夜's Kim ~~~daily writing~~~

应小呆UID: 3109940

The author of the article wrote that the paint of a woman was not painted by Rembrandt for three reasons. However, the professor in the lecture challenged writer’s ideas from these three aspects and showed that the painting was indeed painted from（by） Rembrandt.



At first, the passage listed that the way the women dressed was strange ，which contradicted Rembrandt’s characteristic that he was very cared about details. But the professor pointed out that by using X-ray, people found out that some fore color which was not part of the original painting was on the work. The possible reason for this is someone wanted to make it more valuable.



Secondly, professor disagreed with inconsistency of light and shadow asserted by the writer based on the above discovery（有点歧义？above discovery会被理解成上面所说的“发现有人涂改”？）. People also find that on the original painting panel, there was realistic light shadow while the woman was wearing a light color clause（clothes?）. Then this consistency well fit in the statement that “Rembrandt is a master of painting light and shadow.”(这句话真好~学习了~)



Furthermore, the listening material talked about the wood panel which consists of glued wooden debris. According to the foundation that someone added something on the panel, people can easily find out that the wood panel was enlarged. Then probable explanation for it may be larger panel can be more valuable since it seemed grand.（牛~我琢磨了好久，愣是不知道它想说什么==）



Thus, the professor totally disagreed with what the article said about reasons why this painting didn’t belong to Rembrandt. She focused on the three perspective to clearly show her thoughts that Rembrandt was the creator of this painting.

我觉得写得很好吖~~~~~(>_<)~~~~ 我悲剧的理解力

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

16# 应小呆
那个above discovery指的的就是“有人涂改”。真因为有人涂改，在去掉涂改痕迹后，真实的画作是符合光影线条的。

另：我作文一般的T.T都不会用高级词汇。。。

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

7.14 独立
The best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers' salaries.

In my opinion, only increasing teachers’ salaries cannot efficiently improve the quality of education since higher wages may encourage teachers to have more entertainment which may cause lack of time for teachers to concentrate on teaching and students’ attitude towards study is a more important and dominant factor which cannot be influenced totally by teacher.

Considering teachers’ responsibilities, helping their students to learn knowledge is their definite duties. Every responsible teacher wants their students to be perfect. However, only teachers pay more attention to students may not improve the quality of education if students don’t care for their own studies. My mother is a Math teacher and she has been told me several real cases happened on her. One of her students, Lee, was the one who never do homework and listen to classes. Although my mom noticed that he was a potential top student when he came to the school for the first time and encouraged him many times to raise his hand to ask questions, his bad attitude to his study finally made him one of the bad students in the class who can only get 10 points out of 100.

From another perspective, increasing teachers’ salaries may have an opposite influence. Although not every teacher will do that, some of teachers especially young teachers who are not mature with their jobs may buy more clothes and necklaces using additional wages. In their mind, this money is used for relaxing. Then they will pay attention to fashion and new style of cloth but not boring work. Without concentrating on educating students, the quality of education can never be improved by teachers.

Thus, I totally disagree that the quality of education can be improved by increasing teachers’ salaries based on the consideration of students’ attitude toward their study and negative impact that may happen on teachers.

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

7.14综合 TPO4

The lecturer casted doubt on the explanations provided by the author that trying to persuade that dinosaurs were endotherms from three perspectives respectively.

Firstly, the professor disagreed with “polar dinosaurs” explanation although the writer applied evidence that dinosaur fossils were found in polar regions where dinosaurs had to keep constant and relatively high temperature to survive. She thought that polar regions were much warmer than current ones. When the climate was good, dinosaurs can definitely live in there. When the climate was bad, they can also migrate to other warm places.

Secondly, the professor pointed out that leg position cannot strongly support that dinosaurs were endotherms, no matter the writer thought that endotherms have legs underneath their bodies due to sustainable physical activities. The lecturer offered another possible explanation that the special leg position might be used to support large weight which can be beneficial for dinosaurs to maintain energy.

