As an investigation to find solutions to scientific and social problems, research is indispensable for the progress of our society, both scientifically and non-scientifically.
Concerning the great cost of research and money spent in research is often in vain, and even threatens public security, the government should be circumspect about funding on them. However, the author is troubling in the very notion of research. As I see it, whether the government should fund a research should be based on the comprehensive analysis of its risks and benefits.
The government should be circumspect about research which may pose great risk to the public such as those relate to morality. An apt illustration of this is the research on clone, which has been restrained all over the world since the first clone sheep Dolly is produced, due to its potential risk to the social order. Just imagine what it would be like if another “yourself” is produced, with the same appearance with you, while sharing with you your friends, relatives—your life which is supposed to be exclusively yours. It is at least likely that your husband/wife would be hysteric to find that he/she has been having sex with two guys, one of which is a human-like creature without biological parents! Moreover, if, for example, a freak kills a man, while making his clone substitutes to be punished. Then how could people’s security in such a society be guaranteed? Thus, as the manager of the society, the government is obliged to treat these research with great caution for the sake of the overall interest of the public and social order.
However, one of the most important nature of research lies in its uncertainty and to refuse those research with unclear consequences is to refuse all the research. Research, an exploration to the unknown world, is the only way to new discoveries and progress. As a kind of investment, however, it is quite normal for the fund on research to fail. And just like all the investment, whether the government should fund on a research should depend on whether its potential benefits is correspondent to its risks. When investing on the gene program of rice, the Chinese government can never predict what would happen during the research and whether Yuan Longping could achieve anything. However, investing on it is giving a chance of success to the research. If, however, the government refuse funding on it just because its risks, then thousands of Chinese might still be starving. In fact, query whether those research with predictable benefits and success can be called research at all.
Besides, as scientific research is always beyond its time, it is unjustifiable for the government to decide the fund of research based on contemporary situation. That is to say, what seems meaningless or even detrimental may later proves to be of great value and the benefits of research are in many cases reaped by our posterities. For example, the exploration of the space for another planet which can be a substitute of the earth for we humans to live is one has been approached by generations. Hardly could we tell the exact time when we humans could step on such a planet and make it our habitat. The ultimate goal of this research, however, is for the pass on of all the human race—when the earth might not be such a suitable place to live, we humans could still survive on another planet. If, however, the government concerned only with its current benefits while overlooks its potential significance in the long run, it is quite likely that no fund would be invested on it. Concerning its incredible cost, hardly any private fund can and is willing to afford it and such a research is doomed to die.
In sum, whether the government should invest on a research should take into consideration both its risks and potential benefits, neither of which is indispensable for making a final decision.
作者: ashtray_s 时间: 2011-9-6 12:54:09
The recommendation for the stockholders and other investors to give up their stock in O is one should be made with more consideration of evidence. Many assumptions have been made about the decrease of O’s sale and several questions have to be answered before the suggestion are accepted.
Citing the survey of the respondents, the author reports that 80 percent of the them indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. The author does not supply the exact number of respondents, thus we cannot evaluate whether 80 percent of them make any sense. Also, the sample may not have been representative of the whole group of people, consisting of only old people who are more likely to have diseases such as hypertension and high cholesterol, forcing them get rid of foods containing fats and cholesterol. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the author’s argument.
Even if we accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. The author unfairly equals the abundant supply of low-fat foods in food stores with an increasing demand for low-fat dairy products or a diminishing demand for high-fat dairy products. In fact, it is quite possible that the demand for low-fat foods is so small that nobody wants to buy them, while the demand for high-fat products is so high that they have been sold out. Thus, the author would benefit from supplying a more convincing statistic indicating the diminishing demand for high-fat food.
Given the diminishing demand for high-fat products, the mere fact that many O’s food products are high in fat and cholesterol does not necessarily prove that their stock is not worth investing. The author fails to consider other factors that may influence people’s choice of products as well, such as the price, taste and package, thus the profit of O does not necessarily diminish. Moreover, the author does not give any information about O’s other products which may also be popular low-fat products and these products are quite likely to sell well. Also, the author ignores the possibility that O may change its policy and main products in the future, making it a promising company worth investing.
In sum, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable to safely conclude that O is not worth investing. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should implement a more complete research about the whole market and take into other factors that contribute to the profit of the O.作者: winterfine 时间: 2011-9-6 21:52:19
本帖最后由 winterfine 于 2011-9-6 21:55 编辑
As an investigation to find solutions to scientific and social problems, research is indispensable for the progress of our society, both scientifically and non-scientifically (这句和文章关系不大). Concerning the great cost of research and money spent in research is often in vain, and even threatens public security, the government should be circumspect about funding on them. However, the author is troubling in the very notion of research. As I see it, whether the government should fund a research should be based on the comprehensive analysis of its risks and benefits.
