daily writing by zhen

ba80403UID: 3034877

4.5号修改

mpromanusUID: 2565872

14# zhennupt

People would be happier if they had fewer possessions？ Agree or not?

Happiness is the very thing that almost everyone, no matter of his gender, age, profession, and nationality, is avidly longing for (You started with 'everyone', a singular noun.). Throughout the past centuries, the world has experienced significant progress in technology and economic development, but unfortunately, the emotional welfare (If you use 'the', the noun must be specific, i.e. 'the emotional welfare of single mothers', or 'the emotional welfare system of the modern society' - unless the noun itself is universally understood to be singular and there is no ambiguity, e.g. the Earth. You can't and shouldn't just throw it in front of every noun you use. The article 'the' is probably the most abused word in the English language.) has barely advanced and even become worse. The lost happiness (You seem to assume that 'worse emotional welfare' == 'lost happiness'. Is that even a valid assumption..and this, judging from your entire sentence, should probably be 'the loss of happiness'.) then is linked to the increased possessions by many people. Yet fewer possessions do not necessarily result in more happiness.

There is no doubt that happiness is a concept regarding of psychological contentment. That seems unrelated or irrelevant to the property? (Even without that 'the', it is hard to understand why you must mention 'property' here..isn't 'property' part of 'wealth', after all? Unless, of course, you meant 'propsperity'..) and the wealth, but it is actually interrelated and interdependent with the possessions (The way you keep using 'the possessions' surely makes me doubt that you don't fully comprehend what 'possessions' actually means here in this question..). For your personal life, you may pursue love and romance which bring you affection, joy, and excitement, but you have to pay for dinners, gifts, drama and movie tickets that provide the opportunities to find comment (Do you mean 'common'?) interests of you and your loved one, that enable your intimate communications, and enhance your relationship. However, all these activities inevitably involve certain amounts of costs, and without money, you simply cannot afford to them, and consequently cannot gain the happiness you desire for. Also engaging your professional work that brings about the sense of achievement and hence happiness, not only require your efforts but necessitate financial support as well (I don't get this. Don't you normally work FOR money instead of paying money to work? Why does it require financial support to engage professional work?). Money is important, although not vital, to the success of professions for people, no matter for scientists, artists or businessmen. (Well, I'm now pretty sure that you really don't fully comprehend 'possessions', or at least you have drifted from 'possessions' to 'purchases' to 'money'..'Possessions' here mean physical objects owned, of which 'property' is a good example, and usually, I mean usually, do not include 'money'..)


However, that by no means indicates the money can buy happiness or the amount of possessions is proportional to the pleasure. Quite the opposite, wealth sometimes leads to deterioration of your mental well-being. In fact, today the most prevalent and dangerous illness is no longer physical problems but psychological disorder. Insomnia, for instance, has wildly plagued millions of people across the world, much larger? (What, exactly, is larger than what?) than before when the living standard and economy is far less advanced than today's. That is because the increasing possessions only result in greedy, jealousy and even aggressiveness. (So you blame greed, jealousy and agressiveness for insomnia..I'm sure doctors will have a lot to argue about that..) Although the highly advanced technology and the unprecedented wealth it bring about afford much comfort, and provide many opportunities to pursue happiness, they just deprive us of the time for us to enjoy the comfort and the mental peace that happiness largely depends on.

In conclusion, fewer possessions often mean narrowed and restricted avenues to obtain for your pursuits, while huge possessions also cannot be directly transformed into happiness. What genuinely matters for being happy is to learn your thoughts from within, to keep healthy spirits and make efforts to realize what you believe is worthy and can give you pleasance and contentment. (Yeah that all sounds very nice but I thought your point for this essay was 'fewer possessions do not necessarily result in more happiness'? If you want to sit on the fence, say that you're going to sit on the fence from the start, and do just that. Give a consistent message throughout - it doesn't really matter whether you agree or disagree or sit on the fence, but it's definitely not good to seemingly disagree THEN sit on the fence..)



总结：


除了需要注意一下主谓语单复一致，你的语言功底很不错，但是


1. 从头到尾你也没说明白possessions到底是个什么概念，直接上‘金钱’‘财富’。。你可以用自己对题目的理解去说理，但是如果你不非常确定题目的意思，则请务必在起首段声明‘我认为xx的意思是xx，所以xxxxxx’。


2. 如果你要骑墙，请在一开始就表明你的立场是要骑墙，但是你依然要有一个贯穿到底的立场。单纯把两边都说一通不等于你有自己的立场，就好像你如果说你不喜欢白菜也不喜欢青菜，别人依然不知道你到底喜欢吃什么。具体请参考jiang08斑竹此帖：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1152419&highlight

zhennuptUID: 2748934

还是超时了...


