daily writing by qianhuang

mpromanusUID：2565872

29# qianhuang

To benefit a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education of very young children (I understand you're probably trying to rephrase, but please still watch your grammar.) rather than on universities? In my point of view, both of them are fundamental for a country's development (so? I can draw a myriad of conclusions from this sentence, for example, 'so all people should be required to attend school from very young all the way up to university'. Your topic, I assume, is about government budget. Therefore you need to make a point that is directly relevant with that topic - e.g. '...both of them are fundamental...so a government should focus its budget equally on both'. I know Chinese people tend to be masters at reading between the lines, and many times things just seem too obvious to mention, but remember you are writing an essay to express, explain and defend your view. Be clear about what exactly your point is and leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. In Chinese this is called 立论.).


Without doubt, the development of young children who are the masters of the coming? (What exactly is the difference between the 'coming' society and the 'future' of society? I highly suspect you're using this word to avoid repeating 'future', but here is a hint: if you can't rephrase 'future', why not try to rephrase 'society'?) society affects the future of society. Education is a very important part in children's lives and plays a chief role in the formation of their characters. When a person is young, he/she is just like a piece of white paper, and education teaches him/her to be creative, brave and optimistic (This, actually, depends very much on the quality of education he gets. I don't really mind such idealistic statements but more often than not they tend to hint at a rather shallow understanding of matters.). And once these characters form, it is hard to change them when he/she is an adult. Moreover, if they (Who, or what? The nearest plural noun in the previous sentence is 'characters', whereas you obviously meant something like 'people'. You need to be very clear about where exactly your pronouns are pointing at. I understand the proper noun - 'children' - for this 'they' appears later in this sentence, but you used 'moreover', which hints that this sentence continues from the previous one. That's why I thought you were still talking about 'characters', only to find out later that you are talking about something else. This is NOT wrong, but it is difficult to read. A less confusing one would be 'Moreover, if not taught...well, children...', where the lack of subject in the 'if' part signals very clearly that the proper subject of this sentence is to come later, so your reader will know in advance to look out for a change in context.) are not taught what is right well, children may quickly learn or imitate some bad behavior from TV shows and the Internet (So you seem to think 1. proper education will prevent children from learning bad behavior from TV shows and the Internet 2. only TV shows and the Internet will introduce children to bad behavior..This goes back to my previous point on the effect of education depending very much on the quality of that education itself. You seem to have an unconcious assumption here when you say 'education' - that 'education' equals 'quality, effective, good education'.) which not only harm themselves but also the society. Thus, a government should focus on cultivating children healthily and normally (Well, 'healthily' is just awkward, but 'normally' is down right not equal to the meaning of 'normal'...rather, I think you'd meant to say 'cultivating children in a healthy and normal manner'. Although I still hold my personal reservations about the use of a so-called 'normal' manner of cultivation..) to be able to contribute to a country's prosperity. Since most young children would attend to school to accept the elemental education, the government needs to spend a lot funds to improve the conditions of school and provide various stages (I think you mean 'platforms'.) for them to develop their interests.


On the other hand, university education is also crucial for a country's thrive (This is a verb, not a noun.). A University gives opportunity for students to learn professional skills and develop their special talents. If a country wants to be prosperous, it must focus on both economics and technology, which are in need of professional experts. And these people are usually cultivated in universities. In other words, universities' improvement helps a country to train more various? (You mean..'varied'?)
talents. For instance, many universities are devoted in researching and on the forefront of academic innovation. In addition, most universities cooperate with countries on different subjects and projects to achieve more progress and discoveries. All these projects cost greatly money which can only rely on the government's funds. Without the government's support, universities themselves can hardly find so much funds to propel the projects. (Seems like you don't quite know how the private universities - the very best, elite universities like Harvard - in the United States operate. They are not called 'private' for no reason.) Although the government may have its own department to research on some advanced projects, it still often gets help from professors and experts in universities. So, the government should focus its budget on universities to impel advancement of technology.


To sum up, children's education and university's development are both essential for a country's future. A government should not focus only either aspect and ignore the other. (If you compare this with your opening sentence, you should be able to see that you're off:


'should a government focus its budget MORE on ... rather THAN on ...'


It's not


'should a government focus its budget ONLY on ... and ignore ...'.


Again, there goes my point of staying directly relevant with your topic. You have written well about both aspects being both essential, but you've not written enough on which should or should not receive MORE funding.)
总结：


词汇神马的问题不大，语法请注意单复数和冠词（基本上是个中国学生就有的问题。。）。论述方面关于大学的部分写得不错，关于儿童教育的论述有一点想当然，在文中的评语指出了。


基本上说最主要的问题是漂题 - 不算完全跑题，但如果你的题目是should a government focus more...，你就是离题目旁边了那么一点点。。为什么呢，因为题目问的是more。。这不等于就要focus only one and ignore the other。。more的意思是我可以两个都不ignore，都给钱，但我优先其中一个或者多给其中一个钱。。这中间微妙的地方就是more是比较级。。要有一定程度的比较。。然后得出结论说不需要/不必要/不应该出现哪一个比另外一个more。。

qianhuangUID：2766587

3月31日 独立Some people thinkuniversity professors should spend more time doing research while others thinkthey should spend more time educating students. What is your view?


