eddie的独立作文 1.24

eddie23508okUID: 2281260

1.24 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students would receive a better, effective education if they were required to attend classes for 11 months of a year.

The longer students attend classes during a year, the better and more effective education they would receive? The answer is obvious "no". If the advocacy is carried out, it would push students too hard. For my part, I totally stand against this point of view in the topic and here goes my explanation.

Firstly attending classes for 11 months of a year means there is only one month left for students to rest, which is definitely too harsh for students to cover it. As students, we are also humanbeings other than tireless machines. Over amount of time for study does necessarily lead to the mental tireness and the reduction of the efficiency of study. Meanwhile we are standing in the stage of youth which requires time for rest as well as replete energy for concentration. Attending classes for most of the time in a year means the reduction of rest time, which would do harm to our physical development.

Secondly, does a better and effective education necessarily depend on the length of the time for study? Not only I, most of you, I am sure, would offer a negative answer. Actually whether the education students receive can be defined as being of good quality and effective relies on many other factors such as the quality of teachers and the teaching materials, the rationality of the study schedule arranged by schools and certainly students' personal devotion of energy and focus. If study quality is decided by the time length only, on the contrast, for the same amount of knowledge, longer study means a lower efficiency. Therefore, to provide students a better and effective education, experts should turn to other decisive elements.

Last but not least, in order to attain the goal of a better and effective education, schools should also teach students how to reasonably utilize their time for study. How to master knowledge firmly in a shorter time other than plunging in the endless study without pause is really something students should learn. I believe many of you have ever found that someone studied hard, however they might not have got the scores matching their effort, while some other students do not spend too much time for study, but they get excellent marks. The reason is that these students know how to distribute their time for study reasonably.

To sum up, I totally oppose the issue in the topic. Students should not deserve such a long time for study in a year. In addition, as well as the enough time for rest, other factors deciding the quality of the education should be considered.

ivybettyUID: 2328308

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students would receive a better, effective education if they were required to attend classes for 11 months of a year.

The longer students attend classes during a year, the better and more effective education they would receive? The answer is obvious "no". If the advocacy is carried out, it would push students too hard. (为什么说push too hard?是否可以改为it would be detrimental for both education and  students.)For my part, I totally stand against this point of view in the topic and here goes my explanation.表意贴切,很好的开头

Firstly attending classes for 11 months of a year means there is only one month left for students to rest, which is definitely too harsh for students to cover it. As students, we are also humanbeings other than tireless machines. Over amount of time for study does necessarily (感觉这个词要用在正面肯定的语态中)lead to the mental tireness and the reduction of the efficiency of study. Meanwhile we are standing in the stage of youth which requires time for rest as well as replete(形容词在这里可能不合适,是否有refresh or regain等更加合适的词) energy for concentration. Attending classes for most of the time in a year means the reduction of rest time, which would do harm to our physical development.(healthy是不更好些?) 本段主旨休息太少的坏处,符合观点陈述.

I; O/ A
1 g" I0 I- ]$ G+ g, h
Secondly, does a better and effective education necessarily depend on the length of the time for study?(这种表达很有魅力,学习了.) Not only I, most of you, I am sure, would offer a negative answer. Actually whether the education students receive can be defined as being of good quality and effective relies on many other factors such as the quality of teachers and the teaching materials, the rationality of the study schedule arranged by schools and certainly students' personal devotion of energy and focus. If study quality is decided by the time length only, on the contrast, for the same amount of knowledge, longer study means a lower efficiency. 与前面相反的逻辑没有搞懂.Therefore, to provide students a better and effective education, experts should turn to other decisive elements.本段很有气势,观点鲜明,立论充实,就是有一点点逻辑不畅.

Last but not least, in order to attain the goal of a better and effective education, schools should also teach students how to reasonably utilize their time for study. How to master knowledge firmly in a shorter time other than plunging(plunge注意前后一致) in the endless study without pause is really something students should learn. I believe many of you have ever(这个词在这里感觉有点冗长,建议去掉) found that someone studied hard, however they might not have got the scores matching their effort, while some other students do not spend too much time for study, but they get excellent marks. The reason is that these students know how to distribute their time for study reasonably.

To sum up, I totally oppose the issue in the topic. Students should not deserve such a long time for study in a year. In addition, as well as the enough time for rest, other factors deciding the quality of the education should be considered.
很好的一片文章,楼主继续加油!