ISSUE82 政府审查展览---按GALAXYSONG推荐的范文格式写的,感觉比昨天强呵呵,
82). "Government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum wishes to exhibit."The speaker asserts that government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum whishes to exhibit, whether the museum is public or private. While I agree with the speaker in that censorship should never be imposed to private museums, however, it is reasonable to public museums.
Like firms produce various goods, museums "produce" various displays. If we think private producers have the right in deciding what they produce, there is no reason to deny the private museums' corresponding right in deciding what they displays. Definitely, this right is not absolute and must not conflict with laws. But we should distinguish
censorship from laws. Whereas the laws enact some rules that people should not break, the censorship often does not stipulate definite rules. While whether behavior is lawful depends on results it generates, whether a display can pass censorship depends on censors' judgment on its contents and speculation on its possible effects. But we all know that this kind of judgment and speculation is rarely, if never, justifiable and objective. It's hard to imagine a democratic society in which the aesthetic standard, or further, the standard of "good" and "evil" is set by a few authorities and so-called experts in censoring committees. In this sense, censorship is dangerous and harmful to society. If we are acquiescent with its development, we can expect in future mass media, various publications, speeches and so on are all under censorship, and finally we can find we have gone too far in the " road to the slavery."
On the other hand, even if the contents of displays should be confined, the censorship is also a bad choice because of its moderation and inefficiency. For instance, laws are more effective in limiting or prohibiting those "evil" displays than censorship. The first reason is that punishment is more intimidating than only prohibition, which is the severest result in censorship, to private museums. The second reason is that laws, which only deal with those illegal displays, are more efficient than censorship, which must deal with all displays.
However, to public museums, the situation is different. Government must decide or censor the contents of displays that public museums exhibit, because these decisions are just part of its daily administration. At the same time, as public institutions mainly financed by tax, the public museums must be responsible for taxpayers. Thus, the contents of their displays should accord with public interests. In addition, because government can appoint the leaders or curators who are different in knowledge and tastes to public museums, it can effectively control the displays and assure the diversity in its contents as well.
In sum, censorship is an inefficient but dangerous weapon to control the displays of private museums. It could encroach the base of a democratic society and encourage the expanding in power of government. As for public museums, censorship is unavoidable, but even so, its negative effects should be limited as much as possible. 看到你的文章第一句就决定先和你说一下：切记，你看的很多不是正宗的范文，对与老美来说，他不喜欢人家抄题目，你一定换词！！！还有一种方法，我常常用的，就是改问句。对于改成问句的话是不会判雷同的，方便又健康，真是居家旅游必备良句啊~~~~~~ 其实我刚才一直想问,这么简单的句子照抄下来行不?实在是不明白,好象ARGUMENT可以照抄是吧?谢谢楼上兄弟提醒. 我的《Issue武器库》的第一句就是“反问句”，呵呵。 怎么不见有人改?好,我自己改!!!不过不忙,无耻的顶一下先! 这篇字数肯定够了
82). "Government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum wishes to exhibit."
The speaker asserts that government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum whishes to exhibit, whether the museum is public or private. While I agree with the speaker in that censorship should never be imposed to private museums, however, it is reasonable to public museums.
开头简洁
Like firms produce various goods, museums "produce" various displays. If we think private producers have the right in deciding what they produce, there is no reason to deny the private museums' corresponding right in deciding what they displays. 觉得这个类比不好，他要是造毒品呢Definitely, this right is not absolute and must not conflict with laws. But we should distinguish
censorship from laws. Whereas the laws enact some rules that people should not break, the censorship often does not stipulate definite rules. While whether behavior is lawful depends on results it generates, whether a display can pass censorship depends on censors' judgment on its contents and speculation on its possible effects.［its possible effects 和results有什么区别呢，无法形成对比］ But we all know that this kind of judgment and speculation is rarely, if never［ever］, justifiable and objective. It's hard to imagine a democratic society in which the aesthetic standard, or further, the standard of "good" and "evil" is set by a few authorities and orso-called experts in censoring committees. In this sense, censorship is dangerous and harmful to society. If we are acquiescent with its development, we can expect in future mass media, various publications, speeches and so on are all under censorship, and finally we can find we have gone too far in the " road to the slavery."
