【NINE小组】第十一次作业——by lovetian
本帖最后由 lovetian 于 2011-9-5 22:33 编辑Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
I totally disagree with the author's claim that government should fund only for those researches whose consequences are clear. In terms of the essence of research or the reason why should government have a clear picture of research, the argument is unreasonable and absurd. Although a few researches' results have brought some calamities to our human beings, it is just the problem in the way of using scientific technology, scientific research itself is innocent.
To begin with, taking the result of research is clear or not as a factor to determine if government should fund for is a terrible idea. No one can prove that the investment to any research whose consequence is unclear has no value. We must notice that the essence of scientific research is such a process in which scientists use a logical and systematic way to search for new and unknown information on a particular topic. The invention of Penicillin is such an example that nobody includes Alexander Fleming himself knows what he will find by his experiment on bacteriology, not to mention, no one can predict that the result of this research is such a great one, which almost change the whole world and let millions of people away from death. As scientists are search in an undiscovered field, we have no reason to ask them tell us what they will find in the end.
Second, maybe the reason why the author suggests that government should not fund for unclear research is he/she holds the view that investing in some researches which turn to a failure is a waste of money. However, no matter what an experiment's result is, success or failure, it still has value to let government invests in it. For instance, the contrivance of airplane has experienced countless failures until the Wright brothers successfully made the first propeller plane. Although there are so many unsuccessful experiments before the Wright brothers, the huge amount of money government has invested in these failed researches is still desirable, because all these failures do lead to the final success.
Finally, it is true that government will fund for some researches whose consequence may cause a calamity to the public without inspecting the research in advance. However, a kind of supervision system can be set up instead of simply holding such recommendation. Government can let someone to supervise and estimate the process of the research they funding for, and through this way, we can successfully avoid the calamity brought by scientific research. Besides, most of calamities made by science are not because the research is harmful to us, but the methods we use might make these disasters happen. If we can use the result of scientific research in some right ways, our society will benefit from it a lot and those unpleasant things will not come true.
In sum up, recommendation made by the author is somewhat irrational; if the government adopt such advice, it is possible that no new discovery will be made. So that, we shouldn’t choose which research to be invested in just by if the research’s consequence is clear or not. The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.
Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and company profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares, and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
In this argument, the author recommends that Old Dairy (OD) stockholders should sell their shares, and other investors shouldn't purchase stock in this company. To strengthen this recommendation, he/she cites a report, in which most of respondents show an attitude that they would like to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, while OD's most food products are high in fat and cholesterol. Seemingly, this recommendation is somewhat persuasive; in fact, it provides little credible support for the effectiveness of such investment advice.
To begin with, the report cited in this argument claims that most of people would change their eating habit. However, this might not be the case. The arguer obviously overlooks other possible explanations for this result. Firstly, the report doesn't tell us the real number of respondents and only provides a vague proportion, we have every reason to doubt the authenticity of this report. Perhaps there are only 10 people to take such report and 8 people are the employees of other Industries which are competing with OD, and perhaps the question in the report are irrational, which trends to reach such a conclusion. Without ruling out such possibilities, the report in this argument has no persuasion to support the idea held by the speaker.
Second, even I concede that the report is rational and the result of it is creditable, the argument is still unreasonable. This report only shows a desire of people that they would like to choose low-fat products in the future, however, such desires maybe just show what kind of food is healthy in their mind but they will still take high-fat foods as usual, such paradox can easily be found
in our daily life. For example, we all know smoking is harmful to our health but there are still millions of people keeping smoking in the Earth. Even though that all the people will really choose low-fat foods and change their eating habits, we still couldn't conclude that OD's sales will decrease. Although many of the food products marketed by OD are high in fat and cholesterol, facing such circumstance, these industies may improve their products and produce low-fat food products in the future. Without accounting for all these explanations, the arguer cannot reasonably draw such a conclusion that the sales of OD will decrease.
Finally, even assuming that the sales of OD decrease for the reason held by the author, it is unbelievable that company profits will no doubt diminish greatly. In the financial market, there exist many ways to obtain profit from besides the sales of an industry. And the price of a stock doesn't only depend on the profit made by the company. Investors can earn money from some companies' stock whose sales are not very good because many investors are selling and buying the stock. Without thinking about these alternatives, the recommendation cannot be accepted by any investor.
To sum up, the arguer's advice about how to deal with the OD's stock is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide move evidences.
Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
I totally disagree with the author's claim that government should fund only for those researches whose consequences are clear. In terms of the essence of research or the reason why should government have a clear picture of research（不太懂）, the argument is unreasonable and absurd. Although a few researches' results have brought some calamities to our human beings, it is just the problem in the way of using scientific technology, scientific research itself is innocent.
