雖然缺交了很久，但終究還是交出去的第二篇英文作文，大概把我最近的負面情緒全都發洩進去了吧（驚
對照的文章是一個支持一日吃素就地球之類的，總之我就是婊作者婊很大，婊支持者也婊很大（羞
裡面可能有一些奇怪的字眼還是建議閱讀的時候可以對照中英辭典喔......
（尤其有些字眼是哲學系系上的專業用語啊，雖然是少數。）
為了大家閱讀方便，直接攻擊以紅字婊示，間接攻擊以藍字婊示（咦
＊ ＊ ＊
I can hardly be convinced whether I should curb global warning by eating less meat,but it’s just while according to this article.It doesn’t mean that I have no idea about the climate issue.Therefore,do not criticize me with a kind of thoughts that I’m a lazy person who avoid pondering something important.My opinion was formed from other information I’ve ever got.Reading this article gave me little except that I felt bizarre and absurd about the author’s mind.It’s easy to recognize her intention as she wrote it by a rudely subjective mean.That’s why I consider that there isn’t any appropriate perspective for me to agree these arguments.
Just pay attention to the connections among the sentences,and there will be many unreasonable conclusions and results but few valid premises to be found.At the first paragraph,the chief supporter Pachauri told people to keep on reducing the meet consumption for tackling global warming without indicating what exactly leads to them.The same situation can be discovered at the second and fourth paragraphs.He might in fact provide some problems alongside with methods to conquer them yet show no clear relation between the former and the latter.He said that it was facile to change eating habits compared to changing ways of transport.Why?Maybe he’ll claim that it’s simple to understand just through intuition.However,to depend on intuition often procures numerous mistakes as people in the past firmly believed that the world is flat which has been proved false.And he probably forgot that the number of individuals also affects the degree of difficulties of changing.So,why not offer some credible statistics to construct the correlation in order to reinforce persuasiveness instead of depreciating the opposite at the fifth paragraph?Since “vociferous” is a negative adjective to describe that someone is noisy and irrational,it appears that he didn’t know how to value freedom of expressing opinions.Nevertheless,I’ll apologize if it’s the author who decide to use this word on her own.
There are still two problems should be condemned.One is that though the article plainly contains nine paragraphs,there are only two reliable explanations of statistics at the sixth and the ninth paragraph.The other parts continue being merely loaded with superfluous or clichéd phrases because they didn’t supply any practical measures suitable for both governments and masses.These simply reflected personal thoughts and always make the statements out of the theme.Another problem is the percentage of the advocates and the opposed.There is a very one against those who approve when the article is full of supporters.The difference of their positions is a tricky writing mode,too.The supporters are the United Nationals Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization,and the Department for Enviroment,Food,and Rural Affair,whereas the opposite the head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX,an identity which is commonly viewed to be more self-concerned than the supporters.
In the end,due to those problems which should be seriously denounced,I think it’s absolutely a normal reaction that I can hardly be convinced in terms of a ridiculous and shameless article.
I can hardly be convinced whether I should curb global warning by eating less meat,but it’s just while according to this article.It doesn’t mean that I have no idea about the climate issue.Therefore,do not criticize me with a kind of thoughts that I’m a lazy person who avoid pondering something important.My opinion was formed from other information I’ve ever got.Reading this article gave me little except that I felt bizarre and absurd about the author’s mind.It’s easy to recognize her intention as she wrote it by a rudely subjective mean.That’s why I consider that there isn’t any appropriate perspective for me to agree these arguments.
Just pay attention to the connections among the sentences,and there will be many unreasonable conclusions and results but few valid premises to be found.At the first paragraph,the chief supporter Pachauri told people to keep on reducing the meet consumption for tackling global warming without indicating what exactly leads to them.The same situation can be discovered at the second and fourth paragraphs.He might in fact provide some problems alongside with methods to conquer them yet show no clear relation between the former and the latter.He said that it was facile to change eating habits compared to changing ways of transport.Why?Maybe he’ll claim that it’s simple to understand just through intuition.However,to depend on intuition often procures numerous mistakes as people in the past firmly believed that the world is flat which has been proved false.And he probably forgot that the number of individuals also affects the degree of difficulties of changing.So,why not offer some credible statistics to construct the correlation in order to reinforce persuasiveness instead of depreciating the opposite at the fifth paragraph?Since “vociferous” is a negative adjective to describe that someone is noisy and irrational,it appears that he didn’t know how to value freedom of expressing opinions.Nevertheless,I’ll apologize if it’s the author who decide to use this word on her own.
There are still two problems should be condemned.One is that though the article plainly contains nine paragraphs,there are only two reliable explanations of statistics at the sixth and the ninth paragraph.The other parts continue being merely loaded with superfluous or clichéd phrases because they didn’t supply any practical measures suitable for both governments and masses.These simply reflected personal thoughts and always make the statements out of the theme.Another problem is the percentage of the advocates and the opposed.There is a very one against those who approve when the article is full of supporters.The difference of their positions is a tricky writing mode,too.The supporters are the United Nationals Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization,and the Department for Enviroment,Food,and Rural Affair,whereas the opposite the head of marketing for pig industry group BPEX,an identity which is commonly viewed to be more self-concerned than the supporters.
In the end,due to those problems which should be seriously denounced,I think it’s absolutely a normal reaction that I can hardly be convinced in terms of a ridiculous and shameless article.
留言列表
鈺の憶‧純屬日記 (4)
