child的issue集合贴~每天都要坚持~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

本来是09年9月考的，一下子延期到了3月2，是想利用这半年好好准备，哪知11月准备双学位，1月准备本专业，就中断。一切又得从头开始，前天开始写top100提纲，已经写了二十多个了，今天终于重新动手写文章，真是比之前还烂啊。不过也好~进步空间大嘛~本来就好还复习个啥呢~如果有人和我一个时间考的，想一起复习的，可以联系下我，或者觉得水平和我差不多（比我好就更好）可以相互提高下的也可以~我准备把以后的练习都发上来，希望牛牛斑竹们和亲爱的板油们拍拍，没时间的话可以提点意见~
Issue 212: if a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it is justifiable。未限时
The speaker asserts that it is reasonable and justifiable for people to take any measures in order to achieve the goal that is worthy. While people need to try different method to accomplish their goal, this assertion is too absolute and will lead to many problems.

First and foremost, whether a goal is worthwhile is controversial and depends on the circumstances and people, and if only some people believe it is worthy, the means taken to attain it cannot be always justifiable. It is entirely possible that while somebody believes a goal is worthy, the others do not care about it and believe it is meaningless, or even think it is harmful. Therefore, the achieving of the goal does no good to others and may even damage their benefit, making it unjustifiable to take any means to achieve that goal. For example, if somebody considers that the goal of being rich is worthy and achieving it by stealing and robbing from others and even killing innocent people, his action is undoubtedly unjustifiable. Even for a whole nation, when it considers the goal of becoming the biggest and most prosperous nation in the world and the leader of all other nations worthy, and achieve it by conquering other nations and bringing wars to every place, all the other nations will agree that its goal is unworthy and its means is unjustifiable. Therefore, people have different view about what goal is worthy and they cannot take any method to attain that goal.

Even if a goal is “worthy”, people need to consider carefully about what methods to take, what to do, and how to achieve it and try every possible way to choose the best method, otherwise the worthy goal cannot be attained. On one hand, the means must be effective and can be accepted by the majority of the society, or it will be rejected by public and the means brings no achievement. On the other hand, people need to choose the correct method corresponding the goal. For instance, in order to achieve the goal of reducing pollution to the environment, the correct way is not closing all the factories, but to regulate the laws and educate the public the importance of protecting environment.

Admittedly, when people have a goal which do not harm others and have determined to work on it, they indeed need to try their best to achieve it, otherwise, no goal could be achieved. To accomplish the goal, they need to be resolute and not be afraid of failure, and at the same time stay within the law. When there are some obstacles facing them, they should not give up but try to solve the problems .Only in this way can they achieve their goal in a proper way.

In sum, when people have a goal that they consider to be worthy, they need think twice whether the achieving of this goal will harm others or not. No matter how worthy a goal is, it is unjustifiable to take any means to achieve it but justifiable to take the correct and corresponding means to achieve it.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

Issue 203: the best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes and heroines.

The speaker claims understanding of the portraits of a society can be largely achieved by knowing the characters of its heroes and heroines. While I concede that sometimes the characters of the heroes of a society do reflect the characters of itself, in more situations, the characters of the heroes are what the society lakes and therefore values.

Sometimes, the characters of the heroes and heroines indeed reflect the characters of a society. The people who are brave and adventurous are more readily picked up as heroes in a invasive and aggressive society; and people who are reflective and have deep and incisive thoughts are likely to be treated as heroes in a knowledgeable society.  For example, in America, where individualism is highly valued and is a main character of the society, people are chosen as heroes because they have leadership and can lead Americans to fight for their freedom. Such heroes range from George Washington to Lincoln. On the contrary, in countries like China and Japan, where collectivism characterizes the society, those people chosen as heroes are modest, and sacrifice for the whole society. In this way, people can understand the character of the society by looking at the characters of its heroes.

However, in more circumstances, the heroes and heroines are picked up because they have the characters that the society lacks, therefore, to examine their characters helps little to understand the characters of the society. To understand this, one need to look no further than the following example. Several months ago, three university students in China lost their precious and young life to safe a drowning boy. After the accident, people are moved and touched by their selfless action, which the society lacks these days. They are respected as heroes because the society lacks characters like sacrificing and helping others. If their behaviors are repeated in the society, perhaps they won't be regarded as heroes. Therefore, the heroes are usually chosen for their precious characters that are not common in the society, and if this is the case, we cannot understand the characters of a society through the characters of its heroes and heroines.

Moreover, even if to examine the characters of the heroes is a good way to understand the portraits of the society, it is not the best way, because there are many other effective and good ways to understand the society. For example, the cultures and customs of the society are important indicators of its mental character. The life quality and habits, the communication efficiency and the city facilities are all significant demonstration of the physical characters of a society. Therefore, to understand the characters of a society, people need to look at different parts of it. Only in this way can we get a comprehensive idea of the whole city.

