提问怎样才能让句子更加有效和流畅？

oyhdUID: 2490181

我写文章喜欢一直用长句，但语法不是很牢靠．希望有人指点一下该如何改正才能用短句来完整表达复杂含义．或怎样使文章更流畅．下面是一篇习作，希望有高人可以通过拍此文章来具体示范一下如何改句子．当然其他暴露出的问题也欢迎指正．At first glance, the conclusion that eating a heavy meal may increase the risk of heart attack and thus people can low that risk by not overeating seems to be reasonable. Nevertheless, the survey of 2,000 people once had a heart attack and the relationship between the eating/digesting and the releasing of the hormones cited in the article cannot provide significant evidence to support the author's claim.

To begin with , the survey interviewed 2,000 people totally, however , only 158 of them had eaten a heavy meal within 24 hours before the heart attack and  25 of them within 2 hours. That means the rest ,1842 people , of the patients who had a heart attack do not eaten a heavy meal during the 24 hours before the heart attack . So no one would argue that eating a heavy meal within a day have little effect on the heart attack. And no further information is given in this newsletter that the rest 1842 people had once eaten a heavy meal before 24 hour. Without such evidence we do not know whether a heavy meal several days or weeks before can contribute to a heart attack. Therefore, from this survey we can get nothing to bolster the conclusion .

In addition, to support the conclusion the author cites the fact that eating and digesting food may lead to releasing of hormones and  slightly increasing of heart rate and blood pressure ; both of those things put stress on the heart . While no one would deny that too much stress on the heart would contribute to a heart attack, that does not mean any stress put on the heart would result in a    heart attack . Yet the author do not show whether the stress caused by eating and digesting are high enough . If that stress can never reach the deadline of a heart attack , those facts can do nothing but to decrease the reliability of  the conclusion .

Even assuming that the stress on the heart caused by eating and digesting could increase the risk of heart attack , we also need information about whether that stress is higher after a heavy meal than a normal one . It is entirely possible that although you eat much , the amount of hormones released may still be the same with that when you eat less . And the similar problem is involved in the aspect of the increase in the heart rate and blood pressure . Those scenarios , if true , would cast serious doubt on the conclusion that people can low the risk of the heart attack by not overeating.

In conclusion , the survey cited in the newsletter is not particular enough for us to accept the conclusion . And to better evaluate the conclusion we need more information about (1) the relationship between the stress caused by eating/digesting and the risk of heart attack .(2)whether that stress can be higher after a heavy meal .

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

首先请LZ回答几个问题
1、为什么要写长句？其充分性和必要性以及副作用都是什么？
2、写长句需要的基础是什么？
3、文章需要什么？要传递什么？
4、你要表达什么样的思想，这些思想需要通过什么样的形式表达出来？
5、你说写的，你所传递的，读者是如何去阅读并接受的？他们是怎么想的？

回答一下这5个 然后才可以讨论下面的东西的

oyhdUID: 2490181

关键问题不是我想特意写长.而是写出来后,才发现是个长句. 虽然知道可以也应该改 ,但又没有思路该如何改.
所以想请教下,看能不能谁帮我改个一两句提供一个思路.或者推荐点材料可以借鉴的.

liyue24UID: 2350787

不论母语是不是英语，都是先学会说短句然后才会说长句的。说短句也比长句远远要多……

试着写句子不用that……表达意思时候先想自己这句话要说什么。把主谓宾找好——特别主宾不能是一句话的～

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

先回答上面的那几个问题去

句子可长可短 但是运用之妙 存乎一心

那几个你不想清楚的话 只能照猫画虎难画骨的

oyhdUID: 2490181

谢谢!

StrayCrowUID: 2348763

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-684567-1-1.html
可以看看这个帖子 我一开始看也觉得其实有点极端
但是写aw的至高境界还是在熟练了模板以后脱离模板
能用自己的话来表达了
其实用自己的话来表达了 你会发现长句就少下去了
其实aw对语言要求并不那么高
我觉得你可以尝试着用中文谢谢Aw你会发现 其实你的中文语言很美很漂亮吗？
根本不是 究其原因aw的本质就是要你把文章把逻辑讲圆了 讲到位了 讲清楚了
这样就可以了

kingploughUID: 2492921

或者你还是找个模板吧，我觉得straycrow的模板就很好啊！
有了一定的框架，就不会词不达意了！
其实长句短句不是问题，而是，你要把意思准确的表达出来！既然长句的难度大，搂主不妨试试多用简单句去表达，你能在30分钟内用简单句把逻辑说明白了，不犯太大的语法错误，保管你有4分或以上。

firhadayUID: 2287086

人老了,多说几句自己的感觉哦~~~作为参考<br />
如果能仔细的去精华区好好看看前人的经验,我们很容易的发现,GRE写作需要一些对于长句子的掌握和一些很绕的句子的写作,而这么做的唯一目的就是为了让文章看上去比较学术化,

