作文贴

LRXSSUID: 2695903

作文贴~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~啦啦啦啦啦啦

LRXSSUID: 2695903

We have all witnessed that Governments are giving more and more financial support on athletics .On the contrary, comparatively speaking, the money spent on arts is not optimistic. So the problem arises. From my perspective, we should shift the current situation.

First of all, I want to illustrate the vital importance of art. Art is the original appreciation of our humanity. We shouldn't desert it or neglect it. Moreover, some sort of art can stimulate our inspiration on the particular fields that we are engaged in. For example, Qian Xuesen, who is one of the most important scientists in the history of modern China, said that some of the distinguished ideas are motivated by the piano played by his wife. It's just such another that Einstein once mentioned when he couldn't came up with an equation, he turned to his wife's music. From my personal experience, when I'm buried in my academic stuff, I listen to those pure melodies that can make me feel tranquil every now and then. And then I can study more efficiently and effectively. In addition, we can also draw some paintings or write some poems to entertain ourselves.

Secondly, nowadays, governments have spent a large amount of money on athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. For instance, it costs billions to build the national stadium, as well as other advanced sports facilities for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But I hear little about investment on the art aspect. This is not reasonable. As explained above, we couldn't neglect the role of art. Under this circumstance, what we should do is that part of the money spent on athletics should be invested on building some concerts or art museums. In that case, we could enjoy all kinds of art forms more conveniently. To some certain extent, it can improve the quality of our masses.

Admittedly, athletics is also important. It provides us with a lot of ways to enjoy our leisure time and helps us strengthen our body condition. But what I'm arguing about is that we shouldn't spend so much money on the athletics that little investment can be seen on art issues. As far as I'm concerned, it's high time that we shifted the situation. We should guarantee the proper portion of the investment on the two aspects. Only in this way can we enjoy our life to a certain high standard and our society can develop stably and normally.

tomatooUID: 2754865

We have all witnessed that Governments are giving more and more financial support on athletics. On the contrary, comparatively speaking, the money spent on arts is not optimistic. So the problem arises. (这里会让读者学得突兀，什么问题呢，以及后面的，我们要改变现状，为什么现状不好?稍加阐述就好了。有点跳跃。)From my perspective, we should shift the current situation.

First of all, I want to illustrate the vital importance of art. Art is the original appreciation of our humanity. We shouldn't desert it or neglect it. Moreover, some sort of art can stimulate our inspiration on the particular fields that we are engaged in. For example, Qian Xuesen, who is one of the most important scientists in the history of modern China, said that some of the distinguished ideas are motivated by the piano played by his wife. It's just such another that Einstein once mentioned when he couldn't came(come) up with an equation, he turned to his wife's music. From my personal experience, when I'm buried in (习惯用语be buried in oblivion 被人们忘掉，应换成be bored with or be bored of)my academic stuff, I listen to those pure melodies that can make me feel tranquil every now and then. And then I can study more efficiently and effectively. In addition, we can also draw some paintings or write some poems to entertain ourselves.

Secondly, nowadays, governments have spent a large amount of money on athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. For instance, it costs billions to build the national stadium, as well as other advanced sports facilities for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But I hear little about investment on the art aspect. This is not reasonable. As explained above, we couldn't neglect the role of art. Under this circumstance, what we should do is that (我们要做的后面接个主动句应该比较好一点，不然怪怪的)part of the money spent on athletics should be invested on building some concerts or art museums. In that case, we could enjoy all kinds of art forms more conveniently. To some certain extent, it can improve the quality of our masses

Admittedly, athletics is also important. It provides us with a lot of ways to enjoy our leisure time and helps us strengthen our body condition. But what I'm arguing about (句子没谓语，加个is) that we shouldn't spend so much money on the athletics that(这个that在这里是什么作用？后面的句子也不是它引导的啊？换成while吧，有对比的意思) little investment can be seen on art issues. As far as I'm concerned, it's high time that we shifted the situation（换成for us to shift the situation习惯一点）. We should guarantee the proper portion of the investment on the two aspects（这句结尾的话，应该是很重要的话，这么一说，意思是两者要合适分配，弱化了全文论点，与开头鲜明的论点相比太温和，后面在加一句与开头论点一致就好了）. Only in this way can we enjoy our life to a certain high standard and our society can（这个can也应该提前才是，它和前一句并列，也应该倒装） develop stably and normally.

