曾小贤的作文帖

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

As withthe process of urbanization was gone through, it has caused an opinion divisionin the public about their own favorable living places. There are myriad ofpeople choose to migrate to big cities in the hope of enjoying better lifestandard. Is the life in there happier or more feasible to achieve success? Myanswer is - yes.

Firstof all, it is undeniable that cities provide more resources than that of ruralareas, which often include promising job career, medical supply andinfrastructures. From the reports from newspapers and magazines, we showed thatthe life standards in cities are in general superior to that in countries. Itmainly due to people who live in cities finds that they are more capable ofdealing with works because tools or companions are better. Clearly, cities offer a variety of possibilities for individuals to explore, andtherefore is easier to succeed compared to live in countries.

Moreover,the educational resources in cities are obviously more accessible either. Educationis the most important event for a family to consider. This is because every parent wants their kids to be well-educated. It is provedthat a higher standard of education usually lead to a more successful life inthe future. So there is no better way to send their children to big cities,where gathered a lot of educated elites and good universities. It creates a more conducive atmosphere for studying and researching. Certainly, to make their kids succeed, every parentshave no choice but send their children to cities.

We haveto admit that living in a country have its expediency such as quiet and canenjoy more leisure, but they definitely contribute to our feeling of happiness.Image that if a person has a formal life because he lives in his hometown, but he has no desire for pursuing a betterlife. How can we conclude that he will be happier than living in cities?Apparently, happiness involves in families, friends, self-content, andmotivations. It is really wrong to link physical distance to the level ofhappiness, and despite other aspect of it.

For the reasons argued above, living in countries or cities has few things to do with the happiness,but do in relationship with success.

Do you agree or disagree with the followingstatement:
People who go outside are more successfuland happier than people who stay in villages. LEISURE
2-02 2010-01-22 NA 5.9

tidus_xuanUID: 172013

Do you agree or disagree with the followingstatement:2 f(c7 ~. ^: p  v7 u6 v) U
Peoplewho go outside are more successful and happier than people who stay invillages.

Aswith the process of urbanization was gone through, it has caused
anopinion division in the public about their own favorable living places. （As with the process ofurbanization, there occurred a division in public opinions...）There are （去掉there are）myriad of people chooseto migrate to big cities in the hope of enjoying better life standard（去掉standard）. Is the life in there（去掉the, in）happier or more feasibleto achieve success? My answer is - yes.

Firstof all, it is undeniable that cities provide more resources than that of rural areas,which often include promising job career, medical supply and infrastructures.From the reports from newspapers and magazines（reports on newspapers...）, we showed that the life standards in cities are ingeneral superior to that in countries. （这么改好些：Ingeneral, showed on newspapers and magazines, life standards in cities are superiorto that in countryside.）Itis mainly due to people wholive in cities finds that they are more capable of dealing with works becausetools or companions are better. （morecapable of deal with works太chinese了，另外这句论述逻辑不够严密，你的观点似乎是城市有好的工具和同事→工作能力强→生活水平高，可是我还是不能理解为什么会这样）Clearly,cities offer a variety of possibilities for individuals to explore, and thereforeis easier to succeed compared to live in countries.（这句和前面那句有类似问题，很明显，你说城市为人们提供了许多机会，可是你前面的论述中并没有说到城市相比农村机会怎么多了，多在哪里）

Moreover,the（去掉the）educational resources incities are obviously more accessible either（either用在否定句）. Education is the mostimportant event for a family to consider. This is because every parent wantstheir kids to be well-educated. It is proved that a higher standard ofeducation usually lead to a more successful life in the future. So there is nobetter way to send their children to big cities, where gathered a lot ofeducated elites and good universities. （前半句意思错了，你写出来的意思是所以，没有更好的方法能送他们的孩子去大城市，这么修改下...nobetter way other than sending...，除了送孩子去城市外没有别的更好的方法）Itcreates a more conducive atmosphere for studying and researching. (创造有利的环境，你写的太chinese了，可以改成creates an atmosphere conduciveto...)Certainly, to make their kids succeed, every parents haveno choice but send their children to cities.
(这句似乎和前面重复了)

