[YB-2]7月5日作业 by 忘了密码的E

忘了密码的EUID: 2354139

我不知道这个字号和字体为什么抽风了。。。改的同学辛苦了

Issue 16: "Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, in fact, they actually prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."
From private jets to perfume, yoga to yachts, exotic car to candle, watches to wines, luxury was defined as a high quality of life, not simply amassing quantity. From laptops to cars, mobiles to air conditioners, Internet to frozen food, technology has changed almost every part of our daily life and provides people lots and lots of conveniences. However, people began to discuss whether everything brought by the luxuries and conveniences of life are entirely harmless or have they prevented people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. In my opinion, although they are not 100 percent harmless, it is unfair to say that they should be blame for the fact that some people cannot become truly strong and independent.
If we look at the physical aspect of being a strong person, there is no doubt that technology improvement gives the world more food and prevented human beings from hunger. We are also enjoying the advanced medical system and are benefiting from various kinds of drugs and machines. These conveniences helped us to become physically stronger.
Luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life brought two possible results. First, some people rely too much on cars when they have to leave their house. They would rather drive to the pharmacy store rather than walking for 10 minutes. People lost lots of potential exercise time to driving, and thus have a higher possibility of becoming overweight than people who do not have cars. But on the other hand, the car that they have can take them to places they could not have reached before. Gym has always been one hot spot for white collars after work. When the person has a car, he or she can get to a gym, which might not be within walking distance. In a word, luxuries and conveniences have opposite effects on human beings, the important thing is what people do with them. In other words, how luxuries and conveniences can effect people depends mainly on the individuals themselves, the same living standards can lead to complete different physical status.
Mentally speaking, we are now turning to technology not only for its ability to conquer hunger and disease, but to if for richer experiences, and some of us are indulged in a life dominated by effortless and thoughtless consumption. The consumerism prevents people from being mentally strong because they are so dependent on the happiness brought by money and the things that they can buy using them.
It is important to make room in a technological age for matters of ultimate concern---the real meaning of life which money and luxuries cannot promise.
However, contemporary life also makes it easier for human beings to live on their own and do not have to depend on others too much. Cars make it easier for people to go to places by themselves. Internet, one of the most powerful thing appeared in the twentieth century, makes daily lives and academic researches easier. While people are more and more dependent on the virtual life, they become more and more independent from the help of other people. It is still difficult to tell if human beings are now more independent or not, but it is clear that contemporary life changed the life styles of people and make it easer for people to live on their own.
In conclusion, the change brought by the technology improvement helps people to get rid of hunger and many diseases. But it also makes people hard to see the essence of life and sometimes become over materialism. Internet, on its own, changes the living structure of millions and billions of people. We have to admit the fact that luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are not entirely harmless, but it is not wise to say that it prevents people from becoming truly strong and independent.

:)


169. Employ the spouse of each new faculty member (07/05)
The department chairperson’s letter was solely based on the studies conducted by Bronston College. These studies revealed that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are employed in the same geographic area. The author claimed that in order to attract the most gifted faculty, Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of new faculty members they hire because new professors will be more likely to accept their offers. This paragraph seems to be well presented and have given the president of Pierce University enough reasons to give job offers to the spouses, but close examination shows that it contains several logic errors.
To begin with, the author did not carefully presented the studies. Were they done within the limit of Bronston’s campus? How many professors were in these studies? More important, since one man’s meat is another man’s poison, can these studies be directly applied to Pierce University’s case without consider any regional disparity between where they were done and where Pierce was? How different were the perspective new professors of Pierce and those who participated in this research?
Secondly, the chairperson set a casual relationship between offering employment to the spouse of new faculty members and improving the morale of the entire staff. Let along the fact that in most schools, faculty is only a portion of the entire staff and thus the size of the effect is unclear, it is dangerous to say that the morale can be improved. Since this policy will only be applied to the new professors, the current professors’ reaction is hard to tell. Will they feel lonely when they see the new professors can work with their spouses? In other words, this new policy might hurt the morale rather than improve it.
In addition, as the new professors are not very likely to have been in the studies conducted by Bronston, it is an overgeneralization that they will be more likely to accept Pierce’s offers just because their spouses have a chance of employment. A professor in universities has two main roles during most time when he or she is at school: a teacher and a researcher. As a teacher, he or she might value the quality of the student body a lot. As a researcher, he or she would prefer a university with more advanced experiment facilities. The author referred to no study to show the weight a professor would put on having his or her spouse working at the same university as comparing to the academics in certain university.
In conclusion, the chairperson has to revise his or her letter for it was based on some vague studies and it is not clear if Pierce University can adopt whatever conclusion the studies gave without considering any differences. Also, while having spouses of new faculty members might help in making these new faculty members’ morale improved, there is no strong evidence to say that this would improve the morale of the entire staff. Last but not least, the aspects of a university the professor value most usually help the professor to decide on his or her offers. How giving the spouse a job offer can help attract talented professors is not explicitly stated in this paragraph, thus it is hard to tell whether this is one of the important factors and if new professors will be willing to accept the offers just because they can work in the same university with their spouses.

sunxcintUID: 2654472

From private jets to perfume, yoga to yachts, exotic car to candle, watches to wines, luxury was defined as a high quality of life, not simply amassing quantity. From laptops to cars, mobiles to air conditioners, Internet to frozen food, technology has changed almost every part of our daily life and provides people lots and lots of conveniences. ( 这个排比在中文中显得很有气势，但是搬到这里有点chinglish的感觉)However, people began(has begun) to discuss whether everything brought by the luxuries and conveniences of life are entirely harmless or have they(they have) prevented people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. In my opinion, although they are not 100 percent harmless, it is unfair to say that they should be blame(blamed) for the fact that (it is due to them that) some people cannot become truly strong and independent.