观点很明确，论证很充分，主要用了举例论证。
结构也很好，行文思路很清晰。
遣词造句也非常好，常做了同意改写，很好。
偶有小小失误！
总而言之，非常不错！
加油！

LRXSSUID: 2695903

We have all witnessed that Governments are giving more and more financial support on athletics .On the contrary, comparatively speaking, the money spent on arts is not optimistic. So the problem arises. From my perspective, we should shift the current situation.

First of all, I want to illustrate the vital importance of art. Art is the original appreciation of our humanity. We shouldn't desert it or neglect it. Moreover, some sort of arts can stimulate our inspiration on the particular fields that we are engaged in. For example, Qian Xuesen, who is one of the most important scientists in the history of modern China times, said that some of the distinguished ideas are motivated by the piano played by his wife. It's just such another It is no coincidence that Einstein once mentioned that he had turned to his wife's music when he couldn't came up with an equation. integrated From my personal experience, when I'm buried in my academic stuff, I listen to those pure melodies that can make me feel tranquil every now and then. And then I can study more efficiently and effectively 换一下. In addition, we can also draw some paintings or write some poems to entertain ourselves.

Secondly, nowadays, governments have spent a large amount of money on athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. For instance, it costs billions to build the national stadium, as well as other advanced sports facilities for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But I hear have heard little about investment on the art aspect. This is not reasonable. As explained above, we couldn't neglect the role of art. Under this circumstance, what we should do is that part of the money spent on athletics should be invested on in building some concert halls or art museums. In that case, we could enjoy all kinds of art forms more conveniently. To a certain extent, it what we would do can certainly improve the quality of our us masses.

Admittedly, athletics is also important. It provides us with a lot of ways to enjoy our leisure time and helps us strengthen our body condition. But what I'm arguing about is that we shouldn't spend so much money on the athletics that little investment can be seen pooled/collected on art issues/projects. As far as I'm concerned, it's high time that we shifted/transformed the situation. We should guarantee the proper portion of the investment on the two aspects. Only in this way can/could we enjoy our life to a certain high standard and our society can 去掉 develop stably and normally.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

哇哇哇   被鄙视了   玩鸟  人家说最多给三到四分 哇哇哇  谁来安慰我下~~~~~~~~~呜呜

LRXSSUID: 2695903

Recently, there is a general controversy about whether teachers should show their political or social views known in the classroom. From my personal perspective, I'm inclined to believed that those views shouldn't be revealed to the students as teachers' duty isn't conveying their opinions to students and students, to a certain extent, they are more susceptible to some negative influence of some partial views .

Firstly, we should clarify the responsibility of a teacher. Obviously, he should make the students understand the teaching content .So, he should teach his students those concrete formulas stated on the textbook and lead them to do some practical research or programs directly related to the topic. For example, on a chemistry class, firstly, students should be taught to understand the basic principles of chemical transformation . Then, learn some chemical equations by their heart. At last, do some practical experiments to convince the result. That's what a teacher's highest priority. If he just spends a lot of time talking about his own views, it is just a waste of time.

Secondly, if teachers should show their political or social views known in the classroom, some negative effect revealed by the teacher can be considerable. From my personal experience, on a sociology class, when a teacher was explaining the social security, he made some comments on the current social situation according to his own experience. For instance, he himself isn't quite satisfied with the current security system and maybe he can't benefit from it. Hence he made some negative critics on the administration. AS a matter of fact, we students deemed that our teacher is trust worthy. So we all accepted his opinion unconsciously. Actually, I was influenced by him and considered irrationally that our society isn't so wonderful. It was my parents who realized my problem and swept my misunderstandings away. So, there's no doubt that we fellow students are more susceptible to some negative influence of some radical views.

Admittedly, some teachers' perspectives are moderate and they have a positive impact on us. But what I am trying to emphasize is that comparatively speaking, it can't beat the defects brought to educants. Therefore, with all the evidence presented above, we can safely draw the conclusion that
teachers shouldn't have his views publicized in a classroom.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

Recently, there is a general controversy about whether teachers should show their political or social views known in the classroom. From my personal perspective, I'm inclined to believe that those views shouldn't be revealed to the students as teachers' duty isn't conveying their opinions to students and to a certain extent, students are more susceptible to the negative influence of some partial views .

Firstly, we should clarify the responsibility of a teacher. Obviously, he should make the students understand the teaching content .So, he should teach his students those concrete formulas stated on the textbook and lead/conduct them to do some practical research or programs directly related to the topic. For example, on a chemistry class, firstly, students should be taught to understand the basic/fundermental principles of chemical transformation . Then, learn some chemical equations by their heart. At last, do some practical experiments to convince the result. That's what a teacher's highest priority. If he just spends a lot of time talking about his own views, it is just a waste of time.

