argument210 【红尘笑沧桑】互改小组 第四次作业

forevarsenalUID: 2737856

TOPIC: ARGUMENT210 - The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.

"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."
WORDS: 424
TIME: 00:27:09

DATE: 2009-12-17 20:17:34

In this argument the author draw the conclusion that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. To illustrate his conclusion, the author mentions the success of using robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years. Moreover, the author refers three advantages that the use of robots in factories would offer. At first sight, the argument seems to be logical, but further reflection shows that the argument suffers from several logical flaws.

The first flaw involves in the potential assumption that explore outer space is the same as factories work. On the contrary, these two things is essentially different. Exploring outer space which applied much advanced technology and thus cost a lot of money is the work of scientists and supported by government. However, the technology applied in factories work is mature, and the owners of these factories need to earn more profits. So it is dubious to say that the success of using robots on outer space explore missions will indicate the success of using robots in factory work.

Another flaw involves in those three advantages. First, although robots never get sick, they need maintain and repair as well, and hence the absent of robots is unavoidable. Second, no one could promise that robots wouldn't make any mistakes even if it is under checking everyday. We shouldn't ignore that robots cannot recognize whether it has finish the work correctly. If something really goes wrong, these robots would just keep on working loyally and thus make quite a lot unqualified products. Finally, the more use of robot in factories, the less work exists for human, so it is hard to say that these workers will feel fine when they lose their jobs even though these jobs may sometimes seems to be boring.

Last but not the least; the author fails to consider the cost of using robots in factories. For the owners, they wish to earn as many profits as possible. But it is entirely possible that the introduction of robots will cost much more than human workers. The proposed advice won't be adopted.

In summary, to make the argument invulnerable, the author need to be informed of the differences between the outer space explore and factories work. Besides, the author is expected to ensure that all the advantages he mentioned is valid. Finally, he had better to calculate the proximal cost of introduce robots into factories, to make sure that this action will lead to the increase of profits.

bigeyes_1314UID: 2736288

In this argument the author draw the conclusion that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. To illustrate his conclusion, the author mentions the success of using robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years. Moreover, the author refers three advantages that the use of robots in factories would offer. At the first sight, the argument seems to be logical, but further reflection shows that the argument suffers from several logical flaws.

The first flaw involves in the potential assumption that explore outer space is the same as factories(factory) work. On the contrary, these two things is essentially different. Exploring outer space which applied much advanced technology and thus cost a lot of money and it  is the work of scientists and supported by government. However, the technology applied in factories work is mature, and the owners of these factories need to earn more profits. So it is dubious to say that the success of using robots on outer space explore missions will indicate the success of using robots in factory work.

Another flaw involves in those three advantages. First, although robots never get sick, they need maintain and repair as well, and hence the absent(absence) of robots is unavoidable. Second, no one could promise that robots wouldn't make any mistakes even if it is under checking everyday. We shouldn't ignore that robots cannot recognize whether it has finished the work correctly. If something really goes wrong, these robots would just keep on working loyally and thus make quite a lot unqualified products. Finally, the more use of robot in factories, the less work exists for human, so it is hard to say that these workers will feel fine when they lose their jobs even though these jobs may sometimes seems(seem) to be boring.

Last but not the least; the author fails to consider the cost of using robots in factories. For the owners, they wish to earn as many profits as possible. But it is entirely possible that the introduction of robots will cost much more than human workers. The proposed advice won't be adopted.

In summary, to make the argument invulnerable, the author need to be informed of the differences between the outer space explore and factories work. Besides, the author is expected to ensure that all the advantages he mentioned is valid. Finally, he had better to(delete to) calculate the proximal cost of introduce(introducing) robots into factories, to make sure that this action will lead to the increase of profits.

bigeyes_1314UID: 2736288

这篇驳论文写的还是很好的，一一的反驳了作者的逻辑错误。虽然分析很到位，可是注意一些细节语法和词语的运用。

forevarsenalUID: 2737856

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 526          TIME: 00:56:45          DATE: 2009-12-18 23:47:32

On March 3, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order lifting federal funding limits on human embryonic stem cell research, overturning the Bush administration policy that patients and medical researchers said hindered the development of new medical treatments. Deeply thinking of this event reflects a quite serious question that whether governments should place restrictions on scientific research and development or not. It is dubious to say that we can get a simple reply, such as yes or no, to this question, since we need to analysis the question under various circumstances to find an overall answer.