Wehave to admit that living in a country have
hasits expediency such as quiet and can enjoy more leisure, but they itdefinitely contributesto our feeling of happiness. （country是国家，countryside是乡村，我没明白你到底是想说城市好还是乡村好？）ImageImagine that if a person hasa formal life because he lives in his hometown, but he has no desire forpursuing a better life. How can we conclude that he will be happier than livingin cities? Apparently, happiness involves in families, friends, self-content,and motivations. It is really wrong to link physical distance to the level of happiness,and despite other aspect of it.（这段建议修改，观点不明确？其中的逻辑也比较混乱）

For the reasons argued above, living in countries orcities has few things to do with the happiness, but do in relationship withsuccess.（最后一句有点偏离了中心思想，你说住城市里跟开心关系不大，而跟成功紧密相连。但文章的题目是问城市和乡村相比，哪个更容易开心和成功，所以应该修改下）


整体上，用词造句都不错的，但就是论述的理由更紧密点，更贴近中心就更好了

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

Team provides us a lot of opportunities to try by gathering many specific people, which was proved the most efficient way of achieving success. It is inevitable that team members in dispute with some project problems so as to deal with it through discussing. I personally doubt a point of view, which argues that if an individual can't accept criticism will make the whole team hardly to make progress. Is that true?

First of all, we must realize that in some situations, especially there is a powerful person in the team. It could be extremely hard for other members to have their voice due to one persuasive opinion can repress all of the others. In addition, this powerful man, usually a leader will easily exert pressure or criticize others, leading the whole project incline to his ideas. So it is really wrong to perceive every criticism as a significant one, and it is obvious that there is no needs to accept every criticism in view of the points from others often include a strong personal inclination.

Moreover, a team member can't be criticized all the time, it will cause him lose confidence and further possess a negative attitude towards everything. It can be seen from my friend Justin's research team, which often argued for several trivial things. As a result, it gradually accumulates a lot of resentments and the team eventually disintegrated. Apparently criticism plays an important role in it. Imagine that if a member has always been disapproved for what he did, how can we conclude that he will still have motivations? Certainly, to improve the whole team, we need tender words rather than criticisms.

We have to admit that criticism can help to solve a problem to some extent, but it definitely the only way to do it. More importantly, praises can be the most vital factor of leading a team to success. This is because too much criticisms result in opposite effects, while few praises can make an individual boost efficiency and more capable of dealing with problems. Besides, the sprite of team is cooperation. Even though some of the team members have made mistakes, others should bear the responsibilities to offer helps, instead of just criticizing. Clearly, helps and praises create a more conducive atmosphere for making progress.

For those compelling reasons, criticisms have few things to do with being success. Nevertheless, more understandings and praises are  gateways to achievements.
团队合作中，不能接受批评的人不会成功的。WORK

2-12 2010-02-13 NA

qianhuangUID: 2766587

5月10日 独立 修改

郝郝同学UID: 3024925

Team provides us a lot of opportunities to try by gathering many specific people, which was proved the most efficient way of achieving success. It is inevitable that team members in dispute with some project problems so as to deal with it through discussing. I personally doubt a point of view, 这里是不是改写个同位语从句 来解释 point of view which argues that if an individual can't accept criticism will make the whole team hardly to make progress. Is that true?

First of all, we must realize that in some situations, especially there is a powerful person in the team. It could be extremely hard for other members to have their voice due to one persuasive opinion can repress all of the others. In addition, this powerful man, usually a leader will easily exert pressure or criticize others, leading the whole project incline to his ideas. So it is really wrong这后面应该写你反对的观点吧 to perceive every criticism as a significant one, and it is obvious that there is no needs to accept every criticism in view of the points from others often （especially） include a strong personal inclination.

