1006G SPECTACULAR 备考日记 by tequilawine [无]--最初的梦想绝对会到达

helluinUID: 2377112

范范的这歌儿。。。
激动啊。。大家加油~~

tequilawineUID: 2702008

gambell   
分类讨论：教育题材
以下关于教育类题的一些个人看法，可能有些方面的个人局限性（专业于此无关，也没看认何资料），优先对题目做出了正面或反面的判断，希望大家不要受我的影响，也希望都来拍砖，深入讨论。

先来看看教育这个话题所要牵涉到的方面，在作文时，对这些因素的考虑将直接提供不同方面的论点。

1.目的
   
     不论哪一类的题目，教育的目的绝对都是一个关键的话题，直接讨论的题目也不算少数。就我看来目的要分作用事物的方面来看，侧重点会不一样，而目的的实现与否，则直接关系到教育的效率。讨论的时候，既可以分开并列，也可以一层一层递进。
   
    对社会： 我觉得有两方面，一是为社会输送有用的人才，通过他们所学得知识促进社会的进步；一是塑造人们的品德和约束他们的行为，以保证社会处在平和中而维持其稳定。
   
    对文化； 通过教育，人类的文化遗产才得以保存与流传甚至通过一定的修正才发扬光大，促使社会也进步，而对于文化中与政府所控制的社会的稳定有一定冲突的是否会会遭到抑制甚至排除我则表示保留的肯定，因为教育的施放者的关系，在不同学校，不同老师（包括家庭，社会）的情况的会略有不同。
   补充：对于个人： 1教育能够让人更加了解自我，能够激励一个人去完成自己的目标 2 教育能让人更加客观的去认识世界，也就是对人的价值观和世界观的培养。
102"For better or worse, education is a process that involves revising the ideas, beliefs, and values people held in the past."

1．教育是的文化和知识得以延续
2．教育对学生传授知识的同时，学生被培养的自身的思想会修订这些ideas, beliefs, values
3．这些修订对社会进步的帮助。

104"It is primarily through formal education that a culture tries to perpetuate the ideas it favors and discredit the ideas it fears."

1．同上
2．教育是由政府所控制的，它当然会处于对社会目的的考虑，选择性进行教育
3．由于根深蒂固的思想，宣扬的的东西多半会被接受。不宣扬的文化就有很多被遗忘  递进式关系
4．（没话说再加吧，有点跑题）又由于人类好奇的天性和民主社会对怀疑的鼓励，没有被宣扬的东西，总会被一小撮人发掘，一部分颠覆了旧的过是的体系，即哪里更好的文化，一部分则威胁社会的安定。

    对学生： 通过教授课程既使学生掌握谋生的技术，又培养学生思考的能力，比如判断是非，寻找真相（逻辑啊，理智啊），还有就是完善人们的思想包括品德，行为等等（甚至可以发散到开启心灵，内心平和），对学生的作用又可以直接作用到他们的工作，作品，进而社会。这个又直接关系到教育的另两个部分，就是教育的内容和社会目的。

学生&社会目的类题目
191"Education should be equally devoted to enriching the personal lives of students and to training students to be productive workers."

201"The purpose of education should be to provide students with a value system, a standard, a set of ideas—not to prepare them for a specific job."

考虑的方面有
1．教育在学生工作方面的目的
2．在塑造学生思想品质（包括价值体系） （选择一方面的话，可以一个作为admittedly的部分，先后无所谓）
3．进一步分析对社会的目的
4．选择性的加入对操作方法的建议。

一道怪怪的目的类题
222"Learning for learning's sake is an outdated concept. Today, education must serve an ulterior purpose and be directed toward clear goals."

2.内容
   
     内容方面其实有很多的分类方法，但总的来说可以先分为两部分，一部分是教授的知识类课程，包括自然科学，人类学，社会科学等等有着完整体系的学术或技术；另一部分则是关系到学生思想行为及品德方面的传授，它包括参加体会生活，对怀疑别人和承认错误的意识及勇气的培养还有信仰的选择和坚持。内容的各方面都有其特定的作用，但是在不同的情况下的平衡很重要，题目中的论述对于不同的目的，可以做出不同的选择。还有，教育中参与的各部分的反应也和重要，这样就至少有两个方面的话题了。

112"Some educational systems emphasize the development of students' capacity for reasoning and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them to explore their own emotions."
1．教育对学生的目的（也可进入对社会的程度），人的生活，工作对不同科目的需要
2．逻辑与推理的重要性。（扯到理科方面）
3．情感教育的重要性。（扯到艺术，哲学，强调与人交往，自我保护，调节心里等）
4．提出解决办法。

  而对于它们还可以进一步分析，特别是知识类的课程：
   
   按兴趣分：有喜欢的或者说是符合学生要求的和不喜欢的或者是学校，国家规定的；兴趣是最好的动力，这句话都知道，有兴趣的课程自然学起来卖力一些，也容易学好。而兴趣毕竟是片面的，学习上对兴趣的偏爱会造成一定的偏课，这又可以扯上科目分的内容（后面）。刚刚我又想出一种情况，人们往往在不熟悉一个领域的时候，只看到表面的好处或坏处而表示一定的兴趣或厌恶，深入后又会有不同的感受，只单一追求兴趣会不会后来又放弃了呢？

51"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."

   按制订者：地方制定的和国家制定的。（这个只在一道题中提到的），国家及其他权威的制定者设计的课程好处是完善的体系，公正的态度，统一的评判标准，缺点则是不灵活，没特色，而地方则与此相反，教育可能会或多或少受到当地文化的影响，但又因此具备了得天独厚的条件继承一方水土的文化，各自的缺点又可以通过两类的具体情况来做些补充，调整。

5"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."


   按应用分：有用于生存的技术和暂时对赚钱没什么关系的文化类。这方面的分析比较容易，直接套用目的就可以了，也可以使用参与对象作例子与分析的中介，。

34"Instead of requiring students to take courses in a variety of disciplines—that is, courses ranging from the arts and the humanities to the physical and biological sciences—colleges and universities should allow students to enroll only in those courses that will help prepare them for jobs in their chosen fields. Such concentration is necessary in today's increasingly work-oriented society."

1．教育的目的（屡试不爽啊）
2．针对应用性的课程的重要性
3．其他学科对学生的重要性
4，忽略其中某一项会造成什么不好。
5．多学科对社会的作用。

90"College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than seek programs that promise entry into the job market."

不同意：
1．目的
2．兴趣的作用
3．兴趣的弊端
4．实用性的重要性
5．（见后面的分析）

   按学术分：文科与理科，或更详细点社会科学，人类学，自然科学，当然也可以分基础学科，和其他的等等。我对课程的理解是不同分课的知识是交叉起作用的，首先是家长的教育形成人性的雏形，基础学科奠定进一步学习的底子，然后是进一步的基础学科与艺术学科共同塑造个性与传授知识，到一定程度后就开始分化专业。然而处于对教学目的两方面的考虑，文，武两方面都有助于人的成长。就科学内部来说，各课的融合也是一个大的趋势，不同的科目，正如培根说过，不只知识，还能训练人不同方面的能力。（另外，对于有一到题128的情况，正规教育与free mind的情况可以借鉴这种思考，基本的教育是有效自由思考的前提）

80"All students should be required to take courses in the sciences, even if they have no interest in science."

94"Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study because acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated."

