看到TA的这篇discuss类的文章，很明显，TA很幸运!因为上次考的肯定不是discuss类型的文章。因为这样的写法顶多6.0。显然，TA说上次写的是利弊的题目。
先看看学生原文：
There is a growing consensus that the administrations as well as some industrial companies have the obligation and capacity to protect and promote our living surroundings.More specifically,most economic achievements have been obtained at the cost of the environmental pollution and the scarcity of resources of local areas.Besides, the governments are blessed with sound budget and legal system so that the detailed arrangement cannot be a bother.And this position claims thatinternational cooperation is significantly important to this situation and only by joint effort can pool enough investment and labor force.
However, it is contended by some critics that, to some extent, personal actions are superior to other efforts in dealing with this disturbing problem.In details, the whole perfect plan may turn out to be an empty sheet if the residents do not obey the orders and even keep worsening the environment.So this argument goes on that, it is the individuals’ actions, indeed, that put all theories into practice.So under this circumstance,person should and must play an irreplaceable role in this issue.
具体问题如下：
1，典型的传话筒文章。中间两段没有自己的态度。换句话说，虽然考官写的文章在中间段客观，但是也能看出自己对双方的态度。而这位同学写的完全看不出来。
2，中间段拓展方式不对。没有将一个观点完全展开，而且用了more specifically, in details这些车轱辘话。
3，套句明显：this position claims, so this argument goes on。
4，逻辑方面的连贯不好。关于逻辑方面，我的具体点评如下：
比如，There is a growing consensus that the administrations as well as some industrial companies have the obligation and capacity to protect and promote our living surroundings(论点：企业和政府有责任保护环境). More specifically,most economic achievements have been obtained at the cost of the environmental pollution and the scarcity of resources of local areas.(具体地说，他们经济方面的成功是以环境为代价。)Besides，。。。。。。。。。(按照前面两句所说，那么第三句话就应该是：因此企业不能为了经济利益而破坏环境。相反，他们应该.....)但是，从besides开始TA又重新引入了一个新的论点。给人感觉就是一个都没说清楚，又弄另一个去了。