但是,从最近的趋势来观察,ETS对于中国学生的AW的要求越来越高了,它的要求的提高不是表现在要求写更多的难句,而是用更简单的句子表达出原来长句所能表达的学术化,

所以,我们发现在最近的几次AW考试中,语法,基础语言的合理运用对写作的提高,考试成绩的提高是多么的重要.

因此,我发现ETS可能开始很认真的审视我们写出来的作文的基础语法能力的趋势了,而这样的后果就是,让我们都需要重新审视下,可能我们都忽略很多时间的基础语法,

如果你仔细看过使徒最近写的一个高分板油访谈和最近的一些高分的板油写出来的经验贴,

你会发现一个现象,就是当一个板油的语言功底非常扎实的时候,他的得分通常不会很低,

究其原因,我自己认为,可能就是在于,ETS需要我们能进入美国读研究生的学生,都有一个扎实的语言基础.更甚者,我感觉,现在GRE对于语言的考察能力比TOEFL更加苛刻.

所以,希望大家能重视基础语法,至于长句,我觉得看自己能力,你如果自己保持看NEW YORK TIMES就会发现,其实美国人自己写评论文章也不怎么写这样的恶心长句那么多的

个人观点,仅供参考!

[ 本帖最后由 firhaday 于 2008-10-7 00:16 编辑 ]

kingploughUID: 2492921

我一直很佩服你的逻辑，第一段你的论点不错，我来try一下，把你的长句改简单句。

To begin with , the survey interviewed 2,000 people totally, however , only 158 of them had eaten a heavy meal within 24 hours before the heart attack and  25 of them within 2 hours. That means the rest ,1842 people , of the patients who had a heart attack do not eaten a heavy meal during the 24 hours before the heart attack . 你是想说，158个病例没有代表性是吧？So no one would argue that eating a heavy meal within a day have little effect on the heart attack. And no further information is given in this newsletter that the rest 1842 people had once eaten a heavy meal before 24 hour. Without such evidence we do not know whether a heavy meal several days or weeks before can contribute to a heart attack. Therefore, from this survey we can get nothing to bolster the conclusion .
你刚才说1842个人没大吃就发病了，这里才说作者没有交代他们是否在24小时内大吃了，有些前后矛盾，或者前后倒置吧？其实有158个人，发病率接近10%了，按作者的逻辑，已经是很不可忽视的问题了，我个人不建议揪住158人的比例来说事。这个survey本来很多条件交代得也不明确，但是楼主酱紫深入分析，我怕会写得很艰难啊
楼主分析能力很强，但是有时候对细节抠得太多，你要是限时写过就应该理解，这样很耗谋篇的时间。而且有些实验的细节问题，很难说得清楚。

我来试着改写下啊，逻辑不当之处，楼主尽管回拍吧！
To begin with, only 158 people in this survey had heart attack after a heavy meal does not make a persuasive percentage. Furthermore, nothing is mentioned whether the 158 people have other original risks of heart attack. Perhaps the 158 people having heart attacks after heavy meals are just coincidences, and the key reasons are related to other factors, such as overweight, anxiety, and medications. In addition, in this survey we do not know whether the rest 1842 people had heavy meals. If heavy meal did not boost heart attack for most people in this survey, and the 158 people who had a heart attack have other original risks, the result of the survey lends little support to the conclusion.

oyhdUID: 2490181

前两天限时写了篇A用了50分钟 汗
更夸张的是改的时候还得把第二和第三段掉了个......
的确想太细不一定好写还有可能想岔了, 复习效率也有点低.呵呵!
楼上的仁兄我还想问一下,你平常看些啥来提高语言的能力?
我感觉ISSUE感觉很难提高啊.