rain_deer的作文贴

citizen1UID: 2977585

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 number of the fireplace inside the house is much less for supporting （可以改为too limited to support）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.1 U' G5 ?. C2 \' E. s
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.
第二个观点哪里有点错，地上是没有maize 的，因为听力上说因为没有maize的container和地上没有maize所以才不足以证明那个building 是用来放maize的， 整篇文章概括得很好吖，

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.7 综合 TPO9
According to the professor, the reading passage correctly points out the two disadvantages of the internal-combustion engine, which are as follows. First, it relies on the finite resource petroleum. And second, it pollutes the environment. But the passage wrongly claims that the hydrogen-based fuel cell engine is the alternative. She gives three specific reasons.
First, the pure liquid hydrogen which acts as the fuel is not easy to access. The liquid hydrogen needs to be preserved in extremely cold conditions. And this requires difficult technology which is used in the lab. The actual unavailability of the liquid hydrogen proves that the statement in the reading that the resource used by the fuel-cell engine is easily available is wrong.
Second, the professor claims that using fuel-cell engine also produces pollution, which contradicts the saying in the reading that fuel-cell engine solves the pollution problems. Because in the process of producing the pure hydrogen, lots of electricity is used, which requires much coal or oil burning, so that it also produces carbon-dioxide. Consequently, although the car does not pollute, the factory which produces the fuel actually does.
Third, the fuel-cell engine is very expensive, unlike what is described in the reading. Although the reading suggests that the fuel-cell engine is more energy saving, the cost of a fuel-cell engine is very high. It must contain a rare metal to ensure its normal work, so the price of the engine is very high.
In sum, the professor claims that at present there is no good alternative to the traditional engine.

qfaithUID: 2657846

5.7 综合 TPO9
According to the professor, the reading passage correctly points out the two disadvantages of the internal-combustion engine, which are as follows. First, it relies on the finite resource petroleum. And second, it pollutes the environment. But the passage wrongly claims that the hydrogen-based fuel cell engine is the alternative. She gives three specific reasons.
First, the pure liquid hydrogen which acts as  fuel is not easy to access. The liquid hydrogen needs to be preserved in extremely cold conditions,which requires difficult technology  . The actual unavailability of the liquid hydrogen proves that the statement in the reading that the resource used by the fuel-cell engine is easily available is wrong.+ i: V# t" l( n4 ~  z8 j$ ^
Second, the professor claims that using fuel-cell engine also produces pollution, which contradicts the saying in the reading that fuel-cell engine solves the pollution problems. Because in the process of producing the pure hydrogen, lots of electricity is used, which requires much coal or oil burning, so that it also produces carbon-dioxide. Consequently, although the car does not pollute, the factory which produces the fuel actually does.
Third, the fuel-cell engine is very expensive, unlike what is described in the reading. Although the reading suggests that the fuel-cell engine is more energy saving, the cost of a fuel-cell engine is very high. It must contain a rare metal to ensure its normal work, so the price of the engine is very high.
In sum, the professor claims that at present there is no good alternative to the traditional engine.

写的非常好， ，重点都写到了，简单明了 也没什么错误

rain_deerUID: 3048091

5.9 独立：

For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities?
It is universally acknowledged that science and education is of extreme importance of the development of a country. Without good education, the young of our society will not be nurtured into well-behaved individuals, honest citizens and excellent employees. Without advanced science and technology, the whole country's industry will be in a less competitive condition, and the country's potential to develop is limited. I assume that how the government should spend its budget is generally concerned with the role that education plays in the society as well as its financial need from the government, and I hold the view that government should focus their budget more on university education than young children education.

First, the university is the place where young and talented adults are being educated, and the educated students have more direct responsibility to our country. Because these young adults are selected from their peers to be excellent ones to enter the university to study, and they are to become successful engineers, professors or managers in a few years, and make contributions to the country directly. Thus, the university education is more important to the country and deserves more money from the government.
Second, an important part of university education is research, which is the guarantee to a country’s competitiveness. The economic rise of the US is a good example on how government investment on science and technology in turn benefits the country’s economy. After the Second World War, the US government spent much money attracting top scientists and academics to US universities, and sponsored numerous scientific projects. As a result, the US has since then become the academic center and economic center of the world. Thus, the government must financially put much emphasis on the university education to promote the development of the country.

Third, if we focus on the financial demand of the two kinds of education, we can see that the universities actually need more money than schools or other agencies to educate the young. The reason is obvious. What college students learn is advanced science and theories, which need more materials and equipments to support. A library with a complete collection of books on some subject may worth several elementary schools' libraries altogether, and a certain kind of equipment in a university's physics lab may cost much money to build an elementary school. Not to mention a well-equipped laboratory where scientists can do research in.

In sum, the government should focus their buget more on university education than young people education.

郝郝同学UID: 3024925

For successful development of a country, should a government focus its budget more on very young children education rather than on universities?

It is universally acknowledged that science and education is of extreme importance of the development of a country.Without good education, the young of our society will not be nurtured into well-behaved individuals, honest citizens and excellent employees. Without advanced science and technology, the whole country's industry will be in a less competitive condition, and the country's potential to develop is limited. I assume that how the government should spend its budget is generally concerned with the role that education plays in the society as well as its financial need from the government, and I hold the view that government should focus their budget more on university education than young children education

First,the university is the place where young and talented adults are being educated, and the educated students have more direct responsibility to our country. Because these young adults are selected from their peers to be excellent ones to enter the university to study, and they are to become successful engineers, professors or managers in a few years, and make contributions to the country directly. Thus, the university education is more important to the country and deserves more money from the government.

Second, 这句就直接说 政府的对大学的财政投资 是国家竞争力的保证 后面解释的时候 再说那个research an important part of university education is research, which is the guarantee to a country’s competitiveness. The economic rise of the US is a good example on how government investment on science and technology in turn benefits the country’s economy. After the Second World War, the US government spent much money attracting top scientists and academics to US universities, and sponsored numerous scientific projects. As a result, the US has since then become the academic center and economic center of the world. Thus, the government must financially put much emphasis on the university education to promote the development of the country.

Third, 让步要把让步的观点讲出来 if we focus on the financial demand of the two kinds of education, we can see that the universities actually need more money than schools or other agencies to educate the young. The reason is obvious. What college students learn is advanced science and theories, which need more materials and equipments to support. A library with a complete collection of books on some subject may worth several elementary schools' libraries altogether, and a certain kind of equipment in a university's physics lab may cost much money to build an elementary school. Not to mention a well-equipped laboratory where scientists can do research in.
既然讲到缺点 那最后应该收 这缺点不能跟有点相比

In sum, the government should focus their buget more on university education than young people education

我基本上没发现语法错误
就是逻辑在严密一些 就更好了

水平有限 不妥之处望见谅