Issue121 第1篇

if_lotusUID: 175616

------题目------
At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
------提纲------
赞成：1）客观原因：自然选择、适应能力差导致灭绝
         2）主观原因：有很多社会问题亟待解决
反对：人类行为造成动物灭绝
------正文------
Determining whether the society should make extraordinary efforts to save endangered species could be weighted in many aspects. Different people have different answers due to their respective point of view. On balance, I partly agree with the notion that humans need not make ‘extraordinary’ efforts – at the expense of money and jobs- to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.

The first and foremost reason why I support with above statement is that historically biologists- most famous among them British naturalist Charles Darwin- assumed that extinction is the natural outcome of competition between newly evolved, adaptively superior species and their older, more primitive ancestors. These scientists believed that newer, more highly evolved species simply drove less well-adapted species to extinction. This is perhaps best demonstrated in the development of our own ancestors, the early mammals. Before the fall of the dinosaurs, which had dominated Earth for more that 150 million years, mammals were small, nocturnal, and secretive. They devoted much of their time and energy to evading meat-eating dinosaurs. With the extinction of dinosaurs, the remaining mammals moved into habits and ecological niches previously dominated by the dinosaurs.

There is also a further more subtle point to consider if it is necessary to make "extraordinary" efforts to help species conservation when there are still many other problems such as famine and unemployment, which we should solve first. Famine, severe shortage of food, generally affecting a widespread area and large numbers of people. Further, one of the most dramatic, large-scale sociological consequences of famine is population migration. Many countries have cast a light on that problem. Additionally, unemployment, enforced idleness of wage earners who are able and willing to work but cannot find jobs is a serious problem. The proportion of workers unemployed also shows how well a nation's human resources are used and serves as an index of economic activity.

However, instead of global climate change, humans are part of the cause of the latest extinction. With the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, humans began destroying the world's terrestrial ecosystems to produce farmland. Today pollution destroys ecosystems even in remote deserts and in the world’s deepest oceans. In addition, we have cleared forests for lumber, pulp, and firewood. We have harvested the fish and shellfish of the world's largest lakes and oceans in volumes that make it impossible for populations to recover fast enough to meet our harvesting needs. And everywhere we go, whether on purpose or by accident, we have brought along species that disrupt local ecosystems and, in many cases, drive native species extinct. Hence, we humans have a duty to take measures to protect the species whose survival we’ve placed in jeopardy.

To sum up, humans are responsible for the extinction, but making extraordinary efforts to save endangered species is not necessary since the society has many other problems to solve and not all the extinction is imputed to humans.

so猫UID: 148633

------题目------
At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.
------提纲------
赞成：1）客观原因：自然选择、适应能力差导致灭绝
         2）主观原因：有很多社会问题亟待解决
反对：人类行为造成动物灭绝
------正文------
Determining whether the society should make extraordinary efforts to save endangered species could be weighted in many aspects. Different people have different answers due to their respective point of view. On balance, I partly agree with the notion that humans need not make ‘extraordinary’ efforts – at the expense of money and jobs- to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.
好重的模板的味道哦~~~
个人认为第二句那个什么different开头的纯粹是废话 强烈建议去掉 读读看 上句说在很多方面 下面突然换到不同人上面 是不是脱节了？ 一看就知道是弄摸版给弄的 呵呵 摸版虽然是好东西 但是不能乱用哈
再有 既然说了是partly agree 那么我建议说清楚是哪part 要不哪来的on balance
partly是多大的partly 是3，7开 还是55分成都没说明白
不过好在一开始还算交代了TS OK，继续看下面的

The first and foremost reason why I support with above statement is that historically biologists- most famous among them British naturalist Charles Darwin- assumed that extinction is the natural outcome of competition between newly evolved, adaptively superior species and their older, more primitive ancestors.既然是那么肯定拿来做例子，就不可以用assume啦，assume的英文解释自己去查查看 用unproof的东西来prove sth else，本身就是个很大的悖论 如果我是ETS的变态改卷子的人 看到这里我就不看了 整段理由都不成立嘛~ These scientists believed that newer, more highly evolved species simply drove less well-adapted species to extinction. This is perhaps best demonstrated in the development of our own ancestors, the early mammals. Before the fall of the dinosaurs, which had dominated Earth for more that 150 million years, mammals were small, nocturnal, and secretive乱用啊~~~自己查下这词啥意思去. They devoted much of their time and energy to evading meat-eating dinosaurs. With the extinction of dinosaurs, the remaining mammals moved into habits and ecological niches previously dominated by the dinosaurs.
这段有问题
第一是没有TS 虽然我想你的意思是说的确历史上是自然原因造成物种灭绝
但是你想证明什么？
你看题目自己的要求是什么
你把问题归结到自然的原因是因为你想从反面来说这样就没必要给保护物种投钱了
但是事实呢 别说你首先没证明almost all物种灭绝是因为自然原因 连为什么恐龙灭绝是因为自然都没讲清楚
段内的逻辑啊逻辑啊！！！

