TPO16-19综合写作范文.doc

By 亓晓冰TPO16The writer pointed out that archaeology in Britain had serious problems and limitations, whereas the professor introduced the new guidelines, implemented by UK in 1990, that improved the situation of archaeology in the passage.First, the new guidelines provide that a construction site be examined of its archaeological interest before any project planned on it can proceed. If the site owns certain archaeological value, relevant people must make a preservation plan to protect the archaeological artifacts. This measure successfully addresses the first problem mentioned in the reading - the loss of precious artifacts resulted from construction projects.Second, the new guidelines state that the construction company must fund any archaeological work done on the construction site, from the initial examination to the following work under the preservation plan. This rule means a new source of financial support and allows more archaeological sites to be studied, which solves another problem listed in the reading - the inadequate funding.Third, the new guidelines actually create many more jobs in archaeology. These expert archaeologists will be hired at various stages of process, such as examination, preservation, research and documentation. Increased career opportunities in this field boost the number of professional archaeologists to the highest and eliminate the last problem in the reading - the insufficient job positions.TPO17The reading passage claims that the number of birds in the US will definitely decline. Yet the professor argues that bird population will not shrink due to increase in human population, agriculture, and pesticide use as suggested by the author.First, the professor points out that urban growth, while harmful to some types of birds, could provide habitats for many other types. As a matter of fact, urban and suburban dwellers complain frequently about too many birds. This, however, contradicts the statement in the reading that urban development causes birds to disappear.Second, the professor explains that agricultural develop wont affect bird population as the reading illustrates. Newly-introduced and highly productive crops continuously contribute to production enhancement and less land use, making it unnecessary for humans to destroy wilderness areas.Third, while convinced of the harmfulness of pesticide use to birds concluded in the passage, the professor dont think it will be a problem in the future, in that people are increasingly aware of this problem, and are therefore developing less toxic pesticides and pest resistant crops as solutions.TPO18In the passage the author describes three ways to address the decline of Torreya. However the professor doubts the passage by stating that none of the three ways will work.To begin with, the professor points out that the first option mentioned in the passage, reestablishing Torreya, will not succeed. Why? Because many areas within Floridas microclimate region are turning drier for either global warming, or the disappearing wetlands. Consequently this region fails to meet the condition Torreya needs to survive.Additionally, the professor claims that the second option, relocating Torreya, will definitely result in vain. To illustrate this argument the example of another tree, which was moved to a new environment and then quickly spread to kill off other plant species, including some already endangered ones, is introduced.Finally, the professor argues against the third option in the reading, preserving Torreya in research centers. The population of Torreya, she explains, has to be genetically diverse in order to resist diseases. Nevertheless, research centers, different from the wild, are not capable of maintaining such a size.For all the above analysis, the solutions in the reading lose their value.TPO19As stated in the reading, many critics would like buzzing to be banned. Yet a buzzer Bill, dissenting from those critics, argues for buzzing in three aspects.First, he contends that the point made in the reading, that buzzers dont tell the truth, is not true. Buzzers, he explains, although they are paid by companies, are actually previous users having enjoyed the product and willing to share their real thoughts with us.Second, he argues against buzzers role in misleading consumers as illustrated in the reading, by saying that consumers remain clear and skeptical when being buzzed. They question about details such as price, service and the buzzers familiarity before drawing their final decision according to the responses.Third, about the harmful effects im