【Daily Writing作文特训小组】yxy319的作业贴

yxy319UID: 3014935

第一次考托没啥经验。。。求虐！！！

希望能和大家一起努力，一起进步~~

yxy319UID: 3014935

2月8号

With the high speed of social development, migration has become a common phenomenon all over the world. People move to new places for various reasons, such as good job opportunities, clean environment and large potential for future career. We cannot judge the advantages and disadvantages of migration just from the aspect of losing friends. From my perspective, however, it is usually beneficial for people to move to new places.

Indeed, people lose some friends when they get out of a certain community. Living in a permanent circle always bounds people together, which makes it well-reasoned to become friends. But in my mind, true friendship never fades even if they are far away apart. A good example to illustrate this point is the friendship between Marx and Engels. During their lives, they seldom got together, but they still regarded each other as best friend. So moving out of a society only cost us some randomly made friends, not the real ones.

However, some people may argue that the loss of those friends will destroy the social network that we have managed for years. It is true that the relationship among people will suffer a lot for the loss of person-to-person connections, but that will recover soon enough after we settle down. If a stable job is maintained and the whole family live happily together, why not take time to know people around and make new friends? Actually it is a good thing because we will have more friends rather than losing them.

On the other hand, gain or loss of friends is the least thing that accounts for the migration. What concern us are more critical issues, such as marriage, job and environment. Many people move to new town or country simply because they want to live a better life, so from their initial intention, we can tell that moving to a new place is somehow meaningful.

In brief, moving to new places may not cause the loss of friends. Even though it does, that is the minor thing we should care about when judging the pros and cons of the moving strategy.

xiesisiminervaUID: 2997765

2月8号& |4 J8 C- f* Z! ?4 q

With the high speed of social development, migration has become a common phenomenon all over the world. People move to new places for various reasons, such as good job opportunities, clean environment and large potential for future career. We cannot judge the advantages and disadvantages of migration just from the aspect of losing friends. From my perspective, however, it is usually beneficial for people to move to new places.

Indeed, people lose some friends when they get out of a certain community. Living in a permanent circle always bounds people together, which makes it well-reasoned to become friends. But in my mind, true friendship never fades even if they are far away apart. A good example to illustrate this point is the friendship between Marx and Engels. During their lives, they seldom got together, but they still regarded each other as best friend. So moving out of a society only cost us some randomly made friends, not the real ones.
  However, some people may argue that the loss of those friends will destroy the social network that we have managed for years. It is true that the relationship among people will suffer a lot for the loss of person-to-person connections, but that will recover soon enough after we settle down. If a stable job is maintained and the whole family live happily together, why not take time to know people around and make new friends? Actually it is a good thing because we will have more friends rather than losing them.

Z( L
On the other hand, gain or loss of friends is the least thing that accounts for the migration. What concern us are more critical issues, such as marriage, job and environment. Many people move to new town or country simply because they want to live a better life, so from their initial intention, we can tell that moving to a new place is somehow meaningful. - B8 I' z* U; V) z/ U7 y7 l, G; M

In brief, moving to new places may not cause the loss of friends. Even though it does, that is the minor thing we should care about when judging the pros and cons of the moving strategy.
我觉得写得很好了，我也改不出什么错误来。道理很讲的很明白，首先是好的友谊不会变质，第二是新的社交网络会建立，我最喜欢的是第三点，失去友谊不是最重要的影响因素（这个向作者学习啦），这招比较狠，相当于说讨论这个问题意义不大，呵呵。作者可以考虑一下在以后的写作中形成自己的风格呀，期待中~

陶太郎UID: 3066263

2# yxy319

With the high speed of social development, migration has become a common phenomenon all over the world. People move to new places for various reasons, such as good job opportunities, a clean environment and a large potential for future career. We cannot (It is not proper to – 用一种比较中立客观的语气感觉好一点) judge the advantages and disadvantages of migration just from the aspect of losing friends. From my perspective, however,(不需要再用however来表达转折意思了吧，因为前一句话已经是对于题目的反面观点了) it is usually beneficial for people to move to new places.
（提出观点：搬家是有益的。）

Indeed, people will lose some friends when they get out of a certain community. Living in a permanent circle always bounds people together, which makes it well-reasoned to become friends.（这句话有点看不明白） But in my mind, the true friendship will never fades (fade) even if they are far away apart （people are far apart from each other）. A good example to illustrate this point is the friendship between Marx and Engels. During their lives, they seldom got together, but they still regarded each other as the best friend. So moving out of a society only costs us some randomly made friends, not the (those) real ones.
（分论点1：搬家的确会使人们失去一些朋友，但是他们并不会失去真正的朋友。）