限时写的，字数和思路都挺欠缺。麻烦修改的同学了。

jacksonboy424UID：2998392

In my opinion, I would like to agreewith the point that university professors should spend more time educatingstudents than doing research.

First of all, university is the placewhere students accept good education and professors have the responsibility toteach them well. As teachers, professors earn their wage by teaching, so theyshould regard teaching as a serious job which they need spend much time on. Andonce a professor becomes the teacher of a subject, he/she would have to notonly teaching (teach) but also prepare lessonsand help students to learn this subject well after class. In universities, themost important item about the criteria of a good teacher is always education(换成the capacity of the teacherto give lessons感觉意思更加好些，如果说的不对请指教).

What's more, students are the master ofcoming society, and they are talents who contribute to the development ofsociety. Assuming professors can't(couldn’t是不是更好些) do their best to teach students,students are not（will not be） able to obtain enough knowledge, which may affect the advance ofscience and technology. For example, I have even(ever估计是笔误吧，考试的时候要注意了) met a professor who did research wellbut was not willing to teach students. He didn't prepare lessons well and as aresult most students got low grade on the subject.这之后最好在总结一下原因，来一个closing sentence,逻辑上会比较严谨，比如说一下学成成绩普遍比较差最后带来的实际影响之类的

Secondly, perhaps some people have asense of uncertainty that if professors focus on education, how the research goes.（这里的标点符号是不是应该用问号，或者把句子改成how goes the research.） I acknowledge that research isalso an important part of professor's job, but professors should not focus(give more energy)
on research than education, because it is hardto obtain success on research by professor(professor’s)own ability. Take an example(example又出现了，换成instance会比较好)
in thelab where I am doing research, my advisor has never only focused on research byhimself, but （感觉这里不是转折的关系，用and比较好）instructed and cooperate with hisstudents to finish the research. There are many similar cases that professorwork together with his/her students.（这里再说一下和教授一起工作，最后取得得实际成果，这样例子就比较丰满了）In other words, professor can cultivate many students as his assistants andmake work much easier. So the professor can spend less time on research butalso get process.

To sum up, university professor shouldspend more time education to cultivate students well.

我的水平很一般，以下建议只供参考，如果有不同意见，请直接跟我说，多谢您对我的帮助~~
首先这篇文章是限时写的，有些论证不全面，例子不丰满的地方，很正常，整体感觉挺流畅的，就是有一点，结尾段写的过于少了，没有更好的总结。提个小建议，您如果限时写作的话，可以先写首段和尾段，尾段就是你提出各个论点依据的同义改写，这样，不会跑题，如果时间不够的话，适当的缩短中间段，也不会影响整体的完整。
如果有什么不对的地方，请及时告诉我，请多多指教

qianhuangUID：2766587

4月1日 独立

sEven_zhUID：3007258

4.1独立修改，不好意思这几天有点事所以改晚了

qianhuangUID：2766587

4月7日 独立Is it easier to be success in the past than it is today?

qianhuangUID：2766587

37# zhaopan0558
你刚开始发帖权限不够。等发够帖了，以后自然就可以添加了。

Yvaine198831UID：2956487

改好 4.7独立

qianhuangUID：2766587

4月9日 独立is it more important for the government to spend money on art museums and concert halls than on recreational facilities such as swimming pools and playgrounds.

凉言UID：2996787

改好了~

christina1949UID：2992239

Government is an organization which supports city's construction and tries to improve citizens' living condition. Comparing to spend money on recreational facilities, I think it is more important for government to focus its funds on art museums and concert halls. There are a couple of reasons to name.

Firstly and foremost, art museums and concert halls are places where people can enjoy their lives and learn much knowledge from music or other forms of art. Since art is a form which can express a country's culture, custom and the values and tastes of its society, it is good for citizens to learn much about various cultures and so on while enjoying the beauty of it. For example, I like going to art museums to see those amazing and creative paintings, which are so creative that I can learn the method to broaden my mind and even get some inspiration. In addition, art museums and concert halls are quiet and suitable for people to relax themselves. Many researches indicate that when we are exhausted by job, listening to a piece of smooth music is really helpful for us to relieve from depression. Thus, the（ construction of） art museums and concert halls are worthy to （be） supported in order to serve citizens' needs.

