一篇独立，排队Romanus的修改~~

heqiang_1001UID: 2607349

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governments should spend more money on improving public transportation than on improving accessing Internet.

Nowadays, with the development of science and technology, the quality of people's life has been largely
improved . However, there is still a controversial discussion about on which aspect should government spend more money, improving public transportation or improving accsessing Internet? When it comes to me, I firmly support the statement that public transportation is more important as the following substantial aspects.

First of all, environment issues are something that government should pay more attention to. Considering the detrimental acid rain and ice-berg belting in Arctic, government who ignores this issue will pay its own price. Increasing more ways of public transportation could decline the number of private cars, which further declines the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.For example, since BeiJing, the capital of my country, increased more subway lines from one to ten, the air condition has been  improved apparently and the sky has come back to be blue again.

Moreover, more money which is invested to public transportation could improve people's life quality. On one hand, everyone enjoys living with fresh air and blue sky which are attributed to environment improvement as stated above. On the other hand, people have more choices to get their destination more quickly and efficiently. When I was 8 or9 years old, everyday I went to school, I had to wait for the buses for more than half an hour ,which had already been crowded when it came. While, the subway that I take everyday now is so fast that there is no need to waste time on waiting it. It could also avoid traffic jams.I think life has been more and more convenient with the development of public transportation.

Admittedly, though numerous advantages that public transportation enjoys are, we could not forget that merits of Internet. Internet brings us to an information era which make us easily get useful information. However, Internet is not the essential factor of people's daily life, we could also get what we want from newspaper or TV programs. It also make bad contributions to our healths especially out eye protection

To sum up, considering the environment issues and improvement of people's quality of life, the government should invest more money on public transportation instead of our accessing to Internet.
Word Count: 392


主要请姐姐帮忙看看宏观上的问题，应该需要从哪些地方提高……瓶颈了……还有就是，我现在觉得自己现在有很多细节上的问题，单词的用法，固定搭配的用法都是糊的，完全凭语感了，该怎么办呢？
再次感谢^_^

mpromanusUID: 2565872

Nowadays, with the development of science and technology, the quality of people's life has been largely' ~. Y& z  a1 j" m$ |+ B
improved. However, there is still a controversial discussion about on which aspect should the government should spend more money: improving public transportation or improving accsessing to the Internet? When it comes to me, I firmly support the statement that public transportation is more important as the following substantial aspects (This part is not a complete sentence. It's only a noun phrase. This is like saying '...public transportation is more important as *a duck*'. If this 'as' means 'because', it needs to be followed by a proper sentence.).

First of all, environment issues are something that the government should pay more attention to. Considering the detrimental acid rain, and ice-berg m?elting icebergs (Readers will naturally associate parallel structures with an 'and' if there's no comma, and here, without the comma I added, they'll think that 'acid rain' and 'icebergs' are of equal importance. Then, when you specify 'the Arctic' after 'icebergs', it will appear to pertain to 'the detrimental acid rain and melting icebergs' as a whole. I guess this is not what you mean. My point is that layers of expression are very important in a language, and you need to consider these layers in your expression carefully to make sure your meaning is not ambiguous.)in the Arctic, (There's more ice in the Antarctic and the melting problem pertains more to that region. The major problem with the Arctic is that as the climate gets warmer, the seas there freeze less. This reduces both the easily accessible area available to a polar bear as it now needs to swim longer and more frequently, and its chance to catch seals as food.), a government who that ignores this issue will pay its own price. Increasing more ways of public transportation could decline ('Decline', meaning 'to become less in amount', is a vi, not a vt, meaning you can only say 'something declines', but not 'decline something', to mean that something decreases in amount. If you say you 'decline something', that means you 'refuse to accept or do' that something.) the number of private cars, (The logic here is absurd. Think about this example: if you have 2 apples and 2 oranges, and someone gives you another apple - does that cause the number of oranges you own to decline? It's the 'ratio' of your oranges to apples that declines, not the number.) which further declines (See above.) the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. For example, since Beijing, the capital of my country, increased more ('increase' means 'to cause to become more', so it's not necessary to say 'increase more'. Even in Mandarin Chinese you'd only say 地铁线路从一条增加到十条, but not 从一条增加多到十条..) subway lines from one to ten, the air condition has been improved apparently and the sky has come back to be blue again. (Yes, it's important and all, but the question is asking you whether governments should spend MORE money on public transport or the Internet infrastructure. It DOES NOT mean only one of these two things should be done, or to spend money on one would mean to ignore the other, or what merits each one has. The gist of the question is to compare the relative financial importance of the two, not the absolute importance of any single one.)