Teachersshould make their political or social views known in the classroom


谢谢修改.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

18# zhennupt

Teachers should make their political or social views known in the classroom.

Education has never failed to be the major concern for any society as a whole, no matter for parents or governmental administrators. What teachers in class should impart is one of the most popular topics about this concern, and possibly a sensitive and controversial issue is whether teachers can be allowed to talk about their social and political views in class. Personally, there is nothing wrong with teachers sharing views, even the sensitive ones, with students. What does matter is the ways in which views are given.

Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech is ensured for any citizens in almost all democratic countries. In the United States, particularly, as back to the time when the First Amendment was approved by the Congress, everybody in the country has been guaranteed the right to propose (To 'propose' is not exactly the same as 'to talk about' or 'to share'. Be careful when you rephrase.) any views in any places, and certainly teachers are no exception. In terms of legitimacy ('Legitimation' is the act of making something legitimate, rather than the actual state of being legitimate.), teachers are entitled to discussing social or political events, from the feminism movements to the US-led Iraq war, or the current Libya conflict ('Conflict' happens betwen two parties. If you say 'the Libya conflict', it means Libya is in a conflict with some other entity, rather than a conflict of forces IN Libya itself.).

More importantly, the class discussion that such teachers' talking is likely to be converted into can provide students with opportunities to think actively and critically, and to improve their argument and presentation skills: the very thing that education is aimed (Why not just 'aims'?) to achieve. (This is a very long sentence. Layer it clearly.) However, the premise of all these blessings is a lively and motivated discussion. It’s not uncommon that one would be more passionate when giving opinions that he/she agrees with. That means entirely forbidding teachers from proposing their own views may only dampen teachers’ enthusiasm and weaken their motivation. A class without teachers’ active participation will simply be reduced to a drab and soporific lecture, the last thing that parents and school administrators want.

Yet provided that teachers' views may sometimes may be unconvincing or even biased, we should be cautious to prevent the class from being a process of ideology indoctrination ('Indoctrination' already encompasses the idea of 'doctrine'). Due to the considerable impact of teachers in the class and the unbalanced relationship between teachers and students, teachers’ comments are likely to carry more weights with young and impressionable students than they (It's quite unclear who or what 'they' are here but my guess is 'comments'..) actually deserve. Teachers therefore should keep in mind that the discussion is to arouse students' enthusiasm in critical thinking and raise their concerns on the real world, rather than to promote their own beliefs or even impose opinions on students.

In conclusion, it is legally and professionally justified and beneficial for teachers to share their individual ideas on social or political issues in class as long as the opposing voices from students are allowed to be heard too.

总结：

This is a well-argued piece of work, but please pay attention to the requirements of your actual task. The usual TOEFL writing topic would be something like 'Do you agree with the following? blah blah. Use specific examples.' Your essay, while a good response to the cited task, is more akin to a GRE essay than a TOEFL one, because it doesn't really argue with 'specific examples'. So, just a word of precaution.

zhennuptUID: 2748934

It is often not a good thing to move to anew city or a new country because of the lost of old friends?

mpromanusUID: 2565872

20# zhennupt

It is often not a good thing to move to a new city or a new country because of the lost of old friends?

Today, the sweeping economic and cultural globalization as well as the advancement of transportation facilitates the mobility of society. Many people frequently move from one place to another for more promising career development or pursuing better living quality; some others, though may have the same opportunities to leave for other places, would rather stay for the sake of keeping relationship with friends there (Where?), which in my opinion, is neither a necessary nor an effective way, it should be 'is to maintain relationship and may also restrict individuals' development emotionally and professionally.(I'm utterly confused by what you are trying to express with this. This is not a proper sentence, and the long phrase in quotation marks is simply a lazy workaround.)

It is important to notice that the affinity between individuals have little connection with the physical distance between the two people (Why not just 'them'?). The main point (The main point of what?) lies in their interests, personalities, and shared belief shared by them. Living far from each other may decrease the frequency of face-to-face communication but by no means substantially separates them (Who? If you started out with a generic reference to 'individuals', keep it generic - '..separates people from keeping in touch...'.) from keeping in touch with each other. Especially in this age with booming advanced communication technology, we are just a-click-of-a-button (Again, this kind of expression tends to appear informal and sometimes unprofessional. Use with caution.) away from our friends via the Internet. The information highway affords us with multiple social networking websites like the YouTube (Strictly speaking, YouTube is primarily a content publishing website, not a social networking website..) where we can upload any video clip about our interests, talents and feelings, the Facebook where we can organize fascinating activities, share opinions and discuss on current issues, and the Twitter which significantly speeds up the spread of information and knowledge among us and friends. All these provide us with effective and convenient ways to keep in touch with our friends and even enable us to better understand others in broader aspects, which clearly indicates the eclipse of effects? (What do you mean by 'eclipse'? It doesn't mean 'to reduce' or 'to decline'. It means 'fall into obscurity' - and, effects don't normally become 'obscure'..) exerted by geography distance on forming an intimate friendship.

