Issue235求拍
TOPIC: ISSUE235 - "Most people are taught that loyalty is a virtue. But loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or to any institution-is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force."Is loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or any institution-all too often a destructive rather than a positive force? Though the speaker claims so, I am inclined to disagree with the assertion that loyalty is too often destructive rather than a positive force. I support the view that loyalty is more positive force in more cases.
I concede that sometimes loyalty is a destructive to the progress of society and culture. A good case in this point is that, in 1740s, the scientists believed the Ptolemy Theory about the earth-centre. Copernicus opposed the theory and he led the Astronomy Revolution. However, many scientists still be convince of the old and wrong theory. Their loyalty to the Ptolemy obstructived the development of science. Another example is the scientists in Nazi Germany. They were requested to research the nuclear weapons, which may destory the life and culture in the earth. In due to their loyalty to the nation, the crazy plan threatened human beings and may change the results of the World War II. Hence, loyalty may lead to the disaster sometimes.
However, loyalty is more positive force in more cases. For one thing, the development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. For another, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress.
In the first place, the development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. Let us review the Japanese company. Loyalty is recommended in these companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toyota and Honda. Many excellent employees work in the same company for their life even they may earn more money in other company. Thanks to the company culture of loyalty, Japanese won economy miracle in 1960s and become the second economic strong country in the world nowadays. Another case is the Microsoft Company. Bill Gates is loyalty to the idea all his life that designing the softwares which help people find information easily, create information easily and communicate with othes easily. He started the Microsoft Company which changed our life because of the loyalty to his religion.
In second place, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress. For instance, Martin Luther King tried his best to accomplish the equality between the Native American and the African American. He led the civil rights movement due to loyalty to his life brief. The government complied with King and all African American approved the "Civil Rights Act" at last. Thanks to King's great thought and his loyalty to it, after two scores, Obama is elected to the American President. And he is the first African American to hold the White Office.
To sum up, from what has been discussed above, we may draw the conclusion that loyalty is more positive force than a destructive factor in more cases. The development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. In addition, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress. Though the issue is complex, taking into account all the dimensions of the issue discussed in the above analysis, might be the first step out of the dilemma that loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or any institution-is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force.
TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
In this analysis, the arguer claims that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To justify this conclusion, the arguer cites the study of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. In addition, the arguer provides the evidences that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Moreover, the arguer assume that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite is the similar with the world. However, as the following discussion shows, the argument is fraught with critical fallacies and unwarranted assumption.
In first place, the major problem in this argument is that the mere fact that the species and numbers were drastically reduced in the study can not ensure that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air. There may be other reasons that lead to the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Perhaps, human beings catch a lot of amphibians. Or perhaps the illness breaks out among the amphibians. It is more possible that trouts also kill most amphibian in other places. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that in the study the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air.
In the second place, from the evidence cited in this argument, we find no sign that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline, and have a good reason to doubt that the introduction of trout is the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Trouts are brought in the Yosemite Park in 1920, and they may result in the decline of amphibians from then on. The arguer fails to rule out this possible cause.
Last but not least, the arguer overlooks several factors which might undermine the argument. The arguer unfairly assumes that decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite is the similar with the world. The argument does not provide complete information concerning the relationship between the Yosemite Park and the world. Maybe in other places, the number of amphibians soar. The average number of the amphibians in the world may be more than before.
To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air. Furthermore, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Additionally, to solidify the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between the Yosemite Park and the world.
小津批改
TOPIC: ISSUE235 - "Most people are taught that loyalty is a virtue. But loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or to any institution-is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force."Is loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or any institution-all too often a destructive rather than a positive force? Though the speaker claims so, I am inclined to disagree with the assertion that loyalty is too often destructive rather than a positive force. I support the view that loyalty is more positive force in more cases.
I concede that sometimes loyalty is a destructive [color=red](force[/color][color=red]?)[/color]to the progress of society and culture. A good case in this point is that, in 1740s, the scientists believed the Ptolemy Theory about the earth-centre. Copernicus opposed the theory and he led the Astronomy Revolution. However, many scientists still be convince[color=red]d[/color] of the old and wrong theory. Their loyalty to the Ptolemy obstructived the development of science. Another example is the scientists in Nazi Germany. They were requested to research the nuclear weapons, which may destory the life and culture in the earth. In([color=red]in删掉）[/color] due to their loyalty to the nation, the crazy plan threatened human beings and may change the results of the World War II（[color=red]这一句有些含糊不清，你的意思是说如果科学家对国家忠诚，那么就会威胁全人类，二战的结果会改变吗？还是你想说他们对国家的不忠诚，才阻止了灾难的发生呢？如果是后者，我觉的应该说成due to their disloyalty to the government the crazy plan didn't achieve,or the results of World War II maght be changed[/color]）. Hence, loyalty may lead to the disaster sometimes.
