rain_deer的作文贴

rain_deerUID: 3048091

第一篇IBT作文，自己纪念一下~

rain_deerUID: 3048091

Does easier-prepared food improve the way people live?
Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Unlike housewives decades ago who went through long and complicated process to prepare a meal, people nowadays prepare food fairly easily. Modern technology has brought us high quality kitchen appliances like refrigerator, microwave oven, and electromagnetic stove. At the same time, the booming food industry has filled our market with various kinds of instant food like instant noodles, canned vegetables and frozen food. Today, to prepare a meal, one just needs to stuff what he buys from the supermarket into his microwave oven and it only takes several minutes, with minimal cooking knowledge or expertise. Thanks to modern technology, busy working people no longer need to spend their precious time on cooking for themselves, and wives no longer need to study complex cooking knowledge nor to go over hard training. But does this simplified cooking procedure actually improve people’s life? In my opinion, the answer is no.
Although easier cooking procedure saves people’s time and makes our daily life more convenient, it, on the other hand deprives the pleasure of cooking. You can imagine a cook preparing a meal from selecting materials to chopping vegetables to smelling the scent from his spoiling soup, the process of cooking is a kind of creation, his own work of art. He derives satisfaction and happiness from the long and somewhat complex process of cooking. But what do you get from a process of taking something out of the fridge and push it directly into your microwave oven? Only a sense of hurriedness and superficiality I’m afraid. And I’m also afraid that the eating experience after the fast cooking is also hurried. A relaxed and enjoying eating experience is thus deprived.
In addition to the lack of enjoyment in one’s cooking and eating, if we focus on the food produced to be cooked instantly, we may easily find that these foods lack the nutrients from the fresh and natural materials, or the additives to preserve them is harmful to human body. It is easy to understand that producers have to sacrifice the nutrients to achieve longer preserving time and convenient shape for transportation, because technological methods to achieve these goals must include drying or adding preservatives. Every year we hear about incidents in which people suffer health problems due to harmful additives from instant food. Those food are designed to make people’s life easier, but in fact they do harm to people’s health. In this way, the instant food actually deteriorates people’s life by harming their health.
In conclusion, the fact that people prepare food more easily deprives the pleasure in cooking, which makes modern people’s fast speed life even tenser. Moreover, many instant foods is harmful to human health. These two basic facts means that preparing food more easily does not improve people’s life as it seems.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

2# rain_deer

Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Unlike housewives decades ago who went through long and complicated processes to prepare a meal, people nowadays prepare food fairly easily. Modern technology has brought us high quality kitchen appliances like the refrigerator, the microwave oven, and the electromagnetic stove (A countable noun cannot stand on its own without an article.). At the same time, the booming food industry has filled our market with various kinds of instant food like instant noodles, canned vegetables and frozen food. Today, to prepare a meal, one just needs to stuff what he buys from the supermarket into his microwave oven, and it only takes several minutes, with minimal cooking knowledge or expertise (Your original sentence is not wrong. I just made it more clearly layered.). Thanks to modern technology, busy working people no longer need to spend their precious time on cooking for themselves, and wives no longer need to study complex cooking knowledge (In English, you don't study knowledge. You study for knowledge.) nor to go over hard trainings. But does this simplified cooking procedure actually improve people’s lives? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Although an easier cooking procedure saves people’s time and makes our daily lives more convenient, it, on the other hand, deprives us of ('Deprive' is not a straight vt. 'deprive + <noun>' means 'to remove something from <noun>', not 'to remove <noun>'. The use of 'deprive' is almost always fixed as 'deprive sb. of sth.', or as 'deprived' - 'This is a culturally deprived area.'/ 'I am deprived of sleep.') the pleasure of cooking. You can imagine a cook preparing a meal, from selecting materials to chopping vegetables to smelling the scent from his spoiling?? (You sure this is what you mean?) soup: the process of cooking is a kind of creation, his own work of art. He derives satisfaction and happiness from the long and somewhat complex process of cooking. But what do you get from a process of taking something out of the fridge and push it directly into your microwave oven? Only a sense of hurriedness and superficiality I’m afraid. And I’m also afraid that the eating experience after the fast cooking is also hurried. A relaxed and enjoyable eating experience is thus deprived (You seem to be using 'deprived' in place of 'lost' or 'lacking' becaue yes, they do mean similar things, especially if translated to Chinese. But as I've commented just now, 'deprived' is simply not used in the same way as 'lost' is. Study your vocabulary with a proper English dictionary, or better, with real native English examples of how words are used. Try not to trust on Chinese translations alone.).

