xiangtuo的作文帖~~

xiangtuoUID：3047550

5.16 综合写得是TPO4~
The reading passage and the listening material discuss the topic of whether dinosaurs are endotherms. The author believes that dinosaurs are endotherms while the speaker doesn’t think so, and the speaker gives three reasons.
First of all, the reading passage contends that the dinosaur fossils were found in polar region, which evident that they were endotherms. In contrast, the lecture argues that the polar regions used to be much warmer than now. And if there turned colder, the dinosaurs would migrate to other warmer places.
Secondly, according to the reading passage, the legs positioned underneath its body proved it is endotherm. But the professor in the lecture cast doubt on the viewpoint by saying that the structure like this could endure more weight. Dinosaurs were very large size, so their legs underneath their body, which is none of endotherm.
Finally, the writer holds the opinion that the bone of dinosaurs include Haversian canals that assure its rapid growth, which is a characteristic of endothermy. This is challenged by the lecturer. She points out the presence of growth rings, which evidence that dinosaurs didn’t grow or grew slowly in cooler place, which directly refutes the reading material. It is stated in the listening.

xiangtuoUID：3047550

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is often not a good thing to move to a new city or a new country because of the losing of old friends？

In the contemporary era, with development of science and technology, more and more people know deeper about the outside world through modern media. As a result, many people would love to go to another place to chase their dream. However, moving to another place means losing many things that you own now, for example, old friends. But I didn’t think it is not a good thing to move to a new city or even a new country.
Of course, moving to a new place means that you couldn’t meet and talk to your old friends as many times as before. Thanks to the modern technology, you can chat and communicate with them by mobile phone , E-mail or some other ways. Their faces even can be seen at the same time by some ways when you chatting. Meanwhile, you can take convenient transportation to see them. Within one day, you can flight to the Southern Hemisphere from the Northern Hemisphere, let alone in one country. In a word, going to another place doesn’t mean to lose old friend, just influence on meeting with each other, and you can keep in touch with them by means of high technology.
As a sword has two blades, moving to a new place means that you can make new friends. You might know nothing about the new city when you just come there. It is new friend that help you your daily life and be your guide for visiting. With the time going on, new friends become old friends, and then, you will have a couple of old friends in this city.
Furthermore, friends are the more the better. Gaining more friends means that when you are in trouble, more hands will help you. As for me, I love to make friends and keep friendship with them. I enjoy chatting with them and with all opportunities and chances I can take, I would love to make more friends, no matter moving to another city.
In conclusion, it is not a bad thing to move to another city as you can make more new friends, and don’t afraid of losing old friends. If you don’t want to lose, you won’t lose.

写得不好 多多指教~

hd8390316UID：2772212

5.16修改
The reading passage and the listening material discuss the topic of whether dinosaurs are endotherms. The author believes that dinosaurs are endotherms while the speaker doesn’t think so, and the speaker gives three reasons.（doesn't think so 太口语化，可以表达成the speaker rebuts/against....）
First of all, the reading passage contends that the dinosaur fossils were found in polar region, which evident that they were endotherms. In contrast, the lecture argues that the polar regions used to be much warmer than now. And if there turned colder, the dinosaurs would migrate to other warmer places.
Secondly, according to the reading passage, the legs positioned underneath its body proved it is endotherm. But the professor in the lecture cast doubt on the viewpoint by saying that the structure like this could endure(endure 是忍耐、忍受、 持久、耐久的意思，个人觉得suppor比较合适) more weight. Dinosaurs were very large size, so their legs underneath their body, which is none of endotherm.
Finally, the writer holds the opinion that the bone of dinosaurs include Haversian canals that assure its rapid growth, which is a characteristic of endothermy. This is challenged by the lecturer. She points out the presence of growth rings, which evidence that dinosaurs didn’t grow or grew slowly in cooler place, which directly refutes the reading material. It is stated in the listening.

hd8390316UID：2772212

这篇写的很精炼。听力材料里的意思全部都写到了，写的很不错~

EMP_CHENGUID：2762848

不好意思 批晚了

网盘：
http://u.115.com/file/e6cj5bje

xiangtuoUID：3047550

Do youagree or disagree with the following statement? Moviesand televisions should always show audience good people being rewarded and badpeople being punished.

