- 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
|
1# canpet
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
In order to be well-informed, a person must get information from many different news sources.
Have you ever searched for some information on a lot of websites or through a variety of newspapers in order to make clear whether one piece of news you concern about was true or not? Nowadays, we live in the time that sees what we call the information explosion (You can only ‘live’ in ‘nowadays’. It’s not like you can live in the past or in the future…). So, I hold the point that people need to get information through all kinds of way to be well-informed. (Your reasoning is that because of the information explosion we need to do this..so does it mean you don’t need to do it and will still stay well-informed if there’s no information explosion, or where information is scarce, e.g. the remote, unconnected mountain schools in the western parts of China? Think about it.)
First and foremost, information tends to be specialized and diversified in the modern society so that it is difficult to obtain the news through one certain channel. (I don’t get this. Aren’t there dedicated news channels like BBC or Google News, that collect news from many sources for you? How could it be ‘difficult’? Information can be diverse, true, but that doesn’t mean the channels transmitting them are as scattered.) There are numbers of websites focusing on various specialized fields like sports, technology, science and so forth. People need log onto distinct ones to obtain what they actually need. A typical example is Guokr.com, on which the articles and news all concentrate on science in plain terms, successfully attracting thousands of young people who are interested in science. Obviously, it’s a wrong choice to look for news about the latest fashion on Guokr.com, which can be picked up by skimming over “mina”, a famous fashion magazine. (Well, but if you go to CCTV you can find a range of topics organized under different sub-channels like sports under CCTV-5 and movies and CCTV-6, etc. So, do you count CCTV as one channel, or multiple channels? I understand what you’re trying to express here in this paragraph, but you have made an assumption – news channels tend to specialize in news of certain field(s), so we need to look at more than one if we want to be informed in more than one field – which is not necessarily, or even may well contradict, the truth. You need to justify your assumption. If you don’t, as you have seen, it’s really easy to refute.)
The Second reason is that so much information makes it hard to tell which one (‘one’ what? You can’t say ‘one’ information, so ‘one’ what?) is true and who tells the truth. Maybe, two different news agencies may report totally diverse (This doesn’t mean ‘different’.) stories about an event, or opposite parties always reveal reverse statements on the same case. Let’s take a real-world example: the news on the divorce case between Cecilia Cheung and Nicholas Tse. Recently, Cecilia Zhang declared that Nicholas Tse has never done his duty to take care of her and their two sons and her, meanwhile, Nicholas claimed that Cecilia was extremely greedy for money extremely and often quarrelled with him, which resulted in the divorce case. There are plenty of newspapers, magazines, websites tracing the development of this case and substantial rumors in the air. Except for Cecilia and Nicholas, no one can tell whether they have divorced or not and who has told a lie. The only way to tell the right from wrong is getting news from many diverse sources and forming a view of one’s own. (If you say ‘except..no one can tell..’, then what good does getting news from different sources do? According to your description, you can only tell the truth by getting news from the two of them directly..)
However, searching for various sources to be well-informed is actually inefficient. It’s said that finishing a piece of New York Times (The NYT is a newspaper. So what do you mean by a ‘piece’ of a newspaper? I think you probably meant a ‘copy’..) needs 36 hours in such an information booming time. Virtually, a person simply acquires what he or she is interested in from several fixed sources. (What is the purpose of this paragraph in relation to your argument, or to the topic, anyway? Does it augment your argument? Does it prove an opponent argument wrong? I can’t tell why it even needs to be in the essay.)
In a nutshell, if people want to be well-informed, they should obtain information from many different channels because of the specialization and diversification of the news and difficulty in knowing right and wrong in spite of much time being taken (much time being taken to do what?).
总结:
你的语言语法神马的还都不错,但是论述上颇有些不搭调。。比如完全不知写来目的为何的貌似让步的倒数第二段。。比如例子举得很好但是最后的论述基本属于生搬硬套的第二论点段。。请认真考虑你的逻辑。 |
|