作文累积贴，求批

psikd7r0l5

Shopping is becoming a way of entertainment. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?





It is believed that people is willing to buy things they like as they can afford. Hence, some of customers are shopping just for entertaining. The discussion of whether it is a positive development is of great concern for many people. From my point of view, it is always good if people have extra money for shopping which can brings them happiness instead of saving it in the bank.



Although many people subscribe to the belief that buys a host of things just for entertaining, is a big waste. This is in fact a common misconception that we need to clear up. Firstly, I would like to stress the definition of “waste”. It is undeniable that even we own many things but they are both valuable and useful, is not a kind of waste. It would be if we own them instead of never use. Secondly, we cannot judge how owner deal with the stuff they brought. It maybe donated to charity or something else. Therefore, we cannot say that buy a bunch of things back would be a waste.



Let me just give you a different perspective. It is universally acknowledged that the productivity would be increased by consuming behavior. It is act like a cycle – people buy things they need and more products would be produced. It would be horrible if just a few customers come to consume, obviously, this situation would lead to low productivity and some people would be unemployed. According to recent studies, high consumption rate can improve economics of the nation. For example, reported by BBC, the consumer index had increased 30 per cent in China last year and the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) also went up to 13% which amongst the world 's highest .



Given the above argument, it is reasonable to conclude that we do not have any evidence to certify shopping overweighed is a negative development. But in fact, it has many advantages. As a result, I am convinced that shopping becoming a way of entertainment is a positive development.



重写。。。。立志6分。。。。





Recent year, people spend increasingly money on shopping. Some expenses are used to buy necessities, while in others are just for entertaining. Thus there is a question concerned by individuals, which is whether whole society can be benefited from over-consumption? From my point of view, the answer is yes – that is to say, it is a positive development.



First of all, over-consumption waste money is the most important aspect that a host of consumers are believed. But in fact, this conception is not totally correct. Firstly, it is not wasting that consumers buy something valuable and useful, even though they buy a vast number of commodities back and never use. For instance, purchase antiques. Secondly, we cannot arbitrarily conclude as there are various ways that individuals taking care of their personal goods wisely. Donation is a case in point. Therefore, over-consumption is nothing directly related to wasting.



In addition, it is universally acknowledged that the productivity will have increased by consuming behavior. Obviously, factories would produce more commodities in order to satisfy people’s needs if they had sold out. Meanwhile, mass consumption would encourage economic development as well. On the other hand, workers would lose their jobs as nothing needs produce. It is worth mentioning that the consumer index increased 30 per cent in China last year and she maintained a very high growth rate in terms of GDP, which reported by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) two months ago.



To sum up, shopping for entertainment makes great contribute to society, such as, stimulate economic development, although it might be true that it would cause wasting. Therefore, I am strongly believed that increasingly entertaining consumption is a positive development.









Recent year, people spend increasingly money on shopping. Some expenses are used to buy necessities, while in others are just for entertaining. Thus there is a question concerned by individuals, which is whether whole society can be benefited from extra consumption. From my point of view, the answer is yes – that is to say, it is a positive development.



First of all, a host of consumers are believed that extra consumption waste money, and we should also notice that this issue is one of the most important aspects amongst all drawbacks. This is probably not true to some extent. Firstly, it is not wasting that consumers buy something valuable, even though they buy a vast number of commodities back and never use, because the investment can be recalled anytime. For instance, purchase antiques. Secondly, we cannot arbitrarily conclude since there are various ways that individuals taking care of their personal goods wisely. Donation is a case in point. Therefore, extra consumption is nothing directly related to wasting.



In addition, it is universally acknowledged that the productivity will have increased by consuming behavior. Obviously, factories would produce more commodities in order to satisfy people’s needs if they had sold out. Meanwhile, mass consumption would encourage economic development as well. It is worth mentioning that the consumer index increased 30 per cent in China last year, so she maintained a very high growth rate in terms of GDP, which reported by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) two months ago.



To sum up, shopping for entertainment makes great contribute to society, such as, stimulate economic development, even though it might be true that it would cause wasting. Consequently, I am strongly believed that increasingly entertaining consumption is a positive development.





[]

psikd7r0l5

Some people believe that in order to give opportunities to new generation companies should encourage high level employees who are older than 55 to retire. Do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and personal experience.



In present-day society, as the global recession continues, it becomes harder for the graduated students to find a suitable job. Some people claim that granting that elders retire earlier, the new generation would obtain more opportunities. To my mind, however, I do not wholly agree with it.

On the one hand, it is true that youngsters can take advantage of the circumstance that senior employees quit their job earlier. Obviously, the company will gain more headcount to hire younger employees. That is to say, junior candidates will access to more opportunities to get an offer and the competitions amongst them will be less intense. Simultaneously, as the high level colleagues’ leaving, the youngster who had hired by the company already will promote to senior level. As a result, the salary and individual welfare thus be increased. Hence, it is undeniable that the younger generation does take advantage of elder’s early retirement.

On the other hand, some serious problems occur when companies encourage high level employees to leave. Even though the company will have a chance to hire some new employees who do not need pay big salaries for, thereby reducing labor cost, but companies still lose abundant money on dismissal wage. Besides, the company has to face the risk of promoting junior staffs because they do not have rich relevant experiences and nobody knows whether they can do the same excellent job as their ex-colleagues or not. Notably, it is too late to find a qualified mentor for the new heads because the perfect teachers had left already.

