我的作文。请大家给一些意见和修改--不胜感激

suixinfishbingUID：2560954

Because people are busy doing so many things, they can do few things well.
   As the development of the technology and advancement of society, human's life has enriched by all these progressive fruits. Therefore everyone has a desire or requirement to handle more things than last generations. However, this behaviors and social trend confronts criticism that   people doing so many things leads to a consequence of doing few things well. However, I regard this a ridiculous viewpoint for the two thing doesn't have direct causal relationship. What’s more, both the suffice talent inside a person and the highly competitive modern society motivate or even demand people to deal more things and deal them properly.
   A person who has exorbitant talent is able to deal a variety of things perfectly. Life-time is not a lengthy epoch, while common individuals fulfill themselves with only one specific occupational field, Aristotle, the ancient philosopher, is not only well known of his philosophic theory but also    regard as a celebrity in the art and literature areas. Since involving in a myriad of fields, Aristotle was definitely busy in most of his times and it was necessary for him to learn and practice a mess of work together, he did perfectly well in almost every aspect he involved. What he has dedicated to and achieved in his several decades transcends the sum of many other people's whole life-long devotions. Aristotle’s success in diverse areas adds credence to my opinions that it is not quantity but talent as well as ability determines one’s achievement.
With a better sanitary condition and a progressive living environment, the world’s population keeps going on at an extraordinary speed. As that is the case, number of applicants definitely overwhelms the available occupations. In this highly competitive situation, employers tend to incline to those versatile employees who are able to handle several skills or to do a variety of work at the same time. The relentless natural selection in work market motivates the young generation to improve their ability and skills. Hence, a increasing number of the individuals do have the capacity to splendidly deal several things together.
At a global level, there are also instances suffice my viewpoint. Several decades ago, when the People’s Republic of China just established for a few years, China’s economic situation is not satisfying. Nonetheless China continued the aviation program without the help of Soviet Russia while never bogging down in economy field. Consequently, the success of shenzhou serials of spaceship and the increasing value of money perfectly demonstrate the possibility of doing huge projects simultaneously and completing both of them satisfactorily.
In conclusion, although human energy and concentration is limit, we can not deny that quality has no direct link with the quantity.   (444)

suixinfishbingUID：2560954

我前阵子都是听力阅读练得比较多，作文很少写。现在快考了，心里没底，开始勤奋的写作。希望大家给我指正点拨一下，谢谢~~~~~~~~~~

mpromanusUID：2565872

As the development of the technologies and advances of the society (缺动词. As the development...and advancement...然后呢？), human's life has been enriched by all these progressive fruits (What is a 'progressive fruit'?? I think you mean 'fruits of progression'.). Therefore everyone has a desire or requirement (Wrong word. 'Requirement' means SOMETHING that must be done, therefore a person cannot have a 'requirement' of something because 'requirement' is already 'something'.) to handle more things than past generations. (I don't see your logic. 'Desire' means people actively want something. Why do people have 'desires' for more work when they have richer lives? Shouldn't it be the other way round?) However, this behaviors and social trend confronts criticism that people doing so many things leads to a consequence of doing few things well (The latter part of this sentence reads 'people...leads to a consequence..'. Do you see the error? It'll be better to just use a simple structure like '...people doing so many things can do few things well.'). However, I regard this a ridiculous viewpoint, for the two things (Which things? You have mentioned so many things so far. Don't assume that your readers always know what you want to say because you know what you want to say.) doesn't have a direct causal relationship. What’s more, both the suffice (?) talent inside of a person and the highly competitive modern society motivate or even demand people to deal with more things and deal with them properly.

A person who has exorbitant (This is a negative word that means 'beyond APPROPRIATE limits'. I wouldn't use it to describe 'talent'.) talent is able to deal with a variety of things perfectly. A Life-time is not a lengthy epoch (I'm not too sure what you're trying to express with this. 'Epoch' is a very heavy word, and if you're trying to say 生活不仅仅是一段冗长单调的时间，'epoch' is not the correct word to use.), while common individuals fulfill themselves within only one specific occupational field. Aristotle, the ancient philosopher, is not only well known of his philosophic theories but also regarded as a celebrity in the arts and literature areas. Since Being involvedin a myriad of fields, Aristotle was definitely busy in most of his times and it was necessary for him to learn and practice (Both are not words you'd use to describe 'work'.) a mass of work together. he did perfectly well in almost every aspect he was involved. What he has dedicated himself to and achieved in his several decades transcends the sum of many other people's whole life-long devotions. Aristotle’s success in diverse areas adds credence to my opinions that it is not quantity but talent as well as ability determines one’s achievement. (This is all well argued, but how's this related to the question? The question is asking you to argue for or against a statement, not to argue for your own point that may be somehow vaguely related the statement in question.)