More importantly, true friends are those who always give us the best wishes and largest amount of support, but not the ones who restrict our activities and become an obstacle for our progress and achievement. Refusing to adapt into a new environment defeats the very purpose of making friends. In fact, moving to a new city or a new country would not only offer better opportunities or higher standards of life (Not always..think Mother Theresa..), but would also allow us to make more friends as well. After all, we need different kinds of friends: some with considerable knowledge and sensitive judgment who we collaborate in combating? professional issues, some who are willing to listen to the partners complaining and nagging and all the time afford? (The way you use 'afford' is certainly very awkward..) consolation and comfort, and other companions we can go with to gyms or movie theaters with. In addition, friends from different places with diverse backgrounds can give us fresh and stimulating ideas about a variety of matters, and interaction with them is likely to enhance our social skills -- the qualities that are critical for personal success. The experience of making different friends and living in a distinct? place can also boost self-confidence and improve self-esteem. Therefore, I would argue that moving a new place is beneficial both intellectually and emotionally.

In conclusion, far from getting people at risk of losing old friends, settling in a new place would motive people to treasure old friendships and develop new ones. Modern technology affords fresh and efficient ways to strength bonds of friendship. Also, the considerable benefits in terms of professional success and emotional development are all justifications for getting into a new environment.


总结：

You certainly writes well, but the way you use your lexical resources seems to show some lack in mastery of certain vocabulary..and still quite a bit of influence from your native language. Continue to drill towards precision in your writing.

zhennuptUID: 2748934

谢谢批改.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

22# zhennupt

People can solve important problems by themselves or with the help from their family members so there's no need for the government to help them.


We have to confront various kinds of problems, individual or collective, social or political, straightforward or convoluted. To solve some of them, we mainly depend on our own efforts and support from family members or friends, but the government is also important, sometimes even critical, for us in combating individual problems.

Clearly, some private problems have little connections with the government. When choosing a spouse, few would ever turn to the government officials for help. (This reminds me: the Singapore government has a special social development division that promotes marriage and organize dating events, family-related seminars and official group marriages for Singapore residents – because the fertility rate in Singapore is dangerously low and young females are becoming less and less willing to have kids. I mean people actually trust this government division as a dating agency. Just an interesting piece of information related to your topic about ‘spouse’.) That decision is totally made by individuals themselves. The government is not obligated to and unable to help an individual choose his/her spouse as everybody has his/her own have wish lists that may emphasize distinctive personality? spectrums. Also, the government cannot help us in making a decision on whether people should attend a university for pursuing higher education or get a job for accumulating employment experience when they graduate from high school. In this case, our own personalities and interests largely determine our future career plans (More accurately speaking, higher education is usually not considered a ‘career’, but postgraduate studies can be.). What we should do is thinking from within to understand ourselves and to maximally fulfill our potentials. The government certainly has no idea about those critical aspects of individuals and has no right to arbitrarily sway one's choice. (This is well written. But, you’re a bit swayed in the direction of ‘making decisions’ rather than ‘solving problems’..)

However, it is undoubted that the government plays a significant role in our lives. It is its duty to guarantee the social order and promote the well-being of all citizens. Some problems confronting us can be traced to the policies enforced by the government and our decisions need to be in accordance with rules and laws that are also legitimated by the authorities (I don’t see what the logical connection between the clauses is though..the part before the ‘and’ and the part after express apparently unrelated ideas.). Today, graduates from high schools are hard-pressed to find a promising job although (Should be ‘even though’.) they may be well-educated and highly skilled. Indeed, the soaring unemployment rate is closely linked to the performance of a government. Individuals themselves cannot solve this difficulty on their own since they cannot create job opportunities, but the government can take a variety of measures to facilitate the local economy to generate jobs available jobs, such as implementing incentives to attract foreign companies or encouraging local corporations to enlarge their scales. Also, although it is ridiculous when a government helps an individual to choose a spouse, the rights and responsibilities in term of property of a couple? (What do you mean by ‘property of a couple’?) are clearly defined by laws, which are enforced by the authorities. Reconciling disputes that may occur among couples also necessitate participation of the court and should be aligned to the laws as well. In short, the special status of the government--the authority with power and considerable resources--and the natural responsibilities of it determine its indispensible contribution in addressing some individual problems those involving larger concerns of communities.

