12/21 独立写作..

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People will reduce car use in 20years.

At present, whether people will decrease the car use in 20 years is becoming a heated controversy that triggered substantial amounts of people to be concerned. Some individuals hold the point of view that the use of car will be declined in 20 years. The other, however, have an opposite attitude that the car use will be inclined continuously. My heart felt response to this debate is consistent to the former that people will reduce car use in 20 years. And my main reasons are listed as follows.

In the first place, considering the natural environment and social environment, the car use reduced will be the tendency definitely. As we all know, the car exhausts pollute our environment and, resulting in the bad condition of our citizens. According to the recent statistic from Xia Men University, owing to the off gas, a large number of people have more or less trouble in respiration. In addition, the traffic congestion is another heated social issue. Because of the overwhelming majority of car uses, it’s common to see a view that the road is too crowd without the extra space, especially the work time. The most efficient method to solve this problem is the descent of car use. From this point, we can easily find that car use brings us more problems and it’s essential for us to reduce them.

In the second place, with the dramatic development of high technology, ever-increasingly new sources will be produced. The replacement of the power is the key factor that leads to the descent of car use. Those new power, which compared with the source of car is more safe and clean. Furthermore, it will improve our life pace, such as we may drive more secure and faster. We may use spend less time in driving or even the new type of car maybe don’t need the driver, because of its automatical. All of these will be the factors that responsible for the decline of car use.

Finally, reducing the car use in 20 years plays a significant role in improving the physical condition of people. People spend more time on driving in order to enhance the efficiency. But those are at the expense of individuals’ health, such as the cervical spondylosis, the eyes exhausted and some headache. The longer time they spend in their car, the weaker their conditions will be. Consequently, the car use is indispensable to us.

To sum up, along with the shrinking growth of our society, we still cannot forget build a harmony social and natural environment for living. And that’s of significance for people to reduce the car use when the environment and the health are taken into consideration.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

At present, whether people will decrease the car use in 20 years is becoming a heated controversy that triggered substantial amounts numbers of people to be concerned.(请无视我以下的牢骚。。Allow me to rant for one second: Can't people just stop using such template openings that I've grown so weary of? I mean, what does being a 'heated controversy' have to do with whether the author agrees or disagrees with the topic? Why must every single topic be a 'heated controversy', as if not being one means there's no value of discussing it? Can someone tell me who started with this dumb template so I can go slap him/her in the face and tell him/her TOEFL is not like writing for a Chinese gover-n-ment newspaper?) Some individuals hold the point of view that the use of car will be declined in 20 years. The others, however, have an opposite attitude that the car use will be inclined (Firstly, 'incline' is not the opposite of 'decline'.Secondly, the opposite of 'decline' can be and sometimes is 'no change'.) continuously. My heart-felt response to this debate is consistent to the former, that people will reduce car use in 20 years. And my main reasons are listed as follows.

In the first place, considering the natural environment and social environment, the car use reduced will be the tendency definitely (A very, very obvious and weak direct translation, and with the wrong vocabulary..at least you could use 'fashion' instead of 'tendency'.). As we all know, the car exhausts pollute our environment and, resulting in the bad condition (What 'bad condition'? 'Condition' is just too vague a word to be meaningful here. Many phrases we're used to in Chinese are vague and meaningful, but that's because we know their implications, for example 世界粮食问题 or 气候变化. Do you think you'll know what exact problem is 世界粮食问题 about if you've never seen this phrase before? It's only after you've read about it a few times that you know 世界粮食问题 normally means a shortage of food in the world, and not any other problem about food. The same vague phrase would not work in English, therefore if you use vague, generic expressions, you should try to explain what you say. That's the meaning of 'use specific examples and reasons'.) of our citizens. According to the a recent statistic from Xia Men University, owing to the off gas?, a large number of people have more or less trouble (Another suspect of direct translation. A more proper construct will be 'people have trouble, more or less, in respiration.') in respiration. In addition, the traffic congestion is another heated social issue. Because of the overwhelming majority of car uses (Do you mean 'majority of people who use cars'?), it’s common to see a view that the road is too crowded without the extra space, especially the work time (Work time is actually off-peak. The most crowded periods are called 'rush hours'). The most efficient method to solve this problem is the descent of car use. From this point, we can easily find that car use brings us more problems and it’s essential for us to reduce them. (The question is asking whether people WILL reduce car use, not whether people SHOULD reduce car use or what good does car use reduction make. You're bascially arguing the wrong question.)

In the second place, with the dramatic development of high technology, ever-increasingly new sources (Of what?) will be produced. The replacement of the power (Replacement of power with what?) is the key factor that leads to the descent of car use. Those new powers, which compared with the power source of cars (You don't know that 'the power source of cars' is commonly called 'petrol', do you?), is are more safer and cleaner. Furthermore, it (What?) will improve our life pace, such as we may drive more securely and faster. We may use spend less time in driving or even the new types of car maybe don’t need the driver (Another direct translation with wrong sentence grammar.), because of it's automatical. All of these will be the factors that responsible for the decline of car use. (I don't get your logic. If we have better power, better technology for cars, people will be more willing to drive, and car use will go up, yes?)

Finally, reducing the car use in 20 years plays a significant role in improving the physical condition of people. People spend more time on driving in order to enhance the efficiency (of what?). But those are at the expense of individuals’ health, such as the cervical spondylosis, the eyes exhausted and some headache. The longer time they spend in their cars, the weaker their conditions will be. Consequently, the car use is indispensable??? (If car use is 'indispensable', why would anyone want to cut if?) to us.% Q: t/ z* `/ p: l& z

To sum up, along with the shrinking growth of our society, we still cannot forget that building a harmonious social and natural environment for living. And that’s of significance for people to reduce the car use when the environment and the health are taken into consideration.