下面两个特殊一点：
132"The university community consists of three different worlds—the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. Because each world operates on its own assumptions and has its own special habits of thinking, rarely is there meaningful interaction among the sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences."
不同意
1．承认三方面有很多不同。
2．然而三方面共同作用：不同的角度让一个问题变得完整和立体。各自的方法可以相互借鉴
3．三方面的交互对人的作用。

128"It is often asserted that the purpose of education is to free the mind and the spirit. In reality, however, formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free."
此题虽然写的是目的，但我论述的方面是
不同意：
1．（借鉴内容方面科目的顺序）正规教育传受了必需的知识确保自由思考的高度和正确性及free在多个角度和领域，而不仅仅局限是没有用处fancy。
2．正规教育培养了必需的方法和能力，使得解放的思想思考的更有效，
3．尽管过度的课业和错误的教育方法抑制了这些能力，但可以由方法来解决，并不能因此以偏概全。

   按时间分：当代的文化和过去流传下来的文化。这两种文化，不光要注意时间上的区别可以结合历史的思想，分为快餐文化和历史沉淀下来精髓作文肯定后者，还可以从反映社会需求的时代性和及时性来分析后者的好处。  

98"Colleges and universities should offer more courses on popular music, film, advertising, and television because contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do arts and literature of the past."
反对：
1．大部分流行文化太过浮躁，肤浅，只能流行一段，不值得研究
2．当时间选择了好的当代文化时，在研究也不迟
3．时间选择所留下的文化是经典，却值得借鉴（扯一些历史）
同意：
1．历史的文化虽经典，但脱离现实，可以适当学习而不必深究
2．当代文化更能体现当代社会的需求。
3．当代的速食文化往往能够在先进技术的帮助下瞬间引起广泛的传播，值得研究。

   我发现有的题目中的两个相比较的教育模式并不是严格的对立，因此我觉得再没话说的时候，可以考虑一下概念的交叉，比如说兴趣与实用的课issue90，是可以统一的，比如说鄙人的计算机（哎，就是难出去啊，还要考sub）

内容方面较特别的：

78"Schools should be required to teach the essential interconnectedness of all human beings and thus help eliminate wars, cultural clashes, and other forms of conflict."
但我觉得重点在于是否能eliminate wars, cultural clashes, and other forms of conflicts.
不同意：
1．学习人的共通性为增进彼此的了解，培养彼此得尊敬。
2．学习不同文明的区别也能了解不同，可以误会冲突。
3．然而战争的本质往往并不是由文化的差异引起，而是人类的贪婪本性，需要更多的是实力的均衡来减少以及消除战争。

3.方法
   方法往往与内容息息相关，有时候对内容的选择就是对方法的与中选择。比如对兴趣内容的选择就代表 了方法上是以满足学生的需要为主，选择体验生活的课程，方法上就要有鼓励参加公益活动和社会实践。

67"Colleges should require students to engage in public-service activities in order to assure that each student receives a balanced, well-rounded education."

选择培养辨别是非的能力和勇气，就要鼓励去质疑既存的理论和事实。

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

153"Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively."

213"Too much emphasis has been placed on the need for students to challenge the assertions of others. In fact, the ability to compromise and work with others—that is, the ability to achieve social harmony—should be a major goal in every school."


除此之外，还有些方法来源的是一些对现象可能产生的影响的考虑。比如，对于普通人和大学生容易盲从的情况，提出的解决方法，对于学生的错误和成功的处理方法，对个人的才能和自身信仰的关系的思考都属此类。具体情况见后面题目的分析。

230"College students—and people in general—prefer to follow directions rather than make their own decisions. Therefore, colleges should eliminate as many choices as possible in order to offer students clear direction."
不同意：
1．教育的目的
2．跟随别人往往是由于选择太少而不是太多。或者就算是跟随一个趋势，其中可能具体的方面还是个人的选择。
3．即使懒于选择，教育跟应该培养勇气与能力去作出选择并且是正确的选择。
4．有时候，又学要掌握自主性选择与服从大趋势中做出平衡。

228"The best way to teach—whether as an educator, employer, or parent—is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones."
不同意：
1．每个人都会有犯错和成功
2．应该在成功下适当表扬，错误下适当批评
3．忽略指出错误，就算是很少很细微，积累起来也会产生惊人的破坏，也更难改
4．要注意过度的害处

134"Students should be encouraged to realize that mental agility and rhetorical skill must be accompanied by sincerity and the true conviction of their own beliefs."
同意：
1．敏捷的智力和坚定的好的修辞技巧能获得一个好的印象。
2．信仰和真诚同时在后面才能取得真挚的交流。
3．现在教育的现状，需要加强

4.参与者
   教育最直接的和最普遍的参与者当然是学生和老师（学校），但也有题目讨论让社会，家长的参与或不 要学校，只需要学生自己的教育模式。我们就将所有的情况都考虑进来。
   
   教师：最普遍的教授者，对于他们我认为既要具有该方面的丰富理论知识，还有实际操作的丰富经验，而对于更新速度快的技术方面，随时掌握对新技术的发展并及时传达给学生也很有必要。但是也有观点是过多的教课外的工作会影响老师的精力，对教育由起到反作用，这个可以用来让步或反驳。

50"In order to improve the quality of instruction at the college and university level, all faculty should be required to spend time working outside the academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach."

   家长和社会：担当着学生在学校之外的教育。家长教授着人们感情，为人还传授经验；而社会则是考验学生，积累它们自己的经验，锻炼自己的能力。

154"Both parents and communities must be involved in the local schools. Education is too important to leave solely to a group of professional educators."
同意：
1．教育的目的。人的生命分为三部分，学校，家庭，社会，三方面都无时无刻去他们接触，都应该负担起教育的责任。
2．家庭教授感情和为人，对个人性格的形成由莫大的作用，特别是小时候
3．社会约束人的行为，影响价值观，产生经验。

   学生：受教者。所有的内容与方法都是针对他们而设计和安排，所有的目的与作用也由他们来体现。当然它们接受教育的过程和教育的方法也紧密相关。在作文中，他们是衔接各个方面的重要枢纽。对于特别有天赋的学生与普通的学生的区别，我们要首先注意他们是否能够在早期贝分辨出来，因为即使是啊坦哥小时候也没被认为是天才，还有就是学习的作用顺序，理应在奠定个性基础的时候给与特别的知识训练是否恰当值得思考。当然，有天分的人的超越性的思考需要得到承认和培养，以免被外界的评价儿同化进而埋没。

214"Society should identify those children who have special talents and abilities and begin training them at an early age so that they can eventually excel in their areas of ability. Otherwise, these talents are likely to remain undeveloped."

   学校/环境：也就是教育的环境，到底教育是否应该在学校中进行，学校的环境到底又应该是怎样都是这方面考虑的问题。我分析，学校特别是大学是一个集中了知识，教授和学生以及相应科目的专业设施的地方，其学术气氛及学问容量绝对其他地方难以比拟的。学生的因素固然重要，缺乏正规良好的教育环境影响，可能接受的人会形成歧形的思想与知识体系。另外，在这个环境中，同学之间的交流也是非常有价值的（发散，思想的碰撞，社会的关系网，嘿嘿）。而基于教育的目的（社会方面，学生方面），它不能与社会太过隔离，是学术，教育脱离社会的需求；反过来说，太过社会化，又有可能玷污学术领域的纯洁，都可以考虑。  

39"The intellectual benefits of attending a university or college are vastly overrated: most people could learn more by studying and reading on their own for four years than by pursuing a university or college degree."

232"The purpose of education should be to create an academic environment that is separate from the outside world. This kind of environment is ideal because it allows students to focus on important ideas without being held back by practical concerns."

223"Education is primarily a personal matter; it has little to do with school or college."
这题有些不同，可以分两节来论述，是不是个人问题广泛来看，要像是干系教育目的的问题，论述教育的概念，而后者则是学校的作用：
不同意：
1．教育不仅关系个人，更着眼整个社会（目的）
2．在教育过程中，学校也起着的重要作用。
3．对于的教育的改革，促进，更是需要整个社会的努力。

5．评判标准
现今的主流评判标准也就是grade system，它的好坏都可以说出一堆来，正面，一定程度上公平，有效的判定了一个学生的教育情况；反面，太过片面，使得学习变得狭隘，形成了错误的学习目标，扭曲了教育的目的。现阶段取消考分制不大可能，但可以辅以其他的评判标准，是的更加准确。

55"Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education.

100"The pressure to achieve high grades in school seriously limits the quality of learning. An educational environment without grades would promote more genuine intellectual development."


