进军美利坚第一次作文120practice 2 by 泡面

泡面UID: 2513568

The text states that there are three evidencs to suspect that Marco Polo had ever travelled to China. However, the professor argues that these reasons lend little credible evidence and they are tend to be unconvincing enough to assert that Marco Polo had never gone to China.
On the first floor, the text cites that Marco Polo had never mentioned any place names in his book. Meanwhile, the names of the directions and locations are more likely to take from the contemporary chronicler Marco Polo. However, the professor claims that as Persian is more professional in recording this names. In order to keep theaccuracy, Marco Polo may lend some names of his. But it cannot disprove that he had not traveled to China.
On the second floor, the text insists that Marco Polo had omitted the important reference of tea or teahouses in China. The professor argues that at that era, tea was merely prevailing in the Southern part of China, while in the North of China, people did not show so many interests on tea. Since Marco Polo was living in the North part, it is normal to omit the information of tea.
At last, the text says that the docment from Chinese and Mogols had never mentioned that Marco Polo has served at the court or appointed to the post of governor of Yang Zhou. Adimitted that there are no written documents to record the name of Marco Polo. Whereas, the professor argues that the documents probably record the name of Marco Polo in a different way or recorded as other names which cannot be recognized by later generation.
To sum up, the professor disappove the there reasons of the text respectively that it cannot deny that Marco Polo had never gone to China. Her statement lead the text open to doubt.

第一次作业，还没什么感觉，大家狠拍~~~谢谢~~
第一个理由好像听的不大对……

goback211UID: 2419259

The text states that there are three evidencs to suspect that Marco Polo had ever travelled to China. However, the professor argues that these reasons lend little credible evidence and they are tend（tend是动词，前面能直接跟are么？） to be unconvincing enough to assert that Marco Polo had never gone to China.

On the first floor, the text cites that Marco Polo had never mentioned any place names in his book. Meanwhile, the names of the directions and locations are more likely to take from the contemporary chronicler Marco Polo. However, the professor claims that as Persian is more professional in recording this names. In order to keep theaccuracy, Marco Polo may lend some names of his. But it cannot disprove that he had not traveled to China.（第一段我也没听清...）

On the second floor, the text insists that Marco Polo had omitted the important reference of tea or teahouses in China. The professor argues that at that era, tea was merely prevailing in the Southern part of China, while in the North of China, people did not show so many interests on tea. Since Marco Polo was living in the North part, it is normal to omit the information of tea.

At last, the text(换个词吧，什么passage, reading, author，总一个不好) says that the docment from Chinese and Mogols had never mentioned that Marco Polo has served at the court or appointed to the post of governor of Yang Zhou. Adimitted that there are no written documents to record the name of Marco Polo（没主语？还是其他句式？）. Whereas, the professor（lecture, speaker等等） argues that the documents probably record the name of Marco Polo in a different way or recorded as other names which cannot be recognized by later generation.（有认不出来这个信息么，没听到，还有最好把丢失这个信息写上）

To sum up, the professor disappoves the there（three） reasons of the text respectively that(用so或therefore等链接吧，这样有歧义) it cannot deny that Marco Polo had never gone（用been比较好） to China. Her statement leads the text open to doubt.