本區搜索:
Yahoo!字典
打印

[Eng] 岩岩作好一篇, 請ching幫手俾d comment.

[隱藏]

岩岩作好一篇, 請ching幫手俾d comment.



      Recently, whether our school building is going to be pulled down as part of the redevelopment of the area has become a controversial issue in the territory.That phenomenon has aroused wide concern among various circles and caught the spot light. Although many people believe that keep the school building, taking into consideration from both sides of the arguments, my opinion is that the school building should be pulled down as part of the redevelopment of the area. There are many instances that support my view, my arguments for this point are listed in the following.

      There are two major causes of this. First and foremost, one very strong argument for this issue is that we can pull down theschool building to get nore lands for developing other facilities. The reason for this is not diffcult to understand, a particularly notable cause of the issue is that HongKong is a very small city and many people live in this territory. So, HongKong have not enough lands for developing any more facilities. According to a recent survey, the number of school in a area of HongKong about one hundred and fifty and HongKong have eighteen area, it means HongKong have too many school.One significant example would be pull down the school building to develop some building for home. By doing so, pull down the school building is a good idea.

       However, there are a number of people holding a different view concerning this issue.

       Likewise, it is equally improtant to take a glance at the fact that facilities would provide lots of working chance for the jobless person. The reason for this is also not diffcult to understand, the reason of this is that the number of lossing job’s person is increasing. That means pulling down school building and developing facilities can offer a lot of job for jobless HongKong person.
Considering the above discussion and analysis, we can come to the conclusion that pull down the school building as part if the redevelopment of the area is a sensible move.Otherwise,HongKong will can’t get any improvement. I would recommend that we pull down the useless buildings for developing new facilities.



[ 本帖最後由 iVanxX 於 2010-5-4 05:35 PM 編輯 ]
附件: 您所在的用戶組無法下載或查看附件
   

TOP

我係狠批直說的人來的, 唔鍾意接受批評打擊自信就唔好睇,
(睇下你讀邊區) 新界 C 尾,  離島 C中
九龍, 港島就唔洗指意了, D 硬

你寫野有時好累贅... not diffcult to understand 呢句睇到人地好悶... in a area of HongKong (黎黎去去都係似呢句係度擺明亞字數)
句構變化太少, 黎黎去去都係 S+V, It, there 既句式
寫清楚角度會比較好, 你成日寫第一個角度, 第二個角度, 無變化, 好悶, 係人都估到你下一個寫第二個 POINT 啦, 好似比 MAKRER 分類因為 marker 唔得閒睇番你內容, 表面略略睇嫁咋
同埋你第二段係好似同第一段有因果關係咁, 雖然你 break 做兩段, 所以我當你都係得一個 POINT 嫁咋, CONTENT 根本唔夠分,
你 GRAMMAR 無咩點錯,
但字詞配搭有錯 phenomenon 唔係用 aroused , 而係用 appear,
EMPOLYMENT OPPORTUNITES 唔係用WORKING CHANCE
成日RECENT, 得閒做下LATEST 啦
成日 SMALL, LARGE 轉下字啦 -.- 查清楚字典先好轉字, 唔好同義詞就用
你就咁用 stirred up controversy 咪得囉, 唔好成日懶曬D難字出黎, 咁樣你篇唔係攞A既文會更加核突
First and foremost, 你用 utmost 啦, 唔好用 foremost, 唔常用既字唔好曬出黎啦...
字詞變化唔多, 顯得你字窮, enough 又唔識轉 sufficient
講人自講, 又唔講埋人地論點反駁人, 好主觀, 唔係一篇好文 (唔好寫到明 STRONG ARGUMENT啦, 更加顯得你主觀)
同埋有 D 太直接, 唔洗寫咁 There are many instances that support my view, my arguments for this point are listed in the following.
話比人地聽自己以下會講D咩POINT, 婉轉 D
However, we should never draw a conclusion that XXX is better than YYY, if we only take the the benefit brought by YYY economic dimension in account. (呢句識轉可以轉INVERSION, 但你唔係 A 既人才就唔好轉, 轉左擺係你篇C文度, 考官會覺得你篇野好 flowery...)

我有以下論點比你參考
1. 重建舊區提升居民生活質數 (E.G. 老人家唔洗再上樓梯禁辛苦)
2. 重建舊區可以將舊區既犯罪隱憂地方連根拔起, 改善區內治安 (E.G. 童黨窟)
3. 重建舊區有助帶來經濟收益 (E.G. 旅遊收益)

[ 本帖最後由 aryuenabc 於 2010-5-4 07:32 PM 編輯 ]

TOP

多謝你丫c hing, 我target系平平穩穩過關, 但求拎到d 架咋, <br /><br />我都吾敢高攀有c, 不過以你ge 經驗黎講, 我系新界屯門的, 都有c咁上下, 都幾吾錯架啦<br /><br />多謝你俾我信心先, 吾好講話打擊,

食完飯先慢慢 細味你俾我ge意見同評語, 希望我能夠有c啦

多謝你先~~

[ 本帖最後由 iVanxX 於 2010-5-4 07:56 PM 編輯 ]

TOP

呢篇野一定最少b到。
chin, 你d comment 有點廢,你一d都5熟悉markers 既prefernces

TOP

如果呢篇得c/d,全hk都5知有無50%人pass到。
ching,你既評語係ok架,但係marker 根本5會睇到咁detail,
generally it is nicely written

gd transistion sen.
I give striaght 5

TOP

見到你d paragraphing 都比唔到好grade你

TOP

篇野頂盡俾4你

TOP

拎到LV.4我都好開心架啦

講出黎俾我改善下好無??

TOP

Firstly, about the content
Your points are not strong enough
Not enough land + Provide jobs to jobless people
Especially the later one is even a bit nonsense
The jobs provided are some jobs that only available for short period, i.e. During the re-building period
Nonetheless, a school can provide long lasting jobs, e.g. clerks, janitors

Second of all, I would rather appreciate your flowery sentences pattern and structures than your grammar
You are good in mastering these "high-level" sentences but not grammar.
In your writing, it is not difficult to see that a lot of gerunds and present participles are missing.

Thirdly, be careful to your wordings.e.g. Hong Kong has 18 districts but not 18 areas.

Finally, I will strongly advice you not to write something you are not sure and maybe also think of something that is more reasonable, in other words, that is to be common and stand at the same view point with the marker, then higher marks can be easily scored.
My marks would be given as follow:
C: 4/6  
A: 4/6
G: 5/6
O: 5/6
Total: 18/24
Level 4-5

[ 本帖最後由 john_6a05 於 2010-5-5 11:35 AM 編輯 ]

TOP

回覆 #2 aryuenabc 的帖子

其實篇文都ok,
你講的問題,
我諗普遍markers只會覺得篇文感覺平平,無咩突出
又應該未會覺得篇文呢樣唔得,個樣唔好

TOP

重要聲明:小卒資訊論壇 是一個公開的學術交流及分享平台。 論壇內所有檔案及內容 都只可作學術交流之用,絕不能用商業用途。 所有會員均須對自己所發表的言論而引起的法律責任負責(包括上傳檔案或連結), 本壇並不擔保該等資料之準確性及可靠性,且概不會就因有關資料之任何不確或遺漏而引致之任何損失或 損害承擔任何責任(不論是否與侵權行為、訂立契約或其他方面有關 ) 。