6. 资金
资金可以分教师的工资和学生的学费两大类，教师的工资属于一种雇佣关系中交换的商品，那么就应该遵守价值规律，首先当然排除主观的歧视。而学生的学费，在学生方面，过高的学费让有能力有天分单贫穷的学生失去了学习的机会，对社会是一种损失；没有学费负担又会让一部分人珍惜自己来之不易的机会。在政府方面，则要结合社会建设的大范围看，减免学费会增加政府的压力，影响其他社会建设，而在把教育作为产业的情况下，则还是一笔大的损失；一点都不负担，则要面对公众的压力，所以正反都还是有话说。

32"A school or college should pay its teachers at the same rate in all disciplines, regardless of differences in salaries for related fields in the world outside of school. For example, entry-level teachers in mathematics and in the arts should receive the same pay, even if outside of school, math specialists earn a much higher salary on average than do specialists in the arts."
反对：
1．符合价值规律，抢手，热门的就要叫价高一些。
2．报酬应该按贡献与付出来定，而非仅仅是专业。
3．大锅饭的坏处，打击积极性，好的教员跳槽，降低学校质量。

正面：应该没有吧，有的话贴出来，让我见识一下

53"College and university education should be free for all students, fully financed by the government."
反对：
1．（教育的目的）
2．基于社会方面的考虑，政府的财政压力导致社会建设被搁浅，违反初衷。
3．基于学生的考虑，尽管贫穷的学生有困难，确实有天分的人可以得到政府的特别资助。而且若无学费压力和动力，一部分学生会不珍惜机会，荒废学业。
4．        可以提出解决办法：折衷）

同意：
1．使所有的学生都有机会接受高等教育，提高全民素质，提高社会建设。
2．即使一些短期的付出，长远来看，教育对社会的作用会超过损失，比如日本。
3．使民众更支持政府。
4．还可以兴办高质量的私人学校，征收费用，弥补财政损失

tequilawineUID: 2702008

还有，德国大学不是吵着闹着要收学费吗？也可以做一个例子。校方的意见是说由于免费教学效率降低，校园里住着一群n年不毕业的，又没有什么学术贡献
222"Learning for learning's sake is an outdated concept. Today, education must serve an ulterior purpose and be directed toward clear goals."
比如说，我们经常提的学以致用，或者提出其他的ulterior purpose之类的。注意learning和research，inquiry还不太一样，一般指的事就人类已有知识的习得，而再往外，到广义的范畴才涉及探求未知。而且他说了must serve，可以考虑例如升学，考试，挣钱，事业，很多目标，有谁来定义，定义了又有什么好处呢？比如说认识到learning对一个人的人生的重大影响力会影响到subject的preference之类的。或者又有什么坏处也说不定。
现在又有了点思路，learning for learning's sake应该包括享受学习的过程，知识积累的成就感和满足不断被激发的求知欲，也又通过学习本身塑造的人的思想，然而是否要对于社会，文化做些贡献则无要求。反过来，ulterior purposes则就是指这些贡献。你说的research我觉得是个不绝对分在哪一边的东西，既可以用来learn from it and enjoy from it，也可以做出贡献，并不一点要将learning限太死。辨析各自的好处，坏处，估计就可以用到我的目的雷和参与对象类的总结了

tequilawineUID: 2702008

给大家几个关键词
American Education：

------ GUIDING IDEALS
access to education: as many people as possible

universal literacy: producing a society that is 100 percent literate

equal opportunity: provide comparable educational programs to everyone, regardless of race, handicap, or social standing

local control: no national ministry of education.（There is a United Stutes Department of Education, but it has no power over individual schools）

parental involvement: parental involvement in children's education

analysis and synthesis: About the assumptions Americans make about the basic nature of knowledge and learning. The assumption is that only a certain part of all that is potentially knowable is already known. Learning is an enterprise of exploration, experimentation, analysis, and synthesis.

well-rounded people: seeks to turn out "well-rounded people"

ISSUES FACING AMERICAN SCHOOLS

financial support

the quality of education and its assessment

quality of textbooks (esp. for primary and secondary schools)

about separation of church and state.... which is, in schools, whether schools should require, encourage or allow students to pray to a supreme being during school day.

whether particular books, usually famous novels containing profane or sex related language be assigned in classes or available in libraries (for secondary school)

whether religious symbols should be used in school activities related to national holidays, especially Christmas, that have religious origins

what students should be taught about the origin of mankind, specifically, whether they should be taught the theory that mankind evolved from lower animals or the theory that mankind was created by a supreme being

what measures can appropriately be taken to bring about racial integration or racial alance in public schools.

what is the proper balance between general, or liberal, education and vocational training, or vocational oriented education

whether female secondary school students should be allowed to participate on athletic teams that are traditionally all male （晕倒）

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Formal education for a relatively large portion of the population , but the quality of that education is no as high as it might be if the system were more selective.

The system's decentralization serves to insulate educational institutions from national political entanglements and give citizens some voice in what happens in their local schools, and also, makes it relatively easy for an outspoken and committed minority in a given community to embroil local schools in controversy, and furthur, makes it possible for particular schools to maintain low standards if they wish or feel compelled to do so.

Well-rounded people stand a better chance of becoming "good citizens" since they have a general familiarity with many topics and can keep themselves informed about matters of public policy, yet might not be as well equipped to begin working in specific occupations because they have not learned as much  in school about specific areas of endeavor as have students whose systems permitted earlier and more intensive specialization.

具体的内容我不可能一一敲上来，关键词已经给了一些了，有兴趣的话自己查查，发到版上来。也可以从中感受一下有些题目为什么会那样出，例如issue5，地方和中央的关系，其实应该说是有着背景的呢。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

这个分类是我自己根据所有的题目题库做的（所以希望如果有人给面子转贴的时候标明出自寄托，谢谢），可能部分不是很合理，大家可以提出意见来。

这个类别呢，一共有22个题目，也带着老版本的ETS题目顺序的题号。暂且，我把这22个题目，根据相关内容不同，分为了2个大部分。

第一部分：政府和人有关的。
下面可以再分两个小部分，
1， about leader/officials : 8, 43,45, 79, 167, 169, 193, 202
2. about individual/ common people: 17, 123, 195, 97

第二部分：政府政策相关的。
下面也可以具体分为两个大方向。
1。 大致的政策方向：20，56，69，83，105，195，224
2。这个部分要再具体分为4个方面，和具体的涉及内容方向有关来分：
a: about law: 17,174, 178
b: about eviroment: 83, 149
c: about science: 44,69
d: about art: 82, 101.


我先粗略的把题目和具体涉及的内容列上来，大家根据具体相关的题目来进行讨论吧，认为哪个题目比较难，不好发挥，或者需要什么相关的资料来进行参考，或者自己有什么好的点子的，都可以跟贴列出来，让我们一起砍掉新GRE的最难啃的作文部分！


（1）一谈到国家是否应该withhold information, or should be supervised by people，我最喜欢用的就是卢梭Jean-Jacques Rousseau的“社会契约论”（Rousseau: The Social Contract）内容大概是，国家的产生是由人民互相订立的契约，彼此都让渡一部分权利，以求得和谐的相处，并且将这部分权利交给一个组织来形式，来维护社会的公共秩序，并降低每个公民为维护秩序所花费的成本，这个组织就是“国家”，从此公民的权利就变成了政府的权力（right变power） 因此，我认为政府受人民的监督是理所当然的，因为它的权力来源与人民。
同时现在的趋势也是政府的操作透明化government proceeding，例如世界贸易组织的一个基本原则就是“透明度原则”*（transparency）
特别是要求政府的操作，而避免“暗箱操作”（under table dealing）,来避免corruption, 有一句话叫“阳光是最好的防腐剂”，还有一句话叫“绝对的权力导致绝对的腐败”（当然在这个问题上，肯定要分轻重缓急的，向国家安全机密市不能泄露的）

tequilawineUID: 2702008

Issue95

"people work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."

The speaker asserts that because teamwork requires cooperative effort, people are more motivated and therefore more productive working in teams than working individually as competitors. My view is that this assertion is true only in some cases.转述原题和自己观点的表达都是简洁明了 If one examines the business world, for example, it becomes clear that which approach is more effective in motivating people and in achieving productivity depends on the specific job.表示下文将从business的角度入手进行阐述，并且说明观点：it depends on specific job.