However, loyalty is more positive force in more cases. For one thing, the development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. For another, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress.
In the first place, the development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. Let us review the Japanese company. Loyalty is recommended in these companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toyota and Honda. Many excellent employees work in the same company for their life even they may earn more money in other company. Thanks to the company culture of loyalty, Japanese won economy miracle in 1960s and become the second economic strong country in the world nowadays. Another case is the Microsoft Company. Bill Gates is loyalty to the idea all his life that designing the softwares which help people find information easily, create information easily and communicate with othe[color=red]r[/color]s easily. He started the Microsoft Company which changed our life because of the loyalty to his religion.([color=red]上升到对个人信仰的忠诚，很深刻）
[/color]
In[color=red] the[/color] second place, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress. For instance, Martin Luther King tried his best to accomplish the equality between the Native American and the African American. He led the civil rights movement due to loyalty to his life brief. The government complied with King and all African American approved the "Civil Rights Act" at last. Thanks to King's great thought and his loyalty to it, after two scores, Obama is elected to the American President. And he is the first African American to hold the White Office.([color=red]这一段主题写的很好，可是觉得举例和主题没有扣得很好，而且和第一个有些重，可以举出如果国家国家合作没有loyalty的话，很可能[/color]
[color=red]就没有了世界和平，科技合作没有忠诚，就没有进步[/color]）
To sum up, from what has been discussed above, we may draw the conclusion that loyalty is more positive force than a destructive factor in more cases. The development of economy and technology needs the loyalty. In addition, loyalty is a virtue which keeps the society peace and progress. Though the issue is complex, taking into account all the dimensions of the issue discussed in the above analysis, might be the first step out of the dilemma that loyalty-whether to one's friends, to one's school or place of employment, or any institution-is all too often a destructive rather than a positive force.[color=red]最后结尾点题很不错，这个句式挺复杂的，我肯定用不会的，厉害
[/color]
TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
In this analysis, the arguer claims that the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. To justify this conclusion, the arguer cites the study of amphibians in Yosemite National Park. In addition, the arguer provides the evidences that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Moreover, the arguer assume that the decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite is the similar with the world. However, as the following discussion shows, the argument is fraught with critical fallacies and unwarranted assumption[color=red].开头论述很清晰
[/color]In first place, the major problem in this argument is that the mere fact that the species and numbers were drastically reduced in the study can not ensure that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air. There may be other reasons that lead to the decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide. Perhaps, human beings catch a lot of amphibians. Or perhaps the illness breaks out among the amphibians. It is more possible that trouts also kill most amphibian in other places. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that in the study the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air.（[color=red]感觉第一个反驳点和第二个反驳点之间条理不是很清，之间有重复点，也许你现在是限时间写的吧？其实可以在第一个反驳点针对调查的准确性，说作者引证的研究没有考虑到很多因素，第二个反驳点在反驳trout对于amphibians的影响，不知你怎么看呢？）
[/color]
In the second place, from the evidence cited in this argument, we find no sign that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline, and have a good reason to doubt that the introduction of trout is the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Trouts are brought in the Yosemite Park in 1920, and they may result in the decline of amphibians from then on. The arguer fails to rule out this possible cause.
Last but not least, the arguer overlooks several factors which might undermine the argument. The arguer unfairly assumes that decline in the numbers of amphibians in Yosemite is the similar with the world. The argument does not provide complete information concerning the relationship between the Yosemite Park and the world. Maybe in other places, the number of amphibians soar. The average number of the amphibians in the world may be more than before. 这[color=red]一段很有层次条理
[/color]To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer must provide more evidence to prove that the decline in the numbers of amphibians indicates the global pollution of water and air. Furthermore, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the introduction of trout can not be the real reason for the Yosemite decline. Additionally, to solidify the argument, we would need more information about the relationship between the Yosemite Park and the world.
[b][color=darkgreen]我的总结你的作文的特点就是语言虽然简单，没有很多难句或者难词，但是论述的很深刻，行文流畅，我自己写的时候很多一时不知该怎么表达，写到后面就冒出了很多结构复杂的句子，那样不好，我很欣赏你这种类型的，句子简单，错误点少，但是：深刻！[/color][/b]
[b][color=darkgreen]很厉害很强大，好好加油！[/color][/b] 楼主思路没问题，但论证过程缺少理由，也就是为什么“loyalty is a destructive to the progress of society and culture”，是一个分析过程，而例子是来支持这个过程让他变得可信易理解的。比如我说“他是猪”，你肯定要问“为什么？”，我说“因为我看到他有一天吃了一斤苹果”，这样能说服你吗？我该说“因为他吃得特别多，而猪也吃的别多。有一天我就亲眼看到了他吃了一斤苹果，所以他就是猪。”这样是不是才有说服力。
页:
[1]