首先觉得law和censorship是不能对比的，很多时候就是根据法律来审查
然后觉得你后半段在说怎么样的审查才是适当的,却没有说明审查对于展览来说是不是必要的
On the other hand, even if the contents of displays should be confined, the censorship is also a bad choice because of its moderation and inefficiency. For instance, laws are more effective in limiting or prohibiting those "evil" displays than censorship. The first reason is that punishment is more intimidating than only prohibition, which is the severest result in censorship, to private museums. The second reason is that laws, which only deal with those illegal displays, are more efficient than censorship, which must deal with all displays.
这里说审查是没有效果的，并和法律对比
但法律也不是直接就有效果阿，而是通过国家机器，暴力机关
审查也可以用这些东西来保证有效性阿，也可以和法律结合
However, to public museums, the situation is different. Government must decide or censor the contents of displays that public museums exhibit, because these decisions are just part of its daily administration. At the same time, as public institutions mainly financed by tax, the public museums must be responsible for taxpayers. 私人博物馆就不该对公众利益负责了吗？Thus, the contents of their displays should accord with public interests. In addition, because government can appoint the leaders or curators who are different in knowledge and tastes to public museums, it can effectively control the displays and assure the diversity in its contents as well.
这段内容很多，没有深入讨论
In sum, censorship is an inefficient but dangerous weapon to control the displays of private museums. It could encroach the base of a democratic society and encourage the expanding in power of government. As for public museums, censorship is unavoidable, but even so, its negative effects should be limited as much as possible.
结尾还提出观点，没有深入解释，有点危险
个人不同意将私人和公众博物馆分开，因为只要展览是面对大众,就该就受审查，如果你是想说私人博物馆不对大众开放，就应该在开头define一下
语言非常好，没什么好说的。把自己的想法简单说了一下，不见得对，请指教 谢谢楼上兄弟点评.有件事情请教一下各位,写作的时候只要找准一个角度一头扎进去就可以吧?只要把自己这个观点按逻辑展开完,判卷的时候观点本身是否能让对方"满意"是否就不那么重要了?
对楼上兄弟的回复:
1.第一段的类比乍看起来有些极端,但它马上受到了下一句的约束.所以"造毒品"的担心不存在.
2."its possible effects 和results有什么区别呢，无法形成对比"
我想强调的是实际的后果,和仅仅是可能而未成现实的影响,关键是前面的主词speculation.不过造成误会可能因为我用词不好,你看把possible换成potential是否会好一些?
3."never"应该是ever,一个愚蠢的错误,呵呵!
4."or"确实是and,我想表达的就是"和"
5.倒数第三段你理解错了,我没有说审查没效果,而是说它没效率.我用的可是inefficiencyo哦!
关于你的观点,我不能苟同.可能和我自己的价值取向和实际专业知识有关,"应该不应该"这样规范的判断应该以实证的分析为基础,这些东西咱们不在这里谈.如果你感兴趣的话,我们可以EMAIL交流.或者我可以把几篇论文传给你.
谢谢你对我文章语言的夸奖. 谢谢楼上兄弟点评.有件事情请教一下各位,写作的时候只要找准一个角度一头扎进去就可以吧?只要把自己这个观点按逻辑展开完,判卷的时候观点本身是否能让对方"满意"是否就不那么重要了?
最重要自圆其说, 我觉得这篇不那么圆, 算个椭圆吧, :D
对楼上兄弟的回复:
1.第一段的类比乍看起来有些极端,但它马上受到了下一句的约束.所以"造毒品"的担心不存在.
你让步的那句我看到了，我之所以咬着不放就是因为要受到law限制，所以才要审查阿
2."its possible effects 和results有什么区别呢，无法形成对比"
我想强调的是实际的后果,和仅仅是可能而未成现实的影响,关键是前面的主词speculation.不过造成误会可能因为我用词不好,你看把possible换成potential是否会好一些?
按照你的说法，法律也要等到造成危害了才能惩罚吗？比如有人造假药，要等到有人吃这种药吃死了，才能有法律的制裁？
results当然也可以是potential, 还是不能对比巴
3."never"应该是ever,一个愚蠢的错误,呵呵!
这句我没记错的话应该是issue的一个题目吧？具体忘了
学以致用，8错8错
4."or"确实是and,我想表达的就是"和"
我觉得or的活,用一种暗含的轻蔑和否定,个人看法,hehe
5.倒数第三段你理解错了,我没有说审查没效果,而是说它没效率.我用的可是inefficiencyo哦!