However, some people may argue that the loss of those (their) friends will destroy the social network that we (they) have managed for years. It is true that the relationship among people will suffer a lot for (from) the loss (lack) of person-to-person connections, but that will recover soon enough after we settle (settling) down. If a stable job is maintained and the whole family lives happily together, why not take some time to know people around and make new friends? Actually it is a good thing because we will have more friends rather than losing them.
（分论点2：搬家可以促使结实新朋友。）

On the other hand, the gain or the loss of friends is the least thing that accounts for the migration. What concern us are more critical issues, such as marriage, job and environment. Many people move to a new town or a new country simply because they want to live a better life, so from their initial intention, we can tell that (去掉) moving to a new place is somehow meaningful.
（分论点3：和朋友相比，搬家是为了更加重要的目的。）

In brief, moving to new places may not cause the loss of friends. Even though it does, that is the minor thing we should care about when judging the pros and cons of the moving strategy.

作者的写作思路和自己很像，所以读起来很顺畅，感觉也很亲切。
还想和作者探讨一个问题：
主体部分每一段落中的分论点是否需要在段首句提出？看作者的文章，第二段和第三段都是首先做出让步，然后一步步反驳，最后提出自己的观点，是否需要在段首句就先提出自己观点？
另外，建议作者减少使用“we”，一方面感觉这样提出观点主观性太强，不够客观公正，另外在复句中也容易出现代词使用错误。

yxy319UID: 3014935

多谢批改~自己有很多地方没注意到吖~

写的时候也没多想。。段首是应该提出分论点的，那样结构更清楚。。
以后我会注意的，谢谢~~

陶太郎UID: 3066263

5# yxy319

其实也不是必须要段首提出论点啦，可能还要看每个人的写作习惯。因为我看你可能会先让步，然后论证，最后提出观点。是不是这样写更顺手些？或者不同的段落使用不同的论证方法？

yxy319UID: 3014935

我是比较习惯这样写，感觉逻辑性比较强。。。
一篇文章结构还是要一致吧，不然看上去很乱。。。

yxy319UID: 3014935

2.10  综合

In the lecture, the professor draws a conclusion that teamwork is not a good way to approach certain new project, which contradicts the idea of the passage.

The first point the professor argues is about the free ride. Some people in a group do nothing at all, and when the project turns out to be excellent, the recognition is to the group as a whole, including those free riders. This is unfair to those who accomplish their work with great effort and makes them disappointed. According to the passage, however, the writer thinks that group work can be rewarding for every member and let the individual to get his or her contributions and ideas to be recognized as highly important, which is against the opinion of the lecture.

Secondly, the reading passage holds the idea that teamwork can work more quickly with greater resources and more people. But the lecture cast doubt on that, since people in a group spend a lot of time on meetings to get consensus, which lowers the efficiency of their work.

The last point discussed in the lecture is about the decisions made in a group. The writer of the passage thinks that that teamwork can introduce more creative ideas because team members spread the responsibilities. The lecture agrees that responsibilities are distributed in a group, but it does not agree that more creative ideas will come about because of the effect of influential people. They tend to drop some creative ideas that may worth considering, and ignore others' concerns about the risky decisions they make. And when the project fails, the blame is on all the people, though some of them are against the plan from the beginning.

In brief, the lecture is against the idea that teamwork is beneficial, which is stated in the reading passage.

laozhanguotoeflUID: 3246339

sorry 我只写了独立，不能改综合

daisy8936UID: 2999019

8# yxy319

In the lecture, the professor draws a conclusion that teamwork is not a good way to approach certain new project, which contradicts the idea of the passage.' e0 y0 k* u9 h5 A5 n

The first point the professor argues is about the free ride. Some people in a group do nothing at all, and when the project turns out to be excellent, the recognition is to the group as a whole, including those free riders. This is unfair to those who accomplish their work with great effort and makes them disappointed. According to the passage, however, the writer thinks that group work can be rewarding for every member and let the individual to get his or her contributions and ideas to be recognized as highly important, which is against the opinion of the lecture.

R) z y) _
Secondly, the reading passage holds the idea that teamwork can work more quickly with greater resources and more people. But the lecture casts doubt on that, since people in a group spend a lot of time on meetings to get consensus, which lowers the efficiency of their work.( z2 V)
X- D/ T/ M' |
. u8 T8 R8 b Z. Q1 }% ?
The last point discussed in the lecture is about the decisions made in a group. The writer of the passage thinks that that teamwork can introduce more creative ideas because team members spread（分散责任用disperse或 distribute似乎比spread更恰当，spread意在传播） the responsibilities. The lecture agrees that responsibilities are distributed in a group, but it does not agree that more creative ideas will come about because of the effect of influential people. They tend to drop some creative ideas that may worth considering, and ignore others' concerns about the risky decisions they make. And when the project fails, the blame is on all the people, though some of them are against the plan from the beginning.5 ]6 `$ y9 N0 }4 X3 s
; V& `/ [3 J5 o% M2 L* b5 C% ^
In brief, the lecture is against the idea that teamwork is beneficial, which is stated in the reading passage.