In some jobs productivity dearly depends on the ability of co-workers to cooperate as members of a team. For businesses involved in the production of products through complex processes, all departments and divisions must work in lock-step fashion toward product roll-out.例子很到位，一句话的内容就足够了。 Cooperative interaction is even essential in jobs performed in relative isolation and in jobs in which technical knowledge or ability, not the ability to work with others, would seem to be most important.精彩，even essential… would seem to be most important，看似矛盾实际上加强了对比的力度 For example, scientists, researchers, and even computer programmers must collaborate to establish common goals, coordinate efforts, and meet time lines. Moreover, the kinds of people attracted to these jobs in the first place are likely to be motivated by a sense of common purpose rather than by individual ambition. 围绕本段的中心进行了紧凑的阐述，前后两个例子简短而贴切，值得学习。如果我们的段落可以写成这样那就很不错了。

In other types of jobs individual competition, tenacity, and ambition are the keys to productivity. For example, a commissioned salesperson's compensation, and sometimes tenure and potential for promotion as well, is based on comparative sales performance of coworkers. Working as competitors a firm's individual salespeople maximize productivity-in terms of profit--both for themselves and for their firm.一个例子 Key leadership positions also call, above all, for a certain tenacity and competitive spirit. A firm's founding entrepreneur must maintain this spirit in order for the firm to survive, let alone to maximize productivity.第二个例子，let along这个让步好 Moreover, in my observation the kinds of people inclined toward entrepreneurship and sales in the first place are those who are competitive by nature, not those who are motivated primarily by a sense of common purpose.与上一段前后呼应，都再次扣到了specific job上面。

On balance, however, my view is that cooperation is more crucial for an organization's long-term productivity than individual competition. Even in jobs where individual competitiveness is part-and-parcel of the job, the importance of cooperation should not be underestimated. Competition among sales people can quickly grow into jealousy, back stabbing, and unethical behavior all of which are counterproductive. 开始说disadvantage，前面给一个甜枣儿现在来一棒锤。And even the most successful entrepreneurs would no doubt admit that without the cooperative efforts of their subordinates, partners, and colleagues, their personal visions would never become reality.两点的反击都是很到位，一针见血，再次体现出这篇文章的优点：例子贴切而到位。
6个贴切到位的一句话例子
In sum, individual competitiveness and ambition are essential motivating forces for certain types of jobs, while in other jobs it is a common sense of mission that motivates workers to achieve maximum productivity. In the final analysis, however, the overall productivity of almost every organization depends ultimately on the ability of its members to cooperate as a team.

而从这个结尾可以看到这篇文章的一些不足之处：个人认为，就像in sum这一段话的叙述一样，通篇文章都像是流水作业，从上走到下然后结尾万事大吉。在最开始的时候缺乏一定的统揽全局的东西。如果这篇文章稍加修改，从开始的时候就把基调定在cooperation上面，然后三个段落的顺序都不变，把关键部位加上一些transition，先cooperation，再让individual motivation，最后返回cooperation，全局的效果会好得多。Nevertheless，原文的分析已经不错了。另外则是从一开始就限定在business的领域——但原题并非如此，而最后也止步于自说自话，这样的做法未必可取，需要参见ETS的pp3说明文件详细谨慎考虑。

其实这个题目的题眼相当多。"people work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."前半句就是一个超级炸弹，炸出两个阵营（at least），而后面作为原题的supporting evidence则更是给大家留出口实：teamwork和cooperation的辨析（teamwork就等于cooperation了？？），关于motivation的手段，效果的分析和比较，另外其实还有的就是individual和cooperation的关系，等等。对于所有的题目都是一样：千万不要放过关键词，对关键词的辨析明了，一篇文章就搞定一半了（因为确定的清晰构架已经出来）。而对于后半句那种明显添乱的句子，不痛扁它，扁谁？要能够敏捷的发现这样的句子是可以拿来好好利用的。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

除了Churchill,剩下的就记不得了 :(
反正这种事没什么坚持不坚持的,都是为了自己的利益.看过相关的资料,当时欧洲大陆全部沦陷,只有苏联抗击德国.如果苏联也翘掉,不列颠就处于真正的孤岛,将受到德国的全力攻击,这种情况是伦敦不愿意看到的,所以他们也放下架子去联合共产主义的苏联,同样,莫斯科就是利用伦敦的这种心理,向伦敦索要资源(好像是多少万吨AL)和钱来承诺拖住德国在东线的主力,当然归根到底也是为了自己国家的生存.
华盛顿也是一样,Roosevelt也不愿看到不列颠因战争的胜利而重现日不落的辉煌,但又怕这位盟友挂掉,所以他一方面对Stalin很热情,显出有点冷落Churchill的样子,又一方面也继续支援英国.当时三巨头间都是有自己小99的,for example,苏联和美国都希望在诺曼底登陆开辟第二战场,一方面可以缓解苏联在东方的压力,另一方面可以直捣柏林,而Churchill则希望在西西里登陆,从意大利北上打击德国的腹部,(其实根本目的是为了维护不列颠在巴尔干的利益)但美苏觉得那不够干脆,最后3方争吵的后果是两条路线同时进行,但最后还是霸王行动( D-day invasion)成为了主力,这也是伦敦很失望的地方.这样做最后的结果是美军成了二战在欧洲的英雄,声威大振,而英国从此一蹶不振,再也不能重复昔日的辉煌了.对美国而言,这个政策唯一的恶果就是导致了苏联的壮大. In a word, the event typically illustrated : 没有永远的朋友,只有永远的利益(当然仅针对国际关系)
盟军最高司令Einsenhower本身作战战略上在欧战上并没有多大的贡献，他的长处是善于协调美英盟军将领间的关系，使得他们各自能发挥出最大的能量，这点也许可以论证一个issue：真正的领导者不是本身具有杰出才能的，而是善于协调他人长处的（具体忘了，意思差不多）
盟军地面总司令是蒙哥马利，who虽然在北非对隆美尔的胜利而一战成名，也因此担任了英国在盟军军事上的最高职务，但在诺曼底登陆后向德国的推进上却处处过于谨慎而贻误战机，还抢美军的功劳和资源，他的一再失误完全盖过了他原本在北非的成功，也许可以论证：知道怎么获得成功却不知怎么利用？还有别的什么？
In contrast，巴顿率领的第三集团军却一路狂飙，远远的把蒙哥马利甩在后面，但却最后因为汽油耗尽（因为盟军的大部分汽油都分配给了英军）而不得不陷入停滞，甚至不得不抢友军的汽油，这种流氓行径也招致很多将领的不满，还有他曾经殴打过逃兵，也引起很大的谴责，后来多亏Einsenhower的调停，也许可以论证领导是否要保持最高的道德标准？
在盟军主力还停在比利时的时候，总部曾经策划过一个“市场花园“计划，即派包括著名的101空降师在内的空降部队降落荷兰，为大部队打前哨，最后却因为蒙哥马利的迟缓而不得不当步兵来在敌后浴血奋战，著名的宏篇巨作（斯皮尔伯格的史上最大投资电视剧“band of brother“ 兄弟连）就讲述了一段这样的故事。具体怎么用，大家看吧。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

水门事件详介！
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp ... gate/chronology.htm

建议访问上面的链接，可看到网站给出的详细post story.

tequilawineUID: 2702008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp ... /stories/graham.htm

The Watergate Watershed: A Turning Point for a Nation and a Newspaper

By Katharine Graham
Tuesday, January 28, 1997; Page D01

This article was excerpted from the 1997 book "Personal History" by Katharine Graham, chairman of the executive committee and former publisher of The Washington Post.

On Saturday morning, June 17, 1972, Howard Simons, The Post's managing editor, called to say, "You won't believe what happened last night." He was right. First he told me of a car that crashed into a house where two people had been making love on a sofa and went right out the other side. To top that, he related the fantastic story that five men wearing surgical gloves had been caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office building.

President Nixon was in Key Biscayne, Fla., at the time. His press secretary, Ron Ziegler, dismissed the incident as "a third-rate burglary attempt," adding, "Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it is." None of us, of course, had any idea how far the story would stretch; the beginning -- once the laughter died down -- all seemed so farcical.

The story of the break-in appeared on the front page of Sunday's paper. Among the staff writers contributing to the story were Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This was the beginning of their famous collaboration. Their first big story, over a month later, revealed the connection of the burglars to the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP).

The Post was ahead on the story from the beginning. And from the beginning, Nixon began making threats of economic retaliation against the paper. "The Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station . . . and they're going to have to get it renewed. . . . [T]he game has to be played awfully rough." Of our lawyer, Nixon said, "I wouldn't want to be in Edward Bennett Williams's position after this election. We are going to fix the son of a bitch, believe me."

Two weeks later, a seminal Bernstein and Woodward article appeared on Page 1 of The Post. They had dug up information that there was a secret fund at CRP that was controlled by five people, one of whom was then-Attorney General John Mitchell, and which was to be used to gather intelligence on the Democrats. Thus the story reached a new level.

In an effort to check it out, Bernstein called Mitchell directly, reaching him at a hotel in New York, where Mitchell answered the phone himself. When Carl told him about the story, Mitchell exploded with an exclamation of "JEEEEEEESUS," so violent that Carl felt it was "some sort of primal scream" and thought Mitchell might die on the telephone. After he'd read him the first two paragraphs, Mitchell interrupted, still screaming, "All that crap, you're putting it in the paper? It's all been denied. Katie Graham's gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that's published. Good Christ! That's the most sickening thing I ever heard."