If we look at the physical aspect of being a strong person, there is no doubt that technology improvement gives(help offer) the world more food and prevented(prevent) human beings from hunger. We are also enjoying the advanced medical system and are (去掉are )benefiting from various kinds of drugs and machines. These (altogether )conveniences helped us to become physically stronger.

(Luxuries and conveniences have opposite effects on human beings, the important is what people do with them.后一句去掉)Luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life brought two possible results. First, (First去掉，改为For example,)some people rely too much on cars when they have to leave their house. They would rather drive to the pharmacy store rather(去掉rather) than walking for 10 minutes. People lost lots of potential exercise time to driving, and thus have a higher possibility of becoming overweight than people who do not have cars. (People often driving cars lost lots of potential exercise time, and thus bear a higher possibility of becoming overweight than people preferring walking) But on the other hand, the car that they have(去掉that they have ) can take them to places they could not have reached before. Gym has always been one hot spot for white collars after work. When the person has a car, he or she can get to a gym (far away from his/her office, 去掉后边定于从句), which might not be within walking distance. 后两句重复，去掉，我把其中一句搬到开头In a word, luxuries and conveniences have opposite effects on human beings, the important thing is what people do with them. In other words, how luxuries and conveniences can effect people depends mainly on the individuals themselves, the same living standards can lead to complete different physical status.

Mentally speaking, we are now turning to technology not only for its ability to conquer hunger and disease, but to if for richer experiences, and some of us are indulged in a life dominated by effortless and thoughtless consumption. The consumerism prevents people from being mentally strong because they are so dependent on the happiness brought by money and the things that they can buy using them.

It is important to make room in a technological age for matters of ultimate concern---the real meaning of life which money and luxuries cannot promise. (没有太看懂这两段)

However, contemporary life also makes it easier for human beings to live on their own and do not have to depend on others too much. Cars make it easier for people to go to places by themselves. Internet, one of the most powerful thing appeared in the twentieth century, makes daily lives and academic researches easier. While people are more and more dependent on the virtual life, they become more and more independent from the help of other people. It is still difficult to tell if human beings are now more independent or not, but it is clear that contemporary life changed the life styles of people and make it easer for people to live on their own.

In conclusion, the change brought by the technology improvement helps people to get rid of hunger and many diseases. But it also makes people hard to see the essence of life and sometimes become over materialism. Internet, on its own, changes the living structure of millions and billions of people. We have to admit the fact that luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are not entirely harmless, but it is not wise to say that it prevents people from becoming truly strong and independent.

此文章思路和论证上尚可，但是结合这两次的修改我觉得在文字方面你需要下大功夫。或者多读范文是个好方法。

The department chairperson’s letter was solely based on the studies conducted by Bronston College. These studies revealed that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are employed in the same geographic area. The author claimed that in order to attract the most gifted faculty, Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of new faculty members they hire because new professors will be more likely to accept their offers. This paragraph seems to be well presented and have given the president of Pierce University enough reasons to give job offers to the spouses, but close examination shows that it contains several logic errors.

To begin with, the author did not carefully presented the studies. Were they done within the limit of Bronston’s campus? How many professors were in these studies? More important, since one man’s meat is another man’s poison, can these studies be directly applied to Pierce University’s case without consider any regional disparity between where they were done and where Pierce was? How different were the perspective new professors of Pierce and those who participated in this research?

Secondly, the chairperson set a casual relationship between offering employment to the spouse of new faculty members and improving the morale of the entire staff. Let along the fact that in most schools, faculty is only a portion of the entire staff and thus the size of the effect is unclear, it is dangerous to say that the morale can be improved. Since this policy will only be applied to the new professors, the current professors’ reaction is hard to tell. Will they feel lonely when they see the new professors can work with their spouses? In other words, this new policy might hurt the morale rather than improve it.

In addition, as the new professors are not very likely to have been in the studies conducted by Bronston, it is an overgeneralization that they will be more likely to accept Pierce’s offers just because their spouses have a chance of employment. A professor in universities has two main roles during most time when he or she is at school: a teacher and a researcher. As a teacher, he or she might value the quality of the student body a lot. As a researcher, he or she would prefer a university with more advanced experiment facilities. The author referred to no study to show the weight a professor would put on having his or her spouse working at the same university as comparing to the academics in certain university.

In conclusion, the chairperson has to revise his or her letter for it was based on some vague studies and it is not clear if Pierce University can adopt whatever conclusion the studies gave without considering any differences. Also, while having spouses of new faculty members might help in making these new faculty members’ morale improved, there is no strong evidence to say that this would improve the morale of the entire staff. Last but not least, the aspects of a university the professor value most usually help the professor to decide on his or her offers. How giving the spouse a job offer can help attract talented professors is not explicitly stated in this paragraph, thus it is hard to tell whether this is one of the important factors and if new professors will be willing to accept the offers just because they can work in the same university with their spouses.

语言还是不错的；但是有两点我觉得需要加强论证：1、将适用于教授的结论用于一般的faculty member 2.不理想的工作也提供的话就没有意义了，所以原则是尽量提供理想的工作。你的第三个论证，it is an overgeneralization that they will be more likely to accept Pierce’s offers just because their spouses have a chance of employment， 我不太认同。因为就逻辑上将  their spouses have a chance of employment是个必要非常充分条件，其作用就是增加可能性而不是必然推出结果。