TPS News

Answer: “was” should be “were.”

“If this reliable microorganism were to fail in its bioremediation task, the contaminant would continue to pose environmental danger.”

Error: The writer stumbles in using a speculative conditional sentence. In such a sentence, in which a hypothesis is floated, the verb is conjugated differently. Why? Blame it on the vagaries of language, but sentences with the “if” formulation require extra attention. The sentence should read … “If this reliable microorganism were to fail…” This writing mistake is No. 7 of 10 Common Writing Errors That Can Spell “Rejection” for Your Manuscript, which are posted elsewhere on The Published Scholar Fans page.
錯誤之處：本句的作者在使用推測性的條件句時犯下錯誤。這類句子的假設並非篤定事實，因此動詞的變化也有所不同。原因要歸諸於語言本身特有的文法規則，也就是有if的句子就必須特別謹慎。正確的句法為 “If this reliable microorganism were to fail…” 這樣的寫作錯誤可參照本專頁所張貼之「10 個導致退稿的常見寫作錯誤之七：“In the Conditional Tense, Use “Were”」。

Thanks for everyone's participation in this week's Spot the Error Contest, it's been fun!
謝謝所有粉絲們參與本周的「你是挑錯的高手嗎?」活動，將實用、有意義的知識和大家交流與分享。


TPS Editorial Team

下列的句子中，包含了一個錯誤，可能是文法、拼法或是標點符號的錯誤。我們將提供統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券，給予今天前三名挑出正確錯誤、寫出正確答案的粉絲。正確的解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS的專頁。請將你的答案寫在下方，獲得免費購物禮券的幸運兒可能就是你哦!
The sentence below contains 1 grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. The first three (3) TPS Fans to respond with the corrected sentence will win a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate. The corrected sentence and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page. Please post your answers below. Good luck!

題目Contest Sentence:

“If this reliable microorganism was to fail in its bioremediation task, the contaminant would continue to pose environmental danger.”

12 Recommendations to Help you Submit a Conventional and Acceptable Paper Tip 5: The essence of writing is careful word choices


12個獲得學術認可的論文撰寫技巧之五：注意用字遣詞


教授學者們通常會規範寫作標準，制定如何撰寫碩博士論文與學術文章以及格式要求。學術界所評定的標準植基於以何種撰寫方式會被認可，何種撰寫方式則會被拒絕。本專欄提出「12個獲得學術認可的論文撰寫技巧」，幫助你寫出符合規範與認可標準的文章。

The community of scholars has rules that govern how dissertations, theses and other academic papers are composed and formatted. Academic convention has established what is acceptable and what is not. Following is one of 12 recommendations to help you submit a conventional and acceptable paper.


Tip 5 –The essence of writing is careful word choices

技巧五：注意用字遣詞




The pre-writing phase of creating an academic paper now is complete. Having chosen and researched the paper’s subject and thesis, determined the proper format, and created the structure or outline of the paper, the author is ready to write. While each part in the process of a paper’s creation is essential, how it is written ultimately tells the story of its academic value.

現在，已經完成論文撰寫的準備階段，包括已選定論文主題、做了相關研究、瞭解適當的寫作風格並擬定論文大綱，一切準備就緒後，我們就來著手寫論文。雖然論文寫作的每個階段都非常重要，然而，最終論文真正的學術價值，還是取決於你的論文內容。


The elements of good academic writing are obvious—and not so obvious. Consequently, several tips will be devoted to composition. However, the overall standard for academic writing can be summarized in a word: precision. Choosing words precisely accomplishes several good things. That is, careful selection of words gives a paper clarity, vitality, purpose, and substance.

好的學術論文應該具備哪些特質，看似顯而易見，卻又好像沒那麼容易掌握。其實，撰寫論文需要一點小技巧。一言以蔽之，論文寫作的準則就是「精確」。用字遣詞力求精確，可讓論文讀來文意清晰、活力盡現、立意鮮明且真材實料。


Clarity is the Number 1 objective when pen is put to paper, or fingertips to a keyboard. The goal should not be to dazzle the assigning professor, nor to impress him with the author’s entire vocabulary. Rather, the author should strive to be clear, to avoid misunderstanding and confusion. Writing that cleanly and sharply defines an idea is sure to be embraced and rewarded.

