标题: [YB1]七月1日作业 by 644 [打印本页] 作者: liusisi644644 时间: 2009-7-2 00:22:58 标题: [YB1]七月1日作业 by 644
本帖最后由 liusisi644644 于 2009-7-2 00:25 编辑
issue119
According to speaker, we should give higher priority to the areas which will provide good service to a large number of people ultimately. Should we? To some extent, we should.
Obviously, everyone is the indispensable part of the society; and we want a guarantee of the better life by handing in so much tax to the government, so ensuring as many as possible people can get enough benefit from science, education, or other any area which have higher priority is the right thing. For instance, all about every country invest huge amounts of human resource to enhance the research of science and technology, which are the primary productive force, because they can produce more behoof to community. Just like advantage of medical science research is that finding more effective method to cure patients and preventing vast of underlying disease. Considering so many people can be served from these researches, our legislators and regulators give more priority to these researches. But it is not to say less benefit, less priority. What with three reasons is that all wrinkles of scientific research should be authorized the same priority.
First of all, it not means that there aren’t enough people who could get profits from research so that these researches have no worth to implement. A simple example is the research of History and Archeology. The archeologists dig out ancient relics, antiquarians analyze the constituent and structure of relics, and historian research the period of the relics. However, there are less people improve or get better lives by the advantages of that research. Whereas, it emerges all kinds of cultures and customs.
Secondly, not all the scientists are interested in profit researches,. They do that research just go for the truth and correct some mistakes which were made by prevenient scientists. It is a pure research. Many sublime scientists’ intents of carrying on their work is to pursue the truth, which is a higher ambit. If all the research are depended on realistic aim, a large researches’ talents would be concealed, even destroyed. It’s unfair and stupid to force researchers to do something that they are not interested in only by the only reason of that research area is very beneficial for a large number of people.
At last, some researches are very difficult to be proved that it will carry out large humorous benefits for human beings in a short time. It is reflected in astronomy, especially in research of Milky Way galaxy. Our government ploughs a large number of resources into and authorizes higher priority to that research, but we don’t improve our lives because of it up to now. We have not to assure that will success in the future, not mentioned how many people will improve their lives at last. Nevertheless, researchers are remorseless to experience all kinds of method which could open the mastery of Milky Way galaxy.
In conclusion, it’s not completely right that research priority are being set for science, education or any other area just for the motive that haw many people will improve their lives. We should evaluate this view multi-directionally because that researches’ benefits are hardly to predicated. We take research for truth —whatever it will bring out.
argument65:
In this memo the president claims that the best way to improve profits is to discontinue stocking many of varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses. In order to support this claim, the president points out the five best-selling cheeses at newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses and a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. This argument contains several logical flaws, which lead it unconvincing.
A primary problem is the different condition between the new store and other stores. The president doesn’t provide any effective evidence to prove that whether the condition of newest store is similar with other stores or not. If the customs surrounded the new store were likely to eat domestic cheeses while the customs surrounded other stores were likely to eat varieties of imported cheese, the decision that discontinuing stocking many of varieties of imported cheese and concentrating primarily on domestic cheeses will lead the stores in chain to decrease their profits.
Even though the condition mentioned above are very similar, the president ignores the time of new store’ payoff. Firstly, it is entirely possible that the new store is going on sales promotion in a short time, and this sales promotion won’t last a long time. So the best sale is just a unabiding phenomenon. Secondly, best-selling occurred at last year, who can give a guarantee that the new store’ domestic cheddar cheeses also will be sold best at this year? What’s more, the president confused the concepts between best-selling and profit. New store’s domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin Furthermore have very high saleroom, which is not means that they can get a comfortable gain from it.
To say the least, the survey cited by president is doubtful. At first, how many people anticipate this survey? If those person who are not representative join this survey, and the conclusion made by president is not convincing. We can not rule out any other possible that people who favorite imported cheeses have not sent back the questionnaire or not booked this magazine at all, so the president cannot justify that concentrating primarily on domestic cheeses will lead the stores in chain to increase their profits.