In sum, the characters of the heroes and heroines of a society sometimes do reflect the portraits of society, but in more cases, the characters of the heroes are what the society lack. So when people want to understand the society through knowing the characters of its heroes, they need to be careful and critical. The best way to understand the characters the characters of a society is to examine the different parts of it comprehensively.

今天的issue 仍未限时 只有570字```大家看看能得三分不？要是希望我给你拍的就留下链接 肯定给你拍哈~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

有没有3月2号考试的童鞋~~我们组个小组互相督促下吧~~我一个人根本坚持不下去啊~~~

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

3# hurongchild
悄悄告诉你，那个小瘪三是个懒鬼，开个修改铺他很少改的，嘿嘿，偶和他同出一门 from single.
等等偶把自己这篇收尾给你看看吧，水平不好，还请指教噢~
PS. 偶在咱们伟大的妇女节考噢，和童鞋差一周，嘿嘿~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

4# 紫陌纤尘o0
谢谢~那个小瘪三和你同出一门？啥意思啊~谢谢你了~说不定我们可以一起努力下哈~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

issue 70: in any professions--business, politics, education, government--those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. 仍未计时···为什么俺怎么写都不会进步呢···

The speaker asserts the revitalization of leadership is the surest path to success and thus those leaders of any prefession should step down after five years. I agree with the speaker insofar as some fields do need revitalization to prevent conservation and corruption, however, when it comes to some fields that require experience and constancy, this assertion fails to summarize facts. I will explain my point by discussing the situation in politics, governments, and business.

In the field of politics and government, it is necessary for the leaders to walk dowm after a period of time, like five years. The leaders in these fields hold much power in judging the laws, the directions of every aspects of social life, which connect with people's everyday life closely, and need to be creative, advanced and keep up with the times. The presidents of America have a presidential term of 4 years, after that, they have to walk down or to compete with other candidates. This institution gurantees to a large extent that the political leaders of US are always the best and they have the most advanced thoughts. Moreover, without the revitalization of the leadership, the stable environment of these fields readily brings about corruption. The communist system in China involves a presidential term of 10 years and even a longer term for most governors, which is too long for corruption to happening. Realizing this problem, the Chiness are working hard to reduce corruption and the revitalization of leadership is a good method to achieve this goal.

In the field of business, where both creativity and experience is vital, however, situation is different. On the one hand, the business enterprise is an area where both techniques and management need vitalization, for the market competition is severe and originality and creativity is the source of success. Therefore, the leaders must have an opening mind and always renew their knowledge. On the other hand, most companies have a long term development strategy, which requires their leaders be most aware of the direction and destination of their companies. Only those who have stayed in the leadership position for a long time are equal to the job of leading the companies to innovate within their original whealm. Take the Apple for example, their CEO Steve Jobs was the creator of the company had led Apple to be the leading enterprise in electrical technology area. But somebody think he has been the CEO for so long that they need to revitalize the leadership. After Jobs stepped down the leadership, their business gradually diminished and finally faced commercial crises. Jobs returned and cut down the nonprofitable lines and kept coming up with new ideas, revitalizing the company all the time. Therefore, in the field of business, the leaders should be creative and experienced, but the leadership should not be vitalized often.

In summary, whether leadership need revitalization depends on different fields: in field where corruption is common, like politics and government, the leadership should be revitalized every four or five years, while in business, the leaders should be carefully chosen, and once they are chosen and are doing an excellent job, they should not be changed so frequently.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

issue203修改后的：

The speaker claims understanding of the portraits of a society can be largely achieved by knowing the characters of its heroes and heroines. While I concede that sometimes the characters of the heroes and heroines of a society do reflect the characters of itself, in more cases,  however, the characters of the heroes and heroines are what the society lacks and therefore values.

Sometimes, the characters of the heroes and heroines indeed reflect the characters of a society. Considering the following phenomenon: people who are brave and adventurous are more readily picked up as heroes in an invasive and aggressive society; people who are reflective and have deep and incisive thoughts are likely to be treated as heroes in a knowledgeable society. For example, in America, where individualism is highly valued and is a main character of the society, people are chosen as heroes and heroines because they have characters of leadership and can lead Americans to fight for their freedom. Such heroes range from George Washington to Lincoln. On the contrary, in countries like Japan, where collectivism characterizes the society,  people are chosen as heroes and heroines because they can put the interests of others and the whole society in the first place . In this way, people can understand the character of the society by looking at the characters of its heroes.

However, in more circumstances, the heroes and heroines are picked up because they have the characters that the society lacks, therefore, to examine their characters helps little to understand the characters of the society. To understand this, one needs to see no further than the following example. Several months ago, three university students in China lost their precious and young life to safe a drowning boy. After the accident, people are moved and touched by their selfless and sacrificing action, which is the precious quality of human kind but the society lacks for these days and respect them as heroes. In this case, the heroes are usually chosen for their precious characters that are not common in the society, and if so, we cannot understand the characters of a society through the characters of its heroes and heroines.

