<strong>Criminals should not be sent to prison. They should be given education and training instead. To what extent you agree ?</strong><br />
<br />
Nowadays, many human rights activists argue that criminals should be given education and training instead of sending them to jail. Personally, I think there two aspects are not contradicted to each other. Prisoners can get good education in the prison, which constrain their freedom according to the law.<br />
<br />
Criminals should be locked prisons as a consequence of what they have done to the victims. They have violated others interests, hence they should be deprived of freedom. What a huge disaster if they are still walking outside of the jails. Firstly, victims and their family will be hurt again if they know the criminals are get rid of the punishment, and also the safe of witness cannot be guaranteed. No one can bear that the person who used to hurt him still live a peaceful life, just like nothing happened. Secondly, only sending criminals to prison can make a good effort to warn individuals who want to commit a crime later. The strict laws and regulations can keep the society safe and stable. Thirdly, the prisons provide an opportunity to criminals to rescure themselves through hard working. As we know, many criminals dislike working which contribute to their later crimes. Without the temptations from the outside world, prisoners can rebuild their characters and atone for their crimes.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, we should think more about the criminals' future life when they are free. If they have no ability to live in society, apparently they will do crimes again. According to a survey, because of poor adaptation to environment, approximately 46 percent of criminals are sent to jails for more than twice. The government should let the prisoners learn some useful practical skills and basic education in jail, which is a good way to lower the potential crimes rate.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, a person who commit a crime mush be sent to prison as a punishment. If not, this will be a real harm to human rights not only the victims but also the whole society. However, it is not contradict to teach criminals some basic knowledges and skills for survive purpose and I think the city will be more safe if more criminals remould themselves in prisons.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
<strong>Many old buildings are protected because they are part of a nation's history. However, some people think they should be destroyed to make way for new ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Nowadays, with the processing of urbanization, many old buildings are facing big problems. Some people think old buildings should be protected as a part of a country's history while others insist that they should be replaced by new ones. In my opinion, I am in favour of the former.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, the preservation of old buildings has significant meaning to citizens. Firstly, these buildings represent the nation's history and culture, which we can enrich our knowledge. Teachers can motivate the youngsters' interesting in history through background stories of old buildings. As we said, remember the past, it will guild you the future. Secondly, the structures of the old houses still have value to research by modern architect. For instance, the famous architect Brown.H.Raymond says 64 percent of this modern designs are refer to the predecessors's design, which were lived about 200 years ago. Additionally, the government can gain more money by developing historical relics. Many tourists willing to visit a place with historical houses, which can promote the cultural communication and interaction between tourists and local residents.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, not all the old buildings are worth preserving and government have not enough money to retain all of them. If a building has no conservation value and it is located on the future highway, under this circumstance this building must be destroyed. Moreover, many old buildings are made of materials such as wooden and paper, which are easy to catch fire. These buildings pose a potential threat to the safety of city. Therefore, it is a technical problem to decide which building should be saved.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, although some old buildings really should be destroyed because of the urbanization of the city. We still need to preserve most of historical relics as their irreplaceable position in history education and architect research.
作者: ncrw5891 时间: 2010-9-3 15:44
Nowadays, many human rights activists argue that criminals should be given education and training instead of sending them to jail.
instead of 前后语态，前面被动，后面主动。
作者: bainazangao 时间: 2010-9-3 22:26
5分。最多给 5.5
最大的问题： 文章结构缺陷。头重脚轻。观点不明确
其次： 还是结构，段落结构不平衡。
第三： 反复使用题目单词。要知道题目出现过的单词，再用是不得分的。
第四： 语法。 长句不少，可是用法不见得正确。 要知道，一个简单的完整正确句子要比一个错误的复杂长句强很多。因为正确的句子至少能得分而不会扣分。
建议：
1。把两篇文章首段重写。第一段要包括 问题介绍，个人总体观点，以下各段的讨论方向。最后一段也重写。 总结句要明确看出你是在总结。基本要素：总观点，分观点回顾。
Prisoners can get good education in the prison, which constrain their freedom according to the law。 观点模糊不清。考官在超级短的时间内审核一篇文章。他们可不会喜欢需要花时间才能领悟出观点来的文章。
2。一个段落不要出现多于一个观点。要不就写 2+1 格式。2个主观点。1个反观点。
3。重审你的每个句子是否结构完整，语法要素充分。比如：
Personally, I think there two aspects are not contradicted to each other.
哪怕是口语考试，句子结构不完整也是不得分的。这点跟电影里面或者平时实际对话的要求是不一样的。
[]
作者: suenpek2q 时间: 2010-9-3 22:56
看咪咪花了这么大力气求拍，我破例看第一段（因为我这水平平时确实不敢评论别人的文章）
I think there two aspects are not contradicted to each other.
最好改成 I do not think there two aspects are contradicted to each other.
Prisoners can get good education in the prison.感觉用被动语态好
作者: rc28hujpqi 时间: 2010-9-4 08:16
觉得应该改成：I think there are two aspects which are not contradicted to each other.