In addition to the lack of enjoyment in one’s cooking and eating, if we focus on the food produced to be cooked instantly, we may easily find that these foods (Keep the form consistent. Use either 'food' or 'foods' throughout the entire sentence, but not both.) lack the nutrients from the fresh and natural materials, or the additives to preserve them (The problem with this sentence is that you changed the subject after the 'or', and there is no clear signal that you're now going back from 'nutrients' to talk about 'these foods' again. When a reader parses this sentence, he'll pair the 'or' part with the part after 'lack' first, then realize that it's the not correct intepretation. Yes, there's nothing quite wrong in writing like this, and I know a lot of reading materials have similarly confusing sentences - but I think our aim in writing should not be to test our readers. We write to communicate our ideas clearly. Clarity and readability should be taken into consideration whenever possible.) is harmful to the human body. It is easy to understand that producers have to sacrifice the nutrients to achieve longer preserving time (This is usually referred to as 'shelf life' for commercial food products.) and convenient shapes for transportation, because technological methods to achieve these goals must include drying or adding preservatives. Every year we hear about incidents in which people suffer from health problems due to harmful additives from instant food. Those foods are designed to make people’s lives easier, but in fact they do harm to people’s health. In this way, the instant food actually deteriorates people’s lives by harming their health.

In conclusion, the fact that people prepare food more easily deprives them of the pleasure in cooking, which makes modern people’s fast speed life even tenser. Moreover, many instant foods are harmful to human health. These two basic facts means that preparing food more easily does not improve people’s life as it seems.

总结：

你的语言论述都不错，注意一下某些词句的用法即可。另外food这个词可单可复，所以明显给你造成了一定的困扰 - 这种情况下请选定一套用法（比如，一般称呼所有食品用food, 速食食品就说instant foods），不要摇摆。

rain_deerUID: 3048091

第一次写作业~
严重超时了。。。
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.


It is all upright people’s dream that good people are rewarded and that bad people are punished. Consequently, people love to see their dream come true, even in televisions and movies. There are two points which make sense to show good people being rewarded and bad people being punished in televisions and movies. First, it’s the desire of the general public, and the expectation of a healthy society, so this arrangement will gain more popularity. Second, such scenarios are favorable to educating children. To small kids who do not have much social experience, the world in the television is an important path for them to know about the world of reality. Thus, showing good people getting rewarded and bad guys getting punished teaches them how they should behave in order to end up in good results.
Despite these arguments, should televisions and movies always show good people being rewarded and bad people being punished? I believe the answer should be negative. The first reason against this perfect presentation of moral is that it’s contrary to the reality. We all know that not all good people get good results and some bad people end up quite well. For example, Martin Luther King was assassinated after all his efforts to call for the rights of black Americans. But Jack the Ripper, the notorious murderer who killed innocent people and mocked the police, was never caught or punished. This is unfair, as you may say, but this is true life. To reveal the reality is a momentous responsibility for televisions and movies, like novels and all other kinds of literature forms. The ugliness and unfairness in the real world cannot be eliminated by veiling them, so in televisions and movies we should admit these facts and present them to the public.
Some people may say exposing facts on the mass media will eventually mislead our kids, because if we let them see that good people end up miserably, bad people are not punished, even get “rewarded”, they will be “discouraged” to become good people “encouraged” to grow into bad people. Then this claim denies the appeal of tragedy. Think about the Greek classical tragedies, the hero perished in the end, but the sad ending merely adds to readers’ admiration to the hero’s courage to fight against fate and sufferings. After all, we must teach our children that they should be good people not for the sake of the benefits it brings, but for its own sake, that’s for the value of a noble person.
In a word, televisions and movies should not always show audiences good people being rewarded and bad people being punished for it is falsehood and lacks appeal.

