大家圣诞快乐！！snailkevin之第二篇习作求拍~~

snailkevinUID: 2456176

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is more important for students to study history and literature than it is for them to study science and mathematics. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

I strongly disagree with the speaker that science and mathematics studying pales in importance when compared to history and literature courses. My contention with the speaker involves two aspects such as contributions and counterbalance of these two fields, as discussed below.

Firstly, I must concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, history and literature devote to promote our social humanity and to prevent evolutive abberation such as wars, politician scandals and so forth. With historical and literal cultivation, we increase our sensitivity by remebering the historical mistakes those precurors made. Also, literature studying enrichs our life by reading novels biograghy etc. Nonetheless, would starving people prefer a masterpiece to a buffet meal? The contributions of science and mathematics could bring us lies my first contention with this statement. Science severs to technical development, especially in the fields of addressing societal pressing problems such as femine, security and health. Mathematics lies as the pedestal of the science as well. Thus, science and mathematics solve more fundemental human needs that history and literature could not. For that matter, I dissent with the point that it is more significant to study H&L than S&M.

The second argument with this statement has to do with the counterbalance of such these two adverse fields. Without considering interests of students to choose their specialized fields that these two polar subjects could hardly be compared in importance, people also could not conclude such subjects are more important than others. The civilization and humanity are consist of both S&M and H&L. Neither of them could be separated in the developing process. Accordingly, emphasis on one side would break this equilibium. Just imagine a world full of scientists and mathematics or a world only exsiting historians and litterateurs. For that case, I disapprove that we have to compare the importance of these subjects.

In sum, I strongly dissent that H&L have more importance compared to S&M. Though H&L do got such tremendous merits for mankind, only S&M resolve more fundemental facets. Furthermore, these two respects relating to spirital evolution and technical development could hardly be compared since they are not separated. In the final analysis, for reaching brilliant human future, people are force to balance these necessary subjects.

snailkevinUID: 2456176

请大牛们帮忙拍砖哈，自己先顶上去~~

mpromanusUID: 2565872

I strongly disagree with the speaker (Nobody is 'speaking'. The opinion in discussion is a given statement in an essay question.) that science and mathematics studying pales in importance when compared to history and literature courses. My contention with the speaker involves two aspects: such as contributions and counterbalance (Where is the 'counter' and where is the 'balance'? I seriously doubt that you know when to use this word.) of these two fields, as discussed below.

Firstly, I must concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, history and literature devote to promote our social humanity (Firstly there's no such thing as 'social humanity'. Even if readers buy that, it's not as if such a thing could be 'ours' or 'yours' or anybody's. It's such a vague and empty expression.) and to prevent evolutive (I don't believe this word is used in common language any more. Even if it is, it doesn't add any meaningful expression to your sentence - what do all these bad things have to do with evolution??) abberrations (If you can't spell a word 100%, don't use it.) such as wars (Personal note: it seems many people think wars are not normal and not moral - I'd think otherwise.), political scandals and so forth. With historical and literal (Do not use such adjs to mean 'cultivations in history and literature'. These adjs have quite different meanings from the root nouns.) cultivation, we increase our sensitivity (to what?) by remebering the historical mistakes those precusors made. Also, literature studying enrichs our lives by reading novels, biograghies etc.(PEOPLE read. 'Literature studying' doesn't.) Nonetheless, would starving people prefer a masterpiece to a buffet meal? The contributions of science and mathematics could bring us lies (You don't 'lie' a contention. There're so many words that can be paired with 'contention' and you chose one that doesn't fit.) my first contention with this statement. Science servers to enhance technical development, especially in the fields of addressing societal pressing social problems (I'll be frank with you: STOP using 'societal'. It's not 'normal' vocabulary, and using it at all the wrong places will only make you look boastful but incompetent.) such as famine, security and health. Mathematics lies as the pedestal of the sciences as well. Thus, science and mathematics solve more fundemental human needs that history and literature could not solve. For that matter, I dissent (This is another legal term that you just DON'T use in daily conversations.) with the point that it is more significant to study H&L than S&M (Do not use your own short forms without telling the readers what they mean - unless the short forms are well-known to the Americans, like the USA or NASA.)

The second argument with this statement has to do with the counterbalance (I still don't see where the 'counter' or the 'balance' is.) of such these two adverse (This word means 'harmful' more than 'opposite'.) fields. Without considering the interests of students to choose their specialized fields that these two polar subjects (You keep talking about 'two opposite subjects'. What exactly are they? Don't assume your readers will know what you talk about because you know what you talk about.) could hardly be compared in importance, (You lost me again. The two parts before and after that 'that' seem totally unrelated, so I don't see what you're trying to express at all.) people also could not conclude that such subjects are more important than others. The civilizations and humanity are consist of both S&M and H&L. Neither of them could be separated in the development processes (of what?). Accordingly, emphasis on one side would break this equilibium. Just imagine a world full of scientists and mathematicians or a world where only exsiting historians and litterateurs exist. (Who tells you that we are only developing one side of the two? The question asks you to agree on if one is more important than the other, but it doesn't mean that the other must be unimportant or completely ignored.) For that case, I disapprove that we have to compare the importance of these subjects (That's not the question at all.).

In sum, I strongly dissent that H&L have more importance compared to S&M. Though H&L do get such tremendous merits for mankind, only S&M resolve more fundemental facets (of what?). Furthermore, these two respects relating to spiritual evolution and technical development could hardly be compared since they are not separated. (That's not the question. The question IS asking you to compare. Do not argue that the question is worthless.) In the final analysis, for reaching a brilliant human future, people are forced to balance these necessary subjects.

总结:

I can hardly praise you for vocabulary because you hardly used any correctly. Most of the time your meaning is obscured in a myriad of awkward word combinations such as 'human future'. I say they are awkward because they don't amount to any meaningful expression - for example 'human future': you mean there's a 'unhuman future'? If you have checked your vocabulary this way, you'd realize how laughable and meaningless some of the uses are. This has resulted in weak arguments that are never able to address the topic as clearly and powerfully as they should.

If you'd take my suggestion, stop writing like this right now. Start over with simple vocabulary that you CAN find in a small dictionary. If you're able to master those, you're pretty much good enough for TOEFL.

[ 本帖最后由 mpromanus 于 2008-12-27 01:22 编辑 ]

liuyingstUID: 2236540

拍的很好