Arguement35 Issue26[YB-1]9月11日作业 by3071001007

3071001007UID: 2662009

这次少了30分钟，可喜可贺。。。
首段复述作者观点，最后指出作者得出结论过于简单。
第二段就这个化学物质是否能治疗头疼展开质疑。作者提到此化合物与阿司匹林属同类物质，但是同类物质不一定有完全相同的功能。所以该化合物是否能够治疗头疼尚未知晓。
第三段让步假设可以治疗，又对作者的调查可信性展开质疑。作者的研究调查数据取样方式存在错误的可能性，所以数据不是很可靠。
第三段继续让步，指出作为调味剂的该化学物质只能应用于部分食品，是否会影响到大量人群不可知。而且该地的头疼发病率并没有提及，如果头疼发病率已经很低，则一定不会继续出现稳定的下降。
第四段总结陈词，指出作者需要更加有说服力的证据来证明自己的观点，这样才能使读者信服，也可以保证这项研究总结更具有科学性

大家狠批吧，路过的童鞋如果有什么意见看法的不妨也简单留几句~大家共同进步嘛！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT35 - The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.

"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercial use of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study. Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we can expect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by the average citizen of Mentia."
WORDS: 409        TIME: 01:30:04     DATE: 2009/7/11 14:46:51

The report mainly suggests that salicylates can help treat headaches, and the new use of this chemical will make a contribution to the decline of the headache rate in Mentia. To support his point of view, he makes an example to suggest the possible relationship between the chemical and the decline of headache rate in author's study. The fact mentioned in the report might be true, but still, it is not that easy to draw such a conclusion.

Firstly, the author take it granted that the salicylates have the same function as the aspirin, because they belong to the same chemical family. But the common sense reminds us that though the chemicals are in the same chemical family, they may also have some differences. So it is a little slapdash to treat it as an effective headache medicine. Whether the salicylates have the function or not, the author still need to provide more convincing evidence.

Let's suppose that the salicylates are useful to the treatment of the headache, but still the author makes the second flaw in his discursion. In the survey they made, they find a steady decline in the average number of headaches. But the data is based on the report from the participants. There exists the possibility that less and less participants are willing to report their own health condition, which will lead to a seeming decline of the data, but finally draw to a wrong conclusion.

Moreover, the new use of the salicylates is considered to make a continued steady decline in the number of headaches by the author. But this conclusion is still lack of evidence. Suppose the salicylates is useful for headache, but it surely can only be added in several certain kinds of food, how large of the population can take the enough amount of those kind of food which added salicylates is still hang in doubt. And also, we don't know any specific data about what the headache rate is, if the rate has already been quite low, there is  no change that the rate will continue a steady decline.

In sum, from all the reasons mentioned above, the author's point of view is obviously lack of persuasion. To make his opinion more accessible, the author has to give more convincing evidence to conform the causal relationship between salicylates and headache rate. Only in this way, can we be able to accept his idea more convinced, and the study summary be more scientific.

3071001007UID: 2662009

又是将近四个小时。。。。
第一段说时间像个过滤器，滤去没用的，留下新的。然后说建筑是为数不多的几种可以完整的在历史中延续下来的东西之一，老建筑就像一部无言的历史书……然后提出矛盾，老建筑该拆该留，并提出自己观点“ It depends”
第二段主要说一些老建筑失去其功能，变得没有用处，作为一个发展的社会，优胜劣汰是法则，所有老旧无用的东西都不可避免的将被淘汰。这里用到了达尔文的进化论的观点
第三段指出不是所有老建筑都失去了其价值，有些建筑在现在仍发挥着巨大的旅游经济，同时作为国家或地区的标志宣传着当地的文化。所以从长远来看，不是所有建筑都变得没有用处。
第四段指出，有些建筑有其特殊的价值，例如美学价值 或宗教价值，虽然与我们的生活没有关系，但是我们仍应保留保护
末短总结，提出我们应以长远的眼光来判断如何决定这些老建筑的命运。

TOPIC: ISSUE26 - "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."
WORDS: 543
TIME: 03:45:17
DATE: 2009/7/11 20:40:05

The history is like a filter, filters the old things and remains the new. Reflecting the time's characters obviously, the buildings in old time are still perfectly saved while countless of other ancient traces have been washed away by the flood of time. These buildings are like the books of history, telling ancient stories silently. We can say that our human history is to learn the past and develop it. So it is important to know about our history. The old building is one of the few things to remain the history, so its importance speaks for itself. But since we all living in a limited place, there comes the problem undoubted that when the old buildings go against modern development, what we will do. In my opinion, it depends.