总结：

There're so many problems with this essay that I almost can't think of where to start..okay..here we go..

语法：基本全篇充满中文直翻的语句。这个除了告诉你你需要补习句法之外没有办法快速提高。。请复习基本的英语句法，多看例句。。
词汇：定冠词the滥用；很多词汇过于模糊，不能清楚表意，造成全篇文字空洞。这个除了告诉你要多看好的范文之外我也没有办法。。-.-
逻辑：这个已经指出，就是你最后论述的问题完全不是本来问的问题。。问题问的是你同不同意20年后汽车的使用会减少，而不是人们该不该减少汽车的使用，或者减少汽车的使用有什么好处。。这是典型的道德审题综合症，看到一个社会道德方面相关的关键字（减少汽车使用）就觉得一定是关于环保啊人文啊和谐社会啊，不管问的到底是什么就开始往这方面凑。。

我能推荐给lz的就是好好去看一些英语母语人士写的议论性文章，比如新闻时事评论，再加工一下句法和词汇的基本功，让语言的感觉有一个全面的提高先。。

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

2# mpromanus

Thanks a million!

请问几个问题:
1.作文中长短句的结合 到底是什么样的?
2.好的文章开头应该是什么样的? 或者说 如何引出论点?
3.另外 怎么对付写着写着就跑题的情况啊? 而且到后面几乎没有逻辑了..
4.所谓的specific example要写成哪样才算是呢? 可是写多了的话 不就累赘了么?
5.我剩下40天考试,想提高写作 重点应该强化哪里?

mpromanusUID: 2565872

刚才打了好多字，想换一下斜体，就全都没有了。。杯具啊~T_T

1.作文中长短句的结合 到底是什么样的?

笼统地说，在议论文中，论点句宜短，便于读者抓重点；论证句宜长，以显文思华丽。或者更一般地说，宣布主题、观点的句子宜短，描述阐释类的句子宜长。

我个人不很理解中文中所谓‘长短句’的说法，因为英文的句法中没有 长句 的概念，只有 复句 的概念，而复句只是单句按照特定的语法规则连接起来而已，所以我个人的看法是没有所谓‘长句’‘短句’这种区别的！如果写得好单句，并且能够熟练使用单句造复句的语法规则，能把几个单句的意思正确联结起来成为一个完整的意群，那么所谓的长句，语法不会出错，写得好不好也就只是词汇和内容的问题。你看过那个把四句‘张海迪姐姐’开头的句子联结起来的笑话吗？英文的所谓长句也就是这样，和中文的复句没有什么本质的区别。但是我看到的所谓‘长句写不好’，多半干脆是不懂得长句其实是单句的集合，总是想怎么在一句话内表达完所有的意思，而不去想怎么把思维分割成合适的单句再连起来，造成单句就写不好，也就连不成好的复句。

2.好的文章开头应该是什么样的? 或者说 如何引出论点?

在回答这个问题之前，希望你想明白：为什么你认为议论文需要引出论点？你觉得引出论点这个做法在议论文中起什么作用？是为了让读者对你的论题有更好的了解么？还是纯粹为了显示自己有话说？

我喜欢的文章开头应该是简洁地论述题目的历史/现状，解释为什么这个题目值得讨论，并扼要地介绍一下分论点。It should show your understanding of the problem, not just knowledge about the problem. 比如，如果你这篇文章的题目给我写，我可能会这样开头：当下环保话题蔚为风潮，而说到环保几乎必定要提到对汽车数量这个对经济对环境都有很大影响的话题，所以很多人都会关心几十年之内汽车的数量走向这个问题。虽然各人的意见都可能不同，我个人是觉得20年内汽车的数量会减少，不光有环境上的原因，还有经济和社会影响方面的原因。下面我将具体地谈谈这个问题。（这个其实真正写出来不会很长，我写中文比英文来得啰嗦。。）

3.另外 怎么对付写着写着就跑题的情况啊? 而且到后面几乎没有逻辑了

你这篇从第二段总结分论点的时候就已经跑题，说明你在写的时候没有一直想着你要回答的是一个什么问题，只是想到什么就顺着势写下去了。写议论文要坚持充分集中注意力在原本的问题上，随时要想好：我写这句话，要阐述的是这个问题的哪个方面？

关于逻辑的缺乏：不是没有逻辑可写，道理还是歪理，说法永远是有的，是你本身对这个问题的理解不足以让你充分地表达、解释你的逻辑。另外因为你在跑题，所以潜意识里会有一种怎么好象总是不太对头的感觉，你就会不敢多说多写，造成感觉好像没有逻辑了。

4.所谓的specific example要写成哪样才算是呢? 可是写多了的话 不就累赘了么?

specific其实意思很土人，就是从小处写，不要假大空，空话是用来做论点句的，找论据的时候就不能再空了。。比如你说动物对人类有用，这是个论点，但是句空话；但如果你说养鸡可以下蛋，养猪可以吃肉，这没有论点，但就是specific的论据了。两个放在一起，就有了论点和论据，加几个关联词：动物对人类有用。（比如）养鸡可以下蛋，养猪可以吃肉。。再加一点specific的论证：可以看出动物可以给人类提供食物，最后点题：所以说动物对人类有用。好了，议论文三要素。

关于累赘：specific不等于一定要写很多细节。议论文语言追求的应该是用尽可能少的字数表达尽可能多的意思，不管是具体例子的描述，还是抽象概念的解释，都要能够表达。并且表达要有针对性，所谓要一针见血就是这个意思。

5.我剩下40天考试,想提高写作 重点应该强化哪里?

以这篇文章来看的话，我会选句法。要保证自己能写出语法正确、干净的句子，词汇和逻辑稍微简单一些不是很大的问题。