发帖真心跪求改作文·

canpetUID：2998887

TPO19的大作文··写死我了·看上去用字造句还是很幼稚·求大神们指教·
第一次写··各位大神用力批·
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
In order to be well-informed, a person must get information from many different news sources.



Have you ever searched for some information on a lot of websites or through a variety of newspapers in order to make clear whether one piece of news you concern about was true or not? Nowadays, we live in the time that see what we call information explosion. So, I hold the point that people need to get information through all kinds of way to be well-informed.

First and foremost, information tends to be specialized and diversified in modern society so that it is difficult to obtain the news through one certain channel. There are numbers of websites focusing on various specialized field like sports, technology, science and so forth. People need log onto distinct ones to obtain what they actually need. A typical example is Guokr.com, on which the articles and news all concentrate on science in plain terms, successfully attracting thousands of young people who are interested in science. Obviously, it’s a wrong choice to look for news about the latest fashion on Guokr.com, which can be picked up by skimming over “mina”, a famous fashion magazine.

Second reason involves that so much information make it hard to tell which one is true and who tell the truth. Maybe, two different news agencies report totally diverse stories about an event, or opposite parties always reveal reverse statements on the same case. Let’s take a real-world example: the news on the divorce case between Cecilia Zhang and Nicholas Tse. Recently, Cecilia Zhang declared that Nicholas Tse has never done his duty to take care of their two sons and her, meanwhile, Nicholas claimed that Cecilia was greedy for money extremely and often quarreled with him, which results in the divorce case. There are plenty of newspaper, magazine, websites tracing the development of this case and substantial rumors in the air. Except for Cecilia and Nicholas, no one can tell whether they have divorced or not and who has told a lie. The only way to tell right from wrong is getting news from many diverse sources and forming a view of one’s own.

However, searching for various sources to be well-informed is actually inefficient. It’s said that finishing a piece of New York Times needs 36 hours in such an information booming time. Virtually, a person simply acquires what he or she are interested in from several fixed sources.

In a nutshell, if people want to be well-informed, they should obtain information from many different channels because of the specialization and diversification of the news and difficulty in knowing right and wrong in spite of much time being costed.

水滴石穿_UID：2913807

你几月考啊，我8月21，可以加我qq834587001互改作文

mpromanusUID：2565872

1# canpet

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
In order to be well-informed, a person must get information from many different news sources.

Have you ever searched for some information on a lot of websites or through a variety of newspapers in order to make clear whether one piece of news you concern about was true or not? Nowadays, we live in the time that sees what we call the information explosion (You can only ‘live’ in ‘nowadays’. It’s not like you can live in the past or in the future…). So, I hold the point that people need to get information through all kinds of way to be well-informed. (Your reasoning is that because of the information explosion we need to do this..so does it mean you don’t need to do it and will still stay well-informed if there’s no information explosion, or where information is scarce, e.g. the remote, unconnected mountain schools in the western parts of China? Think about it.)

First and foremost, information tends to be specialized and diversified in the modern society so that it is difficult to obtain the news through one certain channel. (I don’t get this. Aren’t there dedicated news channels like BBC or Google News, that collect news from many sources for you? How could it be ‘difficult’? Information can be diverse, true, but that doesn’t mean the channels transmitting them are as scattered.) There are numbers of websites focusing on various specialized fields like sports, technology, science and so forth. People need log onto distinct ones to obtain what they actually need. A typical example is Guokr.com, on which the articles and news all concentrate on science in plain terms, successfully attracting thousands of young people who are interested in science. Obviously, it’s a wrong choice to look for news about the latest fashion on Guokr.com, which can be picked up by skimming over “mina”, a famous fashion magazine. (Well, but if you go to CCTV you can find a range of topics organized under different sub-channels like sports under CCTV-5 and movies and CCTV-6, etc. So, do you count CCTV as one channel, or multiple channels? I understand what you’re trying to express here in this paragraph, but you have made an assumption – news channels tend to specialize in news of certain field(s), so we need to look at more than one if we want to be informed in more than one field – which is not necessarily, or even may well contradict, the truth. You need to justify your assumption. If you don’t, as you have seen, it’s really easy to refute.)