Lastly, the professor asserted that the growth rate of dinosaurs may not like what the writer said although she admitted that there were Haversian canals in dinosaurs’ bone structures. She claimed that the evidence of thickness of bone samples can strongly illustrated that dinosaurs grew rapidly when the weather was nice but slow and even stop the growth when the temperature was low. The evidence was opposite to the fact that endotherms always grow rapidly, no matter how high or how low the temperature is.

All in all, the professor totally disagreed with the passage.

应小呆UID: 3109940

第一个改的就是你的，结果我家的网抽了，没发送上去，丢了，又重写~~~~(>_<)~~~~

欢迎你来改我的作文
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1280678-5-1.html
In my opinion, I’d like to choose to set a practical plan about my future since challenging plans can always make me less self-confident and practical ones are flexible when I meet conflicting schedules.



In both short-term and long-term, practical plans are useful and can encourage me to accomplish it efficiently. A typical example is setting study plans for English exams. In short-term, for example, in a period of ten days, since a lot of vocabulary cannot be remembered, I’d reject challenging plans like memorizing 2000 words since I will not be confident enough to（加一个continue to？） trust myself if I cannot reach my target. In this case, I definitely prefer to do some practices which are similar to real exams. In long-term, for instance, in a semester, because I used to examine the percentage of the whole work that I’ve accomplished, if I cannot do well as I supposed to do, I also lose much confidence.(我非常非常欣赏你这个长短期的例子，和前后的对应感，虽然用的都是很简单的词，但有种很严密的感觉，但后面这个长期的例子，逻辑有点乱，感觉confidence、efficiency和practical plan之间的关系没有说明白)）



Additionally, practical plans are flexible which means that I can change part of my plan or make a compromise when I meet conflicting schedules. Such experience always exists in my daily life. For example, I planned to do physical exercise at night which may spend me about 2 hours. However, my mother told me that I had to have a dinner with one of her friends’ family （我对这种语法结构一向很迷惑，去掉形容性部分之后就是one of family，总感觉有点怪怪的==）he evening, so I have not enough time to complete my exercise. At this time, I can have various options such as doing the practice in the afternoon or adding complementary exercise in the following days. If I have a challenging plan, no spare time can be left for me to make some changes to the plan or have a break.' m! D: ]8 @' i2 ?3 \
4 E$ C) E( Z- g/ h- C+ p
For the reasons I listed above, compared to challenging plans which always take me a lot of time and need plenty of work, I prefer to set a practical one for myself. From one side, it can encourage me to be self-confident and finally accomplish the supposed work. Form（from） another side, it can be flexible and allow me to have some spare time to relax


感觉有点奇怪，但总体而言，我觉得没有什么很严重的问题
大家一起加油↖(^ω^)↗

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

7.15 独立
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
The government should support scientific research that does not have any practical use.

In my opinion, a main purpose of doing scientific research is to use the final result in our daily life. Having no practical use, a scientific research loses its major value. Due to negative effects of researches, government should not encourage them including not offering money. More importantly, since government has the responsibility to support all citizens basic needs, if the experiment cannot benefit its citizens, government should better use the money to provide more subsidies for firms or pensions for olds.

When deciding whether a scientific research is successful, we always consider a crucial factor that how people can get benefits from it. Take a look at various experiments which deserves a Nobel Price, I can easily list some which help to improve our lives. For example, for a long time, scientists pay attention to the inner structure of nucleus a lot. Large amount of money had been put into researches. Nowadays, human discovered nuclear energy to support great amount of electric energy needed.

Additionally, almost every experiment is harmful to our environment. If government raises money for researches, it should pay more money to try to compromise the negative impacts on environment produced by experiments. Nuclear energy is still a typical example. From the earthquake happened in Japan, humans are aware of the enormous negative consequences produced by using nuclear energy. Then lots of nuclear stations in other countries are stopped to use. Finally, the results of this scientific research become nothing. Government’s supportive money also has no value.

From another perspective, government should focus on improving the development of the country which is mainly measured by indicators such as school enrollment rate and life expectancy but not so-called scientific researches that have little value.

All in all, I think scientific researches don’t deserve supportive money from government.

