- Home
- Member
- Annie
- Annie's entries
- Integrated Writing (wrote the reading passage and what I heard without and individual opinion)
Integrated Writing (wrote the reading passage and what I heard without and individual opinion)
- 89
- 5
- 3
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss the voting system. The author suggests that current voting system is inefficient and always leads inaccurate counting of vote. However, the speaker presents a rather different view of the subject under discussion.
The reading passage maintains that people may accidently vote for wrong
candidate, and those with poor eyesight probably vote for wrong man too. In contrast, the lecture begins its challenge of the author’s statements by arguing that
it is easy to us to use the computer to vote, but how about those who don’t familiar with computer system? Maybe they will vote for wrong person too.
It is noted in the article that old voting system relies heavily on people to count the vote. However, contrary to the author’s, the speaker asserts that people may do some mistake, but is it sure computer won’t do wrong? No, sometimes computer show mistake on program or error in computer, even it will move the raker. Also, it’s impossible to avoid error in computer.
Finally, the reading suggests that it is too risky to implement complicated voting technology nationwide. The speaker, however, indicates that we use computer daily and handle heavily data, and we should improve it again and again, but it takes 2 or 3 years to take one vote. It’s not sufficient to use a new computer system.
The reading passage maintains that people may accidently vote for wrong
candidate, and those with poor eyesight probably vote for wrong man too. In contrast, the lecture begins its challenge of the author’s statements by arguing that
it is easy to us to use the computer to vote, but how about those who don’t familiar with computer system? Maybe they will vote for wrong person too.
It is noted in the article that old voting system relies heavily on people to count the vote. However, contrary to the author’s, the speaker asserts that people may do some mistake, but is it sure computer won’t do wrong? No, sometimes computer show mistake on program or error in computer, even it will move the raker. Also, it’s impossible to avoid error in computer.
Finally, the reading suggests that it is too risky to implement complicated voting technology nationwide. The speaker, however, indicates that we use computer daily and handle heavily data, and we should improve it again and again, but it takes 2 or 3 years to take one vote. It’s not sufficient to use a new computer system.
Latest entries
Entries by Month
| 2010 |
|---|
| December (4) |
| November (1) |
The author suggests that the current voting system is inefficient and always leads to inaccurate counting of the votes.
However, the speaker presents a rather different view of the subject in discussion.
The reading passage maintains that people may accidently vote for the wrong
candidate, and those with poor eyesight probably vote for the wrong man too.
it is easy to us to use a computer to vote, but how about those who aren't familiar with computer systems?
Maybe they will vote for the wrong person too.
It is noted in the article that the old voting system relies heavily on people to count the votes.
However, contrary to the author’s opinion, the speaker asserts that people may make some mistakes, but is it certain that computers won’t make mistakes?
No, sometimes computers show mistakes and errors in the programs. even it will move the raker. (I don't understand the last bit. But i think it is not needed anyway.)
Also, it’s impossible to avoid error in computers.
The speaker, however, indicates that we use computers daily to handle heavy data, and we should improve them again and again. But it takes 2 or 3 years to take one vote. (I think your last sentence has a different meaning to what you would want. And I don't know the meaning that you want. sorry)
It’s not efficient to use a new computer system.
One person will sit and wait at a PC constantly for 2 or 3 years while making one vote? That is the meaning of what you wrote. So I think it is not what you wanted to say ^^;
Can you please write that sentence in Japanese for me?
It take 2 or 3 years to hold an election, I think the speaker says that it will cost too much to maintain the computer well, but I don't write well. It's hard to me to write a composition in 20 minutes. :(
Also, does it really take so long? I voted in Australia recently and the votes were counted in a few days. It took us 1 weekend to hold an election. ^^;
However, the speaker presents a rather different view of the subject under discussion. ("under" is o.k. to use as well.)
candidate, and that those with poor eyesight probably vote for wrong candidate too.
Maybe they will vote for wrong person too.
It is easy to [ for many of ] us to use the computer to vote, but how about those who aren't familiar with computer systems? [ "For many/most/some(?) of us, it's easy to use the computer ...." I suggest you add a portion -- many, or most, or some -- here. It would help the perspective. ;-) ]
I agree with you. The people using computer grow very quickly, so I think we can change our life style to use computer. By the way, I'm also an idiot in computer.