simon范文

simon范文篇一

雅思大作文 打印版,task2,Simon

Some people regard video games as harmless fun, or even as a useful educational tool. Others, however, believe that videos games are having an adverse effect on the people who play them. In your opinion, do the drawbacks of video games outweigh the benefits?

Many people, and children in particular, enjoy playing computer games. While I accept that these games can sometimes have a positive effect on the user, I believe that they are more likely to have a harmful impact.

On the one hand, video games can be both entertaining and educational. Users, or gamers, are transported into virtual worlds which are often more exciting and engaging than real-life pastimes. From an educational perspective, these games encourage imagination and creativity, as well as concentration, logical thinking and problem solving, all of which are useful skills outside the gaming context. Furthermore, it has been shown that computer simulation games can improve users’ motor skills and help to prepare them for real-world tasks, such as flying a plane.

However, I would argue that these benefits are outweighed by the drawbacks. Gaming can be highly addictive because users are constantly given scores, new targets and frequent rewards to keep them playing. Many children now spend hours each day trying to progress through the levels of a game or to get a higher score than their friends. This type of addiction can have effects ranging from lack of sleep to problems at school, when homework is sacrificed for a few more hours on the computer or console. The rise in obesity in recent years has also been linked in part to the sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise that often accompany gaming addiction.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of video games are more significant than the possible benefits.

In the developed world, average life expectancy is increasing. What problems will this cause for individuals and society? Suggest some

measures that could be taken to reduce the impact of ageing populations. It is true that people in industrialised nations can expect to live longer than ever before. Although there will undoubtedly be some negative consequences of this trend, societies can take steps to mitigate these potential problems.

As people live longer and the populations of developed countries grow older, several related problems can be anticipated. The main issue is that there will obviously be more people of retirement age who will be eligible to receive a pension. The proportion of younger, working adults will be smaller, and

governments will therefore receive less money in taxes in relation to the size of the population. In other words, an ageing population will mean a greater tax burden for working adults. Further pressures will include a rise in the demand for healthcare, and the fact young adults will increasingly have to look after their elderly relatives.

There are several actions that governments could take to solve the problems described above. Firstly, a simple solution would be to increase the retirement age for working adults, perhaps from 65 to 70. Nowadays, people of this age tend to be healthy enough to continue a productive working life. A second measure would be for governments to encourage immigration in order to increase the number of working adults who pay taxes. Finally, money from national budgets will need to be taken from other areas and spent on vital healthcare, accommodation and transport facilities for the rising numbers of older citizens.

In conclusion, various measures can be taken to tackle the problems that are certain to arise as the populations of countries grow older. (265 words, band 9)

Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.

On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal

experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be

measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.

On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical

treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed. (270 words, band 9)

historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.

The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.

If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient funding for the maintenance of these important buildings. In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents.

(269 words, band 9)Posted by Simon

Some people think that strict punishments for driving offences are the key to reducing traffic accidents. Others, however, believe that other measures would be more effective in improving road safety. Discuss both governments or local councils could reduce road accidents by investing in better public transport, which would mean that fewer people would need to travel by car.

these views and give your own opinion.

第三段，采用firstly， secondly， finally的形式，中间可举例子。第二点可以呼吁社会或者什么的attention。第三点永远落在政府上。

Secondly, as a member of the society, this phenomenon is closely related to everyone of us. We appeal to everyone to fight against this phenomenon, and remind ourselves to do it well. If everyone of us guarantees that we are ready, then the problem will not exist.

People have differing views with regard to the question of how to make our roads safer. In my view, both punishments and a range of other measures can be used together to promote better driving habits.

On the one hand, strict punishments can certainly help to encourage people to drive more safely. Penalties for dangerous drivers can act as a deterrent, meaning that people avoid repeating the same offence. There are various types of driving penalty, such as small fines, licence suspension, driver awareness courses, and even prison sentences. The aim of these punishments is to show dangerous drivers that their actions have negative consequences. As a result, we would hope that drivers become more disciplined and alert, and that they follow the rules more carefully.

On the other hand, I believe that safe driving can be promoted in several different ways that do not punish drivers. Firstly, it is vitally important to educate people properly before they start to drive, and this could be done in schools or even as part of an extended or more difficult driving test. Secondly, more attention could be paid to safe road design. For example, signs can be used to warn people, speed bumps and road bends can be added to calm traffic, and speed cameras can help to deter people from driving too quickly. Finally,

In conclusion, while punishments can help to prevent bad driving, I believe that other road safety measures should also be introduced.

