12.22

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

At present, whether human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more significant than saving land for endangered animals is becoming a heated controversy that triggered substantial amounts of people concern about. Some citizens hold the point of view that human should care more about our earth and environment, especially those endangered animals. Others, however, have an opposite attitude that people, now, depend ever-increasingly on the needs for farmland, housing and industry. My heart felt to this debate is consistent to the latter and, my main reasons are listed as follows.

In the first place, it has been said that this is an industrial society and people are closely associate with the industry. No one can deny the fact that the development of industry encourages us have a high quality life. For example, in the 17th century, we still use horses to be the transportation and then, steam power took place of the horses so this was the big breakthrough in the human development. Later, in the early 19th century, electric power was responsible for the daily transportation in our daily life. All of these progresses are the really evidences for people to say, we are truly to need the industry. Furthermore, the growth of industry also can stimulate more jobs. Consequently, it will solve a great number of people’s employment problems.

In the secondly place, when comes to say housing, everyone may have lots of complaints. Nowadays, housing is becoming a severe serious issue. The greater rise of population, the tighter housing market it is. Here is a statistics can speak for this realism. In china, a moderate city, like Fuzhou, more than 1,500 persons compete with an apartment which only has 60 square kilometers. The similar cases also happen in some other cities as well as the big cities, such as Beijing and Shanghai. In addition, though people cannot afford their own house, they still have heavy burden to rent a small house. Because those small houses also have a high price which will shock the clock. So, can we still not to urge the more supplies of housing?

Finally, as we all know, we should live for grains and corps. Farmland will provide us the food and, undoubtedly, human beings rely on them to survive. Therefore, isn’t it necessary to say that we don’t need more farmlands to grow? Obviously not! However, the damages which industries bring to environment and those endangered animals cannot be neglected, we ought to find out some efficient methods to solve these issues. For instance, we can build nature conservation for the endangered animals, or the government can release the regulations for businessmen to reduce some trashes and so forth.

To sum up, considerable though the aspects for industry does harm for environment are, we still need to have a positive eye to see this problem. As for me, I am favor of the standpoint that the needs for industry, housing and farmland play a vital role rather than conserving the earth and endangered animals.

PS:不好意思啊... 依旧使用了很恶心的开头...

undoubtedlyUID: 2741901

marry christmas
Visit MidSunshine suzhou apartment rental and shanghai apartment rental

mpromanusUID: 2565872

At present, whether human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more significant than saving land for endangered animals is becoming a heated controversy that triggered substantial amounts numbers of people to concern about. Some citizens hold the point of view that human should care more about our earth and environment, especially those endangered animals. Others, however, have an opposite attitude that people, now, depend ever-increasingly on the needs (You either 'depend on' or 'need' something, but generally not both.) for farmland, housing and industry. What My heart felt feels to this debate is consistent to with the latter and, my main reasons are listed as follows. (Alright, I still hate it. But, I know that the use of templates is not going to decrease because of me. BUT, please at least get your grammar correct if you must use this opening no matter what..Plus, the question is explicitly asking you to state whether you AGREE OR DISAGREE, so please abide by the question. Don't make your examiner read between the lines.)

In the first place, it has been said that this is an industrial society and people are closely associate with the industry (What industry? Petroleum is an industry and so is construction. If you use 'the', you need to be specific). No one can deny the fact that the development of industry encourages us to have a high quality of life. For example, in the 17th century, we still use horses to be the as transportation and then, steam power took place of the horses, so this was the big breakthrough in the human development. Later, in the early 19th century, electric power was responsible for the daily transportation in our daily life (You sure about that? Even in the 21st century we're yet to see electric cars as the mainstream.). All of these progresses are the really evidences for people to say, we are truly to need the industry. Furthermore, the growth of industry also can ('can also'. 'also can' is a very typical Asian non-native expression.) stimulate create more jobs. Consequently, it will solve a great number of people’s employment problems.(Yeah, but the question is about industry being MORE IMPORTANT than saving land for endangered animals. Where is the part about use of land, where is the part about animals, and where is the comparison?)

In the secondly place, when it comes to say housing, everyone may have lots of complaints. Nowadays, housing is becoming a severe serious issue. The greater the rise of population, the tighter the housing market it is (If you're not sure about how to use this format correctly, do your research in a grammar book, or don't use it at all.). Here is a statistics can speak for this realism. In China, in a moderately developed city, like Fuzhou, more than 1,500 persons compete with for an apartment which only has 60 square kilometers (This seems to imply that housing in China is allocated on a 'one house per a-certain-number-of-people' basis. Is this true?). The similar cases also happen in some other cities as well as the big cities (You mean 'other cities' don't include 'big cities'?), such as Beijing and Shanghai. In addition, though people cannot afford their own houses, they still have heavy burden to rent a small houses. because those small houses also have a high price which will shock the clock? (Generally speaking, rent in China is still reasonable, as its rates are actually lower than the interest rates of most bank housing loans..). So, can we still not to urge the more supplies of housing? (Yeah, well, again, what does the need for housing have to do with saving land for animals? If you need more housing, why don't just build taller blocks of small apartments? Where is the link to the question in here?)

