godofeng

del左 仲推舊文-,-

[ 本帖最後由 godofeng 於 2013-4-10 02:30 PM 編輯 ]

godofeng

At first i thought u were going to give it a level 3...almost gave me a heart attack
seems like i got too much negative hate on me,but all the post i posted are for the better sake of the students in LS forum...
ahh...should be blew up i think?some sentences lack a verb coz i've seen same kind of style in some books,correct me if im wrong.
Only students who take chem and phys as electives would truely understand the 2nd para..

是我我

partly understand as a result of taking chem as elec. only

godofeng

basic energy fact is that the fisson of an atom of uranium produces several million times the energy produced by the combustion of an atom or carbon from coal<<<this sentence???
I saw it in some notes on this topic before so I thought of adding it to overpower the opponents in the debate.

sai1991ku

引用:

原帖由 godofeng 於 2013-1-24 11:01 PM 發表
不如你指出我篇文有咩錯需要改善先啦 grammar哥
我都知e家d考官夠主觀 改卷都似乎吾同考官

你壏用左「will」
e.g I will now commence my constructive speech(你不是馬上要start your speech?)(暗視將來某時間先start?)

內容
e.gAlso,future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing(不合理+grammar error)future nuclear waste?未來的核癈料?
note:首先核癈料輻射太強冇可能架lor......
note:如果你指呢樣野係將會reduce應「In the future(指可預見的未來),nuclear waste will be reduced (未來完成式)through (by或許好些)waste(多餘) recycling(n. 回收; (資源, 垃圾)回收利用)and  by reprocessing」

wrong use
e.g it does not contribute to (wouldn't bring) the greenhouse effect.

我randomly check左

[ 本帖最後由 sai1991ku 於 2013-1-24 11:50 PM 編輯 ]

MNjason

To put it bluntly, I didn't really like u, as u always boast about your brilliant IELTS results, giving me a thought that you're a haughty guy.
But it's indisputable that your article is good.

I should say I take only phy LOL.

It should be "if a nuclear plant blows up"

The first sentence of your last para. lacks a verb.

Sometimes you fail to realize whether the subject is a singular or plural noun:

the process of producing energy out of burning coal,oil and natural resources are slower in comparison to nuclear power plants.           "Are" should be replaced by "is".

And there is no "environmental-harmful". Only "environmentally harmful" or "environment-harmful".

[ 本帖最後由 MNjason 於 2013-1-24 11:52 PM 編輯 ]

godofeng

gAlso,future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing
依句式係美式英文黎= =好多美國essay都適用
因爲我作文方向採取american style所以直接代入而吾需要verb
In the future(指可預見的未來),nuclear waste will be reduced (未來完成式)through (by或許好些)waste(多餘) recycling(n. 回收; (資源, 垃圾)回收利用)and reprocessing」<<<永遠吾會用Will be reduced 因爲想表達既意思吾同
it does not contribute to (wouldn't bring) the greenhouse effect.<<咩問題?

godofeng

Seems like i need to be more humble then lol ,in diff circumstances we could be best friends haha
Ahhh but the process is meant to be different ways eg oil and coal burnage+hydro energy system

godofeng

I will now commence my constructive speech<<<again american way of speeches
Hong Kong practically uses British English more so normal students wouldnt get a chance to try out a whole new style of writing,if u find my writing wrong in your point of view i'll take it as a note and switch back to using British English next time.

[ 本帖最後由 godofeng 於 2013-1-25 12:04 AM 編輯 ]

MNjason

Then "processes" would do.
but as far as I know, the following 3 things are treated as one single thing somehow.
I can't tell why because I have no concepts of grammar

sai1991ku

引用:

原帖由 godofeng 於 2013-1-25 12:02 AM 發表
I will now commence my constructive speech

阿sir話寫英式好d

godofeng

Thanks,I'll bear that in mind to use British English when it comes to compo in the hkdse  re:MNjason I'm not sure too....gotta ask family,might as well get scolded for making such simple mistake?

[ 本帖最後由 godofeng 於 2013-1-25 02:42 PM 編輯 ]

mcmancm

Sry bro. i can;t care less if you write in the Dutch style or the French style.

seems like 47 mins wasnt enough for u to come up with some brilliant arguments was it?
Your last point could hv been much stronger had you not chosen to waste any effort on calculating the business profits, which, i think, is a major miscalculation.
"Providing more energy in such a short time means that the efficiency of nuclear energy production leads to more business profits regarding electricity transfer,just think of the outcome considering several millions of extra dollars earned per day!" Really? Then either you have forgotten your investment, or you are a bad liar.

spotted a few grammar mistakes. see if you notice them. (not that my grammar is perfect.... you know, markers are like me, picky, imperfect, probably a loser, and judging people such as you.)

godofeng

hmmm,i wasnt being specific on that point to be honest since the arguments i listed above are valid enough to put off competitors on this issue.
I know the few grammar mistakes u speak of,wont change it of coz since i'm gonna write another essay tmr...sigh seems like debating is a notch for me,might as well stick to making up stories for kids lmao.
btw... i can;t care less <<<shud be i couldn't/wouldn't care less
what do u propose I write about in my last point?
At last someone who can point out my mistakes clearly(I knew that the arguement wasnt firm enough)
btw u understand my 2nd para?
thanks for the critical feedback anyway~

[ 本帖最後由 godofeng 於 2013-1-25 02:41 AM 編輯 ]

DSE數學

睇左 個人認為最起碼有5

godofeng

um多謝 但有冇d咩需要改善?