In most circumstances, governments shouldn't put any restrictions on scientific research and development. On the contrary, it is their duty to protect free and open scientific enquiry. From the nature of science, the advance of the scientific system requires new discoveries in every aspects. The limits set by governments probably have a negative influence on the development of science especially on the purpose of maintaining authority. In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages, the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Scientists, who discovered, supported and publicized new theories that go against the doctrine would be punished even killed. As a result, we seldom see any significant advance in science in that period of time. Considering this, governments had better take a deeply thinking before they place any restrictions on science research and development.

However, it is also our governments' responsibility to limit the research in those fields beyond human ethic and moral. Science is a double-edged sword. It can lead us to a bright future, but also can lead us to an opposite direction without any restrictions on it. Governments are the administrator of the society, and thus they are required to protect their citizens from the threats in any forms. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a remarkable example showing the importance of setting limits by governments. If governments loose the restriction on the research of nuclear weapon, the tragedy happened in Japan won't be the last show of the nuclear devil in contemporary history.  From this angle, governments are expected to take actions to ban certain researches under special circumstances.

Furthermore, for a forethoughtful government, just making the decision whether place any restriction on certain scientific fields or not is not enough. Our world at present is facing quite a lot of global problems which expect science to lend a hand. As governments, they need to show a positive attitude to researches in those fields. In December of 2009, ministers and heads of government prepare to arrive in the Danish capital attending the Copenhagen climate conference focusing on the climate problems. Apart from signing any sparkling texts, it is more practical to promote the cooperation and increase the investment in the fields of green energy research.

From the analysis above, as the administrator of the society, governments should consider this question on a higher level. Governments' reasonability is not only protecting the freedom of seeking the unknown world but also controlling the direction of scientific advancement. At critical time, governments should offer a strong support to increase the speed of scientific research to release or solve those stubborn problems that hinder the development of society.

bigeyes_1314UID: 2736288

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 526          TIME: 00:56:45          DATE: 2009-12-18 23:47:32

On March 3, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order lifting federal funding limits on human embryonic stem cell research, overturning the Bush administration policy that patients and medical researchers said hindered the development of new medical treatments. Deeply thinking of this event reflects a quite serious question that whether governments should place restrictions on scientific research and development or not. It is dubious to say that we can get a simple reply, such as yes or no, to this question, since we need to analysis the question under various circumstances to find an overall answer.（开头很精彩，自然引出自己的观点！）
In most circumstances, governments shouldn't put any restrictions on scientific research and development. On the contrary, it is their duty to protect free and open scientific enquiry. From the nature of science, the advance of the scientific system requires new discoveries in every aspects（aspect). The limits set by governments probably have a negative influence on the development of science especially on the purpose of maintaining authority. In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages, the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Scientists, who discovered, supported and publicized new theories that go against the doctrine would be punished even killed. As a result, we seldom see any significant advance in science in that period of time. Considering this, governments had better take a deeply thinking before they place any restrictions on science research and development.

However, it is also our governments' responsibility to limit the research in those fields beyond human ethic and moral. Science is a double-edged sword. It can lead us to a bright future, but also can lead us to an opposite direction without any restrictions on it. Governments are the administrator of the society, and thus they are required to protect their citizens from the threats in any forms. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a remarkable example showing the importance of setting limits by governments. If governments loose the restriction on the research of nuclear weapon, the tragedy happened in Japan won't be the last show of the nuclear devil in contemporary history.  From this angle, governments are expected to take actions to ban certain researches under special circumstances.

Furthermore, for a forethoughtful government, just making the decision whether place any restriction on certain scientific fields or not is not enough. Our world at present is facing quite a lot of global problems which expect science to lend a hand. As governments, they need to show a positive attitude to researches in those fields. In December of 2009, ministers and heads of government prepare to arrive in the Danish capital attending the Copenhagen climate conference focusing on the climate problems. Apart from signing any sparkling texts, it is more practical to promote the cooperation and increase the investment in the fields of green energy research.

From the analysis above, as the administrator of the society, governments should consider this question on a higher level. Governments' reasonability is not only protecting the freedom of seeking the unknown world but also controlling the direction of scientific advancement. At critical time, governments should offer a strong support to increase the speed of scientific research to release or solve those stubborn problems that hinder the development of society.