost entirely off. What does 'producers should pay attention to their movies so as not to mislead people' have to do with a question about which kinds of movies are worth watching? You're drifting into the typical moral blackhole..)


Taking all factors into account, I still prefer to watch more entertaining virtual? films, as those movies could enable us to know a world from different angles. Besides, movies should be a source of joy because our life now is full of pressure and anxiety. (But this second conclusion doesn't have anything to do with the 'worth-watchingness' of the movies..)


总结：

你的语言没有什么大问题，例子也描述得很好，但是最终你要完成的任务是详述你在第一段提出的观点 - 以这个标准，你去讲制作人应该小心电影题材带来的影响，和你第一段提出的各种电影只要对人有好处就值得看，有什么关系呢。。

如果你记得我以前写过的模板，分论点的论述应该是这样的：

中间每段 <提出分论点><解释分论点><总结分论点/联系观点>

联系观点（即你的总论点）不仅能使逻辑完整，更是一个给你检查自己有没有走题的机会，所以请学会利用。

waiting1UID: 2997856

今天集中在对这几篇提交的作文进行反思。谢谢批改。一战前只是给您修改了一篇作文，然后按照您的意思把我所有写过的作文都改了下。最后一战原本最担心的w27分。囧。总分不理想，二战继续。不过谢谢你的建议。改的真的很好。我后来交的几篇也都是已经改过的，问题却依然存在。值得深思。
其实关于电影那篇的P4，原文的表述应该是不可取。但我现在在想。转折后的部分能否如此表达：虽然我接受那些不能teach us something about real life的电影，但这些种类的电影（比如2012之类的科幻片）也应该注意它们那些不能teach us something about real life的内容。因为也许这些内容会造成一些负面影响。如果他们的内容对观众不好，那就不值得看了。
还有额。也许真的是因为我对forrest gump的理解不同吧。我是不能理解gump如何teach us something about real life。。。gump的事迹明明很假的吗。。real life中，gump这样的人能teach us sth吗。。额。。。这个我表示无奈。
19# mpromanus

waiting1UID: 2997856

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is often not a good thing to move to a new city or a new country because of the lose of old friends?

Some people claim that the idea of moving to new places is not beneficial because it usually leads to the loss of old friends. But in fact, such mobility does not necessarily result in the lose of friends. Besides, it actually would be beneficial for people.



To begin with, the distance of people has been eliminated to a great extent due to the development of modern communication technologies which enable us to keep in touch with our friends who live far away. Therefore, moving to another place does not necessarily means we would lose old friends. Several years ago, I left for Shanghai. Thanks to a great software - QQ, I still enjoy a close relationship with several old friends in my hometown. Without any doubt, such tools help people a lot when they have to deal with the problems of how to talk to their distant friends.

Also, moving to new places would be beneficial for people to broaden their horizons and enable themselves to be more comprehensively developed persons. My friend Chris moved to New York along with her parents in her 14 years old. As I could remember, she used to be a shy girl who just focused on her study and seldom talked to others. But when she comes back from America, I find she is now more outgoing and she is also able to talk with us more than just study. Hence, I believe that it is the migration to America that helps her to become such a wonderful girl.

Last but not least, moving around enables us to enlarge our social networks, which would be beneficial
for one's success. My elder brother used to be a salesman in Hangzhou. After he moved to Shanghai which is near Hangzhou, he met so many new people who gave him tremendous help. Owing to his extensive social networks, he always achieves the best sales in his company and he is then promoted to be a regional manager of the Yangtze River Delta. Undoubtedly, moving to Shanghai contributes directly to his success.

Taking all factors into account, I am convinced that it is advantageous for people to move to new places, as people would get a better understanding of a real world and be able to learn how to socialize successfully. Besides, individuals could actually have more friends instead of losing old friends. What's more, modern communication technologies have enabled us to keep in touch with others.