zhanghaosiUID: 2963339

改的不好的话请见谅，仅供参考吧~希望能对你有帮助。有些句子我读起来怪怪的，可我也说不出是哪里的问题。
It is all upright people’s dream that good people are rewarded and (that) bad people are punished. Consequently, people love to see their dream come true, even in televisions and movies. There are two points which make sense to show good people being rewarded and bad people being punished in televisions and movies. First, it’s the desire of the general public(the public or general public), and it’s also the expectation of a healthy society, so this arrangement will gain more popularity. Second, such scenarios are favorable to the educating(educated or school) children. To small kids who do not have much social experience, the world in the television is an important path(way) for them to know about the world of reality. Thus, showing good people getting rewarded and bad guys getting punished teaches them how they should behave in order to end up (in) good results.
Despite these arguments, should televisions and movies always show good people being rewarded and bad people being punished? I believe the answer should be negative. The first reason against this perfect presentation of moral is that it’s contrary to the reality.(这句感觉怪怪的，但好像是没有语法错误，调整一下) We all know that not all good people get good results and(while) some bad people also end up quite well. For example, Martin Luther King was assassinated after all his efforts to call for the rights of black Americans finished（句子成分缺失）. But Jack the Ripper, the notorious murderers who killed innocent people and mocked the police, was never caught or punished at all. This is unfair, (as) you may say, but this is true life. To reveal the reality is a momentous responsibility for(of) televisions and movies, like novels and all other kinds of literatures (forms). The ugliness and unfairness in the real world cannot be eliminated by veiling (them), so in televisions and movies we should admit these(the) facts and present them to the public.
Some people may say exposing facts on (the) mass media will eventually mislead our kids, because if we let them see that good people end up miserably, bad people are not punished, or even get “rewarded”, they will be “discouraged” to become good people and “encouraged” to grow into(to) bad people. Then this claim denies the appeal of tragedy(then they oppose the appearance of the thagedy). Think about the Greek classical tragedies, the hero perished in the end, but the sad ending merely adds to readers’ admiration to the hero’s courage to fight against fate and sufferings. After all, we must teach our children that they should be good people not for the sake of the benefits it brings, but for its own sake, (that’s) for the value of a noble person.9 Y+ C H4 z/ ?' [3 z5 j& I
In a word, televisions and movies should not always show audiences good people being rewarded and bad people being punished for that it is a falsehood and it lacks appeal.

qianhuangUID: 2766587

4月22日 独立 修改

rain_deerUID: 3048091

综合： TPO19
The reading criticizes buzzing and suggests that it should be banned. However, the student who works as a part time buzzer argues that the criticism against buzzing is unreasonable.
First, contrary to what is described in the reading passage, the student states that buzzers tell the truth about the product they buzz. Although buzzers are paid to promote a product, they do not mislead consumers by praising it falsely. Buzzers tell about what they really feel about the product in a manner different from as suggested in the reading passage.
Second, consumers always ask plenty of questions about the product being buzzed. While the reading passage indicates that consumers believe all that the buzzers say, which leaves them vulnerable to false information. The student claims that in fact consumers would not believe buzzers easily just because they are private individuals.
Third, the student is strongly against the statement in the reading passage that buzzing deteriorate social relationship. The reading passage suggests that consumers get cheated by buzzers and no longer  
trust people anymore. However, according to the student, consumers who try the product and get good user experience, as a result, they tend to be more open-minded and trust people even more.
In sum, the student argue against the claim that buzzing is bad in the reading passage in three different aspects, and proves that buzzing is actually a beneficial activity.

rain_deerUID: 3048091

4.26独立
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
同意否”提高教育水平的最佳方法是提高教师工资”( n. j0 V3 _1 t# c4 G
//“The best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers' salaries

Education is an interacting process that engages both teachers and students, with teachers motivating the education as a whole. Since most people agree that the teacher is the most important factor in education, we consequently expect higher professional quality in teachers to achieve better education. Some people think of increasing teachers' salaries to improve education.
I admit that such way is effective in improving teachers’ life and social status, subsequently attracting more talented people to pursue teacher as a profession. In a society that teachers are poorly paid, it is imaginable that teachers are less interested in their job, and are less motivated to conduct innovative teaching. It is even possible that teachers become irresponsible to their work.  A generation of irresponsible teachers is enough to deteriorate education. To improve this situation, the government should increase teachers' salaries to motivate its teachers.
But this method is far from the best, especially in a society that the teachers are already well-paid. In such environment, increasing their salaries is useless in boosting their morale, because money is no longer what they crave for. Still increasing salaries may even “spoil” the teachers, which means making them lazy in working creatively, because they can obtain enough by staying the same. Hence, spending more money does not achieve a corresponding result.
To understand this problem, we need to understand that money is not the only motive that drives people to work, although it is among the very important .There are other factors that make teaching deserving, such as the sense of success which derives from helping a student, and the rights and freedom to conduct research. For a teacher who has enough money to lead a wealthy life, perhaps the realization of his personal value is his first concern. We need to make him feel fulfilled in his teaching, and let him believe he is able to make a difference to the society by tutoring his students, that is to give him more freedom. Like the ancient king of Egypt who built the pyramids, he who believes in himself of building the miracle in the world, would eventually realize his dream.
In sum, increasing teachers' salaries is not the best way to improve education, giving teachers more freedom should be the first priority.