Moreover, a team member can't be criticized all the time, it will cause him lose confidence and further possess （是process？这里说工作的动力是不是好点）a negative attitude towards everything. It can be seen from my friend Justin's research team, which often argued for several trivial things. As a result, it gradually accumulates a lot of resentments and the team eventually disintegrated. Apparently criticism plays an important role in it. Imagine that if a member has always been disapproved for what he did, how can we conclude that he will still have motivations? 虚拟语气时态有问题吧Certainly, to improve the whole team, we need tender words rather than criticisms

这里是不是应该有个关系词？We have to admit that criticism can help to solve a problem to some extent, but it definitely （not）the only way to do it. More importantly, praises can be the most vital factor of leading a team to success. This is because too much criticisms result in opposite effects, while few praises can make an individual boost efficiency and more capable of dealing with problems. Besides, the sprite （什么意思）of team is cooperation. Even though some of the team members have made mistakes, others should bear the responsibilities to offer helps, instead of just criticizing. Clearly, helps and praises create a more conducive atmosphere for making progress.. ?'

For those compelling reasons, criticisms have few things to do with being success. Nevertheless（这里应该是顺承关系 不是转折）, more understandings and praises are  gateways（？不明白） to achievements.7
团队合作中，不能接受批评的人不会成功的。WORK
& N' c( x4 P0 t8 E) F
2-12 2010-02-13 NA
作者 一些词用的我不是很明白
大体逻辑我能明白 但句子间的逻辑需要加强
语法需要多多练习
词汇重复使用频率过高

水平有限 不妥之处望见谅

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

The invention of television brought us a lot of conveniences as well as entertainments. The content of it ranges from educational programs to cartoons in order to cater various audiences. Clearly, parents shouldn't limit their kid to watch TV because it will not only won't improve their performance in school, but also can cause opposite effects.

First of all, it is essential for parents to realize that television programs often involve a variety of good contents. For instance, Discovery channel offers us a wide range of documentary movies, all of which are really worth watching, especially for children. Undoubtedly, the television channel like Discovery is conducive to kids' the development of knowledge. So it is wrong to constrain children to watch television, because it will also deprive the kids of right to acquire more vivid and useful knowledge.

Moreover, the key to this problem is to educate kids focus on study, instead of limiting the time when they want to have a rest. Even if parents completely cut the chances that their kids want to get access to televisions, how can we guarantee they will do better in school? In view of the computer or other means of entertainment can also be considered as temptations that affect kids’ study. So parents should bear the responsibility to channel their kids to use these tools in a proper way. Basically speaking, parents can't attribute all faults to televisions or its counterparts, because the tools itself are innocent. Certainly, to improve their kids' performance, parents can't blame televisions but should educate kids to possess a right attitude towards those temptations.

We have to admit that few children inevitably addicted to the world of televisions, but they are definitely in minority. Governments can't limit the use of car under the circumstances that there are scores of car accident, right? So the best way out is to formulate kids' behavior, let them do a right thing in a right time, which means concentrating on study at school, while enjoying television programs at home. Only through rule their behavior can parents achieve the goal of improving kids' performance in school.

In sum, those compelling reasons tell us televisions play an insignificant role in improving children's performance in school, because it is just a tool and often includes some useful information. Therefore, parents shouldn't exert pressure on the issue of watching TV.

If child want to do well in school, parents should limit the hours of watching TV programs or movies
就是问：孩子要想在学校里表现好，家长是不是应该限制他们看电视的时间。EDUCATION
2-13 2010-03-12 NA 5.11

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

The invention of movie brought us a lot of entertainments, and after several decades' development, the content of movies branch out into variety of categories, which ranges from documentaries to comedies. Clearly, all of them are worth watching because with regard to the diversity of individual preferences, different people favor different films.

