来源：沈阳新航道 浏览： 发布日期：2019-03-02 11:42
New technologies have changed the way children spend their free time.Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Children have plenty of leisure, and most of the time is spent on electronic devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. This is enormously different from the past, and this change is more advantageous than it is disadvantageous.
First, these electronic devices are better aid for learning. “纵向展开”的论证方式，即细化“中心句”：With the technology incorporating [incorporate] knowledge into games, [独立主格结构作原因/方式状语] children may be actually learning while they are playing. 一句述理的细化后，可以跟一个简单的例子进一步细化：For example, a role-play game in which a child player’s role is a police officer may enable the child to understand what a police officer does. This is an advantage because the child may have no opportunity to have a tour of a police station in the real life. Second, although children may be addicted to those technologies, the addiction may be in a good way. For children, who are prone to [be prone to] misbehave, it is better for them to be constantly occupied than to be free. “纵向展开”的论证方式，即细化手明白“为什么”：When a child is attracted by the games based on the new technologies, the child obviously has no chance to fool around / mess about [习语词汇“瞎闹”]. Parents should therefore thank the new technologies, which keep their children seated and quiet.
“让步后置”，即让步的段落在文章主体部分的最后：Admittedly, those new technologies cannot be perfect. They also cause problems, such as children’s obsession, sedentary habits, visual impairment. None of these problems can totally be inevitable. 注意：让步后置是，一定要转折驳斥：However, technologies have been developed to a stage at which they are so intelligent that they are able to intervene where necessary. For example, the automatic shutdown may be activated when children play too long.
[结尾段落不要长，就是三言两语笼统总结] At this point, it is fair to have faith in the new technologies, which have immensely changed the way children spend their free time. We see more benefits than drawbacks.
Some people say that organisations are more successful when managers and workers communicate well with each other. Other people say that there are more important factors that make organisations successful.Discuss both of the views and give your opinion.
Staff are mistake-prone, when their superiors do not give clear instructions. Likewise, the managerial job fails, when the staff do not report accurately. In short, a staff member or a manager cannot single-handedly make success happen unless they communicate well. I do not think that there are factors that may be more important than communication between the leadership and the workers.
The first reason is simple. Staff cannot need well-articulated directions, where they find desired procedures, to properly perform their jobs; they would otherwise do the jobs however they please and, as a result, fail to meet the intended goal. For example, a vague order is likely to result in various versions of execution, and none of them are satisfactory. The worst case is that the lack of clarity may be misinterpreted as the manager’s uncertainty of mind or nonchalance for the result. At this point, it is clear that the manager-to-staff communication is decisive in whether an institution operates successfully. Meanwhile, the staff -to-manager communication is also critical. Typically, when a problem occurs in the execution of an order, workers should notify the difficulty to the manager so that necessary adjustments may be made or more detailed guidance may be given.
Admittedly, a company’s success also depends on a number of other factors, such as whether the management has a vision and the ability to make good decisions and whether the workers have the skill set to deliver the result. However, the vision and the decision cannot bring the desired result unless they are effectively communicated and comprehended, and the skills cannot achieve anything unless they are well utilized as they are under appropriate guidelines.
It thus follows that every other factor is preceded by communication. In other words, none of other important factors matter more.
Some people prefer famous brands of clothing, cars and other items.
What are the reasons?
Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? / Do you think this is a positive or negative trend?
[直接改写题目，题目即是最好的“引入”] When some people shop, their choice of brands is limited to those famous names. [不要说原因具体是什么，只说有几个原因] Behind this preference [介词短语表方位（这里是抽象方位），后面倒装] may be multiple reasons, and this inclination [“倾向”] indicates a negative trend.
Of the many reasons, the primary one is that consumers think of famous brands as [不直接说质量和服务好，因为如果这样的话，后面就展不开了] safe choices. [接下来说safe的具体内容是质量和服务好] Products that have well-known brands are more likely to have durability [“耐用性”] and to provide reliable post-sale services than products that are less known. In other words, shoppers choose these goods for their peace of mind. Second, these clothes, cars or electronic devices, usually expensive, [逗号隔开补充修饰前面的名词] may satisfy their users’ need for pride or vanity. [接下来解释怎么满足pride or vanity] Those who cannot afford such products may look up to or envy those users.
However [为什么用转折，因为虽然有原因，但是这个现象不是好事], many people’s disapproval of this trend is obvious. First, this trend is unfavorable to consumers, incurring [动词分词作“伴随状语”] their unnecessary expense of money. Since the famous brands may be excessively pursued, they may take advantage of the pursuit and have inflated [“膨胀的”，中文俗话说的“有水的”] prices. Meanwhile, other brands may fail to survive, leaving [动词分词作“伴随状语”] the market to the few famous bands. As a result, the few manufacturers may use their domination to raise the prices to unreasonably high levels. Second, chasing famous brands causes people’s materialism. If only famous brands, which are costly, are recognized, people may make judgments only according to the price.
In conclusion, a number of reasons are behind the phenomenon that some people limit their choice of goods to famous brands. This trend is disadvantageous.