撰寫論文的第一要務是文意務必清晰，不需太過花俏讓教授眼花繚亂，也不需將滿腹英文字彙全數傾囊而出。論文必須致力於保持文意清晰，避免造成誤解或混淆。一篇文章若是可以清晰、鮮明地完整描繪一個觀念或是概念，則可堪稱佳作。


The vitality of a paper is what impels a reader to read it; what makes a paper vital is carefully chosen words. One characteristic of vitality is liveliness. A word that enlivens a sentence or conveys a thought with power or spirit captures the interest of a reader. Using such words throughout a paper holds the interest and gives the paper enduring appeal. Dull papers lack vigor.

充滿活力的論文能激發讀者閱讀的興趣，活力的來源就在於遣詞用字的謹慎，而最大的特質在於運用富有生命力的詞彙。只要這個字詞能充份展現敘述的力道與精神，有效傳達論文概念，在畫龍點睛之間，就足以吸引讀者的目光。運用這類的字詞貫串論文內容之中，就必定能維繫讀者閱讀的興趣；而枯燥呆板的文章自然無法展現出這樣的活力。


Purpose is at the heart of any academic paper. After all, a paper isn’t written as an exercise. It is written to advance an idea, to provoke new thinking, to persuade. Words are the tools for accomplishing this. Remember: Weak words cannot push anything, dull words are not provocative, and mincing words are not convincing. Always use words with purpose and intent.

論文的精髓在於精確表達寫作目的，畢竟撰寫論文並不是寫作練習，你必須提出一個新概念、具有獨創的想法，進而說服讀者。而達到這些目標的有力工具，就是文字。請謹記，文字沒有力量則無法成事，文字沈悶則無激勵效果，文字裝模作樣毫無重點則無說服力。你所使用的任何文字都必須有目標、有意義。


Substance is intellectual weight. An academic paper is substantial if it contains original thoughts. Yet a paper without an original thesis still can possess substance if fresh and forceful language reflects original research. A wisely chosen word, grounded in fact, reverberates with power. In short, having something essential to say is a good start, but saying it forcefully closes the deal.

內容，決定論文的學術地位。一篇論文因原創想法而偉大；缺乏原創想法，若運用清晰有力的字句，呼應與推展原創性的研究，這篇論文仍佔有相當的學術份量。歷經實證求據、精雕細琢的字詞可讓論文充滿力量。所以，能找到重要的概念是好的開始，而能夠有力量、有效果地表達出來，才能真正展現論文的價值，得以譽為學術界的傑出貢獻。

TPS的編輯教授在此歡迎關於學術文章的所有詢問，當然，其實他並沒有足夠的時間給你。他擁有終身教職的教授身份，也是著名的學術巨作作者。即便如此，他仍大方地接受你們的詢問。將關於學術方面的詢問寫在下方，你將獲得教授的親自指導，陶冶對學術的探索與啟發。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.

QUESTION: I submitted a paper on the integrity of Oedipus. My professor gave it a low grade, saying it lacked “rigor.” I know what “rigor” means, but the professor evidently has a different definition. What characterizes academic rigor?
我的報告「伊底帕思的健全性」成績很低，老師的評語是不夠「嚴謹」。我知道嚴謹是什麼意思，不過想必老師所謂的嚴謹並不同於我的認知，究竟在學術論文的領域中，如何做到寫作的「嚴謹」呢？

The “integrity of Oedipus” reminds me of an old joke about the congeniality of kumquats, but I won’t regale you. You didn’t ask me a question just to get a chuckle. That’s why we have teaching assistants. What characterizes academic rigor? I’ll give you a Dickensian answer: great expectations. University faculty members expect to work in a rarified environment of intellectual activity and curiosity. They expect their students to contribute to this community of intellect, or at the very least to reflect it.
說到「伊底帕思的健全性」，讓我聯想到關於金桔的老笑話，不過，我可不是來說笑話的，我相信你向我請教這個問題也不期望有什麼好笑的答案，不然你會去找助教，不會來找我。學術所定義的「嚴謹」是什麼？狄更斯式的回答是：高度的期望。大學教職老師一向期許能創造充滿豐富知識與好奇心的環境，並期待學生對這樣無形的知識環境貢獻自己的所學與研究，或是至少表現出對學術探索的積極態度。