我自己把每段的观点和总结都列出来了。不知道对不对。。。
thanks a lot.^_^

还有关于那篇Only movies that can teach us something about real life are worth watching. agree or disagree。
我现在改分论点。不支持。没有 teach us something about real life 的电影也值得看。
1）首先还是人们看电影是想娱乐。所以看那些喜剧很好blah。这个观点我稍改下就好。
2）其次是有些没有 teach us something about real life的卡通有利于家庭感情。比如说孩子们喜欢看喜羊羊。父母和孩子一起看啊，父母和孩子一起讨论啊blah。促进了感情。但如果是那些很正经的电影，达不到这种其乐融融的效果。
3）但对于那些没有teach us something about real life的电影，如果他们的内容不好，不值得看。比如2012给广大人民群众留下了不好的后遗症。造成人民恐慌。此类电影就不值得看。
不知道这样改行吗？谢谢了

btw。我很想照着你的思路每段先论点，断尾再总结。但这样的话，一个分论点就要提到至少三次了。。按照我现在的写法，要四次了。首段一次，每段两次，末端一次。这个。。。用词会很重复的吧。这就是为什么有时我会换题目中的关键词了。我的本意只是为了同意替换之类（换的不到位当然是我的过失）。
因此，有什么建议吗？3rd感谢。。。

mpromanusUID: 2565872

21# waiting1

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is often not a good thing to move to a new city or a new country because of the lose of old friends?

Some people claim that the idea of moving to new places is not beneficial because it usually leads to the loss of old friends. But in fact, such mobility does not necessarily result in the loss of friends. Besides, it actually would be beneficial for people.

To begin with, the distance between people has been eliminated to a great extent due to the development of modern communication technologies which enable us to keep in touch with our friends who live far away. Therefore, moving to another place does not necessarily means we would lose old friends. Several years ago, I left for Shanghai. Thanks to a great software - QQ, I still enjoy a close relationship with several old friends in my hometown. Without any doubt, such tools help people a lot when they have to deal with the problems of how to talk to their distant friends.

Also, moving to new places would be beneficial for people to broaden their horizons and enable themselves to be more comprehensively developed persons. My friend Chris moved to New York along with her parents when she was 14 years old. As I could remember, she used to be a shy girl who just focused on her studies and seldom talked to others. But when she comes back from America, I find she is now more outgoing and she is also able to talk with us more than just to study. Hence, I believe that it is the migration to America that helps her to become such a wonderful girl.

Last but not least, moving around enables us to enlarge our social networks, which would be beneficial for one's success. My elder brother used to be a salesman in Hangzhou. After he moved to Shanghai which is near Hangzhou, he met so many new people who gave him tremendous help. Owing to his extensive social networks, he always achieves the best sales in his company and he is then promoted to be a regional manager of the Yangtze River Delta. Undoubtedly, moving to Shanghai contributes directly to his success.

Taking all factors into account, I am convinced that it is advantageous for people to move to new places, as people would get a better understanding of a real world (I'm not sure why Chinese students seem to particularly favor this expression - it makes little sense because it implies that these people have been living in an 'unreal world'..) and be able to learn how to socialize successfully. Besides, individuals could actually have more friends instead of losing old friends. What's more, modern communication technologies have enabled us to keep in touch with others.

总结：

我很想照着你的思路每段先论点，断尾再总结。但这样的话，一个分论点就要提到至少三次了。。按照我现在的写法，要四次了。首段一次，每段两次，末端一次。这个。。。用词会很重复的吧。这就是为什么有时我会换题目中的关键词了。我的本意只是为了同意替换之类（换的不到位当然是我的过失）。
因此，有什么建议吗？

其实我觉得你这篇已经做得不错了。首段不一定要写。每段开头的那次是泛指的（比如你第三个分论点‘[搬家]可以让[我们（人）]有更大的社交网络，对成功有好处’，结尾的那次是针对段中例子的，特指的（比如你第三个分论段最后的‘[搬家到上海]直接造就了[他]的成功’ - 注意括号里就是从泛指变成了特指的地方）。这样因为你实际上替换了有实意的关键字（而且是从大的换成小的 - 泛指的‘搬家’换成特定的地点，泛指的‘我们（人）’换成特定的‘他’），因此并不显得特别重复的。实际上真正重复的只是最后一段而已。