Firstly, the development is the principle which comes first. We do things, radically, to develop the society, but keep the old things and make no progress. On this level, we have to remove the old buildings which cumber the development of history, and make room for the new things. Only in this way, will we be able to ensure that our society is moving forward, but wondering around. Just as the Darwin's Evolution Theory mentioned, all the useless things will be replaced by more suitable things, so as to the buildings, if the old buildings has become useless to our life, their fates can speak themselves clearly.

By saying that the development is the most important thing, I don't mean that all the old buildings should be removed and make place for new buildings. As I mentioned above, it belongs. Not all the new buildings can contribute to the society's development greater than old buildings. For example, China is a country which has a history of 5000 years, its most famous ancient building is the Great Wall, which was built 2000 years ago to defend the attack of Huns in the north. Now the Great Wall has lost its function, but it still has its value, it attracts millions of visitors every year, and has become a symbol of China. The Great Wall tells all the youth about the history and educates generation after generation about the history. Some other old buildings such as the Pyramid in Egypt, also benefit the local government a lot and let the world know about the country and its culture. So in the long term, not all the old buildings bring less benefits than the new ones, the designers and builders must take a long view to make proper decisions.

Sometimes we can't see the problem only considering about benefits. There are some other values that some of us can't understand. For example, some buildings are highly evaluated for its beauty value or religion value. Although they are not concerned with most of us, we still need to keep and protect them, because it shows the respect to the artists and art, or to their religion.

To sum up, I think before making decisions about whether to remove the old buildings to make room for modern architectures or not, we have to measure the advantages and disadvantages carefully, not only in short term, but on a long view more importantly. It matters about history, something once lost will never got back.

帮我改作文的童鞋辛苦了

xxhhttUID: 2477361

2# 3071001007
这次少了30分钟，可喜可贺。。。
首段复述作者观点，最后指出作者得出结论过于简单。
第二段就这个化学物质是否能治疗头疼展开质疑。作者提到此化合物与阿司匹林属同类物质，但是同类物质不一定有完全相同的功能。所以该化合物是否能够治疗头疼尚未知晓。
第三段让步假设可以治疗，又对作者的调查可信性展开质疑。作者的研究调查数据取样方式存在错误的可能性，所以数据不是很可靠。（我认为调查的最大疑点在于本来食品中就富含此物质，商业上的使用并无充分的理由造成头痛发病率的下降）
第三段继续让步，指出作为调味剂的该化学物质只能应用于部分食品，是否会影响到大量人群不可知。而且该地的头疼发病率并没有提及，如果头疼发病率已经很低，则一定不会继续出现稳定的下降。（这个论点可以的）
第四段总结陈词，指出作者需要更加有说服力的证据来证明自己的观点，这样才能使读者信服，也可以保证这项研究总结更具有科学性
大家狠批吧，路过的童鞋如果有什么意见看法的不妨也简单留几句~大家共同进步嘛！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT35 - The following appeared in the summary of a study onheadaches suffered by the residents of Mentia.

"Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, amedicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich insalicylates, for the past several decades food-processing companies have alsobeen adding salicylates to foods as preservatives. This rise in the commercialuse of salicylates has been found to correlate with a steady decline in theaverage number of headaches reported by participants in our twenty-year study.Recently, food-processing companies have found that salicylates can also beused as flavor additives for foods. With this new use for salicylates, we canexpect a continued steady decline in the number of headaches suffered by theaverage citizen of Mentia."
WORDS: 409        TIME: 01:30:04    DATE: 2009/7/11 14:46:51

The report mainly suggests that salicylates can help treat headaches, and thenew use of this chemical will make a contribution to the decline of theheadache rate in Mentia. To support his point of view, he makes an example tosuggest the possible relationship between the chemical andthe decline of headache rate in author's study. The fact mentioned in thereport might be true, but still, it is not that easy to draw such a conclusion.

Firstly, the author take it granted that the salicylates have the same functionas the aspirin,
because they belong tothe same chemical family. But the common sense reminds us that though thechemicals are in the same chemical family, they may also have some differences.（有些笼统，这些不同你要说明下，比如different molecule structure 会有 different chemicaleffect, 这样才叫论点的development） So it is a little slapdash to treat it asan effective headache medicine. Whether the salicylates have the function ornot, the author still need to provide more convincing evidence.

