本帖最后由 oifhyvsps 于 2016-7-6 16:30 编辑 |
虽然这次也没有太大起色，但是我感觉写的时候比之前有底子一些啦，知道要想清楚 题目-论点-例子 之间的逻辑关系再开始写。
According to the reading passage, much fossils of agnostids were found in many areas all over the world and some theories have been proposed to suggest how agnostids may have lived. However, the professor in the lecture refutes those theories by pointing out that each of them has serious weakness.
First, the reading passage suggests that agnostids may be free-swimming predators while the professor in the listening part claims that agnostids don't have the physical ability to be considered as free-swimming predators. Since most of free-swimming predators which swam in open oceans are equipped with large and well-developed eyes, indicating that vision is an important factor for predators to catch preys. However, agnostids which are regarded as blind have tiny and poorer eyes. Moreover, there is no evidence or record can indicate that agnostids have other organs enable them to be free-swimming predators.
Second, the professor in the lecture directly refutes the theory that agnostids may be seafloor dwellers by citing a strong argument. Typically, seafloor dwellers cannot move fast across the seafloor, they just slowly move around their habitats. What's more, they always stay in the small areas that they originated. In fact, those agnostids can spread across the seafloor and they have been able to move from one area to another for long distances, indicating that they couldn't be seafloor dwellers.
Third, though the reading passage holds the viewpoint that agnostids could be parasites, the professor points out this theory's weakness directly. We all know that parasites must live on larger organisms, getting nutrients from them. As a result, the population of parasites cannot be large, otherwise, those organisms will die eventually. Conversely, agnostids always grew in a very large population, thus its great size of population shows that they couldn't be parasites.
独立写作题目：Imagine that you are in a classroom or ameeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In youropinion, which of the following is the best to do?
-Interrupt and correct the mistake rightaway
-Wait until the class or meeting is overand the people are gone, and then talk to the teacher or meeting leader
As the rapid development of all-rounded areas, people nowadays are less likely to be adept to socialization and communication than those in the old times, since we can choose to avoid building connections with others in most of situations. It leads to the phenomenon that more and more people are having a lack of interacting effectively and appropriately with others. Given in the situation in a classroom or a meeting, I would definitely choose to interrupt and correct the mistake right away, for it not only can help us learn another respect of thinking from others and offer us a chance to stand out, but it also proves useful when making friends.
First of all, interrupting and correcting the mistake right away can help the process of study or discussion continue in a better way, since nobody will be misled by the wrong idea and everything can go on in a distinctive way. When having a class, teachers always offer students a general information of materials. Also, common sense informed me that it is kind of impossible for people to convey the context without any personal stand. Sometimes teachers can imply some subjective ideas which can be absolutely wrong when delivering information to students, so it is an absolute necessity to point out the incorrect viewpoints and lead the direction of discussion to a better one.
Meanwhile, professors or group leaders are always delighted when someone proposes ideas which are directly opposed to theirs, because it can give everyone present another respect of thinking, thus always spelling the heated discussions during classes. And it is noticeable that having discussions when taking courses is a fascinating method for students to learn from others with distinctive opinions, especially students with different personalities and majors. Moreover, learning from others during discussions has no restrictions of nationality and ethnicity, thus knowledge in it can help people communicate better with friends from every corner of the world.
Another crucial perspective we cannot overlook is people who interrupt the professors and group leaders and speak of themselves can always leave deep impressions on others at presence. Obviously, this kind of behavior can let those people stand out from others, since they can be memorized as those who are willing to express their distinctive opinions, indicating they are more likely to be regarded as outgoing people. We all know that this kind of people are always popular among students.
Being conducive for us to learn another respect of thinking, offering us the chance to stand out and letting us be proficient when making new friends - these three roles of interrupting and correcting the mistake right away render it dispensable for us.