In conclusion, although one’s own efforts are the determining factor in dealing with personal problems, the achievement (Of what?) dependents on policies and laws issued by the government that provide rights, necessary conditions and regulations facilitating individuals to solve problems.

总结：

这篇写得相当好了，虽然题目/文章的形式都还是像GRE多过托。。正式考试还请留意题目的具体要求~

zhennuptUID: 2748934

辛苦了

mpromanusUID: 2565872

24# zhennupt

The government should support scientific research that does not have any practical use.

The significant progress in technology and the considerable improvement of human well-being clearly demonstrate the power of scientific research, as all advancements are mainly driven by the achievements in science (So are you saying ‘all advancements’ only include ‘progress in technology and the considerable improvement of human well-being’, which demonstrate the power of research? Basically, I don’t see the relationship between the 1st and 2nd halves of this sentence). The contribution is made not only by applied research, but more importantly, by basic science research (1. I actually know what you are trying to express, and I trust you do, too, but you can’t really expect an average American reader would appreciate the difference, because applied vs. basic research is actually jargon invented by OECD, and the meaning of ’basic’ in ‘basic research’ is very different from the commonly understood idea of ‘basic’. In such a case, it is better to refer to them as ‘applied research’ and ‘pure/fundamental research’. 2. It’s ‘scientific research’ not ‘science research’.. the meanings are completely different.), which has a long-term influence on the whole scientific community and the society, and thus needs much more support in terms of finance and political policies from the government. (Well, your point is that the government should support research alright, but I still don’t get your opinion on the question – should the government support research that is of no practical use? You mentioned only ‘applied’ and ‘basic research’, so are you saying ‘basic research’ equals ‘research of no practical use’ but the government should still support it? Or are you saying that all researches have practical use so the question is not really an issue? You have to make the gist of your entire argument clear in the 1st paragraph – or I simply won’t know what you’re trying to argue for.)

I seriously doubt that there exists any scientific research of no practical use when we judge the research in a broad time frame and take into account the potential significance to other related practical one??. In fact, almost all scientific research, including research in basic science like physics and basic chemistry which is believed by a large number of people to be unrelated to them, has undeniable value in many aspects of our lives. For example, Newton's laws of motion would serve no practical end in the sense that they only describe the natural mechanical principles underlying the real world, and (If you use ‘which’, you’re continuing with either ‘the real world’ or the ‘principles’ as the subject of the following clause, while I think it should really be ‘they’.) neither directly produce any useful products nor lead to inventions that have revolutionized the world. Yet as a foundation of classical physics, the laws for the first time gave a unified quantitative explanation for a wide range of physical phenomena and actually have facilitated research in physics, astronomy, chemistry and also applied sciences especially engineering. Specifically, these laws are a basic concern when designing a car or a plane, and guide the production activities of manufacturing industries, thereby helping to create enormous wealth and largely improving the social well-being (Good argument. Good example.). Probably, basic scientific research is undervalued because it may take a long time before their benefits are recognized. Evaluating the value of a kind of research therefore should not depend on judging whether it has immediate practical use but require fully understanding of its potential influence in the long term. The government, therefore, is obliged to provide support for research without immediate or apparent practical use.

In addition, compared with applied science research, the basic science research requires much more attention from the government. It is because the practical value of applied science naturally makes applied science more attractive for commercial companies and hence the research is likely to receive substantial funds from industries, those that the research is supposed to benefit. In contrast, the research of little immediate value to the industry would find it much more difficult to ask for support from companies, and so the fund from the government may be the only available financial source. In addition of financial support, the government need to implement policies to motivate researchers to work on basic science and to encourage them to research fundamental scientific subjects as today an increasing number of scientists turn to applied science and industrial research for the purpose of a higher salary. (This part about motivation and all is a bit uncalled for, because it is already beyond the question of whether the government should support research of no practical use..but it doesn’t really harm your essay. If you really want to keep this part, you could turn it around and say that similar to the funding issue you have discussed, many researchers are turning to applied research nowadays, and the government’s support is especially vital.)

In conclusion, far from stopping investing in research with little predictable value, the government should allocate a large proportion of money to such research and issue favored policy and incentives on it because of its fundamental role in science, promising long-term value in the long term and its lack of financial support from the society.

总结：

My only grudge against this essay would be that if I only read your opening paragraph, I won’t know what exactly your point is. Please make it clear from the start. Other than that this is a well-written essay.