9月7号突击之作！~希望各位大侠继续指点！~

darkrenUID: 2510587

TOPIC: ISSUE125 - "The past is no predictor of the future."
WORDS: 657
TIME: 01:18:09
DATE: 2009/9/7 17:12:25

For many years, there are many discussions among people that whether the affairs in history can predict future. Lots of people believe that history just something passed and out of fashion. The past can be a predictor of future seems ridiculous and hard to agree. However, in my point of view, history maybe, in some cases, a predictor, more precisely, guidance for us.

First of all, there is no doubt that the study of history really offers us a lot of guidance nowadays. When we look back to the corrupt of a famous nation, we can learn from their mistakes. The great Rome, who invaded many countries, collected the greatest treasure around the world; spread their civilization and technology over through 3 continents. Her enemies trembled before her invisible army. Seems that the Rome Empire cannot be defeated forever. But at last, she went out of the stage of history just because she was overwhelmed by herself. The rotted politics had already planted for a long time, the crucial policy and endless war had pushed her people to the edge of abyss. Finally, when the Caser failed the war in Egypt, the empire fell. Rome's failure gives the offspring many lessons, hence, more and more countries start to care their people more, to apply more flexible policy. Since then no more Rome like countries have merged in the world. Similarly, the 2 World Wars also bring the whole human beings a significant lesson with great costs. From the wars, people learn and realize the value of peace. After the wars, most countries chose to reduce the arm, pay more attention to teach the youngs of how difficult they acquire the peace. Now, though there are still a few battles and conflicts around the world, no more great wars happened. In short, when we look back to the history, we can find some tips and suggestions from past, which may guide us avoid the same mistakes; moreover, lead us to a brighter future.

Meanwhile, when we thoroughly study some affairs in the past, possibly we may find some prediction for our future. For instance, a study of past million years weather condition, we may conclude there had been a recycle between cold era and warm era. And closely research suggests that we are now stay in a warm era, if we learn more about the warm era in the past we may find that more icebergs may gradually melt in several decades, and some areas which in a low position maybe drowned. From similar compare we can easily predict what situation we may face in a few years later. This prediction seems more logical and reasonable, and may offer great help in the future. Similarly, there are lots of other affairs in history can help to predict our future, such as the animal species gradually decline, more virus slowly come out every hundred years, and so on. Shortly, because of the study of the past, we can some time make a relatively precise prediction of future.

Admittedly, because of the world has been changing continuously, sometimes tips from the past can hardly help. Recent 400 years, people have created more CO2 gas than ever before. Because of the boom of the CO2, the whole world faces a new problem, the green house effect, which accelerates the global warming and brings some new phenomena. Therefore, if we still follow the data of last warm era and do not take the green house effect into consideration, we possibly find many cities already fall into the sea bank before they should be as predicted. Thus, learning history do help us make some prediction to our future, what if we consider more condition around us, the prediction maybe more precisely and reliable.

On the whole, if we learn more from the past, at the same time, do more research about the situation around us, it is possible for us to predict the future.


说实话，感觉这篇issue整体上应该不算难，但是写着写着，发现自己的论证的力度越来越不够。不知道哪位大侠写过该题，能提供点好的例子和角度。不胜感激！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT202 - Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.
WORDS: 481
TIME: 00:39:50
DATE: 2009/9/7 17:12:25

The author claims that the extinction of the large mammal species in the Kaliko has no relation to human activities. In order to support his claim, the author offers two evidences. However, the evidence just seems logical, after close thinking, I found some defects of the author the conclusion.

First of all, the author says that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with mammals, but what does he mean when he says significant contact? If he means significant contact is such as hunting, feeding and so on, this cannot prove that human beings have no responsibility to the mammals’ death. As we all know, because of human action, many animals are killed indirectly recent years, such as global warming, deforestation and virus. Therefore, perhaps human during that time cut down the woods for planting, and lead to the declination of some trees which some mammals lived on them. As well, it's possible that the human beings bring some virus that destructively dangerous to the mammals, and cause the distinction of the mammals. Moreover, what kind of evidences does the author mean when he said no evidence that the human being contact with the mammals? I think after several thousands of years, many possible spot may have been rotted by the time, therefore without more explanation about what kind of research the author have made to find the evidence, I cannot easily take that the human had no contact with animals. Shortly, whether the humans had contact with the large mammals, they still may be responsible to the mammals’ extinction.

Second, the author says that because there are no mammals’ bones in the places where fish bones are found, then declares that human during that time did not hunt the large mammals. However, I found this evidence seems less reliable, and there are many possible explanations to this phenomenon. Possibly, during that time, some people who were taking the jobs as fishing, and they relied on the fish instead of other food. At the same time, perhaps there were other people who live with mammals, but they lived in other places. Therefore, now we cannot find mammal bones in the places fish bones are found. There is another possibility that people may use the mammal bones as tools or weapons. Looking back to the history, in some eras, we can witness that bones were used as tools or weapons. Hence, it has chance that people in Kaliko hunt the large mammals and used their bones as tools, which lead to situation that we hardly find mammal bones. In sum, the author uses the mammal bones not found as an evidence for his claim seems less convincible.

On the whole, the reasons author suggests seems confusion and less reliable. Without more explanation and research around the Kaliko, I can hardly share the same conclusion with the author.

感觉该argue可以辩论的地方比较明显。但是感觉这次的结尾着实简陋……望各位指点指点！