为了第五次雅思,每天一篇作文求批改

温柔的心酸 · 发表于 2011-3-7 06:32:48

5分和7分差距很大了吧？我想要看出6.5分和7分的差别来

eihks623 · 发表于 2011-3-7 18:06:25

Wring 4[2011.3.2]
Some people think that strong tradition can civilize a country and the government should subsidize musicians, artists, actors and drama companies. Do you agree or disagree with the opinion? What should government do?

With the acceleration of industrialization, an increasing number of new items are created. But meanwhile, it has been a highly contentious issue that whether government should sponsor the traditional items with an aim to preserve them. In my opinion, government should protect those still have considerable values in the future, and give up those are worth nothing.

As has been generally acknowledged that the merits of strong tradition are apparent. To begin with, great tradition lays a solid foundation for the development of human civilization. Most of innovations of high technology were made based on the former inventions. For instance, if there were no telephone to be invented, we will be still unable to surf on the internet. Moreover, preserved tradition can help modern people to learn about the conventional culture. It is the common feature of humanity that everyone has a curious heart about everything they meet. Especially, people who live in modern society curiously want to know what happened at the past, and what kind of music their ancestors listened to.

By contrast, the opponents also can list amounts of unfavorable aspects of preserving tradition. First, strong baneful tradition can curb the development of new things. Take China as an example, feudalism of Qing dynasty is considerably stronger than any other countries’ in any time. It seriously hinders the development of capitalism. Therefore, the progression of industrialization in China is obviously later than other countries’. Secondly, the expense of protecting the extinct tradition is so high, while the effects are unacceptable. Especially for the developing countries, they should invest in the construction of infrastructure instead of useless traditional things.

In my opinion, on the one hand, government should distinguish valuable traditions from worthless ones. On the other hand, the tradition which does not suit the modern society should be leaded to reform in order to be accepted by the new situation. If the endangered tradition is still unable to attain new innovations, it means it has arrived at its destination.

一毫克中南海 · 发表于 2011-3-8 02:28:33

Some people think that strong tradition can civilize a country and the government should subsidize musicians, artists, actors and drama companies. Do you agree or disagree with the opinion? What should government do?

With the acceleration of industrialization, an increasing number of new items are created. But meanwhile, it has been a highly contentious issue that whether government should sponsor the traditional items with an aim to preserve them. In my opinion, government should protect those still have considerable values in the future, and give up those are worth nothing.

【As has been generally acknowledged that，->As having been generally acknowledged,】 the merits of strong tradition are apparent. To begin with, great tradition lays a solid foundation for the development of human civilization. Most of innovations of high technology were made based on the former inventions. For instance, if there were no telephone to be invented, we will【->would】 be still unable to surf on the internet. Moreover, preserved tradition can help modern people to learn about the conventional culture. It is the common feature of humanity that everyone has a curious heart about everything they meet. Especially【->To be more specific/Specifically/For example】, people who live in modern society curiously want to know what happened at 【->in】the past, and what kind of music their ancestors listened to.

By contrast, the opponents also can list amounts of unfavorable aspects of preserving tradition. First, strong baneful tradition can curb the development of new things. Take China as an example, feudalism of Qing dynasty is considerably stronger than any other countries’ in any time. It seriously hinders【->过去时】 the development of capitalism. Therefore, the progression of industrialization in China is【->过去时】 obviously later【slower?】 than other countries’. Secondly, the expense of protecting the extinct tradition is so【->very】 high, while the effects are unacceptable【这句话Chinglish比较明显】. Especially for 【the，感觉可以去掉】 developing countries, they should invest in the construction of infrastructure instead of [the costly preservation of] useless traditional things.

In my opinion【重复出现，缺乏同义转换】, on the one hand, government should distinguish valuable traditions from worthless ones. On the other hand, the tradition which does not suit the modern society should be leaded to reform in order to be accepted 【by the new situation，Chinglish】. 【If the endangered tradition is still unable to attain new innovations, it means it has arrived at its destination.，有跑题嫌疑】

回头你不在 · 发表于 2011-3-8 05:45:25

修改的不好的地方，恳请高手指出，共同进步

roototync · 发表于 2011-3-8 16:00:10

不过，如果lz能在考场上写出和上面这篇差不多的文章，你的作文分数绝对不止5.5分的吧？
拭目以待

水晶小纽扣 · 发表于 2011-3-8 20:39:02

我这里补充一些：
1.
题目里出现了两个问题
Do you agree or disagree with the opinion? What should government do?

但是楼主的文章似乎只着重回答了第二个问题，而没有明确回答第一个问题。

2. 楼主的文章里基本语法错还是不少的，需要注意了。ricking已经基本指出来了，我这里就不罗嗦了。

eihks623 · 发表于 2011-3-9 04:54:02

现在练习的时候写的比较慢,前思后想的.后面可能要考虑提高写作速度了.

eihks623 · 发表于 2011-3-9 12:15:44

这第一个问题是不是在第一段里回答一下就可以,我这里是折中的方式,像这种回答应该怎么说呢.
In my opinion, the two opinions can be reconciled, and government should protect those still have considerable values in the future, and give up those are worth nothing.
这样可以吗?

he44o7pqq · 发表于 2011-3-9 15:42:17

我感觉大概是这个写法吧：
In my opinion, blablabla（针对第一个问题，你要对‘Some people think that’的观点进行表态）.Therefore,government should protect those still have considerable values in the future, and give up those are worth nothing.

这样能更好地回应题目。

eihks623 · 发表于 2011-3-9 17:01:11

Writing 5[2011.3.3]
In today’s world, it is private companies rather than government who pay for and carry out most on scientific research. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantage?

In modern society, the innovation of new technology should be attributed to an increasing number of investments in scientific research. But meanwhile, it is a highly contentious issue that whether government should shoulder more responsibilities on sponsoring and running these researches. I hold the viewpoint that humanity would benefit from the scientific researches operated by private companies.

It is generally believed that business run by companies can benefit in amounts of favorable aspects. To begin with, it is evident that the working efficiency of employees in companies is much higher than the one’s in government. Most of us had the same experience that we would spend more time on matters related to government. Moreover, the business operated by company is able to be lead into a virtuous circulation through the commercial operation. The only aim of companies is to earn more money; therefore, they invest in researches with an aim to produce new products to occupy the market. And those new products are able to contribute to more profits. Once the companies attain considerable income, they would like to allocate money to another product.

By contrast, the opponents may argue that companies would bring a tremendous number of undesirable perspectives. First, compared with government, the reliability of company is evidently lower than government. The result released by companies sometimes cannot be believed by citizens; therefore, to a certain extent it reduces the effects of the researches. Secondly, the lack of supervision and fierce competitions result in harmful events. The aim of the corporation is to pursue interests; as a result, some of the irresponsible companies will use substandard products to replace the perfect one.

In conclusion, though there are some baneful respects on companies, I still think the merits of researches funded by companies outnumber the demerits.

[]

[雅思杂谈] 为了第五次雅思,每天一篇作文求批改

个人中心