Bernstein was stunned and called Ben Bradlee at home to read him Mitchell's quotes. Ben told Carl to use it all except the specific reference to my "tit." The quote was changed to read that I was "gonna get caught in a big fat wringer." Ben decided he didn't have to forewarn me. (Later he told me, "That was too good to check with you, Katharine." I would have agreed with Ben's decision.) As it was, I was shocked to read what I did in the paper, but even more so to hear what Mitchell had actually said, so personal and offensive were the threat and the message.

It was quite a temper tantrum on Mitchell's part -- and especially strange of him to call me Katie, which no one has ever called me. Bob Woodward later observed that the interesting thing for him was that Mitchell's remark was an example of the misperception on the part of the Nixon people that I was calling all the shots. In any case, the remark lived on in the annals of Watergate and was one of the principal public links of me with the affair.

Pressure Points

In October, the tempo of the whole story picked up. The Post printed an article that described the original break-in as part of a massive, nationwide campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted in behalf of the president's reelection efforts and directed by White House and reelection committee officials.

That day Ziegler began his morning briefing at the White House charging that "stories are being run that are based on hearsay, innuendo, guilt by association. . . . It goes without saying that this administration does not condone sabotage or espionage or surveillance of individuals." That same afternoon, Clark McGregor, Nixon's campaign chairman, said that The Post's "credibility has today sunk lower than that of George McGovern," the Democrat running against Nixon.

During these months, the pressures on The Post to cease and desist were intense and uncomfortable. I was feeling beleaguered. Many of my friends were puzzled about our reporting. Joe Alsop was pressing me all the time. And I had a distressing chance meeting with Henry Kissinger just before the election. "What's the matter? Don't you think we're going to be reelected?" Henry asked me. Readers, too, were writing to me, accusing The Post of ulterior motives, bad journalism, lack of patriotism.

Nixon's campaign to undermine public confidence in The Post was intensifying. The investigation of such a tangled web of crime, money, and mischief was made much harder given the unveiled threats and harassment by a president and his administration. Bearing the full brunt of presidential wrath is always disturbing. Sometimes I wondered if we could survive four more years of this kind of strain.

I particularly loathed reports that personalized the whole dispute, implying that some sort of personal vendetta had poisoned the relationship between The Post and the administration. I had already begun to hear a chorus of rumors concerning my own feelings about Nixon, a chorus that warmed up with some help from Sen. Bob Dole, who made a charge, picked up and carried all over the airwaves, saying I had told a friend that I hated Nixon. Dole made the leap to saying that that was the reason The Post was writing all the negative Watergate stories.

Frozen Out

To no one's surprise, President Nixon was reelected by a landslide, with 61 percent of the vote and 49 out of 50 states -- evidence of how little impact Watergate had had. However, instead of becoming more secure with his victory in hand and working to unite the country, Nixon immediately turned to vengeance and to strengthening his hold on power. In a speech at his victory dinner with members of the administration, he mentioned The Washington Post several times.

After the election, partly in response to the escalating campaign we felt was being waged against the reputation of The Post, I began to make more speeches defending the press in general and The Post in particular. One of the first big ones was in San Francisco. As my plane landed, the man across the aisle from me leaned over to say, "Hello, Mrs. Graham, can I help you with your bag?" I looked up into the eyes of Sen. Dole. He was very friendly, helped me off the plane, and did indeed carry the bag for me. We talked pleasantly, and I finally worked up my nerve to say, "By the way, Senator, I didn't say I hated Nixon." "Oh, you know," he casually replied, "during a campaign they put these things in your hands, and you just read them." His reaction amazed me, dismissing so lightly something that had had such a powerful effect on all of us at The Post, especially me.

That fall, at the same time that the administration granted an exclusive interview to the Washington Star, it started a boycott of sorts on us. We were not to have our calls answered, not to be dealt with professionally in any way; administration people were not to come to editorial lunches, and certainly not to my house for dinner. A uniquely ludicrous, petty and rather weird form of vengeance took place when the administration excluded our charming, much respected and even loved senior society reporter Dorothy McCardle, then 68 years old, from covering parties and made her sit alone cooling her heels in the pressroom, barring her from one social event after another. The strategy backfired, for Dorothy soon became something of a heroine to her colleagues in the Washington press corps. In fact, the Star gallantly ran an editorial supporting us and opposing the ban, stating that, if The Post couldn't cover the parties, the Star didn't want any favors; its social reporter, Isabelle Shelton, would join Dorothy in the pressroom, declining to attend the events as long as Dorothy couldn't.

We found out later that at one point Nixon had a plan to get Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative Pittsburgh millionaire, to buy The Post. The evidence that turned up in the Nixon Archives was Ehrlichman's notes on a Dec. 1, 1972, meeting he had with Nixon: "Post. Scaife will offer to buy it. (Assets.) Suit by public SH [shareholders] if she (60%) [who controls this much of the A shares] refuses. President can't talk to him."

At one point, Nixon himself got in on the act. He sent a memo to Haldeman:

"Ziegler under no circumstances is to see anybody from the Washington Post and no one on the White House staff is to see anybody from the Washington Post or return any calls to them . . . -- just treat the Post absolutely coldly -- all of their people are to be treated in this manner."

Taking License

Of all the threats to the company during Watergate -- the attempts to undermine our credibility, the petty slights, and the favoring of the competition -- the most effective were the challenges to the licenses of our two Florida television stations. There were three separate challenges in Jacksonville and one in Miami, all of which -- not coincidentally -- were filed between Dec. 29, 1972, and Jan. 2, 1973. Out of more than 30 stations in the state of Florida up for renewal, our stations were the only ones challenged.

Did the White House actually encourage or even originate these challenges? In light of all the threats and memos that have since surfaced, it's easy to believe that Nixon and his co-conspirators were behind them, but we never found a paper trail leading to a direct connection. Maybe we didn't have to, so closely tied were many of the prominent figures to the White House or the CRP.

No doubt there was a mixture of motives among the challengers -- the perception of blood in the water, easy pickings, and understandable thinking that the atmosphere was right given the Nixon-dominated FCC. There was also dissatisfaction, if not real dislike, on the part of some of the challengers for our strong, aggressive news organizations. We could see why some groups didn't like the performance of the two stations: Both had played a not insignificant role in the passage of Florida's corporate income tax and the Florida sunshine law.

Nixon's close friend Cromwell Anderson was one of the leaders of a challenging group in Miami. Another member was Edward Claughton, whose home Spiro Agnew had stayed in during the 1972 Republican Convention. Anderson began to move against our station in Miami in September of 1972. This happened to be the same month Nixon (as later heard on the tapes) said that The Post would have "damnable, damnable problems" about our license renewals, a phrase that was censored when the tapes were first released by the White House.

The timing of these challenges made them potentially devastating, coming not only in the thick of Watergate but also just a year and a half after the Pentagon Papers and after the company had gone public with its stock.

Among the worst effects was the sharp decline in our stock price that naturally ensued, from $38 a share down to $28 in the first two weeks after the challenges, and continuing on down to $16 or $17, decreasing the value of the company by more than half. As for the direct effect on our finances, the legal costs of defending the licenses added up to well over a million dollars in the 2 1/2 years the entire process took -- a far larger sum then than now for a small company like ours.

Catching a Break

By early 1973, I was growing increasingly anxious and thought I ought to meet with Woodward and Bernstein in addition to the editors. Surprisingly, to this point -- seven months into the story -- I had had hardly any contact with the reporters. So, on Jan. 15, Bob and Howard Simons and I sat down to lunch together (Carl was out of town). Characteristically, Bob went right downstairs to the newsroom afterward and made extensive notes about what we'd said -- even going so far as to write down what we ate (eggs Benedict).

My apprehensions about the whole Watergate affair were evident. "Is it all going to come out?" Woodward reported that I asked anxiously. "I mean, are we ever going to know about all of this?" As Bob later wrote, he thought it was the nicest way possible of asking, "What have you boys been doing with my newspaper?" He told me then that they weren't sure all of it ever would come out: "Depression seemed to register on her face. `Never?' she asked. `Don't tell me never.' "

It was also at this lunch that Woodward told me he had told no one the name of his secret source, whom Howard Simons had dubbed Deep Throat, after the pornographic movie that was popular at the time. "Tell me," I said quickly, and then, as he froze, I laughed, touched his arm, and said that
I was only kidding -- I didn't want to carry that burden around. He admitted that he was prepared to give me the name if I really wanted it, but he was praying I wouldn't press him. This luncheon was reassuring for me -- or at least I gave the appearance of being reassured -- but I remained nervous.