There are many different types of music in the world today. Why do we need music? Is the traditional music of a country more important than the international music that is heard everywhere nowadays?

It is true that a rich variety of musical styles can be found around the world. Music is a vital part of all human cultures for a range of reasons, and I would argue that traditional music is more important than modern, international music. Music is something that accompanies all of us throughout our lives. As children, we are taught songs by our parents and teachers as a means of learning language, or simply as a form of enjoyment. Children delight in singing with others, and it would appear that the act of singing in a group creates a

connection between participants, regardless of their age. Later in life, people’s musical preferences develop, and we come to see our favourite songs as part of our life stories. Music both expresses and arouses emotions in a way that words alone cannot. In short, it is difficult to imagine life without it.

In my opinion, traditional music should be valued over the international music that has become so popular. International pop music is often catchy and fun, but it is essentially a commercial product that is marketed and sold by business people. Traditional music, by contrast, expresses the culture, customs and

history of a country. Traditional styles, such as ...(example)..., connect us to the past and form part of our cultural identity. It would be a real pity if pop music became so predominant that these national styles disappeared.

In conclusion, music is a necessary part of human existence, and I believe that traditional music should be given more importance than international music.

It is true that foreign movies are more popular in many countries of the world than the domestically produced films. While there could be several reasons for this, I believe that government should subsidies the movie making business in order to make them popular in local market.

One of the main reasons why foreign movies are widespread is that they are produced with the latest technologies. For example, the recent Hollywood could be several reasons for this, and I consider it to be a very positive trend.

In recent years, parents have had to adapt to various changes in our societies. for women to and It has also movie – ‘Avatar’ has been a grand success in many countries because of its excellent sound effects and three dimensional visual impacts. Another important reason is that people are always curious to learn about foreign culture and tradition. Watching overseas movies is very common way to know about the social fabric, fashion and rituals followed by a particular community. To mitigate the risk of dying local film industry, government should provide incentives to the producers. This is required because local movies represent culture and heritage of the country. For example, a Bollywood movie ‘Once upon a time in Mumbai’ has shown the famous local festivals such as ‘Ganpati Visharjan’ and ‘Janmastami’. This has not only promoted Indian culture but also helped to draw more tourist visiting Mumbai city from overseas. Furthermore, government’s help to local movie industry would also create employment opportunities, and by this mean it would lead to a stronger economy.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the financial support of government would not only help local cinema to exist, but will make them thrive by competing foreign made movies, which are dominating the market at present

These days more fathers stay at home and take care of their children while mothers go out to work. What could be the reasons for this? Do you think it is a positive or a negative development?

Here are the 'band 7-9' words, collocations and phrases that I used:

while more women than ever are the in their families. There

same time, the has meant that both couples have children, they may decide who works and who stays at home depending on the of each partner, or based on which partner earns the most money. 【child [tʃaɪld]】children ['tʃɪldrən]

In my view, the changes described above We should be happy to live in a society in which men and women have equal opportunities, and in which women are not be free to leave their jobs in order to assume childcare responsibilities if this is what they wish to do. Couples should be left to make their own decisions about which parental role each partner takes, according (274 words, band 9) Posted by Simon

Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.

nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right Furthermore, this should be our aim.

I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that For and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to

In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them. (269 words, band 9) Posted by Simon Note:

I've highlighted my main paragraph 'topic sentences' in blue. Can you see how each topic sentence relates to one part of the question?

1.Advertising

2.Animal Rights: testing on animals, vegetarianism, zoos 3.Cities: urbanisation, problems of city life

4.Crime: police, punishments/prisons, rehabilitation, capital punishment

5.Education: studying abroad, technology in education, education in developing countries, higher education, home-schooling, bad behaviour, corporal punishment, single sex education, streaming (grouping children according to ability)

6.Environment: global warming, impact of humans on the environment, solutions to environment problems, waste/rubbish, litter, recycling, nuclear power

7.Family: family size, working parents, negative effects on children, divorce, care for old people

8.Gender: gender and education, gender and work, women’s and men’s role in the family{simon范文}.

9.Genetic Engineering: positives, negatives, genetically modified foods

10.Global Issues: problems in developing countries, how to help developing countries, immigration, multi-cultural societies, globalisation

11.Government and Society: what governments can do, public services, censorship, video cameras in public places

12.Guns and Weapons: gun ownership and possession, police and guns, nuclear weapons, armed forces

13.Health: diet, exercise, state health systems, private healthcare, alternative medicine, stress

14.Housing and Architecture: state housing, old buildings, modern/green buildings 15.International Language: English as an international language 16.Money: money and society, consumerism

simon范文篇二

Simon 小作文

The table below shows the amount of waste production (in millions of tones)

in six different countries over a twenty-year period.