Nowadays, with the development of the society, a various kinds of movies and televisions can be chosen by different group of people. Audience is all fascinated in the story, ending or else, no matter loving movies or soap TV play. But have you ever found that movies and televisions always showed audience good people being rewarded and bad people being punished? Some oppose the status while the others support. I agree with it with my own points.
Admittedly, the final result of good and bad people being doom may limit the change of the movies and televisions. But that ending is exactly what audience wants to see. In everyone’s mind, the evil should be punished and the hero should be rewarded. Moreover, just as audience predicts the ending, they can enjoy the thrilling and unexpected development of the plot.
It is so dangerous and turbulence that the society will be if more movies and televisions with the good not being rewarded and the bad not being punished were showed. Because the outcome like that challenged the standard of moral of public. What’s more, some people imitate the plot and do bad things to other people or society dreaming not being punished. In this condition, the movies and television make a very bad impression to the society.
Even worse influence will have on children and teenagers, as they are at the stage of developing in physical. I still remember that in my childhood, my parents and teachers always told me that don’t do bad things or I would be punished. I was afraid of being punished, as the result of that, I didn’t dare to do any bad things. It is very important to children and teenagers to contribute this point as it will go along with the whole life. At this time of utmost importance, the movies and televisions with the good not being rewarded and the bad not being punished would disturb the growth of little audience even lead them to crime.
In conclusion, I agree with the movies and televisions should always show audience the good being rewarded and the bad being punished, no matter from the aspect of keeping the safe and harmony of the society or the well environment for the growth of children or teenagers

EMP_CHENGUID：2762848

5月16

独立

zjxdxokzzyUID：3072531

5.17独立改好

leungaceUID：3059264

5.17 改
Nowadays, with the development of the society, a去掉！various kinds of movies and televisions can be chosen by different groupgroups of people. Audience is all fascinated in the story, ending or else, no matter loving movies or soap TV playplays. But have you ever found that movies and televisions always showed audience good people being rewarded and bad people being punished? Some oppose the status while the others support. I agree with it with my own points.（首先，开头的第一句话不是说写得不好，但是这种说法太普遍了，建议你多想些描述开头的方式，在没有别的方法或者实现想不出其他的方法开头下，再用这个句子开头。其次，首段的段尾应该清楚表达出your points are what ??!!!!）8 i& u. |6 i! K
Admittedly, the final result of good and bad people being doom may limit the change of the movies and televisions. But that ending is exactly what audience wants to see. In everyone’s mind, the evil should be punished and the hero should be rewarded. Moreover, just as audience predicts the ending, they can enjoy the thrilling and unexpected development of the plot. （这一段你要用例子或者更详细的对论点的分析来支撑你的观点啊。直接这么写是不够的！！！）
It is so dangerous and turbulence that the society will be if more movies and televisions with the good not being rewarded and the bad not being punished were showed. Because the outcome like that challenged the standard of moral of public. What’s more, some people imitate the plot and do bad things to other people or society dreaming not being punished. In this condition, the movies and television make a very bad impression to the society. （太chinglish了，多在遣词造句上下功夫！）
Even worse influence will have on children and teenagers, as they are at the stage of developing in physical. I still remember that in my childhood, my parents and teachers always told me that don’t do bad things or I would be punished. I was afraid of being punished, as the result of that, I didn’t dare to do any bad things. It is very important to children and teenagers to contribute this point as it will go along with the whole life. At this time of utmost importance, the movies and televisions with the good not being rewarded and the bad not being punished would disturb the growth of little audience even lead them to crime. （如果你把你父母叫你不要做坏事的例子换成你父母叫你不要看一些暴力的电影从而使你懂得遵守规则之类的，是不是更好支撑the influence from movies and tv programs呢？）
In conclusion, I agree with the movies and televisions should always show audience the good being rewarded and the bad being punished, no matter from the aspect of keeping the safe and harmony of the society or the well environment for the growth of children or teenagers

xiangtuoUID：3047550

5.19 独立
In the contemporary era, with the development of the society, people are challenged by the rapid pace of working and living, and don’t have enough time to entertainment and relax themselves. As a result of that, some people would not feel happy and attributes it to too much possessions. I don’t agree with people would be happier if they had fewer possessions with my own point.
Admittedly, some poor people feel happier than the rich just because they are satisfied with the circumstance and don’t want more , especially fortune. As an old Chinese saying goes, a man who is contented will be happy. The person would feel happy if they are content with their life, no matter less or more possession.
Besides, the people without enough possession won’t feel delight when they face to the high price of groceries, clothing or apartment house. For instance, my friends faced to a big problem which is a big problem which is no money to afford an apartment house bothered a friend of mine for a long period of time as he would marry. He didn’t buy any new clothes and ate simple and unadorned for nearly one year. Last time I met him, he said to me that only he live the life like this for 2 years more could he bought an apartment which is just for 2 people. Now he feel depressed and hopeless for his life.
As far as I am concerned, more money could be used to entertain and satisfy demanding which may be a dream of many people. Many people hope to be millionaire just for admire products or travelling to anyplace in the world. Didn’t a man feel unhappy if he get enough money for travelling to his dreaming island, or didn’t a girl feel unhappy if she own enough money for her dreaming luxurious bags. I think all these answers are no. More money could be used to ornament our lives and achieve dreams.
In conclusion, people won’t be happier if he have fewer possessions, as he would bother with daily problems and lose chances to entertainment and achieve dreams.