The period leading up to the trial of the "Watergate Seven," which began on Jan. 8, 1973, had been extremely tense. Chuck Colson, the tough White House special counsel, was talking around Washington about going to our national advertisers or our investors. A Wall Street friend of mine, Andre Meyer, a man with administration contacts, called me and asked me to come to see him. When I did, he advised me to be very careful of everything I did or said and -- just like in the movies -- he warned me "not to be alone." "Oh Andre," I said, "that's really absurdly melodramatic. Nothing will happen to me."

"I'm serious," he said. "I've talked to them, and I'm telling you not to be alone." Andre never explained what his fears were based on. I lay awake many nights worrying, though not about my personal safety. The very existence of The Post was at stake. I'd lived with White House anger before, but I had never seen anything remotely like the kind of fury and heat I was feeling targeted at us now.

Finally, a series of events began to unfold in our favor. Three days after the beginning of the trial, Howard Hunt, the former CIA agent who was operations manager of the Watergate break-in, pleaded guilty to six of the charges against him. Four days later, the other burglars followed suit. On Jan. 30, G. Gordon Liddy, a former FBI agent who, with Hunt, managed the Watergate operation, and James McCord, former CIA security chief and the senior of the five burglars, were convicted, continuing to claim that no higher-ups were involved and that they had not received any money.

I was on a trip to the Far East on behalf of Newsweek International when Howard Simons phoned to tell me the stunning news that McCord had written a letter to Judge John J. Sirica charging that perjury was committed at the Watergate trial. McCord said that the defendants had been pressured to plead guilty and keep quiet, that higher-ups were indeed involved, and that "several members of my family have expressed fear for my life if I disclose knowledge of the facts in this matter." McCord agreed to tell what he knew about the original burglary in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

This was the first real break in the case: McCord's letter confirmed our stories. At the White House, several resignations were announced on April 30, along with John Dean's firing as counsel. Elliot Richardson, the new attorney general, was given the right to appoint a special prosecutor. Nixon came on television at 9 that night, and several of us, including Woodward and Bernstein, crowded into Howard Simons's office to watch the speech. It was one of those many times throughout Watergate when I just wanted to be at the paper with friends and in the thick of things.

Nixon resorted to his old formulas: "The easiest course would be for me to blame those to whom I delegated the responsibility to run the campaign but that would be a cowardly thing to do. . . . It was the system that has brought the facts to life. . . . a system that in this case has included a determined grand jury, honest prosecutors, a courageous judge, Judge Sirica, and a vigorous free press."

Tale of the Tape

At the next day's press conference, Ron Ziegler apologized to The Washington Post generally and to Woodward and Bernstein particularly for his earlier criticisms of their reporting. The next week, it was announced that The Post had won the Pulitzer Prize for meritorious service for its Watergate reporting.

But the Watergate affair was far from over. In July 1973, a seismic event occurred: In the course of his testimony before the Senate investigating committee, Alexander Butterfield, a Haldeman aide, revealed that there was a voice-activated recording system in the White House. Consequently, the vast majority of conversations the president had had in the Oval Office were on tape.

Without the tapes, the true story would never have emerged. After their discovery, people actually began waiting in the alley outside our building for the first edition of the paper. Everyone was now following the story.

By the summer of 1974 Watergate continued on its way toward an ending none of us could have imagined two years earlier. On Aug. 8, President Nixon announced that he would resign the next day.

Immediately after watching Nixon's departure speech, I returned to Martha's Vineyard, where I had interrupted my August vacation. I turned on the television and heard a voice referring to `President Ford.' Then and only then did I experience pure relief. I actually felt a weight leave my shoulders. It was over.

My own role throughout Watergate is both easy and hard to define. Watergate no doubt was the most important occurrence in my working life, but my involvement was basically peripheral, rarely direct. For the most part I was behind the scenes. I was a kind of devil's advocate, asking questions all along the way -- questions about whether we were being fair, factual and accurate.

I have often been credited with courage for backing our editors in Watergate. The truth is that I never felt there was much choice. There was never one major decisive moment when I, or anyone, could have suggested that we stop reporting the story. Watergate unfolded gradually. By the time the story had grown to the point where the size of it dawned on us, we had already waded deeply into its stream. Once I found myself in the deepest water in the middle of the current, there was no going back.

One of the final touches to Watergate occurred just after Nixon had left Washington. Bob Woodward came to my office with the most wonderful present -- an old-fashioned wooden laundry-wringer. It was signed by the six editors and reporters who had worked throughout those years to keep the story alive -- Bob and Carl, Ben Bradlee and Howard Simons, Harry Rosenfeld and Barry Sussman. It sits in my office still, over 20 years later.

tequilawineUID: 2702008

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
  
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
  
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
  
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station
to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
  
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance
of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to
alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King
of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid
world.
  
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.
  
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be
obtained;and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation
in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only.
  
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation,
have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining
in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.
  
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass
others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
new Appropriations of Lands.
  
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to
Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers
to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
  
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent
of our legislatures.
  
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the
Civil power.
  
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their
Acts of pretended Legislation:
  
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
  
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Acts of pretended Legislation:
  
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
  
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
sexes and conditions.
  
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated
injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define
a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
  
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned
them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantaable
jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice
and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred
to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections
and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and
of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denouncces
our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in
War, in Peace Friends.
  
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these
United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;
that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States,
they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may
of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
  
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
  
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
  
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
  
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham
Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer,
James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas
Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
  
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

  
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

tequilawineUID: 2702008

Enrongate
By Mick Brooks

The collapse of Enron is the biggest crash in corporate history. In a matter of months the total share "value" of energy firm Enron, the seventh biggest company in America, went from $80 billion to next to nothing. Thousands of workers are being made redundant. To add insult to injury更糟糕的是, their pension plans were locked in to holdings of Enron shares, and are therefore worthless. Meanwhile Enron executives, aware of the coming shipwreck, sold $1 billion of their own holdings to outside suckers and were desperately shredding incriminating documents. At the same time they were siphoning off吮吸  all the remaining assets through a vermicelli of holding companies fronted by Enron executives.

This could be the beginning of something bigger. The next casualty下一个牺牲品 is likely to be Arthur Andersen. One of the world's big five accounting firms, AA was paid $25 million each year to give Enron accounts a clean bill of health. Last year they received a similar sum for other non-auditing services. Commentators regard this as over the odds - perhaps a bribe to turn a blind eye. In fact Enron's accounts were all fur coat and no knickers. They have overstated their profits by $400 million and built up $40 billion in "off-balance sheet" debts. Arthur Andersen's 85,000 employees have been warned their firm could cease to exist within a year.

"Contagion" could spread further in the world of high finance. Enron owes Barclays Bank $126 million. This is peanuts compared with the $1.9 billion Chase are chasing, the $3 billion Citigroup won't get back or the $2.5 billion Bank of New York can whistle for. Knock-on effects could cause the whole financial world to take a heavy hit.

This is not just an isolated financial scandal. A big finger is pointed at the White House. Criminal investigation into Enron has begun. But Bush's Attorney General has been taken off the case as he has taken the Enron shilling. He is not alone. Thirty-five members of the Bush administration are either on the payroll, or have received campaign backing from the bad guys. It will be interesting to see if they got their money out in time. Enron made donations of $1.7 billion to the Republicans. Then, just to show there are two capitalist parties in the USA, they gave the Democrats $700 million. This money is usually described as a political donation. Enron saw it as an investment, and the best investment they ever made. When the Bush administration hit town, Enron executives were celebrating payback time! In the first part of 2001 they had six meetings with Vice-President Cheney. What were they up to? They were writing the government's energy policy.

In the first months after taking office Bush dobbed out of the Kyoto restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming. He cut the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency civil enforcement to zero - so they can't take anyone to court. He appointed Pat Wood, the Enron nominee, as Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He proposed to allow drilling in the protected areas of Alaska's National Park, one of nature's last wildernesses and home to the caribou and the arctic fox.

We are not arguing that Bush and Cheney were just on the take接受贿赂 敲诈 from the oil and energy companies. Cheney himself is a big cheese in the corrupt symbiosis with big business that is American politics. Cheney left George Bush senior's administration to become Chief Executive of Halliburton, the biggest maker of oil drilling equipment in the world. Naturally he supports drilling in Alaska. Naturally he uses his post as Veep to advance his own interests. Bush, too, like his father before him, is a major player in the world of Texas oil, and Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron, was his political fundraiser in chief.