反对作者观点。research本身是无辜的，只是应用不当
To begin with, taking the result of research is clear or not as a factor to determine if government should fund for is a terrible idea.（这句作为主题句过于复杂，最好换个简单的表达） No one can prove that the investment to any research whose consequence is unclear has no value. We must notice that the essence of scientific research is such a process in which scientists use a logical and systematic way to search for new and unknown information on a particular topic. The invention of Penicillin is such an example that nobody includes Alexander Fleming himself knows（感觉这块矛盾了，到底知不知道） what he will find by his experiment on bacteriology, not to mention（放这有点别扭）, no one can predict that the result of this research is such a great one, which almost change the whole world and let millions of people away from death. As scientists are search in an undiscovered field, we have no reason to ask them tell us what they will find in the end.不能因为结果未知就不进行科学研究
Second, maybe the reason why the author suggests that government should not fund for unclear research is he/she holds the view that investing in some researches which turn to a failure is a waste of money. However, no matter what an experiment's result is, success or failure, it still has value to let government invests in it. For instance, the contrivance of airplane has experienced countless failures until the Wright brothers successfully made the first propeller plane. Although there are so many unsuccessful experiments before the Wright brothers, the huge amount of money government has invested in these failed researches is still desirable,（删去） because all these failures do lead to the final success.
不能因为怕浪费钱而不资助研究
Finally, it is true that government will fund for （删去）some researches whose consequence may cause a calamity to the public without inspecting the research in advance.（这句改简单点吧） However, a kind of supervision system can be set up instead of simply holding such recommendation（指什么？）. （这句做主题句的话放在段首吧）Government can let someone to supervise and estimate the process of the research they funding for, and through this way, we can successfully avoid the calamity brought by scientific research. Besides, most of calamities made by science are not because the research is harmful to us, but the methods we use might make these disasters happen. If we can use the result of scientific research in some right ways, our society will benefit from it a lot and those unpleasant things will not come true.（这块感觉有点空，例子还是挺多的，比如克隆，核武器等）
我觉得这段说的两个内容其实说一个就够了，用个例子把其中一个展开一下会好点，否则两个内容都会感觉比较空
In sum up, recommendation made by the author is somewhat irrational; if the government adopt such advice, it is possible that no new discovery will be made. So that, we shouldn’t choose which research to be invested in just by if the research’s consequence is clear or not. The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.
Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and company profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares, and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
In this argument, the author recommends that Old Dairy (OD) stockholders should sell their shares, and other investors shouldn't purchase stock in this company. To strengthen this recommendation, he/she cites a report, in which most of respondents show an attitude that they would like to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, while OD's most food products are high in fat and cholesterol. Seemingly, this recommendation is somewhat persuasive; in fact, it provides little credible support（supports） for the effectiveness of such investment advice.
To begin with, the report cited in this argument claims that most of people would change their eating habit. However, this might not be the case. The arguer obviously overlooks other possible explanations for this result. Firstly, the report doesn't tell us the real number of respondents and only provides a vague proportion, we have every reason to doubt the authenticity of this report. Perhaps there are only 10 people to(删去) take such report and 8 people are the employees of other Industries which are competing with OD, and perhaps the question in the report are irrational, which trends to reach such a conclusion. Without ruling out such possibilities, the report in this argument has no persuasion to support the idea held by the speaker.
调查的说服力不够
Second, even I concede that the report is rational and the result of it is creditable, the argument is still unreasonable. This report only shows a desire of people that they would like to choose low-fat products in the future, however, such desires maybe just show what kind of food is healthy in their mind but they will still take high-fat foods as usual, such paradox can easily be found
in our daily life. For example, we all know smoking is harmful to our health but there are still millions of people keeping smoking in（on） the Earth. Even though that all the people will really choose low-fat foods and change their eating habits, we still couldn't conclude that OD's sales will decrease. Although many of the food products marketed by OD are high in fat and cholesterol, facing such circumstance, these industies may improve their products and produce low-fat food products in the future. Without accounting for all these explanations, the arguer cannot reasonably draw such a conclusion that the sales of OD will decrease.想吃低脂食物不代表就真的吃 该公司可能改进产品 我觉得本段讲了两方面内容 最好分为两段
并且你的first second如果是都想说明the report cited in this argument claims that most of people would change their eating habit. 的话 就应该放在一段里。给我的感觉是文章结构不是很清晰。
Finally, even assuming that the sales of OD decrease for the reason held by the author, it is unbelievable that company profits will no doubt diminish greatly. In the financial market, there exist many ways to obtain profit from besides the sales of an industry. And the price of a stock doesn't only depend on the profit made by the company. Investors can earn money from some companies' stock whose sales are not very good because many investors are selling and buying the stock. Without thinking about these alternatives, the recommendation cannot be accepted by any investor.
前面说利润不会降低，后面说股票价格不一定由利润决定，感觉中间少一句让步 并且 本段有是说了两部分内容 但都没有展开
To sum up, the arguer's advice about how to deal with the OD's stock is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide move evidences. 4# gengshu
Second 中 我想说的是 即使关于人们倾向于吃低脂食品的报告是真实的 也不一定说明OD厂的销量会减少 因为可能人们只是说说而已 或者OD厂会因为市场变化而改变生产策略 这应该不算是两个部分吧 只是因果逻辑上的一个攻击点
最后一段是没有说清楚 我想说的是OD厂的销售量减少了 也不会影响到股市的投资者 这个需要在改正
关于每段是否只能说一个部分 我觉得我们可以再讨论一下
页:
[1]