Topic:<br />
It is more important for buildings to serve particular purposes than to look good. Do you agree or disagree with this view?<br />
<br />
<br />
Answer:<br />
<br />
Buildings are the backbones of a city. Whether they are townhouses or skyscrapers, they are expected to have a nice outlook and can fit their function well. However, there are curcumstances where these 2 aspects conflict. And in my opinion, the fancy designing should step back for the functionality.<br />
<br />
The sole reason that people would decide to start a new building, any building, is to let it serve certain purpose. It is unlikely that any investigator would put money on such grand project just to make it a good looking landmark. Also, the outlook of the building will fade as the time flows, but the building will possibly be in need for much longer time. Imagine how the inhabitants of an old building would think at that time, I think they'll probably blame the designer, for they still have to suffer from the inconvenience of the building. <br />
<br />
Some people would argue that being nice is also a purpose that every building should serve, and I agree with them. Admittedly, gorgeous buildings, especially when they gather around, would make a city very nice place to live. Nevertheless, it is a requirement with lower priority, the functionality of a facility still remains the number 1 task. People can stand living in a house without any decorations for years, but few would even try to stay overnight in a garden. And if certain building has to be made in a bad style, it can at least be built at some other place, thus has a decent distance from town center, rather than sacrificing the purpose of the building.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, the functionality of a build should always considered before its outlook. Of course it would be nice for a building to have both at the same time. However when the time has come and we have to choose between them, ensuring the building can serve its users well is most important.<br />
<br />
<br />
写的时候的感觉是，词语变化不够，大词用不上，不过我估计短时间内也很难提高了……<br />
然后第三段写到一半的时候数了一下词，才170多，慌了，结果就拼命编造，一下就写多了……318<br />
另外circumstance那个词我知道拼写错了……谢谢MS Word……<br />
以上……希望各位指正……<br />
<br />
[]
作者: 矛盾中发展 时间: 2010-12-2 19:54
友情帮顶一下（因为我写作比较弱 ），然后share一下我刚刚从写作老师那里学到的东西。
楼主第一段不够开门见山，有中文思维习惯——就是先铺垫，再提出问题。老师教导俺，3句话：1、现状；2、why；3、你的观点。当然，也不是铁定的三句话，就是意思上这样三块。还有就是话说少不说多，能够浓缩就浓缩。比如：
Buildings are the backbones of a city. Whether they are townhouses or skyscrapers, they are expected to have a nice outlook and can fit their function well. However, there are curcumstances where these 2 aspects conflict. And in my opinion, the fancy designing should step back for the functionality.
我在楼主的基础上浓缩，就可以变成：
As the backbones of a city, buildings, be them townhouses or skyscrapers, are expected to ...
以上仅仅是一个例子，我是按照自己习惯来的，楼主根据自己的习惯重组压缩即可。
我提点建议。
1。议论文里除了较大的数目，最好用英文而不是数字来写,这样更formal。
2。作文长一点也是可以加分的，但需要有内容，而不是凑字。
3。building 用得太多了，可以和architecture混合着用，但要注意building基本上指一个建筑，architecture泛指某一类建筑，不可数，词性较大很formal
4。the outlook of the building ，描写建筑物外观一个很好的词是exterior最贴切了。
5。It is unlikely that any investigator would put money on such grand project just to make it a good looking landmark.
put money on 可以换成invest in; allocate money to; dedicate money to; be a patron of 更高级的表达
make it a good looking landmark. 是不是stand a brilliant landmark 更雄伟一些。