sola-nana作文帖

sola-nanaUID：2744594

刚刚看到作文组，来不及完成今天作业了看来。。。

今天模考了下，作文只有22。。。可能是有拼写错误的问题（已改过），还是贴上开请求批改！主要是语法或者表达太平淡的问题可能。

明天跟组完成作业。


TPO13: The extented family is less important now than in the past

In the modern would we live in, there are less and less traditional extended families including grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles. Instead, more and more nuclear families are taking their places. As for me, who grow up in a nuclear family, I would like to agree with the topic statement that the extended family is less important now than in the past.

As we can see from the history, extended family proved to be beneficial in the past, like a big family would have a deep influence in the society both economically and politically, and the big family would always give a shelter and food for each individuals of the family. However, with the invention of steam machine and the development of industrialization, the big family was no longer fit in the way that benefited the rapid growth of economy.

Besides, there are so many disadvantages to the extended family. It appears to be a big warm family living together; however, less personal privacy is provided in such kind of family. That may probably be the same reason why many adolescents today prefer to live by themselves as soon as they are financial independent. It is easy to get access to other's privacy when all relatives live together, which is especially unwelcome when involves beneficial conflicts. At the same time, there is not as much warmth as it seems like to be. Living with all your relative means one has to divide one's attention to many parts to a certain person, and attention attained remains the same. The person you want to get attention from can only give you a small part. Additionally, choosing a job has many restrictions as an improper choice will probably involve the family benefits. And it seems like the bigger family one lives in, the more possible it would be to make a "wrong" decision.

While, in comparison, there are so many benefits that can gain from living in a relatively small family. It is the production of industrialization. Fierce competition and rapid development of economy require us to keep pace with the time, require us to center on our jobs. Move where we are going to work without restriction of the big family. It is easier to advance one's career and achieve success. Also, intimate relationship will bound the members of smaller family. As the typical small family is a picture with a husband and a wife and two or three children. More time are offered for them to spend together comparing with live in an extended family. Disadvantages of this kind of family? Of course, there are some, like too much familiarization without enough contact with the society will lead prejudgment, but with the development of mass media, more access to the outside world is available.

As a result, I agree with the statement that the traditional extended family is less important, for the disadvantages it reveals and advantages the smaller family has.

sola-nanaUID：2744594

5.7综合


The professor agrees with the internal-combustion engine which is relied on petroleum would cause pollution, but she disagrees with the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine would solve the problems.

Firstly, hydrogen is not easily available as the reading material says. The most common substance of hydrogen is water, but this is not usable. Hydrogen must be obtained from pure liquid state and it is a highly artificial substance which involves difficult procedure and store technology. For example, the hydrogen must be kept in an extremely cold environment. So hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is not practical and is not easy to operate.

Secondly, hydrogen-based engine would not help with the pollution car produces. As only pure hydrogen could be used in case of explosion, however, the purification system need lots of energy which would be produced from burning coal and oil. The cars no longer generate pollution but the pure process does which would also harm the environment.

Thirdly, fuel-cell engines would not cause saving as the reading material says. As a key component of the fuel-cell engines is a scary and expensive metal. Without this metal, the reaction would not undergo through supposed process and produce energy. Any alternative material which is cheaper is proved to be unsuccessful.

lavinia7479UID：3025869

5.7 綜合改
The professor agrees with the internal-combustion engine which is relied on petroleum would cause pollution, but she disagrees with the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine would solve the problems.
我很喜歡你的開頭,讓人一看就明瞭你下面要說甚麼

Firstly (First), hydrogen is not easily available as the reading material says. The most common substance of hydrogen is water, but this is not usable. Hydrogen must be obtained from pure liquid state and it is a highly artificial substance which involves difficult procedure and store technology. For example, the hydrogen must be kept in an extremely cold environment. So hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is not practical and is not easy to operate.

Secondly (Second), hydrogen-based engine would not help with the pollution car produces. As only pure hydrogen could be used in case of explosion, however, the purification system need lots of energy which would be produced from burning coal and oil. The cars no longer generate pollution but the pure process does which would also harm the environment.

Thirdly (Thrid), fuel-cell engines would not cause (cost) saving as the reading material says. As a key component of the fuel-cell engines is a scary (?) and expensive metal. Without this metal, the reaction would not undergo through supposed process and produce energy. Any alternative material which is cheaper is proved to be unsuccessful.

以下是我個人的一些淺見以及建議:

1. 以前我上托福作文課時我也是用firstly, secondly..... 來開,然後老師就說要用first, second來開.另外一個教GRE作文的老師說用to begin with, moreover等等來開頭會比first, second來的更好,給你參考看看

2. 我覺得如果從你的段落內能清楚的看出說是lecturer說的還是reading裡說的會更好

不過我真的很喜歡你的開頭,還有我想向你請教說你這部分的聽力是怎麼練的,因為妳真的聽到很多,像我就沒辦法

tidus_xuanUID：172013

The professor agrees with the internal-combustion engine which isrelied on petroleum would cause pollution, but she disagrees with thehydrogen-based fuel-cell engine would solve the problems.（第一句貌似语法错了，应改成agrees that…engine…would cause，but she disagrees that…engine would…，agree with 后面只能接名词）

Firstly, hydrogen is not easily available as the reading materialsays. The most common substance of hydrogen is water, but this is not usable.（水是氢当中的物质？听力原文是hydrogen is present in common substances like water）Hydrogen must be obtained from pure liquid state and it is ahighly artificial substance which involves difficult procedure and storetechnology（你的主语是hydrogen，然后你说it is a highly artificialsubstance，别人会以为hydrogen是人工合成的，实际上pure liquid state才是人工制造的，所以建议这么改下…pure liquid state, a highly artificial substance which…）. For example, the hydrogen must be kept in an extremely coldenvironment. （hydrogen前不加the，另外需要保存在低温环境下的不是hydrogen，而是liquid state of hydrogen）So hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is not practical and is noteasy to operate.（听力原文里提到hydrogen is not easilyavailable，但没有说engine is not easy to operate）

Secondly, hydrogen-based engine would not help with the pollution a
car produces. As only purehydrogen could be used in case of explosion, however, the purification systemneed lots of energy which would be produced from burning coal and oil. （这句话我没太理解，听力里似乎没有提到explosion，逻辑关系是引擎需要纯的氢气，所以氢气需要净化，而净化过程需要烧煤和油，所以会带来污染）The cars no longer generatepollution but the pure purification
process does, which would also harms the environment.

Thirdly, fuel-cell engines would not cause saving as the readingmaterial says. As a key component of the fuel-cell engines，platinum is a scary and expensive metal. Without this metal, the reaction in fuel-cell engines
would not undergo through（through去掉）supposed process andproduce energy. Any alternative material which is cheaper is proved to beunsuccessful for replacing platinum.

总的来说，听力还是比较不错的，抓住了很多细节的信息，但是注意表述的时候不要因为自己的改动而变成另外的意思了。