0
   

please give me some corrections

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 08:13 pm
Hi,guys. Thank you for reading my writing. Even though you don't feel good when you are reading, please give me some corrections. I'll appreciate it!
Task: As scientists contribute more to the development of our society than other people, science students should get more financial support from the government than other students get. Do you agree?

My writing:
In contemporary society, we are in more comfortable and convenient lives than before, which can mainly be attributed to the technological advances. So some individuals assert that students majored in science should receive more financial supports from the government than the other students. For my part, this opinion is groundless.

Admittedly, supporting science students with more money has some advantages. To begin with, science students could be encouraged to dedicate themselves to diligent studies. Money can be applied as a good motivation for students, especially for impoverished students. In Addition, more financial support enables students to do more scientific researches independently. As is known to all, scientific researches usually call for a large amount of money.

However, the drawbacks of supporting more for science students cannot be ignored. In the first place, it is unfair for other major students. Everyone is borne with different talents, and if they have remarkable achievements in their subjects, they should also be distributed to equal financial support. Due to this absurd idea, the students in other fields are bound to be striped some financial assistance. Moreover, science is only one aspect of human civilization. If the government devotes a larger share of national budget to the science students, citizens will have an impression that science is the most essential enterprise in the whole society. Obviously, it is not realistic. Science can contribute to high quality of our lives which are based on both material and mental aspects.

In conclusion, the downside of supporting more money to science student outweighs the upside of it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,064 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
sullyfish6
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 09:47 pm
another clown who thinks the government should pay for everything.

jinmin1988
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 10:32 pm
@sullyfish6,
Quote:
another clown who thinks the government should pay for everything.


That's not what I wrote.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 11:34 pm
@jinmin1988,
If your writing contains anything remotely political the occasional jerk will come by to be rude. Unfortunate, but that's what anonymous communication brings out in some people.

jinmin1988 wrote:
In contemporary society, we are in live more comfortable and convenient lives than before, which can mainly be attributed to the technological advances. So some individuals assert that students majored in science majors should receive more financial supports from the government than the other students. For my part, I find this this opinion is groundless to be baseless.

Admittedly, supporting science students with more money has some advantages. To begin with, science students could be encouraged to dedicate themselves to diligent studies. Money can be applied as a good motivation for students, especially for impoverished students. In Addition, more financial support enables students to do more scientific researches independently. As is known to all, scientific researches usually call for[1] requires a large amount of money.

However, the drawbacks of supporting more for science students cannot be ignored. In the first place, it is unfair for other major students [2]. Everyone is borne different talents, and if they have remarkable achievements in their subjects, they should also be distributed[3] to equal financial support. Due to this absurd idea, the students in other fields are bound to be stripped some financial assistance. Moreover, science is only one aspect of human civilization. If the government devotes a larger share of national budget to the science students, citizens will have an impression that science is the most essential enterprise in the whole society. Obviously, it is not realistic. Science can contribute to high quality of our lives which are based on both material and mental aspects.

In conclusion, the downside of supporting more money to science students outweighs the upside of it.


[1] I'm removing "call for" but it should be "calls for" if left in place.
[2] You can say "students in other majors" but "major students" makes "major" describe "students" so it means students who are major.
[3] Consider "given" as a replacement for "distributed".
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2009 11:36 pm
@sullyfish6,
You, in turn, are another knee-jerk political jerk who didn't bother reading what you commented on.

It's a writing assignment for English as a second language, and if you bothered to read it you'll note that the author took a position against increased government funding.
0 Replies
 
jinmin1988
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 06:14 am
@Robert Gentel,
Thank you very much, Robert.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 10:52 am
@jinmin1988,
Here are some other possibilities, Jinmin.


My writing:
In contemporary society, we experience [are in] more comfortable and convenient lives than before, which can mainly be attributed to [the] technological advances. So some individuals assert that students [majored] majoring in science should receive more financial supports from the government than [the] other students. For my part, I believe this opinion is groundless.

Admittedly, supporting science students [with more money] has some advantages. To begin with, science students could be encouraged to dedicate themselves to [diligent] studies that more directly benefit society. Money can be applied as a good motivation for students, especially for impoverished students. In addition, more financial support enables students to do more scientific research[es] independently. As is known to all, scientific research[es] usually requires [calls] [for] a large amount of money.

However, the drawbacks of more support [ing] [more] for science students cannot be ignored. In the first place, it is unfair for other [major] students majoring in other fields. Everyone is born[e] with different talents, and if they have remarkable achievements in their subject[s] fields, they should also be [distributed to] given (or) allowed equal financial support.

Due to this absurd idea, the students in other fields are bound to be stripped of some financial assistance. Moreover, science is only one aspect of human civilization. If the government devotes a larger share of national budget to the science students, citizens will have an impression that science is the most essential enterprise in the whole of society. Obviously, that [it] is not realistic. Science can contribute to high quality of our lives which are based on both material and mental aspects.

In conclusion, the downside of supporting more money to science student outweighs the upside of it.
jinmin1988
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Sep, 2009 08:50 pm
@JTT,
I really appreciate your help, JTT.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
  1. Forums
  2. » please give me some corrections
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 01:58:20