First of all, besides the movies that full of educational meanings, there are still various types intrigue the public's interest. For instance, Twilight by depicting the story of vampires made a splash around the world. It is obvious that this movie is not intended to educate people or impart knowledge, but it succeed in cater to people's tastes and imaginations. In addition, action movies like The Rush Hour are also worthwhile to watch because the fighting scenes in it are so gorgeous that no one can resist the attraction of it! So for majorities, action and fiction movies are more interesting than educational types.

Moreover, people should not possess an attitude that they want to learn something from films and conclude that only several films can be watched. Basically speaking, films as a means of entertainments, can't be impose on some educational purposes. We often watch movies at home or at theater, with the company of loved ones. During the two hours, we not only enjoy nice atmosphere, but also have a feast of eyes. Certainly, in view of the demand of human nature, there is no need to limit the types of movie to one subject.

We have to admit that movies that teach us something are worth watching for few people. However, this personal opinion is hard to apply to all humanities since there may be a clash of views in relation to this topic. It is hard to imagine that if all films present only one content - convey useful meanings, how tedious it will be!  In general, films can't be confined by minorities' willing.

Those compelling reasons tell us movies ought to show variety of types instead of a specific category. I believe this world need diversity, and movies provide us a platform to act.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Only movies that can teach us something about real life worth watching MEDIA
2-06 2009-09-11 NA

江左风华UID: 3028061

The invention of television brought(bring) us a lot of conveniences as well as entertainments. The content of it ranges from educational programs to cartoons in order to cater (to) various audiences. Clearly, parents shouldn't limit their kid to watch TV because it will not only won't improve their performance in school, but also can cause opposite effects.("not only....but also只能用来并列相同或类似的成分，这里用得不太妥当，而且读着别扭）

First of all, it is essential for parents to realize that television programs often involve(s)  variety of good contents. For instance, Discovery channel offers us a wide range of documentary movies, all of which are really worth watching, especially for children. Undoubtedly, the television channel like Discovery is conducive to kids' the development of knowledge(换成intelligence development更准确). So it is wrong to constrain children to watch television, because it will also deprive the kids of right(rights) to acquire more vivid and useful knowledge.*这两句话的表达很中式

Moreover, the key to this problem is to educate kids (to) focus on study（歧义，换成teaching program), instead of limiting the time when they want to have a rest. Even if parents completely cut the chances that their kids want to get access to televisions, how can we guarantee (that) they will do better in school? In view of the computer or other means of entertainment can also be considered as temptations that affect kids’ study. So parents should bear the responsibility to channel（我觉得还是用instruct妥帖些） their kids to use these tools in a proper way. Basically speaking, parents can't attribute all faults to televisions or its counterparts, because the tools itself are innocent. Certainly, to improve their kids' performance, parents can't blame televisions but should educate kids to possess a right attitude towards those temptations

We have to admit that few children inevitably addicted to the world of televisions, but they are definitely in minority.(我实在不是很清楚这句话的意思....) Governments can't limit the use of car under the circumstances that there are scores of (可以这么用么？）car accident, right? So the best way out is to formulate kids' behavior, let them do a right thing in a right time(do the right work at the right time), which means concentrating on study at school, while enjoying television programs at home. Only through rule(ruling) their behavior can parents achieve the goal of improving kids' performance in school(s）

In sum, those compelling reasons tell us televisions play an insignificant role in improving children's performance in school, (这一句话把你之前所有的论述全毁了） because it is just a tool and often includes（contains, include一般很少直接作谓语） some useful information. Therefore, parents shouldn't exert pressure on the issue of watching TV.

语言表达有些牵强....有点中式思维
论据展开得不够充分，其中一个很大的原因在于一个段落里面句子的递进、铺陈关系处理的不是很好
第四段显得很缀余，感觉像是没有东西写了，把前面的内容有重复了一遍

不好意思，实在不清楚规则，我以为只要改当日的题目就好了

keaishuUID: 2213233

0513sheen独立.doc (25.5 KB, 下载次数: 1)

2011-5-13 14:39:05 上传

下载次数: 1

我觉得语句是不错的，可是论证论点比较乏力

qfaithUID: 2657846

5.12 独立改好 喽 7# 曾小贤_

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

9# keaishu thx a lot!