鱼.小白UID：2754339

revised.

hypnosis@1122UID：2904175

改的有点晚了，sorry
好好养病，好点了再帮我改

xiangtuoUID：3047550

5.24综合 TPO5
Their reading passage and the listening material discuss the topic of how the great houses were used . The author gives three theories but the speaker argues and gives reasons in the passage.
First of all, the reading contends that the great houses were for living while the lecture argues against. The professor contradicts that if there once lived hundreds of people, it would have many fire places. In fact, the fire place there is very few. The fire places for 10 families were found in the largest room which could contain hundreds families.
The second theory is that the great houses were used to hold crops. On the contrary, the professor in the lecture casts doubt by saying that if there was once used as storing grain maize, why no grain maize on the floor, or any big containers for grain maize were found.
The third theory is that the houses were used as special ceremonial centers. Nevertheless, this is challenged by the lecturer. He doesn’t think that the enormous mound formed by a pile of old material found in the park was the proof of special ceremony remaining, but the building material which didn't use up. In this way, the professor contradicts the reading passage.

鱼.小白UID：2754339

Their reading passage and the listening material discuss about the topic of how the great houses were used . The author gives three theories but the speaker argues( disagrees) and gives reasons in the lecture.
First of all, the reading contends that the great houses were for living while the lecture argues against it. The professor points out that if there once lived hundreds of people, it would have many fire places. In fact, the fire place was very few over there. The fire places for 10 families were found in the largest room which could contain hundreds families.( you should write what this discovery tells us. such as, the very few number of the fire places shows the great houses were not for living purpose.)

The second theory is that the great houses were used to hold crops. On the contrary, the professor in the lecture casts doubt by saying that if there was once used as store room(warehouse, Granary) for grain maize, why no any grain maize on the floor, or any big containers for grain maize were found.

The third theory is that the houses were used as special ceremonial centers. Nevertheless, this is challenged by the lecturer. He doesn’t think that the enormous mound formed by a pile of old material found in the park was the proof of special ceremony remaining, but the building material which didn't use up.( what do you mean by the building materials which didnt use up) In this way, the professor refutes the reading passage.

xiangtuoUID：3047550

Agree or not. In twenty years, there will be fewer cars in use than there are today.

Science and technology may be developed rapidly in the following twenty years, as the result of that, more and more high-tech machines and objects will be invented. Some people said that there would be fewer cars in use as cars would be replaced by new and more advanced vehicle. I don’t think so with my own points.
Admittedly, we all don’t know what will be invented with the evolution of science and technology. Perhaps some superior transportation will come into world which will fascinate everyone’s eyesight. But the question is it would cost too much to afford such a new vehicle though many people want to own one, just as smart cars now. Many people are keen on them but few people could purchase one as the price of it is too high.
The first and the most important reason that cars won’t be fewer in the future is that cars are the most convenient transportation. Nowadays the fastest and the most advanced transportation is maglev whose moving is based on its special railway and unique operation system. In this growing trend, advanced and high-technology transportation will be invented and even come into use in the two decades but probably operate on a track, which means, it won’t an amenity for every single person. People may cover several streets to get to its station. As far as I am concerned, people won’t abandon convenient and comfortable cars of their own though new inventions have come into use.
Furthermore, cars will be ameliorated and improved as technology progress in the following 20 years. It will take a very long period of time to invent a bran-new transportation whose function is the same as that of cars’. Just as the steam train, which was first invented in 1804, was eventually replaced by combustion engine several decades years later. And now all the trains are of electric power. After several centuries, trains are still in use and more than ever before, but after being ameliorated, none could instead of them.
In conclusion, I don’t think there will be fewer cars in use than there are today in 20 years as cars are the most convenient transportation and will be improved as technology progress. Cars would still be in the ascendant though new inventions occur and even come into use.