With a better sanitary conditions and a progressive (I don't know what a 'progressive living environment' is, and I can't imagine one.) living environment, the world’s population keeps going on ('Population' doesn't 'go on'. It 'increases'.) at an extraordinary speed. As that is the case, the number of applicants (to what?) definitely overwhelms the number of available occupations (Wow. As if everybody is available for work. You have to count the babies, the elderly, the disabled and the incompetent - a high population doesn't necessarily mean high unemployment rate.). In this highly competitive situation, employers tend to incline to those versatile employees who are able to handle several skills or to do a variety of work at the same time. The relentless natural selection in work market motivates the young generation to improve their ability and skills. Hence, a increasing number of the individuals do have the capacity to splendidly deal with several things together.

At a global level, there are also instances that suffice (I've noticed that you've used this word twice and wrongly. This is the VERB form of the adj. 'enough', a synonym of 'satisfy', therefore it must be used as a verb, not an adj.) to demonstrate my viewpoint. Several decades ago, when the People’s Republic of China was just established for a few years, China’s economic situation is was not satisfactory. Nonetheless China continued the aviation program (I wouldn't expect any examiner to have the slightest idea what this was all about. It'd better if you could explain it a little like '...the aviation program that aimed at developing China's own satellites...'. Although as I've always said, it's still better to avoid political/military examples, because you never know whether your examiner would happen to be a McCarthyist.) without the help of Soviet Russia (Formally known as the U.S.S.R., which, by any chance, was the United States' arch-enemy during the Cold Wars - my point is that you should avoid political wording like 'Soviet' altogether. Just 'Russia' will do.) while never bogging down in its economy field. Consequently, the success of the Shenzhou series of spaceships and the increasing value of money (Do you mean 'currency'?) perfectly demonstrate the possibility of doing huge projects simultaneously and completing both of them satisfactorily. (This is well said, but the question was asked on a personal level - if you discuss this on a national level, people can say 'But the people who worked on these projects were probably working on only one of them, yes? So the PEOPLE were not doing many things at the same time.')

In conclusion, although human energy and concentration is limited, we cannot deny that quality has no direct link with the quantity. (Again, this is not what the question was asking but rather your own formulation. If you want to argue for this point, you should have established it in the beginning paragraph, saying that THIS is what you think the question was really about.)

总结：

能看出你很努力，但是很抱歉，有很多高级词汇明显用得莫名其妙。。俺在很多批改中都说过，如果不能100%确定一个词的用法，有100%信心把它用对用好，还不如不用。另外在论点的组织上，最主要的问题是起始段没有明确地说出quality has no direct link with quantity的论点（你试图说了，但是指代完全不清，所以读者没有办法建立任何提纲挈领的论点），到了总结段才给出，议论文的写法不是这样的，你需要在一开始就建立清晰的论点然后展开论述，而不是先说一大堆看似有些联系的东西最后才告诉读者中心的东西是什么。

suixinfishbingUID：2560954

非常感谢你mpromanus! 关于高级词汇的问题，我以前听人说ETS 的电脑自动标记处三音节以上词，所以虽然我知道不一定用得对，可还是尽量都用长一点的词，现在听你说觉得的确这样让人弄不清我想表达的意思对我的得分非常不利。可如果用的词都是很简单的词真的不会影响考官的第一印象么？
  不知你能否看到，还是再次表示感谢！

mpromanusUID：2565872

> 我以前听人说ETS 的电脑自动标记处三音节以上词

information还四个音节呢，你觉得这词和cyst比起来哪个更高深？词汇的难度和音节多少没什么关系。俺当年考GRE拿到过一个类比题，题目+四个选项一共十个词，每个词都不超过5个字母，但俺愣是一个都不认识。。

词汇的道理不在于你用的东西难不难，是对不对 - 你用错了一个词，是在告诉考官 我不会这个词；用对一个，是在告诉考官 我会这个词。如果你是考官，你会容易对一个接连回答 不会 不会 不会的人 还是对 接连回答 会 会 会 的人产生好感呢？这东西和HR看简历的道理一样，ETS的考官也是普通人，每天要看几百篇同样题目的作文，让他们开心一点、轻松一点、对你印象好一点，就是不要用一些用得莫名其妙的词汇和句子给他们加太多的猜测压力。They won't bother to understand what you wrote if they cannot at the first or at most the second glance. 如果他们放弃理解你在写什么的话，那你写得再美都是废的~俺一直强调，议论文的语言追求是三个C: clear (清晰), concise (准确), complete (完整). Don't make it difficult.