我一向强调联系主论点，其实主要是因为中国的学生大部分做不到 提出和主论点联系非常清晰的分论点 这件事情，造成一个分论段说了半天我还是不知道他说这个分论点对证明他的主要论点来说到底有什么意义。。像你这篇里，每段一开始分论点提出的时候，和主论点的关系已经相当清楚，就是我看得出你这个分论点论述的是第一段里的哪个部分。。所以只要本段的结尾对分论点有一个合适的总结即可。（所以其实大概我不应该强调在什么地方去联系主论点，而是强调在论述分论点的时候，语言是否能做到很清晰地展现出这个论点是为了说明主论点的什么而提出的。。）

避免换错词的主要的trick就是要确定你换去的概念 is 原来的那个概念 - 在名词上这个比较好办，就是像你现在做的，从泛指名词换成特指，所以一般这个换得最多。动词和形容词比较容易出现偏差，那么一个是要能辨别词汇之间的细微差别，一个就是如果觉得可能会出现理解上的偏差，就自己解释好为什么认为这个地方的概念是这样，然后从自己的理解出发去论述。

还有关于那篇Only movies that can teach us something about real life are worth watching. agree or disagree。" v" c. A7 {/ ]* O; c
我现在改分论点。不支持。没有 teach us something about real life 的电影也值得看。

1）首先还是人们看电影是想娱乐。所以看那些喜剧很好blah。这个观点我稍改下就好。
2）其次是有些没有 teach us something about real life的卡通有利于家庭感情。比如说孩子们喜欢看喜羊羊。父母和孩子一起看啊，父母和孩子一起讨论啊blah。促进了感情。但如果是那些很正经的电影，达不到这种其乐融融的效果。
3）但对于那些没有teach us something about real life的电影，如果他们的内容不好，不值得看。比如2012给广大人民群众留下了不好的后遗症。造成人民恐慌。此类电影就不值得看。

不知道这样改行吗？谢谢了

可以，很好~

mpromanusUID: 2565872

20# waiting1

> 还有额。也许真的是因为我对forrest gump的理解不同吧。我是不能理解gump如何teach us something about real life。。。gump的事迹明明很假的吗。。real life中，gump这样的人能teach us sth吗。。额。。。这个我表示无奈。

这个这个，这玩意儿它就是影射。。就像gump里头说妈妈说生活就像一盒巧克力神马神马的，很多人就觉得这特别有教育意义。。或者说很多人就觉得gump这样的人都能这样这样咱努力一把肯定也行，这就是教育意义。。不是说它一定要很真实，但是能让看的人从中得出一些真实生活里可以apply的道理，大概就是这个意思。。

当然如果你的理解不同这个不要紧。。你那篇举forrest gump例子的主要问题是你一开始就偏题变成reflect real life了，然后你的分论点是假情节和真实生活不一样。。之后你写gump这个事儿很假，你证明了它是一个fake plot的例子，这个完全没有错，但是它只能说明这个电影不reflect real life，不能说明这个电影不teach us something about real life，除非你在那段最后再添一句‘因为它很假，所以看的人不会联系到真实生活，也就不可能从中去反思真实生活的道理神马神马的，所以实际上这个电影不teach us anything about real life..‘之类的话。。就是说，从你这一段的表述中，我看不出你这个关于fake plot神马神马的论点到底是为了什么而提出来。。是为了证明all genres are worth watching if they help people的哪一部分？或者是为了反驳‘only teach us something about real life的电影才值得看’？。。

waiting1UID: 2997856

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and televisions should always show audience good people being rewarded and bad people being punished.
Should movies and TV programs always portray good people being rewarded and bad ones being punished? I, personally believe that it would make more sense for us to answer this question based on the contents and target audience of movies.

For children's programs, it is indispensible for movies and televisions to always show the right moral values. This is because our young people are still at the stage of character formation and most of them are too immature to tell good from bad. Moreover, it will leave a negative impact on children if what they see fail to teach them right things. Several years ago, a Japanese young boy hurt several his peers. Once asked why he did so, he said he learnt such behavior from one cartoon and just wanted to imitate his favorite character who would turn to violence when trying to solve a conflict with friends. If this boy had not been exposed to so many violent cartoons, he maybe would not have done such wrongdoings.