Consequently, standards are high for any products that emerge from this intellectual hothouse, including academic papers. Standards not only are high, they are rather inflexible. After all, rigor is characterized by exactness and unvarying quality. It follows that thinking and writing are expected to be uniformly stimulating. Classroom discussions are expected to prick previously untouched nodes of the brain. Ideally, constructive criticism will awaken slumbering geniuses and produce a flowering of original thought.
因此，像這樣產出豐富知識的學術溫床與環境，自然必須採用更高的標準才能撰寫出一篇傑出的學術論文。這些標準不僅嚴格，也很難任意改變。畢竟，所謂「嚴謹」，就是精確的表達與穩定的品質，這樣的觀念不論是用在思考或是寫作方面，都必須引以為鑑。藉由課堂討論的方式，可激發腦中從未探索過的思緒與環結，像這樣具有積極建設性的評論與溝通，可望喚醒沈睡中的天才，引導創造出源源不絕的獨創想法。

This is the theory, anyway, behind “academic rigor.” By pushing and pushing, it is hoped that brains become fully engaged, enhancing the climate of thought on a campus. In reality, sometimes the only result is people with headaches. Still, the hope endures that students, such as you, can be persuaded to turn in papers marked by intellectual rigor. The greater hope is that you will become so conditioned to thinking rigorously that deep thought, thorough research, and clear expression will develop into lifelong habits.
以上見解，是「學術嚴謹」存在的背後理論，主要希望學生在不斷督促之下可更加積極思考，推廣校園的學術風氣。當然，在現實生活中，這樣的督促往往讓學生更加頭痛而有苦難言。但是，我仍希望所有的學生，包括您自己，都能夠寫出堪稱嚴謹的論文。我更加期許大家應以嚴謹思考的方式自律，養成終身學習的好習慣，包括：深入的思考、透徹的研究以及清晰的表達。

賀!
科技設計公司陳先生，已於美國國際研討會 HCII 2011成功投稿研討會文章!


Congratulation!
Mr. Chen from Design Corporation has successfully published his article on Conference "HCII 2011" in Florida, USA!


Let's give our big applause for Mr. Chen!
再次恭禧陳先生的文章獲得HCII 2011的肯定!


TPS Team 敬賀

並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“Alcoholism affects physical and psychological functioning and disrupts the social life of a serious drinker. It is a progressive illness that can kill you if someone doesn’t step up and help. The three methods of intervening are medical screening, pharmacological treatment, and going into therapy. The first method (screening) is chancy. The other two take longer and can get pretty intense. No method is guaranteed to work, because alcoholism is a tough disease.”

The previous paragraph is infused with language unsuited for an academic paper. “The social life of a serious drinker” is a colloquial expression. (What is a “serious drinker?” Is it a person who is seriously intent on getting drunk, or one who is seriously in trouble with alcohol?) The phrase “that can kill you if someone doesn’t step up and help” is personalized and awkwardly rendered. “The three methods” sentence contains nonparallel elements. The characterization of one method as “chancy” is slangy. The final two sentences are rife with conversational and shorthand language that diminish their effectiveness. The more academic version appears below.
這段文章並不適用於學術論文。 “The social life of a serious drinker” 相當口語，其中的問題包括 “serious drinker” 如何定義? 是指蓄意喝醉的人，還是有嚴重飲酒問題的人? 接下來“that can kill you if someone doesn’t step up and help”讀來會感覺是針對個人且表達方式相當怪異。另外，文中提到的 “The three methods” 三種方式排列不夠工整，首句出現的 “chancy”太過俚俗，後兩句則接近對話且表達太過簡略，使得文句的效果大打折扣。此段文章編輯潤飾後內容，刊登如下。

Acceptable 認可的文章

“Alcoholism affects physical and psychological functioning and disrupts social cohesion by overriding inhibitions. It is a progressive illness that can be a fatal one in the absence of intervention. The three methods of intervening are medical screening, pharmacological treatment, and behavioral therapy. The first method (screening) is voluntary and serendipitous, the latter two longer term and more intense. None is a panacea, because the disease is so pernicious.”