The Second reason is that so much information makes it hard to tell which one (‘one’ what? You can’t say ‘one’ information, so ‘one’ what?) is true and who tells the truth. Maybe, two different news agencies may report totally diverse (This doesn’t mean ‘different’.) stories about an event, or opposite parties always reveal reverse statements on the same case. Let’s take a real-world example: the news on the divorce case between Cecilia Cheung and Nicholas Tse. Recently, Cecilia Zhang declared that Nicholas Tse has never done his duty to take care of her and their two sons and her, meanwhile, Nicholas claimed that Cecilia was extremely greedy for money extremely and often quarrelled with him, which resulted in the divorce case. There are plenty of newspapers, magazines, websites tracing the development of this case and substantial rumors in the air. Except for Cecilia and Nicholas, no one can tell whether they have divorced or not and who has told a lie. The only way to tell the right from wrong is getting news from many diverse sources and forming a view of one’s own. (If you say ‘except..no one can tell..’, then what good does getting news from different sources do? According to your description, you can only tell the truth by getting news from the two of them directly..)

However, searching for various sources to be well-informed is actually inefficient. It’s said that finishing a piece of New York Times (The NYT is a newspaper. So what do you mean by a ‘piece’ of a newspaper? I think you probably meant a ‘copy’..) needs 36 hours in such an information booming time. Virtually, a person simply acquires what he or she is interested in from several fixed sources. (What is the purpose of this paragraph in relation to your argument, or to the topic, anyway? Does it augment your argument? Does it prove an opponent argument wrong? I can’t tell why it even needs to be in the essay.)

In a nutshell, if people want to be well-informed, they should obtain information from many different channels because of the specialization and diversification of the news and difficulty in knowing right and wrong in spite of much time being taken (much time being taken to do what?).

总结：

你的语言语法神马的还都不错，但是论述上颇有些不搭调。。比如完全不知写来目的为何的貌似让步的倒数第二段。。比如例子举得很好但是最后的论述基本属于生搬硬套的第二论点段。。请认真考虑你的逻辑。

canpetUID：2998887

7.9```
我3月报的·原来想早点考完去实习的·结果发现快挂了·
2# 水滴石穿_

canpetUID：2998887

谢谢！我自己想下也觉得逻辑上问题很明显··刚上来发现大神你只改到30号啊···要不再帮我改一篇吧·· 3# mpromanus

canpetUID：2998887

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Working at home using computers or telephones is better than working in the office

On TV, we always see a scene that a man or a woman works at home through computers and telephones, which seems like a current trend. I hold the point that working at home is better than working in the office.
First and foremost, working at home is convenient, which is especially beneficial to those people who work in flextime, such as software engineers, journalists, actors, policemen and so forth. People can arrange their work according to their schedule freely. A typical example is Journalists, who often receive a wake-up call and rush to report an emergency happening at midnight, what’s more, staying up all night to finish a manuscript. If working at home, at this time, they can have a sleep in the day. But, working in the office, as we see, people have to work regularly, reaching and leaving the office at a certain time. Obviously, working at home is more convenient than working in the office.
The second reason is that working at home, particularly for young mother with child, can balance work and life. Nowadays, in metropolises, people usually commute from suburb to downtown area every day. There is little time to deal with housework if those people who work in the office. As a result, especially after having a baby, women always leave their job to take care of their family, which will increase economic burden, affect women’s career and then lead to family quarrels. However, if these women work at home, they can do job after sending children to kindergarten or children falling in sleep. Working at home is really a good way to get balance between family and job.
At last, working at home is time saving. Recently, a survey revealed that, on the average, everybody spent over three hours per day on the commutation. If people work at home, they can use these extra three hours to do more jobs, look after their family and play with their children rather than just sitting in a vehicle. To some extent, working at home saves time.
In a nutshell, working at home bring more convenience. People can enjoy both their work and life, and save the time spent on the commutation. What a wonderful life!

mpromanusUID：2565872

6# canpet

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Working at home using computers or telephones is better than working in the office.

