如題
我這樣寫會高分嗎? 格式有沒有需要修改的地方?
謝謝各位指教
In the reading part, the writer states that there are sufficient evidence
to prove Macro Polo never visited to China and Mongo. By contrast, the
lecturer in the listening part dosen't think it convincing enough to deny the
visit of Macro Polo in light of many other reasons.
The writer illustrates the proof that Macro Polo never visited China and
Mongo because of the lack of the place-name in his own book or the historic
records. But the lecturer thinks it is anything but odd that Macro borrowed a
name from Persian, which was ever a prevailing language among the traders,
she still doesn't ignore the truth that Macro never got the place-name.
What comes next is the lack of reference to the contemporarily popular
tea in China, that is the powerful stance from the writer to cement his
point. However, the lecturer doesn't think so, and she comes up with her own
perspectives about the prosperity of tea in southern China instead of the
northern part where Macro stayed so as to fully explicate the acceptance of
omitting the tea part in his book. Moreover, the writer addresses that there
is no pre-modern documents proving he ever served for Mongo for 17 years. But
the lecturer thinks perhaps it was his name's unrecognibility causing the
obstacle to modern historians' understanding.
Briefly speaking, the writer holds that there is no satisfying evidence
from the original records to demonstrate his visit. The lecturer oppositely
thinks that different names he used, the fake name adopted by the
adminstration, the chance of being lost all might be the reasons to elaborate
his "possibile" visit.
--
我這樣寫會高分嗎? 格式有沒有需要修改的地方?
謝謝各位指教
In the reading part, the writer states that there are sufficient evidence
to prove Macro Polo never visited to China and Mongo. By contrast, the
lecturer in the listening part dosen't think it convincing enough to deny the
visit of Macro Polo in light of many other reasons.
The writer illustrates the proof that Macro Polo never visited China and
Mongo because of the lack of the place-name in his own book or the historic
records. But the lecturer thinks it is anything but odd that Macro borrowed a
name from Persian, which was ever a prevailing language among the traders,
she still doesn't ignore the truth that Macro never got the place-name.
What comes next is the lack of reference to the contemporarily popular
tea in China, that is the powerful stance from the writer to cement his
point. However, the lecturer doesn't think so, and she comes up with her own
perspectives about the prosperity of tea in southern China instead of the
northern part where Macro stayed so as to fully explicate the acceptance of
omitting the tea part in his book. Moreover, the writer addresses that there
is no pre-modern documents proving he ever served for Mongo for 17 years. But
the lecturer thinks perhaps it was his name's unrecognibility causing the
obstacle to modern historians' understanding.
Briefly speaking, the writer holds that there is no satisfying evidence
from the original records to demonstrate his visit. The lecturer oppositely
thinks that different names he used, the fake name adopted by the
adminstration, the chance of being lost all might be the reasons to elaborate
his "possibile" visit.
--
All Comments