很多字詞並非表面所見的意思，字詞的組合會產生不同的解釋。這樣的慣用法，我們稱之為「比喻」。一個成功的比喻，作者本身必須相當瞭解字詞的源起。以下的句子為讀者介紹一個比喻及其來源。
Imagery buries itself in language and takes on new meaning. The transplanted and transformed sets of words are called “figures of speech.” For a figure of speech to be effective, however, a writer must first understand the original meaning of the phrase. The following sentence contains a common figure of speech. Its original meaning is explained.


“As he scanned an audience of peers, the retiring historian gathered his thoughts, culling from a cribful of frustration the kernels of professional delight that might nurture.”
「這位退休歷史學家掃視一眼台下的聽眾，同時整理著自己的思緒，從滿滿的挫折當中挑選出職業生涯中愉快的事蹟。」

“Culling from a cribful ... the kernels” is an agrarian allusion. It refers to corn, which sometimes is stored whole, still on the cob, in a corncrib. When shelled, the actual volume of edible corn is much less than the crib’s volume of ears of corn. While the corncob is useful, it lacks the nutritional value of the kernels embedded in it.
「從玉米穀倉中挑出玉米粒 (Culling from a cribful ... the kernels)」是帶有農業色彩的引喻，其中提到的玉米，有時以整枝玉米的形式保存在玉米穀倉中，剝下來後可食用的玉米粒，份量會比整枝玉米穗少得多，而玉米梗雖然仍有用途，營養價值卻比不上玉米粒。

As used in a paper about an eminent historian, the metaphor denotes a processing of memories by one who knows both the researcher’s episodic joy of discovery and the exhausting labor of digging. In “gathering his thoughts,” the historian chooses to voice selective career highlights, rather than to dwell on necessary struggles preceding them.
在這篇關於著名歷史學家的文章當中，這個隱喻點出作者不但瞭解研究學者在新發現時的欣喜若狂，也非常清楚發掘過程的辛勞，因此寫道這位歷史學家在「整理思緒」時，選擇強調工作的成就，而不著墨於必經的奮鬥過程。

教授學者們通常會規範寫作標準，制定如何撰寫碩博士論文與學術文章以及格式要求。學術界所評定的標準植基於以何種撰寫方式會被認可，何種撰寫方式則會被拒絕。本專欄提出「12個獲得學術認可的論文撰寫技巧」，幫助你寫出符合規範與認可標準的文章。
The community of scholars has rules that govern how dissertations, theses and other academic papers are composed and formatted. Academic convention has established what is acceptable and what is not. Following is one of 12 recommendations to help you submit a conventional and acceptable paper.

Tip 4 – Organize and group the material and outline the paper
技巧四：分類資料並勾勒論文大綱

At this point, the author of an academic paper should have chosen a subject and thesis and thoroughly researched it. The author also should have determined what format is required for the paper by the assigning professor, and made certain that enough information has been gathered to satisfy citation requirements. Now it is time to create the structure of the paper.
在這個準備階段，作者應已選定研究主題，根據研究論點搜集許多相關資料，並且作者也應已確定指導教授要求的論文格式，妥善準備證明與證據。一切準備就緒後，現在就讓我們進入論文的架構。

An academic paper is built around the thesis. Every point made in the paper should support the argument voiced in the thesis. Every statement should be a brick in the argument’s foundation. Every assertion should, directly or indirectly, lead the reader to the conclusion summarized in the thesis. (Conversely, if a point has the potential to lead a reader astray, it should be discarded.)
論文是根據論點來架構內容，每一個論點背後皆需要有支持理論的證據，也就是說，每個引據、每個證明，就像是磚塊需一層層堆砌起來，才能穩固論點存在的基礎。每一項研究主張都應該以直接或間接的方式，逐步、清楚的引導讀者進入論文總結 (相反的，若是論點的發展將可能誤導讀者、迷失論文重點，作者就應當機立斷，捨棄這個方向)。