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

7.15 综合
TPO 5

The listening material suggested that all three theories provided by the reading passage are not compelling. The professor used evidences that support opposite opinion of author’s to explain his views about the function of Chaoco structures.

For the first theory that these huge houses were residential, the speaker pointed out that although the features from the outside looks like apartments, the inside of the structure showed that no residents lived in there before since no supposed fire places used for families to cook remained in the structure.

Considering the second theory which said that these structures were used to store grain maize, the professor thought that the evidence provided was not convincing. Due to the fact that no traces of maize or containers of food left in the houses, only theoretical explanation cannot persuade that the function of Chaoco structures was to store food.

Similarly, the professor claimed that the evidence of broken pots cannot well support the theory that these structures were used to hold ceremonies since there were other evidences of other materials including building materials such as tools and sand. These evidences offered another explanation that broken pots were just regular trash produced by workers.

In conclusion, the professor disagreed with the author and drew the conclusion that the function of Chaoco structures is still vague now.

lyn7981UID: 2758158

来了来了我来改，我动作有点慢，第一次，改得慢，不好意思

dadafanUID: 2659273

7.14修改

carol0607UID: 3022610

欢迎批改我的作文：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1284071-1-1.html


In my opinion, a main purpose of doing scientific research（s） is to use the final result（s） in our daily life. （其实理论上泛指的研究结果都应该是复数的，有人跟我说考试时不知道该用单数还是复数的选复数错的机会小点，哈~）Having no practical use, a scientific research loses its major value.（the scientific researches will loses its major value if these have no practical use. (原本这句不是英语的逻辑，如果要这么写是不是也缺少因果的连词呢） Due to negative effects of researches, （the） government should not encourage them including not offering money. More importantly, since government has the responsibility to support all citizens basic needs, if the experiment cannot benefit（s） its citizens, （the）government should better use the money to provide more subsidies for firms or pensions for olds.

When deciding whether a scientific research is successful, we always consider a crucial factor that how people can get benefits from it. Take a look at various experiments which deserves a Nobel Price, I can easily list some which help to improve our lives. For example, for a long time, scientists pay attention to the inner structure of nucleus a lot. Large amount of money had been put into researches. Nowadays, human discovered nuclear energy to support great amount of electric energy needed

Additionally, almost every experiment is harmful to our environment. If government raises money for researches, it should pay more money to try to compromise the negative impacts on environment produced by experiments. Nuclear energy is still a typical example. From the earthquake happened in Japan, humans are aware of the enormous negative consequences produced by using nuclear energy. Then lots of nuclear stations in other countries are（was） stopped to use. Finally, the results of this scientific research become（means） nothing. Government’s supportive money also has no value.（例子不错，紧跟潮流，跟上头呼应的很好）

From another perspective, （the）government should focus on improving the development of the country which is mainly measured by indicators such as school enrollment rate and life expectancy but not so-called scientific researches that have little（less）value.

All in all, I think scientific researches don’t deserve supportive money from government.

水平有限 在文章结构上帮不上太大忙 惭愧惭愧~

lyn7981UID: 2758158

7.15 独立8 K9 |/ d8 t U% B( d4 S \3 f
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:; U+ e+ y1 {/ @# u) w8 e
The government should support scientific research that does not have any practical use. - ?0 q# n& g+ N/ V

