查看完整版本: 5月8日发放作文题8

回复 3# 的帖子

1. 开头比较吸引人，我为啥老是写不出这种attractive的开头呢，反思啊
2. which including whether the university students should be required to take basic science classes even they are not part of the field of the study because they are useful是不是吧because提到前面就是which including whether the university students should be required to take basic science classes because they are useful even they are not part of the field of the study 更通顺一些，个人陋见
3. but not for the reason that he/she is not smart enough, which is proved by all the current remarkable workers.后面这半句看不太懂哦
4. 第四段which including helping them doing better ，应该是include
5. The problem,nonetheless,still has 是不是想表示the problem still exist呢
6. 最后一句有点别扭，但具体哪里说不太清，可能是两个从句有点修饰不清

个人意见，仅供参考，互相学习，互相探讨:loveliness:

谢谢楼上的朋友的修改
看来这个制度快维持不下去了,没人发文章,而且版主也不改了..............

今天不是该有新作文题目了么？

回复 21# 的帖子

你提的这点很好
which including whether the university students should be required to take basic science classes even they are not part of the field of the study because they are useful是不是吧because提到前面就是which including whether the university students should be required to take basic science classes because they are useful even they are not part of the field of the study 更通顺一些，
这是句子内部的为微调。

六月份考试，很急啊！请大家指导下哈！

[font=Times New Roman]A large number of universities these days tend to require students to take basic science classes even they are not part of the field of the study. They are forever talking how important it is for students to widen their knowledge and how much benefit students can receive form such a policy in a long run. However, they seem fail to take into account what college students really need to learn is what they take interest in or something that has practical functions in the future. As far as I am concerned, I strongly oppose the statement all students should be required to take basic science courses.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]As widely accepted, little can basic scientific knowledge contribute to our daily life. Consequently, it makes no sense for students, especially art students, to spend time and energy learning some complex and complicated scientific theories. It must be noticed that the majority of art students will even never have a chance to apply any chemical, mathematics and physical theories they have learned in high school, let alone those more difficult theories taught in universities. In fact, without knowing Newton's the law of gravity, people can also pick up or lay down objects freely. And not understanding the components of certain substances do not prevent a excellent cook form making delicious foods. [/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]In addition, it will place a heave burden on students who are not major in science to take extra science classes. It is undeniable that college students have already been exhausted by the compulsory subjects associated with their majors and thus have little free time. In the business school of my university, seldom can students finish the assignments given by their professors before 12 at night. How can they afford to spare precious time learning some unrelated science subjects? [/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Moreover, few students who are not part of science field take interest in science subjects. The least thing they want to do is to study difficult scientific theories. As an old proverb says, interest is the best teacher. Students could not do well in what they virtually hate to learn. The latest survey made by an educational institution showed that more they 80% of art students did poor in compulsory science subjects, which meant students could benefit from those classes.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Form the above analyses, we can safely come to the conclusion that universities should not all require students to take science classes because those courses not only have no practical use but also waste student's time. Any university who is blind to the point will certainly pay a heavy price.[/font]

回复 3# 的帖子

你的首段用到哲学家的观点很好，
但是作为这道题的论点应该是是不言而喻的，即你的立场应该赞成
students should take a variety of fields of studies.
这样你的论据和理由就比较好写，
所以首先应该正确选择自己的立场，你再看看，这是我的观点。

Everything or nothing, a traditional topic in philosophy, is also controversial in many other fields because as some scholars believe,when you have everything,you have nothing. Similar situation happens in study area,which including whether the university students should be required to take basic science classes even they are not part of the field of the study because they are useful.Being a student,myself,I always consider such study should not be concluded in students' works.

