1 Untimed' I7 e6 w9 j( O! ~6 ?' L
TPO4 . Y5 x, w1 r/ X3 w( P0 z r
2655 w! H( ^5 i! l3 |8 \

N6 V# f; Q1 s( q; ZThe professor provides sufficient evidence which contradicts the conclusion of the passage. In her view, dinosaurs are not endotherms, thus they cannot sustain constant body temperature.
7 l; h& y6 e" E) B3 P* j4 y& a ! }9 _% e$ F$ Y: |# t. P) O( {
First, the professor argues that the existence of dinosaurs in Polar Regions does not necessarily indicate the point in the passage that dinosaurs had to maintain constant body temperature in order to survive extreme climate. According to her, at the time when dinosaurs existed, the Polar Regions were much warmer. In part of the year, they would be mild enough for the survival of non endotherms. Even assuming the winter in polar regions were very cold, it is possible that dinosaurs, as non endotherms,& K% D4 ~. w+ E" k could still made through it via migration or simply hibernation.: B7 @7 w$ F! M: d$ E0 e' r: z( n. ~

$ e, Z* J* n" l) ?; P6 ^' pSecond, the professor addresses that the position of dinosaurs' legs underneath the body might be advantageous only for holding their great weight, not for running. Therefore, the professor directly objects the point from the passage that dinosaurs' body structure proves their quality of endotherms -- maintaining physical activity.
# u: I9 z2 C& C1 M/ Z ' f6 C }/ Y+ ]+ R6 O; A( A
Finally, the professor says that along with: Y; h0 y" ^$ y# X% | haversian canals, growth rings also appeared on the bones of dinosaurs. This evidence was not mentioned by the passage. Growth rings are the thicker parts on bones, which are manifestation of slow growth or even ceased growth. It indicates that dinosaurs' growth rate fluctuated during a year, which differs from real endotherms’ growing pattern of constant growth rate. Thus dinosaurs are very likely not endotherms. This conclusion once again contradicts the point made in the passage.. K# B" r" a3 z8 A
. p3 @$ U' R' o! M
Therefore, with further evidence and reasoning, the passage is logically attacked by the professor.
' F0 y1 F. s- S. E) E) D, b: T
; A6 @7 y; b! k
( Z) h7 m7 q, ?- a
1 t' l( j$ {; l$ z1 B. w9 r2 Untimed9 o$ g5 x3 f) X w$ r' x
TPO6. F& j, C* J+ o- B7 o
224
# G9 B" A7 e' z8 D1 P$ w; D: M1 ]+ ~0 n7 p7 v1 J' {4 P
The professor disagrees with the arguments in the passage. She provides more evidence which refutes the problems of communal online encyclopedia raised by the passage.+ V! g* a% l( }

+ I6 W$ E% Q+ \, ?First, the professor contends that online encyclopedia contains academic mistakes, but she argues that traditional encyclopedia can never be close to perfect either. Moreover, the mistakes in online encyclopedia can be readily corrected, while inaccuracy in traditional encyclopedia may sustain for decades. Therefore, by making a comparison, the professor reaches a conclusion very different from the passage.1 r* i- Y8 S9 [
3 J& h* S) M* _0 Z0 c- h$ `9 O
Second, the professor opposes the point in the passage that online encyclopedia is under constant danger of hackering and tampering by offering two ways; ?8 \* W3 [. } currently used to protect online information. First, crucial facts are only provided via read-only formats which can never be fabricated by malicious hackers. In addition, changed information is always under the supervision of special editors. ; M) P P; W! b4 e

# j# S9 n6 p, g- A% jFinally, the professor addresses that because of its unlimited space, not only essential academic topics can be deeply represented in online encyclopedia, a wide range of other topics which reflect people's real diverse interests are also focused. This is one of the strongest advantages of online encyclopedia. Thus the point in the passage that online encyclopedia misleads people’s attention to trivia is objected by the professor.0 t+ U2 X8 |; [/ k4 ?; N- o; J

! R9 ^1 t/ H$ N* F+ M- f3 v* ~Overall, with further evidence, the professor logically and convincingly attacked the three problems made in the passage. _: n" W: I9 ^: s/ W4 G5 p+ M
! V. [6 N; S6 n6 N$ p3 g

