- 最后登录
- 2021-2-22
- 在线时间
- 4673 小时
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 声望
- 762
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 907
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 6161
- UID
- 2565872
 
- 声望
- 762
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 907
|
35# hyliu1-08
In order to be well-informed, a person gets information from many different news sources.
In the information age (There are no other ‘information ages’, so there is really no ‘this’ or ‘that’ information age. Now that’s quite obviously an influence from the Chinese expression 在这个信息时代..), we can get information from a considerable number of new sources (The question says ‘news sources’. ‘New’ is very different from ‘news’. Please make sure you’re writing the correct word.), such as through the Internet, the television and the telephone (This use of ‘the’ means an abstract idea of ‘television’ or ‘telephone’, that doesn’t mean any particular physical TV set or telephone but in essence represents all TVs or telephones.). And our life almost could not (If you say ‘almost could not’ – particularly with the ‘not’, do note – it essentially means it still ‘could’. A very borderline ‘could’ that is almost ‘could not’, but still not a ‘could not’. But what you actually want to express here, I suspect, is ‘could not’.) function well without these equipments. All this is to say that our life could not leave news (Direct translation of 我们的生活不能离开新闻..this should be ‘we cannot do without news in our lives’. Plus, what does the importance of news have to do with being well-informed..? This doesn’t mean you can’t talk about the importance of news. You need to be talking about the importance of news with a good relevance to the entire question. What you did here, and what many Chinese students tend to do, is to stuff the essay with statements that are only relevant to one single keyword in the entire question. This kind of seemingly important but effectively irrelevant background information is mostly useless if you can’t make it relevant to the entire question.). And with the passage of time, more and more new sources of information can be utilized by us. From my perspective, I absolutely agree with the view that various information can make a man well-informed. Such reasons (Why ‘such reasons’? If you say ‘such reasons’, it means you were talking about some ‘reasons’ before this..but you were not.) go as follow.
Firstly, we cannot be sure which news are correct (‘Correct’ means conforming to KNOWN truth, or conventional standards – for example, you’d say your son’s answer to a maths question is ‘correct’, or that his behavior is ‘correct’, or that his understanding of gravity is ‘correct’. For news – where the truth is sometimes, if not often, unknown – you’d more often describe it as ‘true’ or ‘accurate’, but less often ‘correct’.) in our daily life, because there is an enormous amounts of information from various media organizations; they all hold their own ideas about one thing (What ‘thing’ is ‘one thing’? Be specific.), so their views only can reflect one aspect of an incident. If we want to discern whether one scene (Why ‘scene’? You are talking about ‘news’..not all news are transmitted with graphics and/or videos, so not all news have ‘scenes’..) whether is true or not, we'd better to take several sources of news to contrast (You mean ‘compare’?), then conclude with a reasonable consequence. For example, there are some people who believe that the news we get from our TVs in China is always right, but the fact is information from our television in our country has been modified by some people (If you talk about purposeful manipulation of information such as censoring, then know that every country in the world does it, more or less. It’s only a matter of extent, degree and sophistication. You’d probably meet more people in the US who think that Fox News is always right..). So, if we want to achieve the true aspect of one scene (I can’t guess what you are trying to express, not even in Chinese..), we should take messages from different organizations.
Second, there is a saying that "one person could not see all phenomena.", and I believe in this sentence too. We could not get enough information from only one source of news, because there are always some details the medial organization has not mentioned, but occasionally the details are of importance to this piece of information. May be that organization was restrained by the government or some principles. But, as a citizens we have the right to realize the truth of one thing (Again, what ‘thing’ is this ‘one thing’? You could at least used ‘something’..but even that is rather meaningless. When you start to use very vague words like ‘thing’ in the essay, it’s a clear sign that you don’t really know what you are talking about..). (And, then, how is this different from the last paragraph where you talk about truth in news, modifications, blah? Seems to be talking about a very similar scenario – news from a single agency may not be the truth, or the entire truth.)So, in order to achieve this aim, we should take information from various news sources.
Finally, while living in this competitive world, every person faces the problem of choosing one source or several sources as his or her informational channel (Oh..but why would this be a *problem*? If you are happy with one source, choose one; if not, choose several, or not at all. What is problematic about that?). In my mind, I am appreciate more the latter one more, given reasons I have outlined. There is much useful news in this competitive world, however succeeding in such a competitive world is seldom achieved by one if he or she receives information only via one way (‘via one way’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘from one source’. Google News is a way to read headlines of all major news websites..so does that count as one source, or several sources? Plus, the question is not about being successful in the competitive world whatsoever. It’s about being well-informed.).
总结:
你的遣词造句都很受中文的影响,所以请多读真正的英语文章积累表达。。
另外就是,看不出两个分论点之间有神马区别(好吧实际上我都不确定你的分论点是什么。。),最后一段总结直接跑题
– well-informed和当今世界是竞争激烈的世界同学们要想成功就必须全面发展之类之类的大套话有个神马关系呢。。 |
|