There is also看 又乱说 哪来的also，你上下段讲的都不是一个方面怎么能also，on the other hand都牵强 a further more subtle point to consider if it is necessary to make "extraordinary" efforts to help species conservation when there are still many other problems such as famine and unemployment, which we should solve first. Famine, severe shortage of food, generally affecting a widespread area and large numbers of people. Further, one of the most dramatic, large-scale sociological consequences of famine is population migration. Many countries have cast a light on that problem.又扯远了 怎么扯到migration上去了 你的重点呢？？？ Additionally, unemployment, enforced idleness of wage earners who are able and willing to work but cannot find jobs is a serious problem. The proportion of workers unemployed also shows how well a nation's human resources are used and serves as an index of economic activity.这就完了？你一段撒开了就不回去了？你分析啊举例啊都是为了证明中心 你怎么着最后也得重新说说这段是干嘛的吧 虽然很八股 但是ETS既然考你的逻辑你就得按常理出牌

However, instead of global climate change,这是哪来的instead of humans are part of the cause of the latest extinction. With the invention of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, humans began destroying the world's terrestrial ecosystems to produce farmland. Today pollution destroys ecosystems even in remote deserts and in the world’s deepest oceans. In addition, we have cleared clear?????forests for lumber, pulp, and firewood. We have harvested the fish and shellfish of the world's largest lakes and oceans in volumes that make it impossible for populations to recover fast enough to meet our harvesting needs. And everywhere we go, whether on purpose or by accident, we have brought along species that disrupt local ecosystems and, in many cases, drive native species extinct. 全部都是罗列的例子 没分析？那你后面的hence从哪来？前面的其实连例子都说不上 因为太散 没有把要害说出来 干脆就不要那么麻烦一针见血说出来人类这百年的活动怎么着破坏了生态环境 伤10指不如断1指 重点说一个就好 要不松松垮垮根本没有效果Hence, we humans have a duty to take measures to protect the species whose survival we’ve placed in jeopardy.

To sum up, humans are responsible for the extinction, but making extraordinary efforts to save endangered species is not necessary since the society has many other problems to solve and not all the extinction is imputed to humans.

我来分析下你的逻辑吧
TS：人类应该部分负责，但是不应该投钱
1. 物种灭绝是自然原因
2. 人类有更重要的事情需要钱解决
3. 但是人类活动的确要对一些物种负责的

觉不觉得哪怪?
你的结论是2, 1是原因, 3是让步
看起来很完美 但是里面有问题 如果3单纯是让步的话整个语气应该比较含 有那种假惺惺的感觉(我个人是这样理解的) 因为让步不能过头 过头就不好了
但从你的文章里我看不到让步需要的一些词语 除了一个however
而且由于你前两个body不够强悍 所以显得让步喧宾夺主

P.S.: 你这样的思路, 其实我更建议你把让步放到前面去
就是按照3.1.2 的顺序写
我觉得那样更好一些~~~

呵呵 好久没拍了拍得凶了一点 表哭哈~~~

加油加油 第一篇这样很不错了~~~
继续写下去有前途啊~~~~

boyjimUID: 125249

呵呵 好久没拍了拍得凶了一点 表哭哈~~~

;P

if_lotusUID: 175616

先鞠个躬谢谢so猫！

哎，第一眼望去，满目蓝色阿，我这心就往下一咯噔！
哈哈，不过确实都说到了要害！
大牛呀~~

好重的模板的味道哦~~~
个人认为第二句那个什么different开头的纯粹是废话 强烈建议去掉 读读看 上句说在很多方面 下面突然换到不同人上面 是不是脱节了？ 一看就知道是弄摸版给弄的 呵呵 摸版虽然是好东西 但是不能乱用哈
再有 既然说了是partly agree 那么我建议说清楚是哪part 要不哪来的on balance
partly是多大的partly 是3，7开 还是55分成都没说明白

第1段确实很模板阿~
而且different那里有问题自己还没觉出来……
TS我想应该改成"Though related to the extinction, making extraordinary efforts to save endangered species is not necessarily the case"，以避开partly这个模糊词。

你把问题归结到自然的原因是因为你想从反面来说这样就没必要给保护物种投钱了
但是事实呢 别说你首先没证明almost all物种灭绝是因为自然原因 连为什么恐龙灭绝是因为自然都没讲清楚
段内的逻辑啊逻辑啊！！！

讲的有道理！！

看 又乱说 哪来的also，你上下段讲的都不是一个方面怎么能also，on the other hand都牵强

又扯远了 怎么扯到migration上去了 你的重点呢？？？

这是哪来的instead of

恩，对对……
真的是每句话提到的东西都是要为中心论点服务的，写了没说明的就是废话。哎，在一个坑上摔了两跤~~

全部都是罗列的例子 没分析？那你后面的hence从哪来？前面的其实连例子都说不上 因为太散 没有把要害说出来 干脆就不要那么麻烦一针见血说出来人类这百年的活动怎么着破坏了生态环境 伤10指不如断1指 重点说一个就好 要不松松垮垮根本没有效果

这是硬伤。
同意！

P.S.: 你这样的思路, 其实我更建议你把让步放到前面去
就是按照3.1.2 的顺序写
我觉得那样更好一些~~~

这个想法好！


辛苦辛苦！
多谢多谢！

mkb57288UID: 2105771

感觉第二段例子里的人口迁移有点跟主题无关，另外一开始的部分是模板吧，different 那一句有一点儿废。
另外，不知楼主几月考G

if_lotusUID: 175616

恩，人口迁移确实画蛇添了足。
开始是模版，由于是第一篇，就想着先造出一篇再说，呵呵。

我7月29日考作文，10G。

commhcUID: 192491

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=292512

多谢了！写得想吐，写了就不想看了！FT！