In sum, the president’s argument is unpersuatisive as it stands. To strengthen it the president need provide more evidence about the similarities between of new store and other stores, and the president should make it clear that the period of new store’ payoff . Additionally, the president also have to supply better evidence to testify that this survey is impactful and representative.
作者: autumnshang 时间: 2009-7-2 13:10:14
issue119
我把你的放在word中检查有些拼写和语法错误，改了一些，还有一些不知道你原来的意思就没改了，下次你交作业的之前先检测下，这样大家都能节约点时间。还要记得写提纲哦，因为我昨天没来得及写agrument ，我就只改了I
你的提纲：我们应该在一定程度上给那些带给大多数人好处的研究优先地位。
Cs1 因为人们想从这些研究中受益，所以给这些研究优先地位是对的（例 ：药学研究），但是这并不表示少的益处就不重要，有三个原因支持所有研究同样重要。
Cs2 首先，没有很多人受益的研究不意味没有价值。（例：考古）（我觉得这段说理的文字少了，只有开头一句，其它都是例子。）
Cs3 第二个原因，不是所有的研究者都对有现实效益的研究感兴趣。
Cs4 第三个原因，一些研究是不能预测其带来的益处的（例：Milky Way galaxy）
总结：给那些带来很多好处的研究优先地位不完全正确。由于研究结果无法预测，我们应该从不同的角度来评价，毕竟，研究的目的是探究真理。
According to speaker, we should give higher priority to the areas which will provide good service to a large number of people ultimately. Should we? To some extent, we should.
Obviously, everyone is the indispensable part of the society; and we want a guarantee of the better life by handing in so much tax to the government, so ensuring as many as possible people can get enough benefit from science, education, or other any areas which have higher priority is the right thing. For instance, all about every country invest huge amounts of human resource to enhance the research of science and technology, which are the primary productive force, because they can produce more behoof to community. Just like advantage of medical science research is that finding more effective method to cure patients and preventing vast of underlying disease. Considering so many people can be served from these researches, our legislators and regulators give more priority to these researches. But it is not to say less benefit, less priority. What with three reasons is that all wrinkles of scientific research should be authorized the same priority.
First of all, it not means that there are not enough people who could get profits from research so that the research has no worth to implement. A simple example is the research of History and Archeology. The archeologists dig out ancient relics,
antiquarians analyze the constituent and structure of relics, and historians
research the period of the relics. However, there are less people who improve or get better lives by the advantages of that research. Whereas, it emerges all kinds of cultures and customs. （Ostensibly, a small number of people improve or get better lives by the advantages of that research. However, the research plays an essential role in engine which can largely promote the development of society. After all, who can image that human race have no idea of their history? 我建议把你的However以后的句子改成这个）
Secondly, not all the scientists are interested in profit researches. They do that research just go for the truth and correct some mistakes which were made by prevenient scientists. It is a pure research. Many sublime scientists’ intents of carrying on their work are to pursue the truth, which is a higher ambit. If all the research are depended on realistic aim, a large number of researches’ talents would be concealed, even destroyed. It’s unfair and stupid to force researchers to do something that they are not interested in only by the only reason of that research area is very beneficial for a large number of people.
At last, some research is very difficult to be proved that it will carry out large humorous（这个是什么意思） benefits for human beings in a short time. It is reflected in astronomy, especially in research of Milky Way galaxy. Our government ploughs a large number of resources into and authorizes higher priority to that research, but we don’t improve our lives because of it up to now. We have not to assure that it will success in the future, not mentioned how many people will improve their lives at last. Nevertheless, researchers are remorseless to experience all kinds of method which could open the mastery of Milky Way galaxy.
(open the mastery这个是不是用得有点晦涩)
In conclusion, it’s not completely right that research priority are being set for science, education or any other area just for the motive that haw many people will improve their lives. We should evaluate this view multi-directionally because that research’s
benefits are hardly to predicated. We take research for truth —whatever it will bring out.