COMEON-----作文小组 weenbopper 10.15作业

weenbopperUID: 2423595

Cost effectiveness, which symbolizes the ratio between the payment and receipt of money, is a crucial factor to decide how to spend money. When it comes to the question which project is preferable, supporting the arts or protecting the environment, divergent people have divergent opinions due to their distinct background and experiences. As far as I am concerned, it will be much more cost-effective to protect environment because of the following reasons.

First and foremost, hardly will any interest-driven companies pay enough attention on the protection of environment now. In the last 30 years, thanks to the opening and reform policies, our economy enjoyed an exceeding boom. Simultaneously, the increasingly intense competition made those companies pay all attention on how to get interests yet destroy countless natural resources and the balance of ecosystem. For example, since the relatively high cost of water system, a lot of companies would take the risks in violating laws and polluting the environment to directly dump toxic water into river or lake.

Subsequently, the pollution of environment is too severe to keep us being motionless. We, human beings, suffered a lot from the environmental pollution. Generally, the more developed the country or region is, the more urgent the protection of the environment would be. The gas discarded by our high-tech cars, the dirty water dumped by those state-of-the art factories and the dust made by the manufacturer dragged us so far way from our previous clean and natural earth. Besides, think about earthquake, tornado and acid rain in this year, the nature was revenging our faults in the past 30 years. If human continue this downward spiral it may be only a matter of time before our wonderful world turns into nightmare.

However, some obstinate individuals may still maintain that investing that money on art would be much cost-effective. Tempting and seemingly reasonable as such claim might be, it is hardly true. When remove the surface and look deeper, we will find this cost effectiveness is so vulnerable under careful consideration. After economizing the money invested on protecting the environment, we would live a in a polluted world which will consume much more to reform.

In a nutshell, from what I stated above since the serious environmental condition, the money spend on the environment-related project is much preferable.

greenpalmUID: 2391324

(Cost effectiveness, which symbolizes the ratio between the payment and receipt of money, is a crucial factor to decide how to spend money. )最好能直入主题，可省）When it comes to the question which project is preferable, supporting the arts or protecting the environment, divergent people have divergent (diverse) opinions due to their distinct background and experiences. As far as I am concerned, it will be much more cost-effective to protect environment because of the following reasons：
{,v6H \am ^.PFirst and foremost, hardly will any interest-driven companies pay enough attention on （to）the protection of environment now. In the last 30 years, thanks to the opening and reform policies, our economy enjoyed an exceeding boom. Simultaneously, the increasingly intense competition made those companies pay all attention on（to）how to get interests yet destroy countless natural resources and the balance of ecosystem（countless）. For example, since the relatively high cost of water system, a lot of companies would take the risks in violating laws and polluting the environment to directly dump toxic water into river or lake.

Subsequently, the pollution of environment is too severe to keep us being motionless. We, human beings, suffered a lot from the environmental pollution. Generally, the more developed the country or region is, the more urgent the protection of the environment would be. The gas discarded by our high-tech cars, the dirty water dumped by those state-of-the art factories and the dust made by the manufacturer dragged us so far way from our previous clean and natural earth. Besides, think about earthquake, tornado and acid rain in this year, the nature was revenging our faults in the past 30 years. If human continue this downward spiral it may be only a matter of time before our wonderful world turns into nightmare.bbs.gter.netn#^2jA.dSObbs.gter.netN‑] J Gw!nHowever, some obstinate individuals may still maintain that investing that money on art would be much cost-effective. （原句较累赘难懂：However, some obstinate individuals may think the other way）Tempting and seemingly reasonable as such claim might be, it is hardly true. When remove the surface and look deeper, we will find this cost effectiveness is so vulnerable under careful consideration.（与前句的“When remove the surface and look deeper”重复）After（是不是原来想用的是“Whithout”？否则前后逻辑相反？！） economizing the money invested on（in） protecting the environment, we would live a in a polluted world which will consume much more to reform.,T%X I#ko（

以上并没有阐述为什么“we will find this cost effectiveness is so vulnerable under careful consideration.”的原因？How Vulnerable? 使这段读起来很空洞，不具说服力！

  In a nutshell, from what I stated above since the serious environmental condition, the money spend on the environment-related project is much preferable.

   总的说来文章对长句的把握还是很到位的，只是有些地方略显累赘，思路上也还待加强！    加油！战友：）

aaimmortalUID: 2297730

Cost effectiveness, which symbolizes the ratio between the payment and receipt of money, is a crucial factor to decide how to spend money. When it comes to the question which project is preferable, supporting the arts or protecting the environment, divergent people have divergent opinions due to their distinct background and experiences. As far as I am concerned, it will be much more cost-effective to protect environment because of the following reasons.

First and foremost, hardly will any interest-driven companies pay enough attention on the protection of environment now. In the last 30 years, thanks to the opening and reform policies, our economy enjoyed an exceeding boom. Simultaneously, the increasingly intense competition made those companies pay all attention on how to get interests yet destroy countless natural resources and the balance of ecosystem. For example, since the relatively high cost of water system, a lot of companies would take the risks in violating laws and polluting the environment to directly dump toxic water into river or lake.

Subsequently, the pollution of environment is too severe to keep us being motionless. We, human beings, suffered a lot from the environmental pollution. Generally, the more developed the country or region is, the more urgent the protection of the environment would be. The gas（greenhouse gases）discarded by our high-tech cars, the dirty water dumped by those state-of-the art factories and the dust made by the manufacturer dragged us so far way from our previous clean and natural earth. Besides, think about（increasing）earthquake, tornado and acid rain in this year(删除in this year，), the nature was revenging our faults in the past 30 years. If human continue this downward spiral it may be only a matter of time before our wonderful world turns into nightmare.

However, some obstinate individuals may still maintain that investing that money on art would be much cost-effective. Tempting and seemingly reasonable as such claim might be, it is hardly true. When remove the surface and look deeper, we will find this cost effectiveness is so vulnerable under careful consideration. (感觉前后逻辑有点连接不上)After economizing the money invested on protecting the environment, we would live in a polluted world which will consume much more to reform.

In a nutshell, from what I stated above since the serious environmental condition, the money spend on the environment-related project is much preferable.
greenpalm已经改的很好了，lz的文字不错，值得我好好学习，就是第三个论点论证的有点模糊。
欢迎回拍，呵呵
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-885165-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 aaimmortal 于 2008-10-16 14:49 编辑 ]