- 最后登录
- 2021-2-22
- 在线时间
- 4673 小时
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 声望
- 762
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 907
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 6161
- UID
- 2565872
- 声望
- 762
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 907
|
发表于 2012-7-20 05:58:50
|显示全部楼层
0718作文题:Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The main purpose for people who have jobs is for money rather than social status.
In this day and age, there is a general debate about the main purpose for which people have jobs. Some people regard money as the main purpose for owning jobs, since money is useful to everyone. While others consider social status as a/the dominant factor. (Such a 'while' clause cannot stand on its own as a sentence. It must be joined to the previous one with a comma: …useful to everyone, while..) As far as I'm concerned, I agree with the latter opinion, for social status can offer a person more discourse right (This is not the way to form composite noun phrase especially for abstract nouns like this. What you want to say would be 'right to/of discourse'.) in a specific major and also, can improve one's social relationship which can contribute to his or her self-actualization.
First of all, owning a high social status means that one will have more discourse right and influence on a particular field. And these things cannot be obtained by money. For example, my professor Ding is an expert in the major of automation. He has published several academic articles on different academic journals such as the IEEE Trans on Circuits and Systems. Therefore, he has a high social status as well as a well-known reputation and he is now responsible for a national project about the design of spacecraft. Professor Ding does not have much money and everyday he rides his old bicycle to the research lab, however, he still feels happy and the origin of his happiness is the satisfaction of being respected and demanded by others. As a result, what a high social status provides us is much more meaningful than what money does. (The question is not just about which is more dominant or important or meaningful or morally better. It's asking which is the more dominant purpose of jobs. Your example is good, but you need to make it more explicit by saying that he keeps doing his job as a professor because of the social status. If not, I can argue that not all academic professionals are as well respected and socially privileged, for example many RAs – I' m sure you'd know more about such things than I do - but they nonetheless cling on to their positions in the academia, why? Think about it.)
Besides the discourse right a high social status will bring to a person, one can also take advantage of a high social status so as to possess a favorable social relationship. Beneficial to a person is the great opportunity provided by a good social relationship to fulfill one's own expectations. For instance, Bill Clinton, the forty-second president of the United State of America, lives a full life after his retirement. With his great social status, he successfully raised funds from his friend who is a merchant to establish his own president library in his hometown, Arkansas. Moreover, Clinton dubbed for a magical story film "Peter and Wolves" in 2004 which was his dream when he was a child and the director of this film has a good relationship with him. In short, due to his social status and broad relationship, Bill Clinton has plenty of time and chances to actualize his dream after retirement even if he is paid for a low president pension which is identical to an ordinary person. (But his major income is not from his pension – he gets paid handsomely for giving speeches and writing a book..)Therefore, a good social status can help people achieve their goals and make their lives better. (True, but is this social status the reason for Clinton to work as a president or as whatever he's been working as? As said, the question is not expecting you to merely discuss the importance of money or social status – it's expecting you to discuss why people would opt to work for money, or social status. If the previous paragraph still has a hint as to the 'work/job' part of the question, then I don't see any relevance in this paragraph at all.)
Admittedly, since money is also an indispensable factor in our daily life, I, to some extent, accept the idea that some people have jobs mainly for money. However, obtaining a good (3rd time – I think this is not an accidental error. 'well' is generally an adverb, so it doesn't go with nouns. Adjectives go with nouns – and as an adjective 'well' only means that a person is healthy and happy as in 'I'm very well'.) social status does have a crucial and beneficial effect on one's life owing to the reasons above. I, therefore, reinforce my standpoint to approve the statement that we would better consider social status as our main purpose to have jobs. (The minor problem here is that the mention of money is not a proper argument, as you never properly refute it – but that's minor. The major problem with this essay is that you've only argued that social status is more important and meaningful and useful and blah than money – but you've not established why it must be taken as the reason to have jobs. Social status can be achieved outside one's job as a hobbyist, or bought, or inherited – if social status doesn't necessarily must come through jobs, some people would already have some kind of social status when they go out to work, then would they still see social status as their main motivation to get a job? Think about it.)
总结:
语法神马的都还好,例子也很好,但是,最大的问题是没有清晰地指出social status和工作之间的关系..这个问题不是光说明social status和money哪个重要就完了,你必须指出social status很重要,然后对一般人来说social status又是主要通过工作得来的,这样才能得出‘一般人工作还主要是为了social status’这个结论。。否则就像我最后的评论所说,social status不一定要通过工作获得,有人出来工作的时候就不缺乏social status - 比如跟我男人MBA同届的一个印尼大财团的公子,一群同学去银行团面的时候银行的人直接无视其他的同学就围着这位公子说话。。像这位公子这样的,工作还一定是主要为了social status,或者主要为了钱么?我觉得都可以说是,也可以都说不是。这就是一个例子。论述要圆满,覆盖整个题目而不只是题目的一半。。否则很容易被challenge。。
|
|