The chart compares the amounts of waste that were produced in six countries in the years 1980, 1990 and 2000.

In each of these years, the US produced more waste than Ireland, Japan, Korea, Poland and Portugal combined. It is also noticeable that Korea was the only country that managed to reduce its waste output by the year 2000.{simon范文}.

Between 1980 and 2000, waste production in the US rose from 131 to 192 million tones, and rising trends were also seen in Japan, Poland and Portugal. Japan’s waste output increased from 28 to 53 million tones, while Poland and Portugal saw waste totals increase from 4 to 6.6 and from 2 to 5 million tones respectively.

The trends for Ireland and Korea were noticeably different from those described above. In Ireland, waste production increased more than eightfold, from only 0.6 million tones in 1980 to 5 million tones in 2000. Korea, by contrast, cut its waste output by 12 million tones between 1990 and 2000.

The diagrams compare two different methods of defence for homes which are at risk of being flooded.

The key difference between the diagrams is that they show flood protection with and without a stopbank. In either case, the at-risk home is raised on stilts above ground level.

The first diagram shows how a stopbank acts as a flood barrier to stop river water from flooding homes. The stopbank is a small mound of land next to the river that is higher than the 100-year flood level, and prevents the river from bursting its banks. Nearby houses can be built on stilts to prevent flooding from rainwater, and a floodgate beneath the stopbank can be opened to allow this ‘ponding’ to drain off into the river.

When there is no stopbank, as shown in the second diagram, there will be nothing to stop the river from flooding. In this case, the solution is to put buildings on stilts. The height of the stilts is measured so that the floor of the house is 300mm above the 100-year flood level. This measurement is called the ‘freeboard’. The diagrams compare two different methods of defence for homes which are at risk of being flooded.

The key difference between the diagrams is that they show flood protection with and without a stopbank. In either case, the at-risk home is raised on stilts above ground level.

The first diagram shows how a stopbank acts as a flood barrier to stop river water from flooding homes. The stopbank is a small mound of land next to the river that is higher than the 100-year flood level, and prevents the river from bursting its banks. Nearby houses can be built on stilts to prevent flooding from rainwater, and a floodgate beneath the stopbank can be opened to allow this ‘ponding’ to drain off into the river.

When there is no stopbank, as shown in the second diagram, there will be nothing to stop the river from flooding. In this case, the solution is to put buildings on stilts. The height of the stilts is

measured so that the floor of the house is 300mm above the 100-year flood level. This measurement is called the ‘freeboard’.

The graph below shows changes in young adult unemployment rates in England between 1993 and 2012.

Introduction and overview paragraphs:

The line graph compares levels of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds with overall unemployment figures over a period of 20 years in England. It is clear that the proportion of young adults who were unemployed at any time between 1993 and 2012 was significantly higher than the overall proportion of adults without work. Unemployment rates for both groups of adults were consistently higher in London than in the rest of England.

The table below shows changes in the numbers of residents cycling to work in different areas of the UK between 2001 and 2011.

The table compares the numbers of people who cycled to work in twelve areas of the UK in the years 2001 and 2011.

Overall, the number of UK commuters who travelled to work by bicycle rose considerably over the 10-year period. Inner London had by far the highest number of cycling commuters in both years.

In 2001, well over 43 thousand residents of inner London commuted by

bicycle, and this figure rose to more than 106 thousand in 2011, an increase of 144%. By contrast, although outer London had the second highest number of cycling commuters in each year, the percentage change, at only 45%, was the lowest of the twelve areas shown in the table.

Brighton and Hove saw the second biggest increase (109%) in the number of residents cycling to work, but Bristol was the UK’s second city in terms of total numbers of cycling commuters, with 8,108 in 2001 and 15,768 in 2011. Figures for the other eight areas were below the 10 thousand mark in both years.

The diagram below shows how solar panels can be used to provide electricity for domestic use.

simon范文篇三

TED Simon 演讲稿 英文+中文

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded ... and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here.

About three and a half years ago I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out, there's a pattern. As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world -- whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers -- they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.

Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I

don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why," I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out.

Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us.

Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car. But it's uninspiring.{simon范文}.

Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the

status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part:

None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our

neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.

In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just

doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.

But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more

importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.

Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I mean, even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was{simon范文}.

extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?

A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop; not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur; and The New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.

And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous so he quit.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

(Laughter)

We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.

These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of

diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market

conditions, right? You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market

conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time.

But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see,

when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits

without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us." What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe. Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who

believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak. How many of them showed up for him? Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for

ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech. (Laughter)

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring

anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.

simon范文篇四

雅思范文：考官9分雅思大作文模板

雅思范文：考官9分雅思大作文模板

编者按：这是一篇新鲜出炉的考官simon9分雅思大作文。以小编几十篇simon作文的阅读量，大致总结了他最为习惯的行文结构，通过对这个考官所喜欢的9分“模板”的解读，希望大家能在自己的雅思写作备考中，对写作模板的使用能有一个新的认识。

IELTS Writing Task 2: 'positive or negative' essay

Here's my full essay for the 'positive or negative development' question that we've been looking at over the last few weeks.

In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than in the past. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

9分范文：

In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone, particularly in large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend is having both positive and negative consequences in equal measure.

The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both personal and broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people who choose to live alone may become more independent and self-reliant than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives alone, for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget, all of which are valuable life skills. From an economic perspective, the trend towards living alone will result in greater demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the construction industry, estate agents and a whole host of other companies that rely on homeowners to buy their products or services.

However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling of increased independence, people who live alone may experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on the emotional support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can provide, and they must bear the weight of all household bills and responsibilities. Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing is likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may benefit some businesses, the general population, including those who live alone, will be faced with rising living costs.

In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy.

(280 words, band 9)

【思路分析】四段13句式

1.导入段 2句(背景+观点)

2.主体段1 5句(观点+论据1+例子+论据2+支持句)

3.主题段2 5句(观点+论据1+支持句+论据2+支持句)

4.结论段 1句 观点重申

【模板解读】这是simon自己所最为擅长的雅思大作文四段13句式行文结构。几乎所有的大作文，均可以采用此结构完成。稍加变动的只是在主体段中的论据，支持二者的比重。一般来说，注意2个主体段中适时地加入1个例子即可。

所以对于一个主体段5句式，根据论据是2个还是3个(一般不允许1个，否则论证过于单薄)simon常常采取的方式是这样的：

方式1：观点+3个论据+1个支持句或例子(支持句或例子根据需要放置)

方式2：观点+2个论据+1个支持句+1个例子

小结：模板是可以用的，但这个模板指的是自己所擅长的一个总的文章结构，而不是具体的死板的句式结构。在这种擅长的结构中，加入自己对于topic的有见地的观点和论证过程，结果如上所示：280 words, band 9。

【文章解读】具体到文章内部，既平淡无奇，却又暗藏沟壑。

第一段的观点句this trend is having both positive and negative consequences in equal measure

第二段one-person households的同义转述，on an individual level和From an economic perspective两个层面的论述。learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget多动词形成的一种强大的表现力。

第三段观点句the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from the opposite angle 此种方式的观点句非常少见。作者为我们展示了对一个观点持完全中立态度的方法。从首段开始的in equal measure到此处的can be considered from the opposite angle。

第四段总结 have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy。 以上即是小站雅思频道为大家带来的9分雅思范文解读的全部内容。范文原载于simon博客。祝早日雅思写作学有所成，祝早日与雅思分手。

雅思范文：考官9分雅思作文模板

simon范文篇五

雅思大作文9分范文解密：考官也用模板

编者按：这是一篇新鲜出炉的考官simon9分雅思大作文。以小编几十篇simon作文的阅读量，大致总结了他最为习惯的行文结构，通过对这个考官所喜欢的9分“模板”的解读，希望大家能在自己的雅思写作备考中，对写作模板的使用能有一个新的认识。

IELTS Writing Task 2: 'positive or negative' essay

Here's my full essay for the 'positive or negative development' question that we've been looking at over the last few weeks.

In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than in the past. Do you think this is a positive or negative development? 9分范文：

In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone,

particularly in large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend is having both positive and negative consequences in equal measure.

The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both personal and broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people who choose to live alone may become more independent and self-reliant than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives alone, for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget, all of which are valuable life skills. From an economic perspective, the trend towards living alone will result in greater demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the construction industry, estate agents and a whole host of other companies that rely on homeowners to buy their products or services.

However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be

considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling of increased independence, people who live alone may experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on the emotional support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can provide, and they must bear the weight of all household bills and responsibilities. Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing is likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may benefit some businesses, the general population, including those who live alone, will be faced with rising living costs.{simon范文}.