6 K- |( K* K' G, R: S: v( A
) ?8 G, t. c8 @9 B7 m3 l% C3 Timed e9 ~ P/ w) z0 @TPO8
) q7 i- H7 j# }2 k. W7 E. V. T$ ?317
/ [4 X3 z6 X! F+ A; K
; h( a h X( t' {: r1 U- d0 S9 |The professor contends that no memoir can be completely accurate. However, she argues that the three points made in the passage are not substantiated.' P0 c" l9 s1 J8 c2 W4 Q7 L8 U

, `/ e3 v, @- s9 s6 OFirst, the professor opposes the point in the passage that Chevalier was not rich. She says that it took days to transform Chevalier's assets into money due to the special form of his property. In Switzerland, Chevalier spent a great deal of money on parties and gambling, thus he was often in need of money. When he could not wait for his own assets changed into money, he had to borrow some for emergency. This9 L; P8 _% U* h* E' J% ]7 [ indicates that Chevalier did possess great wealth, which is opposite to the claim in the passage.
; K# {6 f- E5 S, G. q0 N7 ]) u) t$ k8 Y 4 _- P; D' h6 }2 \! ^0 N
Second, the accuracy of the conversations in Chevalier's memoir is confirmed by the professor via offering more evidence. In his memoir, Chevalier stated that after his conversing with Voltaire, he immediately wrote down the contents on notes which were referred to frequently when he was writing the memoir. And this action was supported by some witness who said that Chevalier did review some notes when writing the memoir. Therefore, the point in the passage that the conversations are not accurate is seriously attacked.
8 U. h- Q' G0 G0 D" F3 x
0 C& E; u! w% aThird, the professor reaches a conclusion about the way Chevalier escaped from jail which contradicts the point in the passage. She says that there were many people in the same prison who had even more powerful friends than Chevalier, yet none of them succeeded in bribing the jailers. Thus it was unlikely that Chevalier had done the bribe. In addition, some old government documents prove that the ceiling of the jail room which kept Chevalier had to be repaired after Chevalier's departure. This evidence strengthens Chevalier's statement that he escaped through the ceiling., f& K5 k0 V: h5 k5 u% u* Z5 o
& B% t# S' n9 w
In sum, the professor logically attacked the passage . She has demonstrated the accuracy of the memoir
% x7 k& F0 e- W- y" R7 u( t- ~# R! uand justified its value as a reliable historical source.' T7 |% s7 D% q4 M/ S. j
; T J2 B6 X# W9 b" |
0 R1 T$ t9 n4 V$ I

6 n2 n d5 U3 P' z7 P4 Timed/ ` S, y6 p4 \! `+ K
TPO10
. p4 G/ w/ y0 n m- G* p! ~+ R$ n245% v' S6 i6 r! r
1 e9 p1 d- B. E: r" d. q
The professor points out that based on current evidence, predation is a more likely cause for the decline of sea otter populations rather than pollution supported by the passage.
) L# M: j/ ]0 _( V
! s* U' Y. i" W; h jFirst, the professor mentions that if chemicals decreased otters' resistance to lethal infections, then their dead bodies should have been found on the shore. Yet no such evidence exists. It is more possible that predators killed them and ate them up immediately. Thus by providing further evidence, the professor directly objects the point in the passage.
9 v( ^" T. x# I0 h* Y" S
" o; h% A+ Q) O9 j4 qSecond, the professor suggests whales disappeared because of human hunting, thus orca had to change its diet to small sea mammals such as seals, lions and otters. This predation might be the reason for the decline pattern of a wider range of sea mammals. Therefore, the claim in the passage that pollution led to the decline of these animals is weakened by the professor.2 i% A* M- [7 c

; T0 X9 k' R3 u$ |1 C2 w: dThird, the professor contradicts the passage by demonstrating predation as a more plausible explanation for the uneven pattern of otters’ decline. Because orca is too large to get access to shallow rocks and other similar locations, safety is ensured for otters and their populations are in fact steady in these areas. The decline of otter populations only occurred in places accessible to orca. This evidence clearly shows that the uneven pattern can be better explained by orca's predation instead of environmental factors. 4 b$ C Z2 M0 @( v3 j