The collected material should be organized, a process that probably began during the collection stage. The material should be arranged by function—for example, introductory material near the top of the list. It also should be grouped according to sub-topic or supporting evidence. This grouping process will reveal any areas of argumentation that are weak and need more research.
所有收集的資料都要進入整理過程。資料根據不同功能進行分類。例如，介紹、敘述方面的資料，就應放置於資料庫的最前面。進而，作者可以次主題或不同的支持論證進行第二層分類。這樣分群分類的過程，將有助於掌控現有資訊，是否那些論證薄弱，或者那些方面需要加入更多資訊。

Next comes the outlining of the paper. While the grouped material might suggest an outline, a set of facts can be employed in more than one way. A paper on Copernicus, for example, might chronologically relate his solar system studies, or it might juxtapose his various discoveries with the misconceptions of his peers. Facts are not malleable, but they are moveable.
接下來進入勾勒論文綱要。從分類的資訊所引導出來的脈絡來看，或許已透露出大綱的輪廓。然而，同樣的事實論據卻可應用於不同的需求與情境。舉例來說，同樣是以哥白尼的研究為主題，有的人會以時間順序與他的太陽運行學說為研究方向；有的人也可能以不同於那個時代的觀點與角度切入研究。所以，事實盡管無法改變，它卻可在你的論文中隨需求調整合適的位置。

A professor may suggest a structure for a paper, but usually only in general terms. The content of the paper, as a result of research, ultimately decides the most effective structure. This might be a narrative approach. Or it could be a side-by-side comparison, or a sequential presentation of evidence. In every case, the goal is to assemble the facts into a convincing final argument.
指導教授或許會要求論文的架構，但通常指的是大方向的論文結構。事實上，論文內容將因研究方向的不同，而產生獨特的架構組合。不論是以敘述的手法表現，或是集合所有論點進行比較，或是一系列論據的呈現等等，在每一件論文作品中，首重目的在於有效整合論據並提出令人信服的論點。

Before writing begins, purposefully evaluate the chosen outline. Ask questions. Does it function convincingly? Does it stay on course in support of the thesis? Is it logical and comprehendible? Does it sail from introduction to conclusion without running aground somewhere? Can it be strengthened by alteration, or addition? Be sure. The outline becomes the blueprint for the paper.
在撰寫論文之前，仔細檢視確定好的綱要，好好回答下列的問題：這樣的內容鋪陳具有說服力嗎? 這些論據有成功的佐證論點嗎? 內容符合邏輯且容易瞭解嗎? 從介紹到結論的閱讀過程中，有正確引導讀者、不使讀者迷失困惑嗎? 論文是否還有再加強或再修改的空間與必要? 一定要確實檢視上列問題。 別忘了，綱要是論文寫作成功的重要藍圖。

TPS的編輯教授在此歡迎關於學術文章的所有詢問，當然，其實他並沒有足夠的時間給你。他擁有終身教職的教授身份，也是著名的學術巨作作者。即便如此，他仍大方地接受你們的詢問。將關於學術方面的詢問寫在下方，你將獲得教授的親自指導，陶冶對學術的探索與啟發。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.

QUESTION: I got a poor grade on my first academic paper because my instructor said I never was able to “make my point.” I thought I made it pretty well, but apparently not. I’m wondering how I can “make my point” more effectively. Can you tell me, or is this something I need to try to figure out myself?
我交出首次完成的學術論文，但卻得到很低的分數，我的指導教授說我總是沒能完整的"說出重點"。我覺得我有寫到重點，但顯然沒達到教授的標準。我不斷的猜想，到底我該如何更精確的講出重點呢? 請問TPS教授是否能告訴我方法，或者，有什麼是我可以自己找出解答的方向呢?