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

10# qfaith thx a lot!

曾小贤_UID: 2980487

http://u.115.com/file/bhnhuymy

3q！

liwu1028UID: 2921130

The invention of television brought（bring） us a lot of conveniences as well as entertainments. The content of it ranges from educational programs to cartoons in order to cater various audiences. Clearly, parents shouldn't limit their kid to watch TV because it will not only won't improve their performance in school, but also can cause opposite effects.（because it can not improve their performance in school . what's even worse , can cause opposite effects . ）2 I1 K2 E7 `9 Q( \7 R
6 v9 R+ _6 W9 w; P* t9 p' B
First of all, it is essential for parents to realize that television programs often involve a variety of good contents. For instance, Discovery channel offers us a wide range of documentary movies, all of which are really worth watching, especially for children. (可以具体些孩子们可以从节目里了解到什么什么)Undoubtedly, the television channel like Discovery is conducive to kids' the development of knowledge.（这句感觉有点奇怪） So it is wrong to constrain children to watch television, because it will also deprive the kids of right to acquire more vivid and useful knowledge.（感觉和题目不太对，题目是说限制看电视的时间而没说不让看电视啊。）
! V( m; I( y2 b" D1 w3 ~+ F
4 ]( r& P* v8 ]. n, eMoreover, the key to this problem is to educate kids focus on study, instead of limiting the time when they want to have a rest. Even if parents completely cut the chances that their kids want to get access to televisions, how can we guarantee they will do better in school? In view of the computer or other means of entertainment can also be considered as temptations that affect kids’ study. So parents should bear the responsibility to channel their kids to use these tools in a proper way. Basically speaking, parents can't attribute all faults to televisions or its counterparts, because the tools itself are innocent. Certainly, to improve their kids' performance, parents can't blame televisions but should educate kids to possess a right attitude towards those temptations 。
" [" J& r/ J9 [: J
* E/ T: e2 R8 H5 V9 EWe have to admit that few children inevitably addicted to the world of televisions, but they are definitely in minority. Governments can't limit the use of car under the circumstances that there are scores of car accident, right? So the best way out is to formulate kids' behavior, let them do a right thing in a right time, which means concentrating on study at school, while enjoying television programs at home.（可以解释一下这样的好处，既不会影响学习还会拓展知识） Only through rule their behavior can parents achieve the goal of improving kids' performance in school.
  T0 p7 g, T7 I+ S1 G
! V7 I4 z- e( q& X5 ^3 _( K* PIn sum, those compelling reasons tell us televisions play an insignificant role in improving children's performance in school, because it is just a tool and often includes some useful information. Therefore, parents shouldn't exert pressure on the issue of watching TV.
& I0 U$ t* r( d1 e, d
* W& r' ?  ]( n2 c5 {If child want to do well in school, parents should limit the hours of watching TV programs or movies 9 u) f* {,

mpromanusUID: 2565872

1# 曾小贤_

不知道你排队的是哪一篇作文，就默认第一篇了。。

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: People who go outside are more successful and happier than people who stay in villages.

As with the process of urbanization was gone through (This is problematic because I can’t tell what you are trying to express by ‘as with’. ‘As with’ means ‘ being the same with’, but from the 2nd half of the sentence, it seems that you meant to say ‘when the process of urbanization is going on’ rather than ‘being the same with the process of urbanization’.) it has caused an opinion division in the public about their (Who? There’s no plural nouns in this sentence yet, so who are ‘them’?) own favorable living places. There is a myriad of people who choose to migrate to big cities in the hope of enjoying better life standard. Is the life in there happier or more feasible to achieve success? My answer is – yes. (The question is asking if people who go ‘outside’ are more successful and happier. 1. ‘more feasible to achieve success’ doesn’t mean ‘more successful’; 2. you seem be assume that people who go ‘outside’ and don’t stay in villages must go to ‘big cities’. The question itself is vague in this aspect as to what ‘outside’ means - if you make an assumption about where people go instead of staying in villages, you need clearly justify it.)