Secondly, if teachers should show their political or social views known in the classroom/Should teachers show...改为虚拟语气。。。, some negative effect revealed by the teacher can be considerable. From my personal experience, on a sociology class, when a teacher was explaining the social security, he made some comments on the current social situation according to his own experience. For instance, he himself isn't wasn't quite satisfied with the current security system and maybe he can't benefit from it. Hence he made some negative critics on the administration. As a matter of fact, we students deemed that our teacher is trust worthy.Therefore,  we all accepted his opinion unconsciously. Actually, I was influenced by him and considered irrationally that our society isn't so wonderful. It was my parents who realized my problem and swept my misunderstandings away. So, there's no doubt that we fellow students are more susceptible to some negative influence of some radical views.

Admittedly, some teachers' perspectives are moderate and they have a positive impact on us. But what I am trying to emphasize is that comparatively speaking/the loss outweighs the gain, it can't beat the defects brought to educants. Therefore, with all the evidence presented above, we can safely draw the conclusion that teachers shouldn't have his views publicized in a classroom.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

facilitate  
/ fəˈsɪlɪteɪt; fəˋsɪləˏtet/ v [Tn] (fml 文) (of an object, a process, etc but not of a person) make (sth) easy or less difficult （指物体﹑ 过程等, 但不用於指人）使（某事物）容易或减少困难: It would facilitate matters if you were more co-operative. 要是你再合作些就省事了. > facilitation / fəˏsɪlɪˈteɪʃn; fəˏsɪləˋteʃən/ n [U].
A vivid/concret/specific/ example can be found from one of my friend who totally hates learning everything about science but love to study Chinese literature deeply
阻碍    obstruct  hinder interfere impede preclude
违反 违背 侵害  干扰 破裂breach infringe  abound with 充满 有许多的   
linear  algebra 线性代数  

According to the local media, some people suggest university students should be required to take basic science classes even if they are not part of the field of their study.So recently, the issue of that has been posed to people. Those who believe this opinion argues that learning the basic science will contribute to their further study and finding a well-paid job. However, as far as I am concerned, I don't agree with this statement as it will waste students’ time and cause the dissatisfaction about the university from students.

Judging from all evidence offered, we may safely arrive at the conclusion that university should not force the students to attend the basic science classes if they are not part of the field of the study. Though the advantages that taking basic science classes leads to are considerable, they cannot compete with the benefits that giving students more freedom when the disadvantages which are wasting time and destroying the relationship with students and universities are taking into account. With respect to these drawbacks, I deem that providing these basic science classes for students who have interest in these can make contributions to improve the situation.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

tpo 14


The lecture mainly discusses the defects caused by the salvage logging on solving forest damages. Thus, it disagrees with what is stated in the reading passage.

Firstly, in contrary to the argument revealed in the passage that salvage logging can remove the remains and make space for the fresh growth immediately, the professor says that simply cleaning up the surroundings can't really create an suitable environment. In addition, the solution isn't sustainable for future generations decomposition enriches the soil
. Furthermore, there maybe less nutritious substances left when those trees are removed.

Secondly, the professor contradicts to the view that removing the dead trees can minimize the insect infestation. As a matter of fact, the spruce bark beetle has already exited in the forest for a long time without causing the major problems. What's more, the dead body can be advantageous to some other beneficial species. They can take use of them and enjoy a better life, which is good to the ecology.

Finally, while the reading passage alleges that salvage logging has economic benefits, the speaker holds a negative tongue. In fact, those wood materials which are obtained from dead（severe damaged） bodies can only be used to build helicopters and other expensive facilities（vehicles）, which isn't very practical and meaningful. Additionally, job opportunities provided by the solution aren't permanent, and they requires more relevant techniques that local citizens have not mastered. Hence they could only hire people from other areas to solve the problem.

In sum, the lecture holds a completely different perspective towards the reading passage and the professor has refuted all the views stated in the passage.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

Recently, there is a general controversy on the budget portion of different kinds of education. Some contend that government should focus its budget more on very young children education while others believe that administrators should invest more in university education. From my perspective, I am inclined to having more financial support on high education as it could have more positive influence on the development of our society and it can help us to gain a good image of our nation.