Given the above argument, it is reasonable to conclude that advantages and disadvantages are coexisting when companies encourage senior employees to take early retirement. Consequently, I am convinced that the company should take into serious consideration before taking the action.

psikd7r0l5

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century. Some people think that preventing these wild animals from dying out is a waste of resource. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.


In recent years, the living area of humankind is expanding fast, since the global population growing rapidly. In relative terms, the territory of wildlife's activities has narrowed dramatically. In this case, some people try to save them because wildlife was being threatened. Although conventional wisdom has it that spend abundant money and resources on saving wild animals from dying is worthless, the reality of the situation is often far more complicated than that.

Firstly, wildlife protection is to protect precious natural resources and it is very important. In any event, we have to remain species diversity as every one of them is playing a key role in the food chain. Moreover, there are imitating interactions amongst different species and the dying out of a particular species will definitely influence on survival of others. What is obvious is that human finally could be the victim. Consequently, saving the rare wild animals has a great value.

Secondly, mankind has obligations to save wild animals, not only because we cut down forests, thereby expanding the areas and it lead to environmental destruction at the same time, which this kind of action seriously affect the sustainable living environment of wildlife, but also due to hunting them on purpose.

Last but not least, the present generation of people should think about the legacy, which will be inherited by descendants. In fact, the unspoiled environment, and the existence of wild animals is one of the most essential contributions to the future generations of people.

To sum up, owing to we take many factors into consideration, such as: the future of humanity, the importance of maintaining species diversity, and our duties, I am convinced that we ought to protect wild animals as much as possible.

[]


x

fmwpp

楼主，真心的，你与其哼哧哼哧的在这里写作文写的起劲，不如拿出整块的时间把语法作为一个雅思的专题，先攻克再说……

vuosa3r9t5

只看第一段
语法的错误有

instead of doing
employees prefer doing
thus这句和前句之间不构成因果关系
consider 后面的that删除
whether their companies could benefit from the trend单复数错了

第一段完全没有完成作为一个完整的essay所应该完成的任务
说实话，第一段毫无意义，可能会把改卷子的老外看崩溃……

psikd7r0l5

More and more employees work at home with modern technology. Some people claim that it benefits only workers, but not employers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?



In recent years, as high technology develops rapidly, people work at home instead of going to the office. As more employees prefer working in this way, employers, who paid to employees, consider finally that whether companies could benefit from it.

Although commonly believed that the home office is beneficial to employees only, this is actually not the case. As a matter of fact, not only employers but employees benefit from the way the home work.

It is obvious that individuals feel more comfortable and convenient when they work at home. Firstly, that surrounding from home was familiar by homeowners. Generally, people work in a good mood and feel easeful if they stay in a well-known environment. Secondly, time arrangement becomes more reasonable. If there are no tasks assigning to employees, they could do anything they want, such as play basketball in the backyard or do house works. On the other hand, they work at night for emergency arrangements. Last but not least, employees save their time on transportation. Of course we do not need extra time on driving to the office; we turn on the laptop and the work begins.

Meanwhile, as employees prefer flexible working which involve home working, the cooperation benefit from it as well. Were employees working from home, employers not only could save office expenses but also would extend the time of employee’s work relatively. As we all know, it costs a lot of money if people work in office because employers have to pay the different kind of bills in terms of electricity, rent and phone. Consequently, the company could save part of it if employees work at home. Similarly, while employees who come to the office by public transport begin to work, others who work at home have worked an hour already. Therefore, the way the home office makes employees to working extra hours.

Given the above argument, it is reasonable to conclude that working at home is both beneficial to employers and employees.

[]

nowop7198f

网友们太热心了，我的作文还找不到人帮忙看呢，写了篇放在英语交流区无人问津，放过来又怕版面不对，纠结啊，不然我也开个帖子？会不会弄坏风气啊

mignyay9u

同意楼上的看法，楼主的问题在于艰深的词汇和离谱的语法组合在一起，考官会认为你是硬套模板的。

hfeiom5908

In present-days society, people spend large amounts of money on shopping. Some expenses are used to buy necessities, while others are just for entertaining. Thus there is a question concerning by individuals: whether whole society benefited from entertainment expenditure? From my point of view, the answer is yes – that is to say, it is a positive development.
present-day society（没见过这种用法），很陌生
a large amount of +uncountable noun
money在前面，后面最好别用expenses这类复数形式。 some is used to……
thus, (请查语法书确定一下，我觉得thus后面要加逗号)
there is +doing的结构在这里很怪。为什么不用主动语态。如果要用冒号，我觉得应该是question: ……中间不要夹杂太多东西
whether (the) whole society benefits (为什么用过去式？)
entertainment expenditure娱乐支出（娱乐产业？？？你要讨论的是shopping中的过度消费，花钱找快感，第一段就摁偏题了）
that is to say前面标点错了。第一段没必要通过that is to say 来展开论述，而且，最好用that is 就行了。用这类没意义的词来凑字数是不行的，可能会招致反感。

舞动风生

我也推荐上面有人推荐的writing academic essay，很好的一本书，看看正宗老外怎么行文造句的，老外很注重逻辑的，如果文章在逻辑上说不通，那些头脑简单的家伙根本看不懂，看都看不懂，怎么可能会得高分。
然后找一本原版的好些的grammar的书，楼主的grammar错误是成片出现的，grammar水平提不上去，7分根本是妄想。我用的是longman的，这两本书加起来也有1000页了，楼主从基础抓起吧，基础牢靠了，就不会抓瞎了。