On TV, we always see a scenes where a man or a woman works at home through computers and telephones, which seems like a current trend. (This doesn’t really add anything useful to your discussion. If you must give background information, it should be a little bit more relevant to what you wish to discuss than this..) I hold the point that working at home is better than working in the office.

First and foremost, working at home is convenient, which is especially beneficial to those people who work in flextime, such as software engineers, journalists, actors, policemen and so forth. People can arrange their work according to their schedules freely. A typical example is journalists, who often receive a wake-up calls and rush to report an emergency happening at midnight. What’s more, they may staying up all night to finish a manuscript. If working at home, at this time, they can have a sleep in the day. But, working in the office, as we see, people have to work regularly, reaching and leaving the office at a certain time. (Not necessarily. A lot of companies implement flextime to a certain degree – employees are free to come and leave at times that suit them, as long as the timings are not too outrageous.) Obviously, working at home is more convenient than working in the office.

The second reason is that working at home, particularly for a young mother with child, can balance work and life. Nowadays, in metropolises, people usually commute from the suburb to the downtown area every day. There is little time to deal with housework if those people who work in the office. (The part after ‘if’ is not a complete sentence.) As a result, especially after having a baby, women always leave their jobs to take care of their family, which will increase economic burden (on whom?), affect women’s career and then lead to family quarrels. (I’m not sure where you get this stereotype from but 1. Not all women give up their jobs after having kids 2. Even they do, it doesn’t necessarily always lead to ‘quarrel’s.) However, if these women work at home, they can do their job after sending the children to the kindergarten or the children falling in sleep. Working at home is really a good way to get balance between family and job.

At last (This doesn’t mean ‘last’. It means ‘after much delay’, e.g. ‘The traffic started to move at last’.), working at home is time saving. Recently, a survey revealed that, on the average, everybody spent over three hours per day on the commuting. If people work at home, they can use these extra three hours to do more jobs, look after their family and play with their children rather than just sitting in a vehicle. (And how is this different from your previous point?) To some extent, working at home saves time.

In a nutshell, working at home brings more convenience. People can enjoy both their work and life, and save the time spent on the commuting. What a wonderful life!

总结：

这篇没有什么严重问题，除了第二和第三个论点的论述过于相似。。

canpetUID：2998887

非常感谢!!··弱弱问一句··我这样写大概能得几分啊?因为我看别人都说狂飙400字··可是我写来写去就380，390心里没底啊··怎么可以写长点，然后哪里还能进步?求大神好人指教· 7# mpromanus

canpetUID：2998887

再发一篇··哪位好心人帮改改啊·这篇写了470··估计考试的时候写不了肿么多
Do you agree that the government should support the scientific research even there’s no practical use?