; N/ Z3 J' P: zIn sum, with further evidence, the professor objects the conclusion made in the passage.
" Q3 b5 X% J/ i" r& q T
. K n! w( [; ~8 G* G! j* n: W7 P- R2 j$ [, q ?
: m& I3 |1 c. n9 d4 V9 f& V y
5 Timed
& O7 Z* }' L$ F7 T0 p3点结论都是全文论点，主题句最好放在段末
5 [* v6 F- Q7 {8 H2897 o8 P1 o6 a& P$ B/ M- _% z
; s) |) v- F: i: C. R) k
The professor argues that the claim in the passage is based on unconvincing evidence, thus the conclusion that the portrait is about Jane Austen when she was! a5 ~; b% Z5 T4 w. \' M0 e( J a teenager is questionable at best.
! ~+ S0 t7 D$ s$ e2 L
, W7 E) k3 F, p+ u, P5 fFirst, the professor points out that the portrait was not used by Jane' family as an illustration in her published letters until 70 years after her death. Thus these family members had never seen Jane in person, and they themselves could not have been certain about whether the figure in the portrait was indeed Jane. Therefore, the point in the passage that the family proves Jane was the figure in the portrait was seriously weakened by the professor.
H2 x5 l+ u% |
# `& N' R" ~# q) ]1 Z6 i9 F2 aSecond, the professor mentions that merely based on the similarities between the sketch and the portrait, the passage too hastily jumps into the conclusion that the portrait was about Jane. It is entirely possible that one of Jane’s contemporary relatives or even their children who were teenagers could share these facial resemblances, and thus was the subject in the portrait. Moreover, the professor says that some people believe that the portrait was about one of Jane's distant nieces.- |" L6 \: p" V2 G" D: @/ v; V. H

; G9 x- A* f1 W( ~' S4 qThird, even though the painting was not dated or signed, a stamp on the canvass indicates that the canvass was sold by a certain person who did not start selling canvass in London until Jane was 23 years old. This evidence clearly suggests that the painting could not have been done when Jane was a teenager. Thus the claim in the passage that the painting was finished by Ozias Humphrey for a teenage Jane Austen was attacked by the professor.; I( K0 j# Q2 a; L
$ ^* V5 D. o0 F6 ~: y9 [4 Y
In sum, the points in the passage are unreliable. By providing further evidence, the passage is doubted by the professor.. ~4 W' p- d5 O: z* L& B
{1 O2 Q/ _+ F" }
# I4 T4 C; S) i& E/ e7 N" B

+ U: a/ D0 j4 L, s0 A. B6 Timed* @/ A6 n: u, q- [
3点结论不同，可把主题句放在段首（3种主题句写法）& G% M% U7 D* K
258
" i; L! B, ~5 J
' g& k# U s6 m/ @+ k: p, N8 rThe professor contends that salvage logging might be helpful for the temporary recovery of a damaged forest. However, she says that it can be harmful for the long term environmental health. The benefits of salvage logging made in the passage are questioned by the professor.
: N! a- C! [% Z1 o' ]) L
* |7 |$ u; W4 G3 j1 L8 l2 YFirst, the point in the passage that removing dead trees enhances the growth of new ones is called into question by the professor. She says that the decomposition of dead trees can provide nutrients to the soil in the forest which are essential for the growth of new plants. Thus this action can do harm to the environment.
9 |) J" ^% \; q$ ], X2 h5 S: H ; m9 X' u( M( V( P' Y! T
Second, the passage claims that the decaying wood will produce some insects harmful to the health of the forest. To the contrary, }# s' d9 K9 |4 r4 V+ v the spruce bark beetle mentioned by the passage is important ecologically and it has been in the woods for years without bringing major damage. Moreover, she says that the decaying trees can provide habitats for other birds and insects which are beneficial to the health of the forest. Thus salvage logging might lead to long term damage to the environment.
# g6 U( K$ {5 p2 l7 [5 [ " @/ ?0 g3 c- N% I3 [
Finally, the professor refutes/contradicts/opposes/objects the point in the passage that salvage logging will bring about some economic benefits. She addresses that many serious forest damages have to be cleaned up by expensive means of transportation. Moreover, the jobs created are only temporary and will more likely be taken by outsiders who are more experienced rather than local workers.& @- ?$ u: Y* I, C5 \% U' P9 k
3 c6 h' ?! c5 g; k9 a) S+ k* [
In sum, with further evidence and reasoning, the passage is logically attacked by the professor