[a习作temp] 牛人看看我的作文多少分?? [复制链接]

lilisongsong
UID: 2640091

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 3
寄托币: 81
注册时间: 2009-5-14
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-15 16:55:38 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ISSUE56 - "Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."
WORDS: 594
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-7-15 16:17:53

Human beings are living in the present time, facing with many immediate problems. They will go on to live in the society for tens of years, and their descendents would continue to live in the future, facing many anticipated problems in the future. We do not want to have any problems at any time regardless at present or in the future. However, our government is not able to solve all of the problems at one time. As to me, we should not put to much emphasis on the immediate one and ignore those would occur in the future. The best mean for government is to give these problems priority according to their importance rather than their orders.

Undoubtedly, immediate problems are relatively more important than those anticipated problems which have the same impact. We are unable to imagine how people living in an unstable and problematic world focus on solving the problems that are anticipated in a long-term period. We have to deal with the present problems, because there are always immediate problems existing in the world such as wars, disease, terrorism and the likes, which are damaging our welfare and security, society's stability and development.

Many people harbor that the anticipated problems are not as important as the immediate one, because there is long time for people to solve them, and in this long period, some new technologies which could solve them might come out. I concede the assumptions, but nobody is sure whether the new technology would come out, and what we should do if no such technology is invented in the future. Taking no measure stands for letting these problems to get worse. We can not begin to solve them when it threatens our life seriously. If so, we may cost a unprecedented high number of resources and even could not solve them at all. For example, the AIDS (acquired immune defect syndrome) was a rare disease at the beginning. Because of no measures to be taken in every century, it quickly turn to an evil disease that have involved 40 million people, killed 20 millions people, and are anticipated to kill additional 68 millions of people until 2020. The governments ignored the harmfulness several ten years ago, so we have to pay thousands times more to solve the consequence of the rare disease. There are many anticipated problems existing in the world, such as population problems, pollutions, and the likes.

Besides, just solving immediate problems seems unfair to our decedents. We produce too much pollution, and consume all the resources, but our descendents would bear the bad results that we leave. No parent would benefits from their children. Is it the time for us to comply with a 可持续发展development? Of course yes.

The immediate problems damage our present life, while the anticipated ones would damage our life in the future and cost us a lot more if we do not take measure to deal with them now. Fortunately, our government is able to do many things at one time. Facing so many problems, our government should analyze all the problems, regardless the immediate or anticipated problems, and then take measures to solve the most serious problems. By this way, rather than just solving present problems, we can achieve a better result.

Both immediate and anticipated problems are urgent for us to solve. When we cannot solve them at one time, we can attempt to solve those most serious problems rather than only immediate ones. If so, a better achievement would be gotten, for us, as well as our descendents.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT53 - Thirteen years ago, researchers studied a group of 25 infants who showed signs of mild distress when exposed to unfamiliar stimuli such as an unusual odor or a tape recording of an unknown voice. They discovered that these infants were more likely than other infants to have been conceived in early autumn, a time when their mothers' production of melatonin-a hormone known to affect some brain functions-would naturally increase in response to decreased daylight. In a follow-up study conducted earlier this year, more than half of these children-now teenagers-who had shown signs of distress identified themselves as shy. Clearly, increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness during infancy and this shyness continues into later life.
WORDS: 468
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-7-15 16:17:53

By citing a study, the argument claiming that increased levels of melatonin before birth cause shyness seems logical. However, it contains several facets that are questionable, and each of them would be discussed in turn as below.

The first flaw is the representativeness of the study thirteen years ago. What the infants showed might be not the signs of shyness. As we know, unusual odor or tape recording of an unknown voice is a kind of physical stimuli, other infants might reflect similarly as these infants, so these signs that the infants showed might be physiology signs rather mental signs showing they are shy. If so, the study is not able to indicate these infants had shyness at birth. Besides, researchers just test these 25 infants, many of them are conceived in early autumn, but why not all infants are conceived in early autumn, and why those who are not conceived in early autumn still showed the signs? Since the author never gives us the explanation, I will not be convinced that the reliability of the conclusion based on the study 13 years ago.

Secondly, the follow-up study conducted earlier this year is also open to question. The author provides us no evidence that what signs of distress the children gave to the researcher.
It might be the case that they just show such signs in the study because researches made them nervous at that time. If so, then the result of the study is not convincing. In addition, even if more than half of them have shyness, how many are other children shy? If the percentage of other general children who are shy are also more than fifty, the argument could be weaken by the useless statistics

Finally, even assuming we can find shyness exists in both these infants and their later life, we cannot be convinced that it is melatonin that is responsible for the shyness. The author fails to eliminate other alternative explanations. It might be the case that the out environment, such as the climate, cooler air, less light and the likes, results in the shyness of the infants. Also perhaps other hormone changed at early autumn rather than the melatonin result in the shyness. Then without better evidence, I am unable to believe the causal relationship between the shyness and melanin. What's more, if the melanin is the main reason of their shyness, common sense tells me that the daylight is continuing decreasing from the middle of summer to the middle of winter. Thus why these infants just born in the early autumn?

Overall, the reasoning behind the argument, which seems logical at first, contains several flaw as discussed above. Before any final decisions, the author should substantiate the reliability of the both studies. What’s more, he should provide more evidence to convince us the causal relationship between the shyness and melanin.