What’s your point? I’m not being entirely facetious: Your question is so broad and wandering that it almost is pointless. Without even trying, you have illustrated your instructor’s complaint. I am wondering how you made it this far in your academic life without learning how to write a meaningful declarative sentence. I am willing to help you, but I must insist that you be prepared to assert yourself intellectually. Failure to do so will almost assuredly continue to earn you poor grades.
你問的重點是什麼呢? 我不是在開玩笑挖苦你，你的問題很廣泛而且有點雜亂，我幾乎不知道問題所在。我反倒覺得你沒試著說出問題重點，而只是轉述你的指導教授的抱怨與評論。我不禁冒出一個想法，若沒有認真鑽研如何寫出有意義的句子，在漫漫的學術生涯中又怎麼挺得過種種困難? 我非常願意幫助你，但我需強烈建議你必須在知識的學習與追求上更加把勁。若不這麼做，可能未來還是只能繼續拿低分。

“Making a point” in an academic paper is like point-making in any other endeavor. How do you make a point on a pencil? Using a sharp blade or sharpener, you carve away the wood surrounding the lead and then some of the lead itself until the pencil’s functional core is laid bare. Similarly, the point of an academic paper is made by eliminating the detritus of your research until the nub of your argument remains. You then state the point, substantiate it, blunt counterpoints and restate the point in conclusion.
學術文章強調的"說出重點"，就如同在其它領域努力找重點是一樣的道理。想想看，你通常怎麼做才能將鉛筆削尖一點? 你可以使用削刀或是削鉛筆機，一步步將鉛筆筆心外圍的木頭削去，讓筆尖自然成形。同樣的，學術論文的重點在於將研究過程中瑣碎的資訊捨棄，去蕪存菁直到留下唯一的重要論點。於此同時，你便能充滿自信的提出這個論點，用相關佐證來證明它，直言不諱的闡述你發現的論點，進而在結論處重申論點的重要性。

In short, the point of your paper is your central argument. It is why the paper is written. Without a clearly stated argument – that is, a point – you have no paper. Your instructor is looking for a reasoned and sustainable argument that is convincing in its presentation and supportable in its citations. Making a point is, first, an intellectual process. In scholarly writing, it combines intellectual and composition skills. If you are a scholar, think like one and your papers will reflect it.
總之，找出論文重點是你的核心要務。這也是論文產生的主要目的。若沒有明確清楚的論點，也就是沒有"重點"，就不可能有論文。你的指導教授必定會在你的論文中，找出有意義、可靠且可讓人信服的論點，以及是否存在足以支持論點的引據。所以，找出重點，便是你首要且必要花心思與努力去研究的過程。想要寫好學術文章，你需要具備高度的智慧以及傑出的撰寫技巧。將自己想像是一位學者的身份，進而試著以學者的立場思考，那麼你的論文方向與重點，很快就能呼之欲出了。

Answer: “is” should be “are.”

“The poetess’s asymmetrical allusions to God—she seems unwilling to directly concede God’s presence in her heart and mind—are a failure of poetcraft as well as conscience.”

Error: The person critiquing the poetess falls down in his subject-verb agreement. Plural subjects require plural verbs, and singular subjects require singular verbs. The subject of this sentence is a plural word, “allusions,” which does not agree with the singular verb, “is.” The correct combination is … “The poetess’s asymmetrical allusions … are a failure.” This writing mistake is No. 6 of 10 Common Writing Errors That Can Spell “Rejection” for Your Manuscript, which are posted elsewhere on The Published Scholar Fan page.
錯誤之處：這句話的作者對於女詩詞家的評論，疏忽了主動詞一致的文法規則。主詞是複數，就需要搭配複數動詞，同理，主詞是單數，需搭配單數動詞。本句的主詞為 “allusions”，為複數形，所以在原句中搭配單數動詞是不對的。正確的句法為 “The poetess’s asymmetrical allusions … are a failure …” 或是 “The poetess’s asymmetrical allusion …is a failure …”。 這樣的寫作錯誤可參照本專頁所張貼之「10 個導致退稿的常見寫作錯誤之六：“Be Careful When the Subject is an Indefinite Pronoun”」。

The winners of this week's prize are Welson Xiong, Michael Lin, and Ivan Tsai.
Thanks for everyone's participation in this week's Spot the Error Contest, it's been fun!
這次獲獎的粉絲為Welson Xiong, Michael Lin, and Ivan Tsai。
謝謝所有粉絲們參與本周的「你是挑錯的高手嗎?」活動，將實用、有意義的知識和大家交流與分享。


TPS Editorial Team