|
|
66#
楼主 |
发表于 2010-6-7 14:17:20
|
只看该作者
来自： INNA
这可是花了32大洋改的作文，这种批改值吗？
IELTS TASK 2
When a country develops its technology, the traditional skills and ways of life die out. It is pointless to try and keep them alive. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
With the fast development of modern technology, the concerns over the fading-away of the traditional skills and life style have risen. More and more people argue that we should try[url=] [/url][1] to protect and keep them alive. However leaving the decision to history may be a better choice.
It’s true that conventional skills and old life style have lasted for centuries. To some extent, they have become part of our culture and hard to abandon. Some of them, for example traveling by horse wagon, compared with modern techniques, such as car, are more environment-friendly. In addition, some of the unique skills, like those in arts, are not replaceable by machines.
Despite of all the mentioned advantages, we cannot deny their negative effects. Traditional skills and ways of life are relatively inefficient. They’re time consuming and not cost –effective. That’s the key reason why they cannot beat the new technology[2] . History tells us that it is a natural process for [url=]new[/url][3] technology to [url=]replace[/url][4] the older technology[5] . Iron tools replaced stone, architecture replaced caves with houses. With paper, we don’t need to write on leaves anymore and the telephone facilitates a live conversation [6] thousands miles away. The evolution of technology is unavoidable and in this civilization only strongest survives.
To conclude, I believe that history will make the right choice. Only those that stand the test of time can escape the fate of dying out.
Rating: 6
Suggestions: I like your arguments. There are some problems with vocabulary, unnecessary phrases and redundancy as indicated in the comments. There are only a couple of sentences that need to be re-ordered to make them easier to read.
[1]
RBW Jun 2, '10, 9:18 PM
[2]
Redundant - saying “beat” and “in the competition”.
[3]
By using “newer” you can contrast it with “older”.
[4]
You could say “replaces” or “supplants”
[5]
I moved this phrase to the front because it saves the reader from waiting to the end of the
[6]
Talk or conversation implies “with a person” so it is redundant to include the obvious… we hold conversations with persons.
原文如下：
With the fast development of modern technology, the concerns over the fading-away of the traditional skills and life style have risen. More and more people argue that we should try the best to protect and keep them alive. However leaving the decision to the history may be a better choice.
It’s true that those conventional skills and old life style have been lasting for centuries. To some extent, they have become part of our culture and hard to abandon. Some of them, for example travelling by horse wagon, compared with the modern techniques, such as car, are more environment-friendly. In addition, some of the unique skills, like those in arts, are not replaceable by machine.
Despite of all the mentioned advantages, we cannot deny their negative effects. Traditional skills and way of life are usually slow. They’re time consuming and not cost –effective. That’s the key reason why they cannot beat the new technology in the competition. The history tells us that advanced technology drives away the elementary one is a natural process. Iron tools replaced the stone one; architecture made people move from the cave to house; with paper, we don’t need to write on leaves anymore; telephone facilitate the live talk with a person thousands miles away. The replacement is a fate and not avoidable. In another word, this is the civilization where only stronger survives.
To conclude the debate, I believe that history will make the right choice. Only those that stand the test of time can escape the fate of dying out.
[]
|
|
发表于 2010-6-7 05:55:03