The Enron story allows us to nail捕捉 a few of the lies they tell us about capitalism. They try to tell us that capitalists are wealth-creators and innovators. Fortune, the US business magazine, was still calling Enron "the most innovative company in America" last year. The Economist last June was hailing Enron's enterprise as "the most successful internet venture of any company in any industry anywhere." (Have you ever wished you were better informed?) They try to tell us that elected politicians get in the way of all this wealth creation with misguided attempts to regulate big business and tell it what to do. They try to tell us that markets are the most natural things in the world. In fact Enron's main asset was political influence. Until twenty years ago, there was no energy market for firms like Enron to play in. As an energy company, they only found a market because it was deliberately "innovated" by corrupt or crazy politicians.

Fact - Enron never innovated. Enron never actually made anything. Enron was basically a middleman. If occasionally the Enron octopus was actually involved in generating electricity, it was usually because they had acquired the plant from someone else as part of their relentless search for money. Enron was a trader. What they traded in was irrelevant to them. Their profits were the fruits of speculation, and last year they started to dry up.

What does Enron know about? Here's the philosophy of former CEO Skilling: "You must cut jobs ruthlessly by 50 or 60 percent. Depopulate. Get rid of people. They gum up the works把事情弄糟." This is what presumably passes for management "science" as it taught on expensive courses to create Masters of Business Administration.

The mass generation and transmission of energy, without which big business and mass markets would be impossible, has in every country been the creation of the state. Doesn't that tell you something about capitalism? Think of all the capitalists that make a living by selling you things you have to plug in. None of them would be in business without the best efforts of the state. The grid was set up either by nationalisation国有化 or by wholesale regulation. In the USA electricity generation was not publicly owned, but tenders were put out. In other words companies came into existence only because the states or federal government said they were prepared to buy their electricity if the capitalists could build the plant. The electricity generators, in turn, were carefully regulated and not allowed to make big profits from a monopoly position that had been artificially created for them by the state. The generating capacity was knit together by the grid, an example of state planning. Since it is difficult to store energy, it had to be shared to deal with peaks in demand.满足高峰需求

The system worked. California, since electricity deregulation, is not working. The state is blighted by "brownouts" and cursed by escalating energy bills. Instead of a co-operative grid, a "pool" of spare electricity which functions as a market (actually a pseudo-market), was set up. This lets in the middlemen such as Enron. The profit-gougers have certainly learned how to manipulate prices in the pool. As peak demand leads to price "spikes", the cost of electricity in California leaps from $30 to $1,000 per megawatt-hour. Energy analyst Jerry Oppenheim explains: "Deregulation created volatility, which is what the energy traders want." Cheney says California's problem is insufficient generating capacity. He suggests they build more nuclear power plants. Apart from the fraud of nuclear energy costing (whatever happened to "electricity too cheap to meter" that we were promised?), hasn't the Vice President heard that much of California lies on an earthquake fault line? So there is capitalist "progress" for you. Who was daft enough to dream up energy deregulation?

The idea was made in Britain. Economists have tried to argue it was about efficiency, but actually it was about smashing the miners, and it cost us taxpayers and energy consumers billions. Usually economists talk about the importance of marginal cost calculation - working out the cost of producing an extra unit of energy. The rationale is that, even if it could be proved that gas-fired power was cheaper from a standing start, it wasn't if you had to scrap functioning coal-fired generators and buy expensive new plant to burn gas. But, under energy deregulation, that was what happened. To Cecil Parkinson, the Energy Secretary of the time, marginal cost was as alien a concept as marital fidelity. All his speeches were about Arthur Scargill. The Tories were prepared to spend as much of our money as it took to smash the mining communities.

The energy distribution companies for their part were not interested in enhancing "efficiency". They felt the generating companies had them by the short and curlies. They built gas-fired generators at our expense in order to improve their bargaining power vis-à-vis the big generating firms. And coal burning went into decline.

Enron had global reach. They were responsible for about a quarter of all Europe's power supply. All these markets were opened up to them by political lobbying from Washington.

Take the case of the Dabhol plant in Maharashtra state in India. This monstrosity is likely to cost local people $2.9 billion. It will generate electricity at three times the usual cost. The company explains this is because the plant is "state of the art". This is an unusual claim. We would not expect a "state of the art" racing car to travel three times as slowly as an ordinary family saloon, but that is what we are being asked to swallow. The Clinton government lobbied hard for Enron to get the contract.

Enron is the only corporation that has been the subject of reports into human rights abuses by both Amnesty International and the US-based Human Rights Watch. To build the Dabhol plant, villagers had to be expelled from their homelands. In 1997 they peacefully demonstrated against their eviction逐出赶出, and were met with a police riot.暴动 Maharshtra police ran amok, beating up pregnant women and wrecking villagers' huts. They were aided by Enron placing its helicopter at the disposal of the cops to spy on the protesters and footing the bill for the police rioters' wages. Things are no different under the Republicans. Last year President Bush was scheduled to visit India. Top of his list of things to do was to lobby Indian politicians to pay a $64 million debt allegedly owed to Enron. The most powerful man in the world moonlights as a debt collector!

It doesn't just happen in India. A few years ago Bush's father (president during the Gulf War) went to Kuwait with his former secretary of state James Baker. They were there to bat for Enron to get a big energy contract. Enron offered to deliver at 11¢ per kilowatt hour. Deutsche Babcox could do 6¢ per kilowatt hour. The existing state subsidised rate was 0.5¢. Obviously Enron got the job. If any reader can suggest a reason for this success apart from bribery and corruption, they can contact us to receive a small prize. In the Philippines, Argentina, Panama and throughout the "third world" Enron has made waves through bullying and pressure from the White House.

Another banana republic Enron operated in was Blair's Britain. When Labour was elected in 1997, the government maintained the last shreds of the coal mining industry in existence by imposing a moratorium on the further building of gas-fired electricity generators. They stopped the "dash for gas" in its tracks and, as we explained earlier, there was complete economic justification for the policy. But Enron now had its foot in the door, and they wanted to build new gas-fired capacity at Teesside. Documents discovered in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the US government placed unremitting pressure on the Cabinet to reverse the moratorium - all for Enron. The documents show that White House officials were aware of when the crucial Cabinet meetings would be - in other words that they were spying electronically on the British government. Of course Blair gave in and the last hopes of the mining industry were snuffed out. Guess what? Enron sponsored the Labour Party Conference.

Now Enron has collapsed. "How are the mighty fallen!" (2 Samuel 1:19) Bush will no doubt swear that he "didn't have improper relations with that company." One of the disgruntled sacked workers commented: "It wasn't a couple of rogue trades. It was systemic." The system is called capitalism.

January 23, 2002

tequilawineUID: 2702008

现在感觉头爆裂一般的痛，我知道那时连续多天来被酷暑，睡眠不足，以及压力折磨的结果。但决定还是强打起精神，对自己在备考作文这段时间的历程作个总结，算是挥别一段历史，踏上新的征途吧。：）

这次考试我的备考时间一个多月。从暑假开始。之前在网站上了解信息，下载资料。因为工作很忙，也没有多少时间准备。朋友对我说，你不是学英语的吗，还怕这个考试。他以为写作对我来说不应该是什么大问题.看了ets的材料之后我觉得根本不是那么回事。本人的逻辑思维奇差，觉得ets那些写6分作文人真实脑壳烂得很，什么小猫耗子都想得到。没办法，只有使劲把自己培养成烂脑壳了。

于是拣了两篇议论文来好好研究，又套用它们的结构来练习。有了一点点感觉。但是却发现不是每个issues都套用一个结构，这不是根本的解决办法。最根本的是，要挖出这个issue说的是什么问题，决定从什么侧面去写，用一种最强有力的逻辑结构去说服读者。难就难在挖掘issue中的内容。看了一些网站上的文章，也就是泛泛而谈，或着走题了。幸运的是在icq上认识了一个教逻辑的美国佬，给我提出了一些建议。

我曾经用一个issue去请教他：How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society. 结果他给我回了满篇的问题，看得我目瞪口呆：

What is a society? How is it determined? Are there shared characteristcs between societies? Who determines or controls the major institutions in a society and why? What about minority society?

What is socialization? What does it consist of? Why? When does socilization start? Or end? Why?

What does destiny have to do with anything? Using 'destiny' in this passages assumes what?

Who is the 'we'? In any society there are multiple kinds of groups of different peoples. Does the 'we' include voices from all of them? Why or why not? Who controls or suppresses those other voices? Why?

What does 'better society' mean - democray, equality between men and women, voting, free press, freedom of association? When the concept 'better society' is used, if it is not to be empty, includes discussion of all these other concepts and others. How are children taught those? How are adults taught those?