In my opinion, a main purpose of doing scientific research is to use the final result in our daily life. (In my opinion, Practicality seems clearly to be the litmus test for scientific research.用a main purpose is 给我感觉像写实验报告，嘿嘿，个人喜好)Having no practical use, a scientific research loses (will lose，温柔点) its major value. Due to (due to 用作因为偏多，我觉得用考虑到更好allow for/ take sth into consideration/with respect of)negative effects of researches, government should not encourage them including not offering money（not offering money 也太直白了吧，cutting down financial support吧）. More importantly, since government has the responsibility to support all citizens basic needs, （用government has the responsibility有点中文话,试试it is government’s responsibility to…/government should take the responsibility to…会不会好点）if the experiment cannot benefit its citizens, government should better use the money to provide more subsidies for firms or pensions for olds.（using the money to …will be a better choice一直用主谓宾会有审美疲劳的，你说呢）& [( b6 U* B2 B. J
When deciding whether a scientific research is successful, we always consider a crucial factor that how people can get benefits from it. （When it comes to the definition of a successful scientific research, we tend instinctively to regard its direct/immediate benefits as a criterion） Take a look at various experiments which deserves a Nobel Price, I can easily list some which help to improve our lives.(想说明最高荣誉诺贝尔奖也是看中有社会贡献的科学研究的，是这个意思吗？是不是要改进一下，有点难读懂。Even to the Nobel Price, scientific researches which serve people are highly appreciated ) For example, for a long time, scientists pay attention to the inner structure of nucleus a lot. Large amount of money had been put into researches. Nowadays, human discovered nuclear energy to support great amount of electric energy needed.1 _) b# P8 Y, a8 T* S8 a4 q

Additionally, almost every experiment is harmful to our environment. If government raises money for researches, it should pay more money to try to compromise(neutralize) the negative impacts on environment produced by experiments. Nuclear energy is still a typical example. From the earthquake happened in Japan, humans are aware of the enormous negative consequences produced by using nuclear energy. Then lots of nuclear stations in other countries are stopped to use. Finally, the results of this scientific research become nothing. Government’s supportive money also has no value.（这里有点流水账了哟~妈妈催我睡觉了，明天帮你改改）
6 ]% u. ^9 g: }: W% J$ H/ k
From another perspective（好连接，学习了）, government should focus on improving the development of the country which is mainly measured by indicators（indicator是什么东西？指示器？指标？） such as school enrollment rate and life expectancy but not so-called scientific researches that have little value.
6 b I, |4 `& o+ X( n$ \1 x
All in all, I think scientific researches （with no practical use）don’t deserve supportive money from government.

看得出你的语言能力很不错，功底很好。但是可能因为我是支持给钱的，所以觉得你的论点不够有说服力。
如果正面不好也可以试试从反面写，如果政府资助那些无实用价值的科技项目，谁来解决当前社会所遇到的问题，谁来维持社会的前进，工业的发展。无用的科技项目好比一张空头支票，我们不知道它兑现的时间或者它是否会兑现。
或者从不同角度写，比如：我们需要立竿见影的医疗技术来解决癌症，我们需要有直接实用价值的科技来解决人口多粮食少的问题。。。。

cherrycarrieUID: 2943359

7.16 独立
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
In a cooperation of team, the people who cannot accept criticize couldn’t be successful. Use specific reasons and examples to support your idea.

Indeed, none of successful people can reach success without meeting any criticism. However, I’d like to examine the issue from another side. In my opinion, if members in a team always hold the same opinion, although the team is harmonious and works well, the project produced can never be creative since everyone accepts critics but no one holds the opposite opinion. More importantly, it’s necessary to examine the same project from the opposite side in order to make it perfect from every perspective.

It’s logic to say that debates can always produce creativity. Then a team needs some people to have distinctive views. Through the discussion between people who cannot accept criticism and ones who give criticism, we can examine the same thing from a different angle. For example, when a team is introducing a new product, for example, a kind of juice, the team may think that they should make something tasty and seems nice. However, they would criticize the one who only consider the health problems of it which cannot make profits for the team. If this person keeps his opinion firmly, the other members may think about his reasons. After discussion, they may realize that since consumers now mainly focus on their health but not the outlook or whether the juice tastes nice, healthy juice may help them to meet more demand.

Certainly, creativity is not the only advantage that can be produced from not accepting criticism. The example above is still a typical one. After establishing the new product, the team may also find out that since they put much attention to both tastes, outlook and healthy. The final product is perfect from every aspect.

In conclusion, I think people should not always accept others’ criticism since a different but creative opinion can not only make creativity for a team but also let the final result perfect.

我觉得这篇实在写的太不好了，写了很长时间，却觉得写不出东西。
希望大家多提供修改意见~~~~