Let's suppose（用even if 感觉让步语气更重些） that the salicylates are useful to the treatment of the headache,but still the author makes the second flaw in his discursion（说：结论依旧不成立，因为作者还犯了什么错误。比较好）. （你要明确指出survey的根本问题，是参与者回复因涉及隐私而不可信，不仅说说可能的原因就完了）In the survey they made, they find a steady decline in the averagenumber of headaches. But the data is based on the report from the participants.There exists the possibility that less and less participants are willing toreport their own health condition, which will lead to a seeming decline of thedata, but finally draw to a wrong conclusion.

Moreover, the new use of the salicylates is considered to make a continuedsteady decline in the number of headaches by the author. But this conclusion isstill lack of evidence. Suppose the salicylates is useful for headache, but itsurely can only be added in several certain kinds of food, how large of thepopulation can take the enough amount of those kind of food which addedsalicylates is still hang in doubt. And also, we don't know any specific dataabout what the headache rate is, if the rate has already been quite low, thereis  no change that the rate will continue a steady decline.

In sum, from all the reasons mentioned above, the author's point of view is obviouslylack of persuasion. To make his opinion more accessible, the author has to givemore convincing evidence to conform the causal relationship between salicylatesand headache rate. （要根据正文三段的内容来提最后的建议，比如彻底研究此物质的化学作用，证明的确是商业上的使用的此物质的作用，作为食品添加剂的作用需要更多调查研究）Only in this way, can we be able to accept his idea more convinced,and the study summary be more scientific.

我觉得你的若干问题论证得并不充分，在压缩时间的同时应注意内容的充实

zhongliangokUID: 2659901

The history is like afilter, （which） filters the old things and remains the new.Reflecting the time's characters obviously, the buildings in old time are stillperfectly saved while countless of other ancient traces have been washed awayby the flood of time. These buildings are like the books of history, tellingancient stories silently. We can say that our human history is to learn thepast and develop it. So it is important to know about our history. The oldbuilding is one of the few things to remain the history, so its importancespeaks for itself. But since weall living in a limited place（句子无动词）, there comes the problem undoubted that whenthe old buildings go against modern development, what we will do. In myopinion, it depends.（背景+立场，这种开头我们老师（修锐）不是很推荐, 据说比较容易雷同）

Firstly, the development is the principle which comesfirst. We do things, radically, to develop the society, but keep the old thingsand make no progress. On this level, we have to remove the old buildings whichcumber the development of history, and make room for the new things. Only inthis way, will we be able to ensure that our society is moving forward, but（not）wondering (wandering) around. Just as the Darwin's Evolution Theorymentioned, all the useless things will be replaced by more suitable things, so as to (so are )the buildings(For example:
They work hard, so do you.), if the old buildings has become useless toour life, their fates can speak themselves clearly.

By saying that the development is the most importantthing, I don't mean that all the old buildings should be removed and make placefor new buildings. As I mentioned above, it belongs(depends). Not all the newbuildings can contribute to the society's development greater than oldbuildings. For example, China is a country which has a history of 5000 years, (断句)itsmost famous ancient building is the Great Wall, which was built 2000 years agoto defend the attack of Huns in the north. Now the Great Wall has lost itsfunction, but it still has its value, it attracts millions of visitors everyyear, and has become a symbol of China. The Great Wall tells all theyouth about the history and educates generation after generation about thehistory. Some other old buildings such as the Pyramid in Egypt, alsobenefit the local government a lot and let the world know about the country andits culture. So in the long term, not all the old buildings bring less benefitsthan the new ones, the designers and builders must take a long view to makeproper decisions.

Sometimes we can't see the problem only consideringabout benefits. There are some other values that some of us can't understand.For example, some buildings are highly evaluated for its beauty value orreligion value. Although they are not concerned with most of us, we still needto keep and protect them, because it shows the respect to the artists and art,or to their religion.

To sum up, I think before making decisions aboutwhether to remove the old buildings to make room for modern architectures ornot, we have to measure the advantages and disadvantages carefully, not only inshort term, but on a long view more importantly. It matters about history,something once lost will never got (get)back.
个人感觉文章的结构还行。语言上注意断句（一句话一般只有一个动词除了从句的），尽量模仿standard English！加油！