The seemingly constructive proposal that young people who have just accomplished their high school career should be encouraged to work or travel for one year has been warmly accepted by several educationists on the ground that this policy will really benefit the growth of these young in a long run. But there are also many who oppose the idea, saying that the measure is unnecessary and its advantages can be generated by complimentary means during college. In what follows, I shall discuss the pros and cons of the policy.
Those who believe in the measure say that students benefit a lot from travelling or working for a year before their formal university education. First, they can more broadly acquainted themselves with the society, deepen their understanding of the outside world, and thus better coordinate their objectives of learning with the needs of the society. In contrast, by immediate entrance to university they can not steer the direction of their study well and may display a poor combination of the theory with practice. Second, study at high school is really exausting, especially when to win college admission. So it is necessary to grant these children a relatively long period of relaxation or buffer, say, travelling or working for a year, to loosen the chords of their brain, so that when they go back to school later again, they can become completely refreshed and rejuvenated.
However, many others hold the opposite opinion that these young children should stick to their usual life course. The first reason they cite is that there is always a proper time in one’s life for doing a proper thing and that the one year is just a golden period for advanced learning, which simply can not afford any squandering. They also cast doubt on the view that the kids can gain social and working experience by questioning what kind of jobs the fledglings can find and what if our universities can offer the same opportunities. They further express their concern that the young, innocent and immature, may go astray and be misled when exposed to a world so trickily alluring. They are worried if the “sophisticated” men could sit still in their classrooms when they come back to the campus.
To be frank, I believe we do not need to be so imaginative. The notion of travelling or working for one year before college sounds flashy, but will bring about more troubles than we can control. In my opinion, we may as well perfect our college education systems, for example, by creating more chances for social practice, to achieve the same benefits that the bold measure can contribute.
点评：
第一段：三句话。第一句话和第二句话以对立的方式表明了关于这一做法的两种截然不同的观点。第三句话表示要在下文探讨这两个方面的观点，引出下文(A+B)。
第二段：写A+ 或者B- ，五句话，其中第一句话为主题句。后面以First和Second为标志，引出了两大理由，一是A+1，跟现实社会更广泛进行接触，增长对于社会的认识，从而更加明确社会需求和自己的学习目标。同时写了B-1，直接进入大学就读一是不能很好把握学习方向，也不能很好地将理论与实际相结合。二是A+2，谈高中学习相当劳累，工作旅行一年是很好的缓冲。
第三段：写B+或者A-，五句话。第一句话为主题句，表明了反对者的立场，认为应该坚持原来直接上大学的做法。第二句以The first reason引出了B+1，认为高中毕业后那一年是人生学习的黄金时间，同时写A-1，认为将一年宝贵的学习巅峰时间，用作任何其他用途都是一种浪费。第三句由also一词引出了对于该做法的质疑，即A-2，高中毕业生出去又能找到什么工作呢?同时提到B+2，难道大学没有兼职的机会?第四句话由 further引出A-3，高中毕业生年纪尚幼，在不成熟时闯入社会，或会误入歧途，第五句写A-4，出去工作、旅游一年，心收不回来了，回到大学需要好长时间才能进入学习状态，贻误学习。
第四段：总结段，提出自己的观点，三句话，表明自己站在B方，即反对这种异想天开的做法。第一句是 topic sentence旗帜鲜明地表明立场，第二句指出这种做法会造成我们难以控制的后果，事实上是一个对A-的大总结，第三句话指出了一种两全的方法，我们可以在大学增加社会实践机会，让直接上大学的学生得到跟停学旅行或工作一年同样的成长和锻炼机会。