Some people say that learning classical Chinese texts is helpful to students' writing, not only does it not have a bad effect, and it will not be "non-literal". It is very good: it is very interesting to embellish a few classical Chinese words and apply some classical Chinese syntax. This unpleasant taste, although it is not so clear. Of course, I do not deny that studying classical Chinese is helpful to the writing of vernacular to a certain extent, and it helps to express in two aspects: chapter and language. This can also be said to be a modern writer A criticism. Why can't these be learned from modern works, but also go to the old ancestors to rescue soldiers? What is the correct understanding of the meaning of the line drawing sentence in the paragraph below? ['Modern writers should be criticized because they abuse classical words and have a bad influence.', 'Modern works are not as good as ancient works in terms of text and language.', 'Learn to write vernacular but must turn to classical Chinese to explain the shortcomings of some modern works.', 'There is no taste in vernacular, although it is not explicitly stated, it is actually a criticism of them.']