没啥大问题哈，就改了一点点，另外和楼主讨论下，在综合写作中需要把reading passage 中的内容再复述一下吗？像楼主第二段里写的那样？

daisy8936UID: 2999019

ps楼主听的信息很全，是咋练听力的？求教...

yxy319UID: 3014935

reading的内容至少应该提一下吧，不然怎么说明和lecture观点不一致呢？不过简略一点好些，我写的有点啰嗦了。。。
听力嘛，多听就可以了。。也没什么别的窍门。。

yxy319UID: 3014935

2月11日 110115NA Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The main role of the university professor is to educate students rather than to do research.

As Confucius, the greatest educator in China, once said, university is a place where creative ideas meet with the opportunity for them to become real. And professors play an important role in this process. In my opinion, university professors should pay more attention to their study, rather than keeping them busy around students.

Unlike high schools, where basic knowledge is of the most value for students, university is born with the responsibility to find new discoveries and act as an impetus to the development of society. Therefore, the core of a university lies in its labs and researching departments, rather than classrooms. Professors are the most important resources in university, and their efforts should be placed on the essential job - researching. Of course, professors should take their job as teacher seriously, and do their best to educate students, but their main focus on research work should never be changed. From the journal of Experimental Education, a university in Germany involves its students in the research work as a mean for education, which I think is a good way to keep professors occupied with their research and finish their education work at the same time.

On the other hand, from the aspect of students, many of them have already been adults and have got the ability to study independently. With the brief instruction of the professor, even if it is just a hint, they should be able to finish the work on their own, and it is of great possibility that they can do it better in a brand new way. What's more, the lack of help from professors has nothing to do with irresponsibility; in fact, it is a must for developing independent thinking ability in students, which is one of the critical abilities that university students must obtain before graduation. Only in this way could university accomplish its duty to educate students for a better future.

In brief, it is not only the commission of university, but also the need of students, that require professors to pay more attention to their research, rather than class.

xoverUID: 3247711

In the lecture, the professor draws a conclusion that teamwork is not a good way to approach certain new project, which contradicts the idea of the passage.
! c; e- K6 v$ o, j. q" V* e n$ ]3 ?5 ^4 l5 e. y
The first point the professor argues is about the free ride. Some people in a group do nothing at all, and when the project turns out to be excellent, the recognition is to the group as a whole, including those free riders. This is unfair to those who accomplish their work with great effort and makes them disappointed. According to the passage, however, the writer thinks that group work can be rewarding for every member and let the individual to get his or her contributions and ideas to be recognized as highly importance, which is against the opinion of the lecture.
5 d) A5 a5 M9 L9 `( V% z
4 a% Y- q: D% E( U9 [. V1 e% D& ]Secondly, the reading passage holds the idea that teamwork can work more quickly with greater resources and more people. But the lecture casts doubt on that, since people in a group spend a lot of time on meetings to get consensus, which lowers the efficiency of their work.8 H7 ^* { B4 p/ C) A; Y
9 F) W- g3 K0 W) t Y
The last point discussed in the lecture is about the decisions made in a group. The writer of the passage thinks that that teamwork can introduce more creative ideas because team members spread the responsibilities. The lecture agrees that responsibilities are distributed in a group, but it does not agree that more creative ideas will come about because of the effect of influential people. They tend to drop some creative ideas that may worth considering, and ignore others' concerns about the risky decisions they make. And when the project fails, the blame is on all the people, though some of them are against the plan from the beginning.
+ P6 m% G9 P2 o
]4 K$ G0 W' H6 fIn brief, the lecture is against the idea that teamwork is beneficial, which is stated in the reading passage.


很不错的文章啦

yxy319UID: 3014935

2.11 综合

In the lecture, the speaker holds the view that the painting was the original work of Rembrandt, which contradicts the idea of the reading passage. And there are several explanations.

First of all, as for the inconsistence about the woman's clothes mentioned in the passage, the research showed that the element of the fur collar is hundreds of years younger than the original painting, which means that it was added by others, perhaps to make the painting look more gorgeous.

Secondly, in the original work, what the woman wears is actually a light colour clothes, instead of dark fur collar. So that the light clothes can reflect light on her face, and the light and shadow in the painting is exactly correct. That solves the question the reading passage raises about the error in the painting.

Finally, from the research, the glued pieces of wood on the panel were added after the painting was finished. Rembrandt actually just used one piece of wood, which turned out to be got from the same kind of tree as he used in his another painting.

In brief, the lecture clears every aspect about the original painting questions by the passage, and draws a conclusion that the painting was painted by Rembrandt.