初中英语命题作文真题演练(91):音乐节目

可适当增加从句的使用；语句间的衔接成分用的不错，同时文章中的过程性词汇很丰富；作者词汇基础扎实，拼写也很棒。

The Olympic Games has been a major sport even for thousands of years. It has brought many benefits to the host countries, both financial and non-financial. However, there is a debate about whether the Olympic Games should stay in one country, or shift every four years. This essay will argue that the Olympics should not have a permanent home, for the following reasons. Not only the benefits help the chosen country`s economy, but also global expertise in organizing large events will increase if shared. Furthermore, competition to be chosen to help countries develop. First of all, the financial benefits should be shared among every country. For instance, it will create more job opportunity and these will be more money for people to have a better lifestyle. In fact, the Olympics Games will bring a huge positive impact to the country. Many people believe that it will boost the economy for the country, but none of the country should host the Olympic Games permanently for that reason. Therefore, developing and developed countries would have an equal chance to improve their finance and tourism income. Roberts (2006) said that “A permanent site would give unfair financial advantages to the host city. One of the key factors that people want to shift the Game that is the experiences of hosting the Olympics Games should not only belong to the host country, but also the countries that have potential to host the Games. Sharing these experiences is extremely important for them, because not every country is able to afford a huge budget for the Olympics Games like the big countries are. As for these countries, they have to lower the cost as well as performing a good Game; one of the most effective ways would be to learn these experiences. Moreover, it can also provide a long term benefit for countries to host the Game, for example, better facilities, security skills and experts training, thus more people around the world can be benefited if more countries host the Game. Competition is required to have the best Olympics Game for the most appropriate country. This is because when the completion happens, all of the countries which are competing would have to spend more to develop in their country, aim to beat the other opponents. For instance, they might be asked to solve traffic problem and lower the pollution in the city. Therefore, people who are living in the host country can receive these direct profits because of the Olympics Games. In addition, Jenkins (2007) mentioned that “The vast majority of people questioned preferred the Olympics to be help in a different city every four years.” That is, to satisfy and convince most people, having competition of hosting Olympics Games has become the only method to achieve that. Despite, some proponents claim that the Olympic should have a permanent home, which will surely give advantage for this “Olympic country” as well as the people in the country. It would lower the cost and stop arguments about choosing the next country, according to Kinghorn (2006), “adopting a permanent site would avoid any international disagreements between countries.” Moreover, the reputation of the country would be increased since Olympic Games would never move to other country. Bailey (2006) suggested that to have a permanent home to Greece, in order to emphasize its historical origins. As a result, people would fascinate sports if their country owns the Olympics permanently. In conclusion, it seems clear that the benefits of hosting Olympics are shown very enticing. In fact, these benefits have to be shared, to narrow the gap between the rich and poor countries. For a fair crack of the whip, they ought to have opportunity to host the Olympics Games by competition. Some people approve that the Olympics deserve a permanent home; however, it should not be neglected that Olympics belong to the world, not particular country.