Finally, as we all know, we should live for grains and corps (If you 'live for' something, your life's purpose is that thing. Not exactly what you're trying to express, I guess.). Farmland will provide us the food and, undoubtedly, human beings rely on them to survive. Therefore, isn’t it necessary to say that we don’t need more farmlands to grow? Obviously not! (A triple negation. I'm lost. Your examiner, who's by now likely too exhausted to even attempt to understand this, would probably just ignore the whole sentence.) However, the damages which industries (I thought we were talking about 'farmland'.) bring to the environment (What is 'environment' doing here? Does this word appear anywhere in your question?) and those endangered animals cannot be neglected, we ought to find out some efficient methods to solve these issues. For instance, we can build nature conservation sites for the endangered animals, or the government can release the regulations for businessmen to reduce some trashes and so forth. (Do not switch topic in the middle of a paragraph without warning. If you must do the prep talk about how we shouldn't neglect endangered animals - after neglecting them for about two whole paragrphs - do it in another paragraph.)

To sum up, considerable though the aspects for industry does harm? for to the environment are, we still need to have a positive eye viewpoint to see this problem. As for me, I am in favor of the standpoint that the needs for industry, housing and farmland play a more? vital role rather than conserving the earth and endangered animals.

总结：

语法 - 不用模板句的时候句法基本上没有办法看，单句和介词混成一团。。所以其实模板的使用是很容易看出来的。。

词汇 - 模糊词很多，表意不清，词汇的使用搭配要注意。

逻辑 - 套用模板，看到一个关键字就把自己背过的相关例子不论三七二十一往上贴，后果就是 1. 例子完全和题目不沾边 2. 没有现成例子的时候完全没有逻辑可言。这个问题是一个主观题，以下的几个问题必须理清：1. 人类需要农地/房子/工业，和save land有什么关系 2. 为什么需要为endangered animals来save land 3. 两个相比哪一个更重要 - 不仅需要为什么，更需要比较。这根本不是一个让你论述运输工业怎么发展还是中国的房地产市场多么泡沫的问题。如果你根本审题不清，那么模板句再怎么华丽都是废的。。

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

3# mpromanus

我最大的問題在於 句法 是么?   
另外 審題不清的問題該怎麼解決?
還有論述的時候 如何做到不是泛泛之談呢?  論證的時候最忌諱什麽 最需要什麽?  我的文章在論證方面不足在哪裡?
還有 作文寫多少字合適啊?  

謝謝LZ

mpromanusUID: 2565872

> 我最大的問題在於 句法 是吗?

应该说是语法，句法是语法的一个重要应用。。

> 另外 審題不清的問題該怎麼解決?

这个说实在很难回答啊，因为我觉得你审题不清的原因是你忙着套模板所以完全没有想到要去理解题目，但是这不一定就是你真正的问题所在，这个要像看心理医生一样很细致地问你是如何理解一个特定的题目，才能解决。。一般地来说，就是把题目读完整，多想想题目为什么要这么问呀，不要只读关键字。

> 還有論述的時候 如何做到不是泛泛之談呢?  論證的時候最忌諱什麽 最需要什麽?  我的文章在論證方面不足在哪裡?

这个你心里要有具体想法才能说出具体的东西啊。。好像又是和上面一样很难回答的。还是要像看心理医生一样，有了一个题目，先问明白自己的思考方式是什么样子的，才能看出弱点在什么地方，你明白自己写作文的时候在想些什么么，你明白你写的作文题目需要怎样的论证么？现在这样笼统的问法，我也只能笼统地跟你说，论证忌讳逻辑不严谨，需要一针见血。。你的不足不是简单的论证不足，是模板造成的跑题，跑题的话那是怎么论都不会足的。。

> 還有 作文寫多少字合適啊?

300-350左右。。

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

5# mpromanus
你的意思是 我應該真正去圍繞題目寫作文 而不是去用模板把作文撐起來...

然後重點去解決我的語法問題... 另外就是時時刻刻記著我要論證的點 句句扣題.. 徹底拋棄模板..

是這樣么?

mpromanusUID: 2565872

你说得对~我终于让你明白我的意思了，太开心了。。XD

虽然 彻底抛弃模板 这个需要很大的勇气，如果你愿意去尝试的话，要加油哦~

wuqian0801UID: 2637709

7# mpromanus

我也終於想明白自己的問題了...  

我會去改掉的...

下周 我想 我會有一篇全新的作文 (即使還是有很多錯誤)

非常非常謝謝~  

加油!~