Issue176 自己改了改,感觉尚可.拜托了!

kyo_jamUID: 196017

Issue176: 653 words  45 minutes
The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each.
Is the function of science to reassure while the purpose of art is to upset, as the statement asserts? I fundamentally disagree with it since the speaker oversimplifies the real meaning of these two things as well as giving us an inappropriate sense that the two are mutually exclusives.
To begin with, it might be tempting to agree with the statement when we consider it at its superficial aspect. As is universally acknowledged that science leads us to more truths and provides us with increasing power, thus gives us a sense of reassurance. No one at present wants to go back at the stage when we had to fight with other creatures for food or land. We no longer understand our world with pristine eyes: many mysteries have been comprehended due to our technology, while we resorted most of them to the strength of our god previously. We feel reassured as we are more safe while less ignorant. When it comes to art, a kind of method to touch our inner heart; we usually find upset or inability in the face of such work made by ourselves. Anyone who sees the sculpture by Michelangelo would feel unsafe as he has strongly intuition that a soul has been confined in the stone and want to go out to gain unfettered freedom. Anyone who reads the play of shakespeare would be sad about tragedies arose by hatred or even strong love. We could no longer keep serenity, or we could say reassured, as we get the information which the artists want to put in his work.
However, such a conclusion neglects other factors of vital importance. Consider our two-edged use of latest technology or knowledge, it sounds a little ridiculous that shortly after a solider uses this power imbued in his weapon to shatter other persons' bodies, a surgeon uses the same power to save the lives. Also see the unceasing complain of the complexity brought about by the introduction of convenience by science. As we could go further, we have more destinations to go; As we could do more jobs, we have more work to cover; As we could be more access to information, we have more things to absorb. See our surroundings, we are living in a world consists of monstrous edifice, and of narrow, dark streets; torn by the shouts of taxis or lorries; thronged ceaselessly by crowds of large masses. Could we say all this is the reassurance brought about by science? Anyone rational is doomed to answer negatively.
When it turns to art, such a conclusion would also be inappropriate due to an oversimplification of the issue. When a baby in a cradle hears a lullaby, what does he feel? When we see the painting of Renoir whose aim to the ease without any pain or religious factor, what do we feel? Nothing serious. Baby wants to sleep while we got relaxed from our harsh normal life. No one could resist that the conclusion drawn by the speaker amounts to nothings at all under these circumstances.
Further the statement gives us a sense that science and art have no mutually related aspect. But consider the form as well as the style of art, could the style of futurism exist in the stage when we use our hand to grow grains and make artificial products? And no maestro could imagine the strength of films on the public 500 hundred years ago. Science gives art the wing which let artists' imagination soar without limitation.
In sum, the function of science cannot stay at the stage of solely reassuring people while the art is far more than a tool to let us feel upset. They have their own purpose, no one could predict about the future of science due to its surprisingly developing speed. Similarly, no body could comprehend the real purpose for art, as beauty means nothing in terms of our own dictionary.

dabaoqiaoUID: 195888

条理清楚，用词很好，比我的强多了，呵呵，我得向你好好学习呀

最初由 kyo_jam 发布
[B]Issue176: 653 words  45 minutes
The function of science is to reassure; the purpose of art is to upset. Therein lies the value of each.
Is the function of sci..

以下省略...... [/B]

kyo_jamUID: 196017

哪里,偶还有5天就去了！

smartyrUID: 169453

写得不错！向你学习

candybonUID: 194801

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250985  帮忙改改，谢谢了。

Is the function of science to reassure while the purpose of art is to upset, as the statement asserts? I fundamentally disagree with it since the speaker oversimplifies the real meaning of these two things as well as giving us an inappropriate sense that the two are mutually exclusives..(首段言简意赅，很好)

To begin with, it might be tempting to agree with the statement when we consider it at its superficial aspect. As is universally acknowledged that science leads us to more truths and provides us with increasing power, thus gives us a sense of reassurance. No one at present wants to go back      at (to）   the stage when we had to fight with other creatures for food or land. We no longer understand our world with pristine eyes: many mysteries have been comprehended due to our technology, while we resorted most of them to the strength of our god previously. We feel reassured as we are more safe while less ignorant. When it comes to art, a kind of method to touch our inner heart; we usually find upset or inability in the face of such work made by ourselves. Anyone who sees the sculpture by Michelangelo would feel unsafe as he has strongly intuition that a soul has been confined in the stone and want to go out to gain unfettered freedom. Anyone who reads the play of shakespeare would be sad about tragedies arose by hatred or even strong love. We could no longer keep serenity, or we could say reassured, as we get the information which the artists want to put in his work. (语句精彩、例子生动，佩服佩服，但是个人觉得后半段写art的作用没有在本段首句的份论点中体现出来，从首句看，好像就是写科学)

However, such a conclusion neglects other factors of vital importance. Consider our two-edged use of latest technology or knowledge, it sounds a little ridiculous that shortly after a solider uses this power imbued in his weapon to shatter other persons' bodies, a surgeon uses the same power to save the lives. Also see the unceasing complain of the complexity brought about by the introduction of convenience by science. As we could go further, we have more destinations to go; As we could do more jobs, we have more work to cover; As we could be more access to information, we have more things to absorb. See our surroundings, we are living in a world consists of monstrous edifice, and of narrow, dark streets; torn by the shouts of taxis or lorries; thronged ceaselessly by crowds of large masses. Could we say all this is the reassurance brought about by science? Anyone rational is doomed to answer negatively.（个人觉得无懈可击）


When it turns to art, such a conclusion would also be inappropriate due to        an（不要）   oversimplification of the issue. When a baby in a cradle hears a lullaby, what does          he（it）     feel? When we see the painting of Renoir whose aim       （is）     to          the（不要）     ease without any pain or religious factor, what do we feel? Nothing serious. Baby wants to sleep while we got relaxed from our harsh normal life. No one could resist that the conclusion drawn by the speaker amounts to nothings at all under these circumstances.

Further the statement gives us a sense that science and art have no mutually related aspect. But consider the form as well as the style of art, could the style of futurism exist in the stage when we use our hand to grow grains and make artificial products? And no maestro could imagine the strength of films on the public 500 hundred years ago. Science gives art the wing which let artists' imagination soar without limitation.

In sum, the function of science cannot stay at the stage of solely reassuring people while the art is far more than a tool to let us feel upset. They have their own purpose, no one could predict about the future of science due to its surprisingly developing speed. Similarly, no body could comprehend the real purpose for art, as beauty means nothing in terms of our own dictionary.

个人觉得本文的一大亮点就是语句非常精彩，用词高雅，我觉得上5分以上应该没问题，但是字数600多，是在45分内写出来的吗？如果是或超了不多，那你可以算是大牛了，不夸张哦，呵呵。我的文章和你比起来差远了。请你多多斧正阿，还有，怎么样才能改善用词，使语句更精彩呢？传授一点绝招吧，谢谢拉。

kyo_jamUID: 196017

背半个月新概念4,有的句子就直接用了.
5天之内看了老外112篇范文满脑子就是这东西了.
时间嘛!
狂练之后最高记录是710.不过a一般500不到,a要多少最好?

candybonUID: 194801

果然遇到牛人了，issue要500， a 要400