time :47min

qianhuangUID: 2766587

4月26日 综合 修改只有一点点小错误，基本都OK

JoyceJingYangUID: 3052237

4.26独立" Z& Z6 a& t% `0 H2 p Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: 同意否”提高教育水平的最佳方法是提高教师工资” “The best way to improve the quality of education is to increase teachers' salaries% p; k9 x) j* T" Y, Z( a# ? Education is an interacting process that engageed by both teachers and students, with teachers motivating the education as a whole. Since most people agree that the teacher is the most important factor in education, we consequently expect higher professional quality in teachers to achieve better education. Some people think of increasing teachers' salaries to improve education.) Z# E9 z% m( S+ X( z I admit that such way is effective in improving teachers’ life and social status, subsequently attracting more talented people to pursue teacher as a profession. In a society that teachers are poorly paid, it is imaginable that teachers are less interested in their job, and are less motivated to conduct innovative teaching. It is even possible that teachers become irresponsible to their work.  A generation of irresponsible teachers is enough to deteriorate education. To improve this situation, the government should increase teachers' salaries to motivate its teachers. ( L" f& q6 @$ W( v" ]6 K But this method is far from the best, especially in a society that the teachers are already well-paid. In such environment, increasing their salaries is useless in boosting their morale, because money is no longer what they crave for. Still increasing salaries may even “spoil” the teachers, which means making them lazy in working creatively, because they can obtain enough by staying the same. Hence, spending more money does not achieve a corresponding result." ]5 q% t) F" B To understand this problem, we need to understand that money is not the only motive that drives people to work, although it is among the very important .There are other factors that make teaching deserving, such as the sense of success which derives from helping a student, and the rights and freedom to conduct research. For a teacher who has enough money to lead a wealthy life, perhaps the realization of his personal value is his first concern. We need to make him feel fulfilled in his teaching, and let him believe he is able to make a difference to the society by tutoring his students, that is to give him more freedom. Like the ancient king of Egypt who built the pyramids, he who believes in himself of building the miracle in the world, would eventually realize his dream. In sum, increasing teachers' salaries is not the best way to improve education, giving teachers more freedom should be the first priority.0 @2 L0 r% h$ g/ O  K 文章条理很清晰，正反论证了，细节错误很少很少，很赞~~但是针对所提出的freedom的概念貌似有点说服力不太够，特别是放在first priority还是让读者有点难接受。。。 个人意见啦，其实你的文章写的比我好多了，呵呵。。。

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.3 独立
Do you agree or not with following statement: most people solve their important problems by themselves or with the help from their families; the help from government is not necessary.


Everyone can be faced with a problem which has significant meaning to his life. The solution to the problem may decide his relationship with other people, or determine his path of life later on. Due to the importance of thus problem, the solving process can be extremely painstaking and difficult, difficult to the extent that one cannot settle it on one's own. In such circumstances, the worrying person may turn to his friends and family for help, for he can rest on their love and wisdom, but some people come up with the idea that the person who is in need of help can also ask the government for help. This opinion is at first glance reasonable; however, it is actually fallacious.
It is obvious that the importance of a problem to an individual is best acknowledged by the individual himself and people who love him and know about him. For example, every student may have been confronted with the difficult choice of which major to study in, because this question is closely related to which field he may devote himself to in the future, and what kind of person he may become of. Perhaps the best method to solve this problem for him is to listen to his heart, because only he himself knows what his interest is and what his ultimate dream is. He may also consult his parents and friends for advice, because they have lived with him and know about his strength and weakness, more importantly, they care about him. So they can give sensible advice to him, their proposed solutions make sense because the solutions are designed for the one they know and love.
In addition to the reasons for the advantage of solving problems within the friends and family circle, the disadvantage of bringing in the government interference is remarkable. For instance, the important problem in one's life is highly possible to be a private one, which the government finds no ways to shed light on. Even if the government sends a professional to help solve the citizen's private problem from an expert's point of view, the person with the problem may feel hurt because his privacy is protruded.
In sum, people can solve their important problems on their own or with the help of their relatives, without the help of the government.

