寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › issue52 同主题

返回列表

查看: 852|回复: 4

[i习作temp] issue52 同主题 [复制链接]

myown5891
UID: 181125

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1047
注册时间: 2004-10-5
精华: 3
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-26 07:36:24 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Issue 52
"Education encourages students to question and criticize, and therefore does little to promote social harmony."

“教育鼓励学生去质疑和批评，因此对促进社会和谐无济于事。”

:hug:

The speaker's claim is actually twofold: (1) all education encourages students to
question and criticize; (2) encouraging students to question and criticize harm social
harmony. I strongly disagree with both these claims.

On the one hand, not all education inspires students to question and criticize. Different
kinds of education's, ancient or present, western or eastern, Christian or Muslim, formal
or informal, goals vary greatly. Education in preliterate societies just involve sharing
information about survivance such as gathering food and providing shelter; of course,
they have no awareness of fostering students' other ability. Education in ancient China
stress compliance and docility. Education in ancient Greece has a significant leap: the
philosopher Socrates used his educational method, called the Socratic method, asking
students probing questions that forced his students to think deeply about the meaning
of life, truth, and justice. Western education in Middle Ages was heavily shaped by
Christianity; much of the teaching was directed at maintaining the governance of
religion. Education in the Renaissance has profound symbolism: influential humanist
Desiderius Erasmus believed that understanding and conversing about the meaning of
literature was more important than memorizing it, as had been required at many
medieval religious schools. The Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century produced
important changes in education and educational theory: educators believed people
could improve their lives and society by using their reason, their powers of critical
thinking. And modern education more and more emphasize the needs and potential of
the child, the ability to challenge existing rules, and the ability to create. To sum up, the
goals in which education systems have expect of students have continually evolved over
the course of human history.

On the other hand, boosting students to question and criticize does not necessarily
sabotage social harmony. Admittedly, filling students with strong ability to question and
criticize may cause a lot of trouble to governments' policy making. People have
beaucoup diverse views and opinions and they are hard to unite together. However, this
scenario is in a sense a headway for whole society. People contemplate enough,
question enough, investigate enough, discuss enough, then there is a rational solution.
Even though people could not agree with each other in the end, as they deal with the
conflict in a harmonious and democratic way, the social wheel are still move at a
judicious and balanced direction. One apt illustration of this point involves American
education. It is universally acknowledged that the United States has the unsurpassed
education quality in the world. American education system are more inclined than other
nation to edify students' abilities of critical thinking and creative thinking. Their students
start to writing papers and discuss with their teachers at an early age. Moreover, the
United States possesses an unusual mixture of diverse people, miscellaneous races,
varied religions, sundry social groups and heterogeneous culture. But in the same time,
the United States has fine social order and mixed people get along with each other well.
Just like one of my American friend said, "Americans may not have achieved harmony,
but at least they aspire to it, which is more than many other nations can claim."

In the final analysis, the speaker cannot philosophically justify that all education want to
foster students to question and criticize; nor is this kind of education has any necessary
association to the sabotage of social harmony.

[ Last edited by myown5891 on 2005-7-26 at 07:39 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

Archer1123
UID: 206148

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1719
注册时间: 2005-4-18
精华: 1
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2005-7-26 11:04:19 |只看该作者

The speaker's claim is actually twofold: (1) all education encourages students to
question and criticize; (2) encouraging students to question and criticize harm social
harmony. I strongly disagree with both these claims. (恩，观点明确，不错不错，驳斥第一句我就没想到)

On the one hand, not all education inspires students to question and criticize. Different
kinds of education's, （个人觉得 goals vary greatly 提前比较好）ancient or present, western or eastern, Christian or Muslim, formal or informal, goals vary greatly. Education in preliterate societies just involve sharing information about survivance （改为how to survival如何）such as gathering food and providing shelter; of course, they have no awareness of fostering students' other ability. Education in ancient China stress （你的意思是强调或者着重于吗？pay more attention to如何） compliance and docility. Education in ancient Greece has a significant leap: the philosopher Socrates used his educational method, called the Socratic method, asking students probing questions that forced his students to think deeply about the meaning of life, truth, and justice. Western education in Middle Ages was heavily shaped by Christianity; much of the teaching was directed at （aimed at如何？） maintaining the governance of
religion. Education in the Renaissance has profound symbolism: influential humanist
Desiderius Erasmus believed that understanding and conversing about the meaning of literature was more important than memorizing it, as had been required at many
medieval religious schools. The Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century produced
important changes in education and educational theory: educators believed people
could improve their lives and society by using their reason, their powers of critical
thinking. And modern education more and more emphasize(s) the needs and potential of the child, the ability to challenge existing rules, and the ability to create. To sum up, the goals in which education systems have expect of students(感觉有点绕口，可能是我功底太差，呵呵) have continually evolved over the course of human history.具体展开分析，不错（好多单词我都只是认得，却写不出来，佩服）

On the other hand, boosting students to question and criticize does not necessarily
sabotage social harmony. Admittedly, filling students with strong ability to question and criticize may cause a lot of trouble to governments' policy making. People have
beaucoup diverse views and opinions and they are hard to unite together. However, this scenario is in a sense a headway for whole society. People contemplate enough,
question enough, investigate enough, discuss enough, then there is a rational solution. Even though people could not agree with each other in the end, as they deal with the conflict in a harmonious and democratic way, the social wheel are still move at a judicious and balanced direction. One apt illustration of this point involves American
education. It is universally acknowledged that the United States has the unsurpassed
education quality in the world. American education system are （is）more inclined than other nation to edify students' abilities of critical thinking and creative thinking. Their students start to writing papers and discuss with their teachers at an early age. Moreover, the United States possesses an unusual mixture of diverse people, miscellaneous races, varied religions, sundry social groups and heterogeneous culture. But in the same time, the United States has fine social order and mixed people get along with each other well. Just like one of my American friend said, "Americans may not have achieved harmony, but at least they aspire to it, which is more (better) than many other nations can claim."
楼主语言功底很强哦，厉害

In the final analysis, the speaker cannot philosophically justify that all education want to foster students to question and criticize; nor is （倒装也应该是后面的has吧？我语法不是很好哈）this kind of education has any necessary association to the sabotage of social harmony.

有空看看我的吧，谢谢https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=306222

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

ccmonicayz
UID: 2101322

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 84
注册时间: 2005-5-12
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2005-7-26 15:10:39 |只看该作者

写得像argument 能否注意

使用道具举报

myown5891
UID: 181125

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1047
注册时间: 2004-10-5
精华: 3
帖子: 2

地板

发表于 2005-7-26 16:25:01 |只看该作者

In the final analysis, the speaker cannot philosophically justify that all education want to foster students to question and criticize; nor is （倒装也应该是后面的has吧？我语法不是很好哈）this kind of education has any necessary association to the sabotage of social harmony.

改为：
In the final analysis, the speaker cannot philosophically justify that all education want to foster students to question and criticize; nor has this kind of education any necessary association to the sabotage of social harmony.

使用道具举报

myown5891
UID: 181125

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1047
注册时间: 2004-10-5
精华: 3
帖子: 2

5楼

发表于 2005-7-26 16:39:38 |只看该作者

ccmonicayz请看，这篇像不像argu

Issue 10
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
The speaker's claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large cities and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government. Admittedly, certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I chiefly mean the fine arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls----including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nation's cultural traditions. Today a nation's distinct cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies--burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world's preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do anymore with one nation's distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a global culture as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations' cultures.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation's cultural traditions; nor is government assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.

使用道具举报