用了40分钟 已经创记录了

[size=3]有明显错误 但是我不想把修改时间COUNT进去 麻烦大家在结构和语言方面提点意见 十分感谢!!  [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]After stepping into college, students are not asked to take basic science classes as compulsory ones, especially for those students who major in other unrelated fields such as art, economy, law and finance etc. Some people argue it is reasonable to do so because in this way, students can devote themselves into the deep research and exploration of their own subjects, thus their professional specialty and diversity can benefit our society as a whole. However, as far as I am concerned, university students should be required to take basic science classes even if they are not in the scientific field.[/size]
[size=3]  For one thing, science is about the rule of nature and how objects behave according to their individual qualities, which not only acts as the impetus of social improvement, but also extremely useful in people’s daily life. Science is everywhere and it is the adoption of science that brings convenience to people. For example, if one has taken the electricity course in his college days, he would distinguish between conductors, semi-conductors and insulars. Possibility is slim that he would commit a mistake and be hurt by electricity. But for those who haven’t been educated this basic rule of electricity, no one can predict what will happen. Studying basic scientific rules and laws is for the students’ own good, so there is no reason that university education would give it up.[/size]
[size=3]  Secondly, by learning science, unconsciously yet undoubtedly, students are influenced by the scientific method and logic so that their analysis abilities are promoted as well as their thinking pattern. They can figure out the solution of the problems in their own professions more easily and effectively. For example, there is a fundamental rule of balance saturated in the composition of chemical solution and the first law of thermology. As to students whose major is economy or sociology, whenever they resolve a pratical problem, it is better for them to make an analogy and take the factor of balance into account. As one can see, learning basic science not only enrich one’s scientific knowledge, but also give a hand to his own business.[/size]
[size=3]  It is necessary and wise to continue scientific education in universities. On one side, it spreads scientific knowledge among citizens; on the other, it contributes to the professional diversity rather than form a block.[/size]

回复 26# 的帖子

谢谢版主的批改,那一篇是考试后第一篇,想写出点花样来~呵呵,其实我自己的观点不是这样的

回复 28# 的帖子

恩，好的，考试后还继续留下来写作值得表扬~:D

回复 29# 的帖子

不敢接受夸奖啊，成绩出来了，惭愧、无语。。。。。。。。。都不好意思再在这里混了.........
[url=http://www.xiaomaguohe.net/bbs/thread-14705-1-1.html]http://www.xiaomaguohe.net/bbs/thread-14705-1-1.html[/url]

[[i] 本帖最后由 hys17 于 2008-5-20 19:15 编辑 [/i]]

回复 30# 的帖子

已回上贴
踏实学习，还是希望你继续努力！:D

没人理我都。。。:'(

[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]觉得这个题目好难，憋了好久又写了很久，好痛苦。。。到底怎么才能提高速度？[/font][/size]

[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]In spite of some impacts, which are so minute that could not influence all human being, increasing the price of resources will not induce the wealthy to cherish energy, which means elevating the price is the only way for the poor to grant resource conservation.[/font][/size]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]Considering the most influential aspect for raising the price of energy is to force a small part of people, especially the poor, who are not able to afford the high cost of gasoline and electricity to reduce or give up consuming the resources. On the other hand, how expensive should the energy is could oblige people to regard it as treasure? As crucial as the basic necessarily substance, such as gasoline and electricity, is for people to live, it is unpractical to increase the price of energy too high to afford.[/font][/size]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]Even if the cost of energy is so expensive that the poor have to suffer from the shortage of resources, with low possibility that it could constrain the wealthy as well as the poor. The wealthy, who possess a large amount of fortune, will not regard high cost as an obstacle for them to enjoy using the energy. Hence, high price strategy will not affect the wealthy to decrease the abuse of energy.[/font][/size]
[font=Times New Roman][/font]
[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]So far as I know, educating human being to concentrate on the earth environment could arouse their consciousness of treasuring energy, which of course will encourage people to grant resources conversation. Another effective method is to announce the emergency and advocacy of energy conversation to cause people to cherish resources.[/font][/size]

[size=10.5pt][font=Times New Roman]Elevating the price of energy is a method to encourage the resources conversations, in terms of the poor, not in terms of the wealthy. Since there are many other effective means to advance people to be thrifty with the limited energy, I can not take part with the viewpoint that increasing the price of gasoline and electricity is the only way to achieve conversation.[/font][/size]

发错地方了。。。
换地方！！！