提出了全文的中心
The government should be circumspect about research which may pose great risk to the public such as those relate to morality. An apt illustration of this is the research on clone, which has been restrained all over the world since the first clone sheep Dolly is produced, due to its potential risk to the social order. Just imagine what it would be like if another “yourself” is produced, with the same appearance with you, while sharing with you your friends, relatives—your life which is supposed to be exclusively yours. It is at least likely that your husband/wife would be hysteric to find that he/she has been having sex with two guys, one of which is a human-like creature without biological parents! Moreover, if, for example, a freak kills a man, while making his clone substitutes to be punished. Then (，then) how could people’s security in such a society be guaranteed? Thus, as the manager of the society, the government is obliged to treat these research (researches) with great caution for the sake of the overall interest of the public and social order.
本段用了很多很可怕的语言说明克隆如何威胁社会，但是缺乏论证research which may pose great risk to the public such as those relate to morality与题目中research whose consequences are unclear的联系。
However, one of the most important nature (natures) of research lies in its uncertainty and to refuse those research (researches) with unclear consequences is to refuse all the research. Research, an exploration to the unknown world, is the only way to new discoveries and progress. As a kind of investment, however, it is quite normal for the fund on research to fail. And just like all the investment, whether the government should fund on a research should (两个should连用不太好) depend on whether its potential benefits is correspondent to its risks. (不是很看得懂这句话) When investing on the gene program of rice, the Chinese government can never predict what would happen during the research and whether Yuan Longping could achieve anything. (can never predict 是说结果不明确呢？还是有危险？本文涉及了3个对象，有点混乱)However, investing on it is giving a chance of success to the research. If, however, the government refuse funding on it just because its risks, then thousands of Chinese might still be starving. In fact, query whether those research with predictable benefits and success can (not?) be called research at all.
Besides, as scientific research is always beyond its time, it is unjustifiable for the government to decide the fund of research based on contemporary situation. That is to say, what seems meaningless or even detrimental may later proves to be of great value and the benefits of research are in many cases reaped by our posterities. For example, the exploration of the space for another planet which can be a substitute of the earth for we humans to live is one has been approached by generations. Hardly could we tell the exact time when we humans could step on such a planet and make it our habitat. The ultimate goal of this research, however, is for the pass on of all the human race—when the earth might not be such a suitable place to live, we humans could still survive on another planet. If, however, the government concerned only with its current benefits while overlooks its potential significance in the long run, it is quite likely that no fund would be invested on it. Concerning its incredible cost, hardly any private fund can and is willing to afford it and such a research is doomed to die.
政府不应该根据contemporary situation判断研究价值。
根据开头，全文的中心论点whether the government should fund a research should be based on the comprehensive analysis of its risks and benefits.
但是这段涉及risks and benefits关系论述的不是很明显。
In sum, whether the government should invest on a research should take into consideration both its risks and potential benefits, neither of which is indispensable for making a final decision.
The recommendation for the stockholders and other investors to give up their stock in O is one should be made with more consideration of evidence. Many assumptions have been made about the decrease of O’s sale and several questions have to be answered before the suggestion are accepted.
Citing the survey of the respondents, the author reports that 80 percent of the (去掉) them indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. The author does not supply the exact number of respondents, thus we cannot evaluate whether 80 percent of them make any sense (直接说人数可能很少更为清晰). Also, the sample may not have been representative of the whole group of people, consisting of only old people who are more likely to have diseases such as hypertension and high cholesterol, forcing them get rid of foods containing fats and cholesterol. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the author’s argument.
Even if we accepts the survey results, the argument remains questionable. The author unfairly equals the abundant supply of low-fat foods in food stores with an increasing demand for low-fat dairy products or a diminishing demand for high-fat dairy products. In fact, it is quite possible that the demand for low-fat foods is so small that nobody wants to buy them, while the demand for high-fat products is so high that they have been sold out. Thus, the author would benefit from supplying a more convincing statistic indicating the diminishing demand for high-fat food.
Given the diminishing demand for high-fat products, the mere fact that many O’s food products are high in fat and cholesterol does not necessarily prove that their stock is not worth investing. The author fails to consider other factors that may influence people’s choice of products as well, such as the price, taste and package, thus the profit of O does not necessarily diminish. Moreover, the author does not give any information about O’s other products which may also be popular low-fat products and these products are quite likely to sell well. Also, the author ignores the possibility that O may change its policy and main products in the future, making it a promising company worth investing.
这段举了3个反例，不如去掉一个，将剩下两个叙述地更具体一些。
In sum, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable to safely conclude that O is not worth investing. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should implement a more complete research about the whole market and take into other factors that contribute to the profit of the O.