there is an argument about whether a school gives people a lot of specific career information than general knowledge. although some people say that the aim of schools is to provide students with general knowledge, I strongly believe that offering information, which is related with job is very helpful for students to prepare their career.
--> ,which 보다는 that 이 좋을 것 같습니다. (that is)를 생략하는 것도 괜찮을 것 같구요.
that is because if people learn only pure-knowledge , it is a wast of time and by learning information that they are interest in, it is more likely to success their own areas in the future. I briefly describe some reasons further in my essay.
--> if 절이하 주장이 너무 극단적이고, it이 뭘 가르치는지 알 수 없습니다. 행동이 수반하는 변화를 설명한다면, 동명사 주어로 문장을 고쳐 쓰시는게 좋습니다. to success는 틀린거 아시죠?
Learning only pure-knowledge seems to be waste of time.
Learning information related with career path is more beneficial because it allow students to find more opportunities to succeed in future.
first of all, I agree with the fact that offering information, which is related with job is very helpful for students to prepare their career because it is a time- consuming when students learn knowledge that they aren't interest in.
--> information 뒤에 또 ,which is related with job 인데 좀 다양하게 써보심도 좋을 듯. 절이나 구로 바꿔 써보고, 부사나 형용사나, 단어도 다양하게 바꿔보세요. information about job, information closely related with job, practical knowledge for future career success, knowledge directly related with their career
what I mean is that people can use their time efficiently by obtaining information with career from a early time. in my experience, when I was in high school, students in the school should take one required course everyday , which is literature class.
--> from a early time이 아니라, from early time, from early stage가 좋을 것 같고, 이런 which is 구는 의미가 없습니다. take a required literature course라고 쓰면 될 거 같네요.
but now my job is related with computer. so I didn't have to study korea- literature and spend my time per two hours one day.
-->논리적인 비약이 좀 심하지 않나요? my time per two hours one day는 틀린 표현입니다.
if I could had spend my time to study computer, I might have had better position of my job. moreover I don't remember what I leaned in the literature class at that time. so I think that students don't have to spend a lots of time to study general knowledge
-->역시 이쪽도 논리적 비약이 심한 거 같습니다. 내용상 if ~, I might have had ~ 는 아닌거 아닌가요? 다른 쪽은 다 과거, 현재로 비교하는데, 이쪽만 might have p.p를 쓰는건 좀 이상한 것 같습니다. I don't remember ~하는건 여기 등장할 얘기가 아닌 것 같습니다. 제가 보기엔 이 단락의 주제문이랑 특별히 관련이 없어 보입니다. moreover로 연결해서 괜찮다고 생각하실지 모르겠는데, 그렇게 연결하실꺼면 앞 쪽의 주제문과 비슷한 비중으로 다루어줘야 합니다. moreover, ~. so, ~이렇게 나오면, 앞 내용과 관계없이 moreover~ 때문에 so 한다로 받아드려 집니다.
굳이 쓴다면, moreover ~. As you see in these two examples, ~ or Due to these two personal experience, I have become sure that ~ 이런 식이 좋을 것 같습니다.
secondly, by learning information that they are interest in, it is more likely to success their own areas in the future. in the competition society, people are required to prepare their careers earlier. because today, it is harder for people to find their job. so people can get a chance when they study more information that they want to have job
--> 이 쪽은 비문이랑 어색한 표현이 너무 많네요. 문장을 능동으로 짧고 간결하게 쓰는 게 좋을 것 같습니다.
Students can be more likely to succeed in this competitive society by preparing their career path from learning more practical knowlege.
to sum up, though there are some opinion to be considered, I think that school should provide students with a specific career information
--> 이 문장도 결론 문장으로는 부적절 합니다. 글의 말미에 there are some opinion은 너무 추상적입니다. 이런 표현은 서론에 쓰는게 적절할 듯. restatement를 하던지, 주장을 좀 더 강하게 하는게 하세요, 대충 뭉뚱그려서 넘어가는 건 않 좋을 것 같습니다.
Based on my personal experience I mentioned above, I am strongly sure that educating practical knowlege for career success is better for our students who should grow their capability to make their dreams come true in this highly competitive society. considering reason 1 and reason 2, we pay much attention and resource to strengthen education for specific knowledge than general one.
앞쪽은 괜찮았는데, 뒤로 갈수록 문법 에러가 많아지고, 구조가 엉성해 지는 것 같습니다. 서론에 시간을 너무 많이 뺏기시는 건 아닌가 싶네요?
본론 1과 본론2가 주제상 큰 차이가 없어 보입니다. practical 한 쪽이 더 재밌어서 더 몰입이 잘 된다던지, 실제생활과 연결이 되서 학문과 현실의 벽을 허물 수 있다던지, 좀 더 확연히 구분되는 두가지 주제가 등장하면 좋을 것 같습니다.
주제넘게 말이 많았습니다. 시험 잘 보세요.