xjwnzj的作文每日帖！

xjwnzjUID：3261105

如了个题的！

在互改版潜了好久的水一直不敢发言，觉得自己多少学到了一点儿，今天开始晒作文，issue、argue都有!!小的写作文一直很水，切望各位大哥大姐大版主们斧正！~

xjwnzjUID：3261105

Issue 59
Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.

时间35min 字数431 错别3个

提纲：1. 并不能确定什么科技领域最benefitting
2. 科学家在自己喜欢的领域才容易出成果
3. 大量科技人员聚集在一个领域可能造成严重的人才浪费


Never in human history have we experienced a progress in technology development as fast as it is today. Everyday hundreds of papers are published in all those studying areas, though some of them may not seem as appealing as the others, considering the possible applications of these discoveries or inventions. Some people claim that scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. However, I am totally opposed to it.

To begin with, it is never certain which area could benefit the most people. Mr. and Mrs. Curie couldn't have known how radium and the other radioactive elements would be applied today, neither would Gao Kun have been able to predict how his optical fibre would change the way in which we today are communicating through the Pacific Ocean. As a high-energy physicist puts it, 'we might not be sure how our work will be used, but we can be sure it will definitely be utilized.' None of all the scientific developments' potential is deniable. As technology develops further, what today seems useless might be of significant meaning to human beings.

Besides, it is too hasty to urge all the scientists to concentrate on some specific areas which seem more promising, considering that the scientists and researchers' interest may not have anything to do with what they are 'told' to do. Einstein wasn't 'forced' to come up with the idea of mass-energy equation, neither was Hocking driven to develop his black hole theories. Countless examples have shown that it was their interest and enthusiasm but not people's requirements that resulted in the scientists' greatest work.

The last but not least, grouping up many people in a certain area might be a waste of time and money, as all the promising areas already have attracted numerous researchers. As a survey showed last year, the number of today's electronic engineers has already exceeded what the whole world needs. A same problem happened five years ago in computer science. Both the areas seemed quite promising because of not only the money, but also all the possible discoveries. However, too many people studying in a same area has caused both unemployment and exorbitant competition, which is already having a negative effect on the so-called 'latest scientific developments'.

In short, it is unreasonable to make the scientists concentrate on what seems likely to benefit the most people. Instead we should encourage them to devote themselves to what they really like, and expect all the possible developments that will surely bring about changes in the future.

xjwnzjUID：3261105

173. The population on Balmer Island doubles  during the summer months. During the summer, then, the town council......

Write a response in which you examine the stated/unstated assumptions of the argument. Be srue to explain how the argument depends on ....

时间30min+ 字数424 错别5



In order to substantiate the conclusion that the government of Balmer island should decrease the maximum number of moped rentals allowed at each of the island's six moped and bicycle rental companies, the author points out that the population on Balmer Island has doubled recently. Also, he/she speaks of a similar limit carried out by the council of neighboring Torseau island. Though plausible at first glance, the argument is rife with unfounded evidences and assumptions, thus making it ill-convincing.

The first thing is that the author fails to offer enough evidence to support his assumption that there is a positive connection between the limits' enforcement and the reduction of moped accidents on the island of Torseau, despite the fact that the reduction happened after the enforcement. In fact, there could have been many possible reasons which can result in a decline in moped accidents. For instance, the Torseau island might be famous for tourism and last year there were fewer tourists because of the economic depression. It was also possible that last year many residents on Torseau island switched to automobiles for transportation. Unless the author could exclude all the possible factors, we cannot come to the conclusion that it was the limitations that helped reduce the moped accidents.

In the second place, infurther support of his/her recommendation, the author assumes that the same limitaion would also work well among the people of Balmer Island. As the letter says the rental companies could only rent 300 mopeds and bicycles altogether at most. It's quite possible that the majority of the residents on the island already own bicycles or mopeds of their own. In that case, the limitation of reducing tens of bicycle/moped rentals might be of little help in reducing moped accidents. To strengthen the argument the author should implement a normed and detailed survey to make sure of the extent to which the limits will influence the local people.

The last but not least important, building upon the assumption that the limits will have a significant effect in decreasing the moped accidents, whether the limits should be enforced still lacks consideration. The purpose of the limitation is to improve the safety of people on the island, however, the new limitations might cause another problem: many more cars. This will undoubtedly become an even more serious safety problem for Balmer islanders.

In conclusion, the argument is not based on valid evidences or sound reasoning. To make the suggestion more convincing, the author should demonstrate more persuasive evidences and take every possible factor into account.

xjwnzjUID：3261105

Argument 65
When Stanley Park first opened......

35min 字数487 3错别字

In order to substantiate the recommendation that Stanley Park should provide more benches so that the unused open areas could be suitable for socializing and more people could be attracted, the author cites the statistics from some cameras which shows that the visitors to Stanley Park is only about one third of visitors to Carlton Park. Also, he/she points out the fact that Carlton Park provides people with benches, while Stanley Park doesn't. Though plausible at first glance, the argument is ill-convincing because of its unfounded evidences and assumptions.

The first thing is that the author cites the recordings of a camera to show the number of visitors to Stanley Park is very small, compared to 150 people visiting Carlton Park every weekday. However, what the camera records is an average of 50 cars per day. The author simply compares '50 cars' to '150 people', without giving any information about how many people are there in one car on average. Considering the fact that people often like to drive their whole families to the parks, there is a high chance that there are at least 3 or 4 people on one car, making the number of visitors to Stanley Park greater than that of Carlton Park. Unless the author could demonstrate that the average number of people on one car is smaller than 3, we cannot simply draw a conclusion that Stanley Park is no longer popular.

Moreover, in further support of his/her argument, the author talks of the ample seating in Carlton Park. Even if the assumption that Stanley Park isn't as popular as Carlton Park is true, it is still too hasty to conclude that the main reason of Carlton Park's success is its benches. Although Carlton Park provides ample seating while Stanley doesn't, the author fails to give credible evidences to show a concrete connection between the benches and the park's popularity. In fact, there are many other factors which might have a significant influence. For instance, Stanley Park might not be as clean as Carlton Park, or Carlton Park's location in the heart of the business district has made it superior. To make the argument more convincing the author must firstly exclude all the other possible factors.

The last but not least important, building upon the assumption that Stanley Park is indeed less popular than Carlton Park because Carlton Park provides benches, the recommendation might still be not useful enough. Simply providing more benches won't make Stanley Park any better than Carlton, and many visitors tend to visit the park they are used to go to. In order to become popular again, Stanley Park should make more developments, such as hiring more safety people, or building more facilities.

In conclusion, the argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. To make the argument more thorough and logically convincing, the author should give more persuasive evidences and take every possibility into account.

xjwnzjUID：3261105

木有人啊...

okqishiUID：3245371

散装的作文确实很少有人拍...
楼主可以参加个作文互改小组，或者征集几个基友互改

xjwnzjUID：3261105

okqishi 发表于 2012-11-17 18:03
散装的作文确实很少有人拍...
楼主可以参加个作文互改小组，或者征集几个基友互改

i see，thx~