Moreover, more money which is invested to public transportation could improve people's life quality of life. On one hand, everyone enjoys living with fresh air and a blue sky which are attributed to environment improvement as stated above. On the other hand, people have more choices to get to their destinations more quickly and efficiently. When I was 8 or 9 years old, everyday I went to school everyday, and I had to wait for the buses for more than half an hour (Do not forget about conjunctions when writing narratives.),which had already been crowded when it came. MeanWhile, the subway that I take everyday now is so fast that there is no need to waste time ('waste time' is not really a 'need', because you don't count 'waste time' as a necessity in life, do you? A simple '..that I don't waste any time on waiting' will do. Use active phrases.) on waiting for it. It could also avoid traffic jams. I think life has been more and more convenient with the development of public transportation. (Again, the question is about the relative importance of improving public transportation and improving the Internet. You can't just keep stressing on the merits of one: it's too simplistic and easily refuted for this question. For example, if you 'think life has been more and more convenient with the development of public tranportation', then I can easily say that life has also been a lot more convenient with the improvement of Internet access, that I can get so many things done online without the trouble of leaving my home. If both of them can make your life more convenient, why should the government invest more in one than in the other? Think about it. This is a very practical issue. There're myriads of good things in life, and more than often you'll find yourself in the need to decide which one is better rather than which one is good.)

Admittedly, though numerous advantages that public transportation enjoys are (It took me a while to figure out this to be 'advantages that public transportation enjoys are numerous'. Don't write like Master Yoda speaks..unless for very short and simple sentences. It's easy to understand 'Great, the Force in him is', but not easy to understand this one of yours. The reason is that 'Great, the Force' doesn't make any sense as a phrase, so readers are mentally prepared that this sentence must be of an unusual format. However, 'numerous advantages' is a perfectly sensible phrase in itself, and readers will automatically assume it to be the subject of this sentence. Only by the time they hit 'are', they start to realize that the actual subject is 'advantages', and 'numerous' is not part of the subject. This kind of discrepancies between the actual meaning of your sentence and readers' mental models of your sentence can be very upsetting.), we could not forget that merits of Internet. Internet brings us to an information era which make us easily get useful information (Very awkward way to use 'make'. If you say 'make somebody do something', it has a sense of forcing the action. A simple '..where we can easily get useful information' will do. Again, use active, straight-forward phrases.). However, Internet is not the essential factor of people's daily life, we could also get what we want from newspaper or TV programs. It also make bad contributions to our healths especially our eye protection. (This is a nice step backwards, but again, you need to relate this back to the question about financial importance. Yes, it's not essential in your daily life, but that doesn't mean governments should invest less in it - would you say USA government debts is essential in your daily life? The government is spending heaps of money on it because it's important for sustaining China's financial powers as a nation. Of course this is a sensitive and extreme example, but my point is that you need to close off your argument at the exact question that you're given. It could be as simple as one sentence like 'it's not essential, but public transportation is essential, then the government should of course spend more money in the essential one.', but you need to explicitly do it. Leaving this gap unfilled would mean room for refutation like what I just did.)

To sum up, considering the environment issues and improvement of people's quality of life, the government should invest more money on public transportation instead of our accessing to the Internet.

总结：

语法 - 你语法底子还不错说，就是有些从句的句法要注意，不是说语法完全错误，是意思不清晰。

词汇 - 这方面没有什么大问题，就是decline的用法。。话说不是第一次看到同样的错误了，不明白为什么啊。。=.= 单词和固定搭配这些我没法硬教给你，就是靠平时多积累，多练习，老话一句就是熟能生巧。。

逻辑 - 最重要的就是我一直在唠叨的，要点题，点题。。虽然是老生常谈。。点题的作用并不是逼你换着说法叙述问题，而是帮你把逻辑说圆，不给人反驳的空间。这个问题，也就是所谓的逻辑漂移，基本上所有我改过的都多少有一点。。就是开始写分论点了，就下一句接着上一句的关键字往下写，最后你就会发现你的关键字从第一句开始就直线地出去，到了段尾嘎然而止，像你第一个分论点段那样，政府应该注意环境问题->环境问题如果不管可以很严重哒->多弄公共交通可以减少私家车，减少碳排放->北京一扩建地铁天就蓝了，空气就好了。。这个直线式的逻辑，每一条的起点都是上一句或者之前的某个关键字，这不是说不对，但是你心里要清楚你最终要说明的关键字是题目里的那些。。不然给你个题目干啥咧是吧 =.= 所以最主要的是大方向要跟住。不需要每一段都非要很明确地点，但是至少你的作文整体要给人感觉是一直符合题目的大方向，而不是只有开头结尾知道题目的意思。