First of all, it is undeniable that cities provide more resources than those of rural areas, which often include promising job careers, medical supply and infrastructures. From the reports on newspapers and magazines, we showed (It’s the reports that show you <something>, not you show <something>..) that the life standards in cities are in general superior to those (You’re talking about ‘life standardS’.) in the country. It is mainly due to people who live in cities finding that they are more capable of dealing with works because tools or companions? are better (How does ‘better capability with work’ cause ‘better standards of living’ to be true?). Clearly, cities offer a variety of possibilities for individuals to explore (Yes, but that doesn’t mean the country has no possibility for success. Your point is not to prove that the city has a lot of chances, but to prove that people there have MORE success than people in the country. Is it then always true that cities have more possibilities than the country? I can argue that because there are fewer people in the country there is less competition, and that means more chance for success – what kind of calculation makes you so sure that the city definitely has more chances? Think about it.) is easier to succeed (You are saying ‘cities… are easier to succeed’ rather than ‘it is easier (for people) to succeed in cities’. Note the change of subject from ‘cities’ to ‘it’.) compared to living in the country.

Moreover, the educational resources in cities are obviously more accessible too. Education is the most important event for a family to consider. This is because every parent wants his kids to be well-educated. It is proved that a higher standard of education usually leads to a more successful life in the future. So there is no better way to send their children to big cities (There is no better way to send their children to big cities? You mean like the only way to send their kids to big cities is a very terrible way? Or you mean ‘there is no better way other than to send their children to big cities’?), where gathered a lot of educated elites and good universities. It creates a more conducive atmosphere for studies and researching. Certainly, to make his kids succeed, every parents has no choice but to send their children to cities. (Hmm. I’ll cite you an example of an excellent educational institution in a super rural place..Cornell University – I almost wanted to say that, per China’s standards, a lot of US universities are not in ‘big cities’ at all - I don’t mean your point is wrong. I’m just saying you’re being too absolute and too general, and too easy to counter-attack. Plus, you still haven’t proved that these kids will really grow to be more successful and happier than their parents who stayed in villages. You’ve only proved that parents will send their kids to big cities because they can get better education and better chance to be successful there.)

We have to admit that living in the country has its expediency? (This actually means something similar to ‘suitability’..you sure you know why you’re using this word?) such as quiet and can enjoy more leisure (such as + noun., but neither part in this ‘and’ construct is a noun or noun phrase), but they definitely contribute to our feeling of happiness. Imagine that if a person has a formal life? (What do you mean by ‘formal life’?) because he lives in his hometown, but he has no desire for pursuing a better life, how can we conclude that he will be happier than people living in cities? (I don’t get your logic at all.) Apparently, happiness involves in families, friends, self-content, and motivations. It is really wrong to link physical distance (To where?) to the level of happiness, and despite other aspect of it (What?). (Basically, I don’t get what you’re trying to say at all in this entire paragraph.)

For the reasons argued above, living in countries or cities has few things to do with the happiness, but do in relationship with success. (Whatever, but this is totally different from the question. The question is about PEOPLE. And here you make a conclusion about ‘LIVING in countries or cities’.. Does that even sound like you’re answering the question?)


总结：


很多表意不清。然后就是从头偏题到尾（实际上第一句就已经偏题了）。请你注意检查自己的论述，不要因为看到城市和乡村两个字就自顾自地认为这是比较城市和乡村的。这个题目让你比较的是住在不同地方的 人 而不是比较地方。。