Science has greatly changed our life. There are planes flying in the sky, satellites orbiting the earth, computers calculating the math formulas, telephones connecting the separate continents and so forth. Science makes human being have a better life. So I hold the point that the government should support the scientific research, even those of no practical use.
First and foremost, scientific research is the engine of development. Scientific research contributes to the development of science by bringing out new discoveries continuously. These new discoveries are applied in various manufacturing fields which are linked to people’s daily life. Meanwhile, the outcomes of scientific research are crystals of wisdom of scientists, which will enrich the knowledge fund largely and become the basis of coming discoveries in return. A typical example is the research about snake venom DNA. Some scientists study on snake venom protein and find that snake venom can serve as a kind of precious basis of human drugs. Now some venom has be applied to the treatment of some diseases. In addition, scientists also establish a snake venom DNA database, which is beneficial to different field of research including the evolution of snake, medical research and so on. It’s obviously that scientific research makes great contributions to improve human’s life and social progress.
Furthermore, there is no scientific research being not practical totally. Nowadays, inter-disciplinary connections are pretty widespread and cooperation of different subjects is stronger. The development of one scientific field has a great effect on the others. Let’s take a real-world example. Mathematics seems unpractical but it’s the base of computer science, astronautics, engineering and many other practical subjects. A tiny progress made in the mathematics research might lead to giant leaps in other practical scientific fields which is of infinite value. Seldom can I imagine if we have no research in mathematics, how the practical subjects which base on it march forward. To some extent, mathematics is of great use. So it’s difficult to classify the scientific research into practical one and unpractical one. All fields of science can be considered as useful.
In addition, with the development of science, the objects of study are becoming more and more complex. Scientists from different fields must work together to accomplish some research projects. What’s more, the equipments used in the studies are quite sophisticated. Therefore, government’s power is becoming more and more crucial to assemble the manpower, material sources and financial resource to back up the scientific research. Government’s supporting is important to science.
In a nutshell, scientific research, seeming practical or not, conduce to a better life, better society. And it’s one of government’s responsibility and duty to promote the advance of scientific studies.

mpromanusUID：2565872

8# canpet

分数我没法说，因为我不是ETS评分员，也不是按ETS标准改的。但我觉得你的作文没有特别大的软肋，顶多也就是小的语法错误吧。。

字数不上400绝对不是问题。我不记得自己有写到400字。版面上也有不到400字拿很高分的经验帖子。作文不是灌水。。

canpetUID：2998887

好的··谢谢了·
10# mpromanus

canpetUID：2998887

真心求各位好心人帮改改作文啊··9号考了·

Do you agree with the following statement? In a team, those who do not accept others’ criticism cannot succeed.
Have you met this kind of people who always stick with his opinions and are defensive to others’ criticism?  What do you think about them? There is a saying that this is a time of cooperation, which needs people’s group works, in which criticism is crucial to progress and advance. So I hold the view that those people who do not accept others’ criticism cannot succeed.
First and foremost, I want to quote a well-known proverb that is “There are no perfect people around the world, except the god.” Everybody has defects and faults even though those celebrities and talents, such as Aristotle and Plato living in ancient Greek, Newton and Einstein working in physics world, Obama and Jingtao Hu in political field. But it does not mean that people cannot improve themselves gradually to reach near perfection. As we know, others’ criticism is the ladders towards perfection. When people accept others’ criticism, they can be acquainted with others’ opinions about themselves, advantages or disadvantages. Maybe, not all of the criticism is fairly and worthy, but it’s also important for people to accept others’ comments so that they may find out some short-comings that they have never noticed and correct them. With correcting more and more disadvantages, people improve their abilities, make great progresses and succeed.
Second reason I want to mention is that the kind of people who do not accept others’ criticism always cannot be in harmony with other members in the team. Cooperation is becoming more and more important in modern society. The skills of communication, collaboration and execution play key roles in the way to success. People who are defensive to others’ criticism always lack these skills and perhaps are kicked out of the team finally. It’s very hard for a single person to succeed as everything becomes sophisticated and complicated. As we see, many successful people usually have a team working behind them. For instance, when Li Na won her grand slam this year and stand on the stage to accept the award, she firstly thanks to teammates who back her up.
I want to take a real-world example happening in my life. When I was in high school, I attend a studying group, in which members help each other to answer some questions, make studying schedule, collect study materials and urge studying. There was a boy in the team who was too lazy to finish his homework on time frequently and often defensive to our criticism and suggestions. What’s worse, he often quarreled with us when we point out his faults and defects. Obviously, he had never overcome his short-comings and made any progress. As a result, we kick him out of the team and he failed to the university entrance exam.
In a nutshell, acceptance for others’ criticism is the key to success, which can help people find out their short-comings, faults, defects and deal with them. Learning to accept others’ criticism is also significant to group-working, which is vital to succeed. So, in my mind, those people who do not accept others’ criticism cannot succeed.