这里说审查是没有效率的，并和法律对比
但法律也不是直接就有效率阿，而是通过国家机器，暴力机关
审查就算没有法律支持,也可也有行政力量吧,可以用这些东西来保证有效率阿，也可以和法律结合
关于你的观点,我不能苟同.可能和我自己的价值取向和实际专业知识有关,"应该不应该"这样规范的判断应该以实证的分析为基础,这些东西咱们不在这里谈.如果你感兴趣的话,我们可以EMAIL交流.或者我可以把几篇论文传给你.
我感觉最大的问题就是你我观点相差太远, 所以我难免不用有色眼镜看你的文章, 但你没有说服我,hehe
我说了我的看法, 希望和你继续讨论, 我的email: wits1@163.com 最近眼睛不好，所以没仔细看文章
啾了一下，首段的重复我已经提出来了，你现在又犯了个错误，结尾虽然不重要，但是只能综述上面正文观点，切勿推什么新的观点或更深入的说什么啦，这个和阅读不一样，你要是在最后还引个什么论点出来的话，就是跑啦，而不是什么新观点的出现，这样不合规范的。
说实话，我对法律和审查的比较也不赞同，怎么觉得怪怪的，性质不一样的东西，不同的背景和用处，实在是~~~~~或许是我习惯思维或者真的写八股了吧 The speaker asserts that government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum whishes to exhibit, whether the museum is public or private. While I agree with the speaker in that censorship should never be imposed to private museums, however, itWhat is "it"? Incomplete! is reasonable to public museums.
Likeprep.?->As firms produce various goods, museums "produce" various displays. If we think private producers have the right in deciding what they produce, there is no reason to deny the private museums' correspondingIs it proper?->similar right in deciding what they displays. DefinitelyI have never seen it in model essays., this right is not absolute and must not conflict with laws. But we should distinguish censorship from lawsYou went too far, I'm afraid.. Whereas the laws enact some rules that people should not break, the censorship often does not stipulateA super word! definite rules. While whether behavior is lawful depends on results it generates, whether a display can pass censorship depends on censors' judgment on its contents and speculation on its possible effects. But we all know that this kind of judgment and speculation is rarely, if never, justifiable and objective. It's hard to imagine a democratic society in which the aesthetic standard, or further, the standard->criteria? of "good" and "evil" is set by a few authorities and so-called experts in censoring committees. In this sense, censorship is dangerous and harmful to society. If we are acquiescentAnother super word! with its development, we can expect in future mass media, various publications, speeches and so on->forth are all under censorship, and finally we can find we have gone too far in the " road to the slavery."A little extreme.
Too long. Try to divide the paragraph into two!
On the other hand, even if the contents of displays should be confined, the censorship is also a bad choice because of its moderation and inefficiency. For instance, laws are more effective in limiting or prohibiting those "evil" displays than censorship. The first reason is that punishment is more intimidating than only prohibition, which is the severest result in censorship, to private museums. The second reason is that laws, which only deal with those illegal displays, are more efficient than censorship, which must deal with all displays.Examples needed! Reasoning needed!
Why do you favor law so much? I can see you have some thoughts on law, but here is not a right place to talk about them.
However, toNot "as to"? public museums, the situation is different. Government must decide or censor the contents of displays that public museums exhibit, because these decisions are just part of its daily administration. At the same time, as public institutions mainly financed by tax, the public museums must be responsible for taxpayers. Thus, the contents of their displays should accord with public interests. In addition, because government can appoint the leaders or curators who are different in knowledge and tastes to public museums, it can effectively control the displays and assure the diversity in its contents as well. Leaders different in knowledge can control effectively? Why?
This body is quite good. But again it needs some examples for support.
In sum, censorship is an inefficient butWhy not "and"? dangerous weapon?? to control the displays of private museums. It could encroachSuper! the base of a democratic society and encourage the expanding in?? power of government. As for public museums, censorship is unavoidableActually different from what you discussed above. What we need and should do is not necessarily what is unavoidable., but even so, its negative effects should be limited as much as possible.Too far. You should have mentioned it as the final analysis.
Generally, you have made considerable progress. Keep working! 再次谢谢各位.我一定记住:在结尾的时候不要出现新观点!!
TO GALAXY: as 和 like 还是很不一样的,LIKE同样可以做连接词.可以改成AS,但意思和LIKE可就大不一样了,呵呵!
个人认为,由于我们每个人的知识背景不同,所以观点之争在作文中不重要,重要的是有不同的观点.
页:
[1]