When it comes to adults' programs, it is not necessary for producers to always film good humans being rewarded and bad ones being punished since adults have the ability to distinguish good from bad. In the movie 2012, it was an Indian scientist who first discovered the abnormal phenomenon happening on earth and told the government. Unfortunately, he did not get the chance to be rescued. It is ridiculous and ironic. But at the same time such plot could stimulate individuals' humanity because people would be touched by this scientist's misfortune. Hence, the plot that good people being rewarded and bad people being punished is not needed for adult's programs.

What's more, is it possible to always depict good people being rewarded and bad ones being punished in historical programs? Or, can historical pictures fabricate something in order to achieve the so-called right values? I guess the answer would be no. Dong Cunrui, a hero in contemporary China, sacrificed himself in order to destroy a basement of the enemy. Without any doubt, he was a great man. But he still died. Therefore, historical events like that are facts that allow no alternation.

Taking all factors into account, I am convinced that depicting good endings for good people and bad endings for bad ones depends on the target audience when it comes to fiction. However, when it comes to History or plots based on a person's life, the ending is not up to the writers but to how the story actually unfolded.


也许是最后一篇了。我现在最主要的问题是有些文章会没有思路。如此篇，想了很久都想不出确定的agree或者disagree的观点和例子。只能用这种比较中立的方法写了。囧。不知道可不可行。
下周二战。新题。。哎。。

mpromanusUID: 2565872

24# waiting1

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Movies and televisions should always show audience good people being rewarded and bad people being punished.

Should movies and TV programs always portray good people being rewarded and bad ones being punished? I, personally believe that it would make more sense for us to answer this question based on the contents and target audience of movies (and what about TV programs?).

For children's programs, it is indispensiblefor movies and televisions to always show the right moral values. This is because our young people are still at the stage of character formation and most of them are too immature to tell good from bad. Moreover, it will leave a negative impact on children if what they see fail to teach them the right things. Several years ago, a Japanese young boy hurt several of his peers. When asked why he did so, he said he learnt such behavior from one cartoon and just wanted to imitate his favorite character who would turn to violence when trying to solve a conflict with friends. If this boy had not been exposed to so many violent cartoons, he maybe would not have done such wrongdoings.(True, but this question is not about exposure to violence in movies/TV but about fair returns..so actually you should say the cartoon should have shown this character being punished for violence, not that the cartoon has too much violence..Pay attention to what your question is. Do not drift into what’s commonly discussed about ‘media violence’ just because you used ‘violence’ as an example.)


When it comes to adults' programs, it is not necessary for producers to always film good humans being rewarded and bad ones being punished since adults have the ability to distinguish the good from the bad. In the movie 2012, it was an Indian scientist who first discovered the abnormal phenomenon happening on earth and told the government. Unfortunately, he did not get the chance to be rescued. It is ridiculous and ironic. But at the same time such plot could stimulate individuals' humanity because people would be touched by this scientist's misfortune. Hence, the plot that good people being rewarded and bad people being punished is not needed for adult's programs. (Excellent. Very precise and complete.)


What's more, is it possible to always depict good people being rewarded and bad ones being punished in historical programs? Or, can historical pictures fabricate something in order to achieve the so-called right values? I guess the answer would be no. Dong Cunrui, a hero in contemporary China, sacrificed himself in order to destroy a basement of the enemy. Without any doubt, he was a great man. But he still died. Therefore, historical events like that are facts that allow no alternation.

Taking all factors into account, I am convinced that depicting good endings for good people and bad endings for bad ones depends on the target audience when it comes to fiction. However, when it comes to History or plots based on a person's life (you mean ‘documentary’, I guess..), the ending is not up to the writers but to how the story actually unfolded.

总结：

非常好的文章。中立立场并不要紧，重要的是你的确有一个确定的立场 – 应不应该要视内容和观众而定 – 然后你完整地阐述了这个立场中所有的要点：视观众而定-小孩和大人；视内容而定-fiction vs. non-fiction。这样就是一篇很完整很好的文章了。这不叫没有思路。。安心~