Secondly, although I acknowledge that recreational facilities such as swimming pools and playgrounds are also fundamental in residents' lives, I need to（it should be） point out it is not so necessary(unnecessary) for government to support these facilities by spending much money(financial support). Because it is common to charge for admission in these places, many businessmen would like to invest in them to get profit. Even if without government's support, these places can also be funded by some profit-driven organizations. On the contrary, art museums and concert halls usually need a great amount of money to build (be built) and maintain which (most businessmen) can't be afforded by most businessmen. Furthermore, these museums and halls can't admit so many people like those recreational facilities, so it is hard to get profit. For instance, there are a great number of museums which are open free to all citizens. In this case, only government can support their cost.

To sum up, both art museums, concert and recreational facilities are meaningful for citizens' live. But since there are other financial sources for recreational facilities, I think it is more important for the government to spend money on art museums and concert.

mpromanusUID：2565872

36# qianhuang

It is easier to be successful in the past than it is today?

Nowadays, the increasing number of people who are well educated (Very redundant. Move 'well-educated' in front of 'people'.) leads to more fiercer competition for better job opportunities. Many people may think it is easier to be successful in the past than it is today. However, in my opinion, if we define success as making great money or becoming famous in some fields, it is harder to be successful in the past than it is today. The Following are my reasons.

Firstly and foremost, in the past, science, technology and economy are at a low level compared to those of today. Thus, most jobs in the past were related to agriculture and handcrafts in which fields it is? ('Fields' is a plural noun, so what is this 'it' referring to? You probably meant '..in fields where it is difficult..' rather than 'in which fields it is difficult..'. It's not unusual for Chinese students to favor the 'wh-' clause as an evidence of 'complex sentence structure', but please make sure you do it correctly..or else these clauses can become utterly confusing.) difficult for people to earn money (Ah, but master craftsmen were highly respected and well paid in the past. Think of LV, and all brands that claim to sell high-end 'hand-made' bags. As usual, I need to stress: this is not saying your point is wrong. This is for you to think about your perspectives.). For example, currently the IT industries need so many people who master computer skills, while in the past technology was not advanced enough to bring such job opportunities. However, as time goes by, more job positions are brought bring up with the generation of new technology. Thus, people could have more choices of diverse jobs in comparison with rare job opportunities in past (Again, I need to remind you that a lot jobs flourished in the past but eventually vanished - the 'switchboard operators', for example - yes, the working population has boomed, and technology has made jobs very different, but the diversity of job opportunities in the past isn't necessarily much worse than that of today.). Contrary to people competing for better jobs today, in the past most people need to compete for jobs which can maintain their lives. So a well-paying job will be competed for more fiercely in the past than it is today (I don't get you. If in the past most people only contend for jobs that are just enough to maintain their lives, that means fewer people competing for the top-paying jobs, yes?). In other words, with more competition and low economic level, it is harder for people in the past to earn money and achieve success.

Secondly, people's living conditions in the past was worse greatly worse than they are today. On the one hand, most people were still worried about basic living needs, so they had no spare money to buy goods. That is, merchants had to suppress others? to attract customers which obstruct? merchants to get profit (Do you mean the merchants had to lower their prices because people had less purchasing power in the past? When you talk about 'purchasing power', have you considered inflation? One example - 'Cleopatra', a movie made in 1963, is still one of the most expensive movies ever made, because when you factor in inflation, $1000 in 1963 is worth a lot more than $1000 today.). But at present, the economy has developed considerably, which helps customers to have more purchasing power, so it is much easier for companies today to get profit and obtain success, even though companies are still competing fiercely. On the other hand, in the past people can't receive education as well as people today (True, but when they did get it they got it so much better than what we got today..but that's another story. I need to digress less.), so it is much harder for them to create new ideas or improve technology. For instance, there are fewer scientists in the past than today, and scientists and artists in the past may even suffer from severe oppression and persecution due to their unusual ideas, such as Copernicus and Van Gogh (Copernicus was persecuted for sure, but Van Gogh? He was depressed, of course, but that was not the same as 'opporession'..). As scientists and artists, it is very difficult to obtain achievement (You can just say 'achieve'. Such obfuscation are obvious traces of your native language. Think about the words you use. Use them in the simplest forms you know.) in the past, while nowadays people have open minds to accept various ideas.

To sum up, if success is defined as being rich or famous, I think it is appropriate to get the conclusion ('conclude') that it is much harder to be successful in the past than today.


总结：


请注意你的从句语法和介词的用法。


> 问题1：我在论述过去的情况时，应该用过去式吗？



过去式或者带过去的一般现在式（people used to do this and that, they are then this and that, blah）都可以，重要的是注意一致，不要乱混用。


> 问题2：结尾应该怎么写合适呢？我一般为了不显得冗余，想写个简单的结尾，结果就是重复了一下观点，显得很无力。


The magic is to 'rephase'. 就像你现在写的这样重复观点，我个人不认为有任何问题，但如果要出彩，你可以换个说法来表达同样的意思 - 如果你能用不同的说法表达相同或者类似的意思，对词汇语法的掌握就都体现出来了。比如你可以至少把harder换成more difficult。。~

qianhuangUID：2766587

4月22日 综合