他说这只不过是培养良好逻辑思维方式的一种方法。如果娴熟了，这些问题就会自然而然的在脑海里冒出来。看来，准备issues不是非要一篇篇的去练习，而是培养一种思维，以不变应万变。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT
有两个题目：
1."We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."
122. "We owe almost all our knowledge not to people who have agreed, but to people who have disagreed."

两个题目基本上是互相反对的，但涉及的主题都是：AGREEMENT/DISAGREEMENT IN LEARNING 需要注意的是，无论对这两者的分析论述如何，最终都必须落到learning/knowledge上面，这也是最近几天写这个题目的习作中的通病。

我这里先起一个引子：对第一个题目，首先应当界定什么是agreement，什么是disagreement，各人的界定之间很可能存在差异，这是非常正常的，而这样子写出来的文章就观点各异。对第二个题目，和第一个题目相比的小变化就是牵扯到people，这样一来两篇文章的行文就有所不同，也是一个需要注意和可能值得利用的地方。

001:
所谓真理越辩越明 在学习过程中 当遇到不同意见时 如果是自己的错误 可以及时改正 如果是别人的错误 在与他人辩驳的过程中 可以加深对知识点的理解
122:
知识的积累 大的可以谈到知识的形成事实上是百家争鸣的结果 小到谈对于个人来说 在与他人的思辩过程中也可以使得他加深对真确知识的理解 或者推翻错误的理论 建立新的正确的概念 反过来也推动了知识 (这个举例就满多了)
这几天我看过的文章有两三篇都是狂扯半天disagreement/agreement然后把learning扔到一边根本不管（严重程度不同）。题干的谓语可千万不能给省略了啊。

另外我补充一个：不同题材的学习过程是否会对这一倾向产生影响呢？例如追求客观唯一的理科与更为广泛的社会科学科目，后者从现实上往往就不存在一个agreement而不同的观点各自发展，从冲突之中能够学到的是不是更多呢，通过思考进行个人的定位与选择？而当然，自然科学里面往往也是一大堆disagreement，不过这种disagreement到最后经常是一个搞定另一个，从learning的角度来讲其效果和that of 社会科学我想是不同的。另外，再联系上学习的阶段性，可以从这样的角度来阐述吧。

觉得两个最大的区别在于learning 和knowledge 的范围不同 根据这个可以把文章所涉及的范围和对象有目的的做一个分类 可能要好写一点

针对猫儿的这些分析我来个再分析。如果说谈论到agreement和disagreement，是否需要对learning和knowledge本身作出界定先？的确，我们可以发现disagreement中观点的冲突造成的火花，甚至各自导出精彩的二律背反结论，但这一过程是何种的learning？例如在中学，包括现在在大学，如果我对政治课上面讲的一套东西烦人透顶，我的反应是当堂或者下面对抗然后learn more，还是干脆逃避了事最后混个分数？都有可能。不同类型的learning对于agreement/disagreement也许有不同的需求，而knowledge也许类似的。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

今天的topic是：KNOWLEDGE,EXPERIENCE AND IMAGINATION  一共有5个题目
57. "The depth of knowledge to be gained from books is much richer and broader than what can be learned from direct experience."
73. "In most professions and academic fields, imagination is more important than knowledge."
117. "The depth of knowledge to be gained from books is richer and broader than what can be learned from direct experience."
164. "Sometimes imagination is a more valuable asset than experience. People who lack experience are free to imagine what is possible and thus can approach a task without constraints of established habits and attitudes."
204. "We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all."

前后前统计一下基本上是这几个：认为knowledge>experience的，experience>knowledge的，imagination>experience的，imagination>knowledge的。今天还意外发现57和117除了一个much之外一字不差，倒~原来没发现。

还是我先起个引子：在写之前肯定要对三者进行一定的界定（不过这次的界定应该比较容易一些），experience和knowledge的关系是对立还是互补，imagination和这两者的关系谁为基础谁为递进，而最根本的是不是等于最重要的，etc.

我先来说说experience

我曾经举过的一个例子：有些东西拿不到direct experience，例如相对论可以suppose出来高速飞船之类的，但是我上课的时候难道可以给我一个飞船让我上去坐一坐？体验一下？显然不可能。在这样的情况下，怎么强调direct experience？根本就没有啊。

不排除这样的实验已经做出来了（放射性元素被飞机带着绕地球正转反转原地不转然后比较半衰期），但是很多前沿的东西，加上我们现在正在学的一些东西，不一定存在direct experience的说。我个人的看法

而且，到底那个原子钟的实验能不能算experience？如果就像有些中学的实验，做完了跟没做一样，什么体会理解都没有，experience到了什么？这个东西恐怕有必要作出个人的界定。此外，the availability of experience也是考虑的因素，不是所有人都玩儿的起镭的。

大家要踊跃讨论啊！:) 三者之间的两两比较是很重要的。
1 : the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a : creative ability  b : ability to confront and deal with a problem : RESOURCEFULNESS  c : the thinking or active mind : INTEREST *stories that fired the imagination*
3 a : a creation of the mind;  especially   : an idealized or poetic creation  b : fanciful or empty assumption
我们可以看看W-M上对imagination的解释，尤其是第二，三个的涵义，从广义而言，可以将imagination理解为creativity/ the ability to create，关键是人们头脑create出来的东西有有用和无用之分，无用的大抵归为daydreaming或者别的空想，而有用的就可以促进知识的发展，推动社会进步。
另外，像L-sunshine那样想，也是很好的perspective
应该说experience和knowledge从根本上是不同的（写的时候当然要自己定义清楚啦），但是是存在相互作用甚至转化的。看你怎么理解/怎么写了。

Experience应该说是一种比较浅的过程而knowledge的层次更加深入，各个方向的联系更加广泛，imagination恐怕必须基于这两者，而同时往往有比较精彩的发挥。

tequilawineUID: 2702008

今天的主题是SCIENCE ARTS ETHICS, TAKING COURSES，一共有5个题目：

14. "It is necessary for everyone to read poetry, novels, mythology and other types of imaginative literature."

34. "Instead of requiring students to take courses in a variety of disciplines—that is, courses ranging from the arts and the humanities to the physical and biological sciences—colleges and universities should allow students to enroll only in those courses that will help prepare them for jobs in their chosen fields. Such concentration is necessary in today's increasingly work-oriented society."

80. "All students should be required to take courses in the sciences, even if they have no interest in science."

106. "All students should be required to take at least one course in ethics, even if taking the course means a decreased emphasis on academic subjects."

158. The arts (music, dance, visual arts, etc.) are vitally important to students' education and should therefore receive as much emphasis as mathematics, science, reading and other mainstream subjects."

总结一下：主要观点缩水一下就是必须学SCIENCE的，必须学ETHICS的，有必要学ART的，ART暴重要应当得到提升地位的，然后只钻专业不管其它的。基本上各个方向差不多都有一些。
孙远的书上工具箱里说某个人搞了个研究，孩子小时候学那些文艺，可以有助于长大后对science方面的理解力。
我再加一点，一个孩子如果有天分可能在文艺方面的造诣比科学方面大，像贝多芬等牛人，我们不能抹杀未来的艺术家，所以也要让这些孩子学文化艺术。
如果写反对意见，首先可以质疑这种研究结果的有效性。此外就好比那个pop music经常用的论点：有必要学/接触和有必要上课来学是不是一样的？很明显。这可以作为入手点。而目前看来还很少有人把这个论点用到ethic上，经常有人写pop music没必要“上课”，不过很少有人讨论ethic的“日常”与“上课”的问题。

而关于两个“必须”的题目，只要写conditionally就可以达到驳斥的目的了。有没有写全支持的，列个提纲出来？有个提纲的话就能讨论起来了。

我的意思是：如果原题说“all students must”，我要是反驳的话，只要说“不是must”就可以。不是must的情况，可以有：完全不是（彻底推翻），另外就是提出condition，分情况。这个很常用的。

对你的80-3提出意见：日常接触和专门上课有区别，而后者是不是必须？如果通过手把手的教学就可以学会装灯泡的话，有没有必要上物理课？而物理课和“灯泡装修课”恐怕不是一样的吧？哪一个是science 呢？
都是值得考虑的问题。

不好意思。顺手写的的确不太严谨的说。sorry
我记得的确有“底线”的这个表达，不过看来恐怕真的不是bottom line，回去查一下。

很容易就查出来了：base line
哎，最近晕得不行了~~