In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy.

(280 words, band 9)

【思路分析】四段13句式

1.导入段 2句(背景+观点)

2.主体段1 5句(观点+论据1+例子+论据2+支持句)

3.主题段2 5句(观点+论据1+支持句+论据2+支持句)

4.结论段 1句观点重申

【模板解读】这是simon自己所最为擅长的雅思大作文四段13句式行文结构。几乎所有的大作文，均可以采用此结构完成。稍加变动的只是在主体段中的论据，支持二者的比重。一般来说，注意2个主体段中适时地加入1个例子即可。 所以对于一个主体段5句式，根据论据是2个还是3个(一般不允许1个，否则论证过于单薄)simon常常采取的方式是这样的：

方式1：观点+3个论据+1个支持句或例子(支持句或例子根据需要放置) 方式2：观点+2个论据+1个支持句+1个例子

小结：模板是可以用的，但这个模板指的是自己所擅长的一个总的文章结构，而不是具体的死板的句式结构。在这种擅长的结构中，加入自己对于topic的有见地的观点和论证过程，结果如上所示：280 words, band 9。

【文章解读】具体到文章内部，既平淡无奇，却又暗藏沟壑。

第一段的观点句this trend is having both positive and negative consequences in equal measure

第二段one-person households的同义转述，on an individual level和From an economic perspective两个层面的论述。learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget多动词形成的一种强大的表现力。

第三段观点句the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from the opposite angle 此种方式的观点句非常少见。作者为我们展示了对一个观点持完全中立态度的方法。从首段开始的in equal measure到此处的can be considered from the opposite angle。

第四段总结 have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy。

以上即是小站雅思频道为大家带来的9分雅思范文解读的全部内容。范文原载于simon博客。祝早日雅思写作学有所成，祝早日与雅思分手。

simon范文篇六

writting part 2 simon

题目：

More and more people are migrating to cities in search of a better life, but city life can be extremely difficult. Explain some of the difficulties of living in a city. How can governments make urban life better for everyone?

范文：

Cities are often seen as places of opportunity, but there are also some major drawbacks of living in a large metropolis. In my opinion, governments could do much more to improve city life for the average inhabitant.

The main problem for anyone who hopes to migrate to a large city is that the cost of living is likely to be much higher than it is in a small town or village. Inhabitants of cities have to pay higher prices for housing, transport, and even food. Another issue is that urban areas tend to suffer from social problems such as high crime and poverty rates in comparison with rural areas. Furthermore, the air quality in cities is often poor, due to pollution from traffic, and the streets and public transport systems are usually overcrowded. As a result, city life can be unhealthy and stressful.

However, there are various steps that governments could take to tackle these problems. Firstly, they could invest money in the building of affordable or social housing to reduce the cost of living. Secondly, politicians have the power to ban vehicles from city centres and promote the use of cleaner public transport, which would help to reduce both air pollution and traffic congestion. In London, for example, the introduction of a congestion charge for drivers has helped to curb the traffic problem. A third option would be to develop provincial towns and rural areas, by moving industry and jobs to those regions, in order to reduce the pressure on major cities.

In conclusion, governments could certainly implement a range of measures to enhance the quality of life for all city residents.

题目：

In some countries, many more people are choosing to live alone nowadays than in the past. Do you think this is a positive or negative development?

范文：

In recent years it has become far more normal for people to live alone, particularly in large cities in the developed world. In my opinion, this trend is having both positive and negative consequences in equal measure.

The rise in one-person households can be seen as positive for both personal and broader economic reasons. On an individual level, people who choose to live alone may become more independent and self-reliant than those who live with family members. A young adult who lives alone, for example, will need to learn to cook, clean, pay bills and manage his or her budget, all of which are valuable life skills. From an economic perspective, the trend towards living alone will result in greater demand for housing. This is likely to benefit the construction industry, estate agents and a whole host of other companies that rely on homeowners to buy their products or services.

However, the personal and economic arguments given above can be considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, rather than the positive feeling of increased independence, people who live alone may experience feelings of loneliness, isolation and worry. They miss out on the emotional support and daily conversation that family or flatmates can provide, and they must bear the weight of all household bills and responsibilities. Secondly, from the financial point of view, a rise in demand for housing is likely to push up property prices and rents. While this may benefit some businesses, the general population, including those who live alone, will be faced with rising living costs.

In conclusion, the increase in one-person households will have both beneficial and detrimental effects on individuals and on the economy.