Firstly, the positive influence is dramatic. High education is aiming at providing a higher standard of education to the students so that they could gain advanced knowledge to build our society. Hence more the people of this group are, the more they can contribute to the society. For instance, everyone has witnessed the rapid development of China in the 21st century. Even though it is related to a couple of reasons, but I do believe the development on the high education takes credit for it. As is known to all, in China, millions of graduates are now being provided to the society annually, so it can furnish our nation's economy with a lot of brilliant brains. After all, knowledge is power, and undoubtedly high standard knowledge has more power.

Secondly, invest more on the university education can provide a positive image of the country to our masses. We all know that university is a wonderful landscape and if we can invest more on the infrastructure of it, we can have a enjoyable mood for us to study on campus. Obviously it is more comfortable to study in a furnished university with all kinds of advanced facilities like electronic libraries and so on. Additionally, more tourists will be attracted to visit the university and they will be impressed by the incredible atmosphere of the university. So this will help us to gain more confidence on our country's appearance.

Admittedly, invest some money in the fundamental education would do some benefits to us. For instance, we can improve the quality of us masses. But what I'm trying to emphasize is that comparatively speaking, we should give more financial support on the high standard education. Therefore, with all the evidence presented above, we can safely arrive at the view that government should focus its budget more on university education. It's high time for us to do it.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

tpo 13

The lecture argues that the advantages of privarte collect outweighs the defects of it. So the speaker totally disagrees with the content of the reading passage.

Firstly, in contrary to the point stated in the passage that the natural resources couldn't be publicized, the professor gives a different view. He points out that if the fossiles could be sold in public, all of the public institutions like public schools and public museums can have easy access to purchase them. In this way, the fossiles will be revealed more to the public.

Secondly, the professor contradicts to the argument that scientists will lose access to crucial fossiles. As a matter of fact, before the fossiles are sold to those wealthy buyers, they will be scientifically identified by the scientists. Hence they will pass the hand of the scientist. So the view is not convicable.

Finally, while the passage argues that simply removing the fossiles will destroy some valuable archeological evidence, the professor holds a different tongue. Admittedly, they would destroy some provements, but without those private collect, some fossiles won't even get a chance to be discovered. Obviously, the value of being discovered fossiles outweighs those that haven't been exposed even if some traces will be destroyed.

In sum, the speaker has a complete differnt view towards what is stated in the passage and the points in the passage are totally refuted by the professor.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

The lecture argues that the advantages of private collect outweigh(语法) the defects of it. So the speaker totally disagrees with the content of the reading passage.

Firstly, in contrary to the point stated in the passage that the natural resources couldn't be publicized, the professor gives a different view. He points out that if the fossils could be sold in public, all of the public institutions like public schools and public museums can have easy access to purchase them. In this way, the fossils will be revealed more to the public.

Secondly, the professor contradicts to the argument that scientists will lose access to crucial fossils. As a matter of fact, before the fossils are sold to those wealthy buyers, they will be scientifically identified by the scientists. Hence they will pass the hand of the scientist. So the view is not convincible.

Finally, while the passage argues that simply removing the fossils will destroy some valuable archeological evidence, the professor holds a different tongue. Admittedly, they would destroy some proofs, but without those private collect, some fossils won't even get a chance to be discovered. Obviously, the value of being discovered fossils outweighs those that haven't been exposed even if some traces will be destroyed.

In sum, the speaker has a complete different view towards what is stated in the passage and the points in the passage are totally refuted by the professor.

LRXSSUID: 2695903

tpo 12

The lecture refuted all the points made in the reading passage.

Firstly, in contrary to the point stated in the passage that the figure

could be Jane for the Austen family itself must be capable of recognizing
herself. As a matter of fact, in 1882, Jane had already been dead for
almost 70 years. Hence the descendents of the Austen didn't see Jane herself
Therefore they couldn't be certain about the appearance of Jane. In this
way, their endorsement could be skeptical.

Secondly, the speaker contradicts to the viewpoint that the girl could be
Jane for the resemblance between the painting and another authentic version.
The professor says that the Authen's family is highly extended so she has
a lot of cousins who resembles her in looks. Furthermore, in the Cassandra's
sketch, Jane is an adult woman. So it is not so convincible.

Thirdly, while the passage argues that it is evident that it was painted
when Austen was a teenager, the professor holds a different tongue. He
states that when Jane was a girl, canvas wasn't used for painting. But the
composition uses canvas to reveal the figure. Thus it is suspect.

In sum, the speaker totally disagrees with what is stated in the reading
material.