Many people think that university students are adults. So, they argue that universities do not need to check students' attendance. However, in my opinion, universities should check students' attendance. First, students do not study, if schools do not check their attendance. Second, it is unfair to measure students' grade only relying on only test scores(좀더 자연스럽게 수정하였습니다).
서두: 문법적으로 틀린 부분은 없으나 몇 가지 지적할 사항이 있습니다.
먼저, 이 한 paragraph 안에 "attendance"라는 단어가 몇 번 나오는지 세어 보시기
바랍니다. 다음은 간단한 형태의 문장들을 너무 자주 사용하신다는 것인데요, 크게
문제될 것은 없으나 이러한 간단한 문장들은 구체적인 이야기로 발전될 수 없기
때문에 좋지 않습니다.
Intro에서 "First~. Second~scores." 처럼 Body에 나올 이야기를 미리 언급
할시 좀 더 매끄러운 문맥을 위해, ""문장 뒤에 아래와 같은 구절을 더하면 좋을 겁니
다.
"Following paragraphs will develop the mentioned ideas of mine about this issue."
First of all, if the authenticity of attendance or absence is not contained(included도 좋음) in the standards to mark their('their'이 누군지 불명확> a student's) grade, students do not study. It is true university students are adults, but they do not have ability to control themselves. Many students have studied hard until they entered university. So, they think that they have right to play, after entering university. Let me take my personal example. When I was a freshman, professors did not check students' attendance. So, I always stayed up night to play with my friends or upper classmates. At that time, playing with friends was more important to me rather than studying. I thought I had right to play, because I studied hard when I was attendeding('ed'삭제) my high school. After staying up almost every nights(좀 재밌게 할려고 과장되게 표현해 보았습니다), I couldn't take my classes no longer to as I was so sleepy. My friends were same as me. As a result, I got low grades. What is worse, I cannot even understand the contents of some classes now, because I didn't study prerequisites when I was a freshman. Therefore, universities should check students' attendance.
바디1: vocabulary의 범위가 많이 제한되어있는 것 같습니다.
"students do not study~"에 대한 이야기가 반복되고 있습니다. 내용적으로 똑같은
것들이 계속 반복된다면 독자를 설득시킬 수 없습니다. 강조 이상의 지루함도 안겨다
줍니다.
허나 글의 요지와 뜻이 명확히 드러나 있다는 것이 좋습니다.
Second, it is unfair to access('access'는 여기서 부적절합니다. >judge) the quality of students' ability only relying on only their test scores('results'도 좋음). Test scores are important, of course. However, I find that attendance is important to students too. Those who are diligent always take classes. Taking classes hard, diligent students may take(보다>sit for) exams with bad health conditions. On the other hand, some students do not take classes, and study alone. If one is crammed('cram'은 타동사입니다) to study hard for exams hard for about a week, he can definitely(세련미를 더하기 위해서 나름;) get good scores. If professors do not check students' attendance, students who are in prior cases cannot get good scores. It is unfair, in according to my thought, because diligence is important too. So, professors should check students' attendance to give fair grades and contain students' diligence to in determining students' final grades.
When all things considered,(불필요) university students have to go to schools, not only to increase participating populationg in college classes of students but also to measure students' diligence.
바디2: 문법적으로 통하나 문맥상 어정쩡하면서도 어색한 문장들이 많이 보입니다.
구체적이지 않고 내용을 포괄적으로 뭉뚱그려 이리저리 둘러데는 투가 엿보입니다.
반복되는 어절, 구절이 너무 많습니다. 반드시 참고하세요!
* Conclusion이 없군요. 없어도 그닥 상관 없습니다. 이때 paragraph의 수로 따지자면
3개 문단이 있는데 body를 쪼개 전체적으로 4문단으로 만들면 좋을겁니다.
그럼 독자들이 읽기가 수월하니까요. |