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.3 独立
Do you agree or not with following statement: most people solve their important problems by themselves or with the help from their families; the help from government is not necessary.


Everyone can be faced with a problem which has significant meaning to his life. The solution to the problem may decide his relationship with other people, or determine his path of life later on. Due to the importance of thus problem, the solving process can be extremely painstaking and difficult, difficult to the extent that one cannot settle it on one's own. In such circumstances, the worrying person may turn to his friends and family for help, for he can rest on their love and wisdom, but some people come up with the idea that the person who is in need of help can also ask the government for help. This opinion is at first glance reasonable; however, it is actually fallacious.
It is obvious that the importance of a problem to an individual is best acknowledged by the individual himself and people who love him and know about him. For example, every student may have been confronted with the difficult choice of which major to study in, because this question is closely related to which field he may devote himself to in the future, and what kind of person he may become of. Perhaps the best method to solve this problem for him is to listen to his heart, because only he himself knows what his interest is and what his ultimate dream is. He may also consult his parents and friends for advice, because they have lived with him and know about his strength and weakness, more importantly, they care about him. So they can give sensible advice to him, their proposed solutions make sense because the solutions are designed for the one they know and love.
In addition to the reasons for the advantage of solving problems within the friends and family circle, the disadvantage of bringing in the government interference is remarkable. For instance, the important problem in one's life is highly possible to be a private one, which the government finds no ways to shed light on. Even if the government sends a professional to help solve the citizen's private problem from an expert's point of view, the person with the problem may feel hurt because his privacy is protruded.
In sum, people can solve their important problems on their own or with the help of their relatives, without the help of the government.

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.3 综合
The professor in the lecture states that none of the three theories in the reading passage is convincing.
First, the professor cites the fact that the inner side of the architecture of Chaco is not similar to the apartment building at Taos to argue against the theory that the Chaco structure was purely residential. He says that the fireplace inside the house is much less for supporting the estimated number of families living in the great house.
Second, the professor claims that the theory that the Chaco structures were used to store grain maze is also suspicious. Because according to the evidence, there were more remains of mazes on the ground than containers. However, if the house was used to store mazes, there should be more containers that remained.
Third, the theory which says the houses are for ceremonial purpose is also denied. According to the excavation, the Pueblo Alto mound contains a large number of building materials, which may suggest that the mound was a trash deposit. Consequently, the remains of the large number of pots can be also simply trash left by construction worker. So the theory that the pots were used for ceremonial meals  is not the only reasonable explanation.

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.4 独立：
同意否，团队合作中，不能接受批评的人不会成功的。
It is universally acknowledged that team work is becoming more and more important in a world that has become more complicated and interconnected, a world in which exists no work that can be done by a single man. In this circumstance, I agree with the opinion that one cannot succeed in team work if he fails to accept other people's criticism.

First, team work is called "team" work because the work to be done cannot be accomplished by anyone alone, and that all team members must have sufficient communication and cooperation. If a team member finds himself criticized by another team member, he must realize that he is likely to have done something wrong, or at least inappropriate. From an outsider's point of view, the criticizer is more sensible, and can find out problems more easily. So even though criticism is less desirable than compliments, it is actually better for the person to correct his mistakes. Only when every team member's mistakes are corrected can the whole team do its work effectively, and only by this time can team members achieve their success.

Second, even when the criticism is less convincing or reasonable, the criticized person should accept it with patience. The reason for this is that accepting others' criticism is also a process of learning what others think about the same question. If the criticizer wrongly blames you for a mistake you didn't make, it is a chance that you think about the mentioned problem and prevent the mistake in the future.

Third, accepting others' criticism is beneficial to good personal relationship. As we all know, it is important for a team to maintain good relations between its members. People tend to work more efficiently with people they like. Imagine a person in a team who refuse to listen to other people's criticism, and is consequently isolated by others. This kind of person is thus deprived of the opportunity to work harmonically within his team, and is hardly possible to make contributions to the team or achieve his personal success.

According to the arguments above, one must learn to accept others' criticism to work better in a team, and to achieve both personal and team success in the end.

qianhuangUID: 2766587

5月4日 独立 修改