Moreover, even if to examine the characters of the heroes is a good way to understand the portraits of the society, we cannot draw to the conclusion safely that it is the best way, because it is possible that there are many other good ways available to understand the portraits of the society. For example, the cultures and customs of the society are important indicators of its mental character. The life quality and habits, the communication efficiency and the city facilities are all significant demonstration of the physical characters of a society. Therefore, to understand the characters of a society, people need to look at different parts of it. In this way can we are less limited by our view and stands and are more likely to get a comprehensive idea of the whole city.

In sum, the characters of the heroes and heroines of a society sometimes do reflect the portraits of society, but in more cases, the characters of the heroes are what the society lack. So when people want to understand the society through knowing the characters of its heroes, they need to be careful and critical. The best way to understand the characters the characters of a society is to examine the different parts of it comprehensively.

谢谢stefana版主给我提出的宝贵的意见~https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1058036-1-1.html~让我看到了以后努力的方向，其实并不一定要别人给你看作文，自己看，把它当作argu来看能发现很多错误，版主的话让我醒悟了一些~~

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

不好意思，昨天给另外的童鞋改作文晚了，就没来得及看你的，呵呵，今天看了下那个Issue70。
个人意见，欢迎指正~
呵呵，这是我的一篇文章，欢迎指教！
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1058008-1-1.html

紫陌纤尘o0UID: 2745492

5# hurongchild
和他同出一门就是我俩是合作伙伴，他有两个帖子，一个是他自己的修改铺，主要由他打理（其实她从来没打理— —！）
另一个是零散板油互改大帖，主要由我打理（偶也忙不过来了— —）
嘿嘿LZ加油，看了你写的IBT口语准备，很强悍的么，偶还没考呢，以后还得多多指教哦，嘿嘿~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

9# 紫陌纤尘o0

谢谢，我会去看的~

hurongchildUID: 2595535

Issue147: tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them.
Tradition refers to the valuable asset of human kind of the past several thousand of years, and modernization refers to the profound change of human culture in recent years, including urbanization, industrialization, technological development, and agricultural development. With humans stepping into information era, modernization is increasingly more valued than before, while the position of tradition descend, making tradition and modernization seem to be in the opposite position nowadays. When facing the choice of tradition and modernization, how should people choose? Somebody maintains that one must hold one of them and desert the other, as the speaker asserts, because they are incompatible. But as far as I am concerned, though tradition and modernization seem to be incompatible sometimes, they are essentially compatible and they are both the important aspects of culture. Therefore, we can and should unite them.

Tradition and modernization sometimes seem to be incompatible, so it seems that one must choose one of them. For example, in the industrial area, the assembly line developed and finally took up the place of family producing; on living style, mails are replaced by emails. Examples like these are available in every part of people’s life, and people makes the conclusion that tradition and modernization are incompatible and one must choose between them. However, the seeming contradiction between tradition and modernization is actually not between tradition and modernization, but between the traditional mode of production and modern mode of production. When people choose the assembly line, they choose the modern mode of production, not the modernization. There are many assembly lines producing the traditional ceramics, proving that it is the lagging producing method that people desert, but not tradition itself.

Tradition and modernization are essentially compatible and they are both important and indispensable respect of human culture, and people should not desert any of them, on the contrary, they should unite them. Firstly, both tradition and modernization are significant parts of culture. Tradition serves as the mental and spiritual support, without which the people’s inner world would pale. Modernization provides people efficiency and physical support, without which human civilization can hardly develop into today’s prosperity. Both spiritual and physical needs are indispensible to human, and tradition and modernization are significant parts of culture. Moreover, tradition and modernization have inner connections: modernization develops from tradition and tradition is the prerequisite of modernization. Modernization is the necessary development of tradition. They depend on each other and cannot exist when any of them is deserted. If people deserted modernization, they would live in the past and if people abandoned tradition, they would lose their historical existence. Accordingly, tradition and modernization are compatible and should be united.

The problem is how to unite them. If tradition and modernization is compatible, as we discussed above, why they seem to contradict with each other? It is because people have not recognized the essential compatibility between them, and they deem that they have to abandon one to hold the other. After correction of this mistaken idea, tradition will have more space. The right way to unite them is to reform tradition, making it consistent with modernization, but not to abandon tradition or modernization.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

2.6日的作文~
Issue 144: it is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting value.

Ever since the history of human beings, the art is an indispensible part of human life. The ancient people danced for harvest or hunting some game, or they painted on the cave to pray for more to survive. However, the artist is something born after the society formed and city was built, and the critic is even later. The works of art, no matter consciously or unconsciously, have left us limitless valuable treasure, lasting from generations to generations. And the people who gives society something of lasting value, is  who create the works of art, the artist, but not critic who comments on the works.

The lasting value given by artist is agglomerated in the works of art and has two different types: value of art and value of history and culture. As for the first type, the works of art are valued for they are representations of the artists' individuality, characteristics, unique styles, spectacular artistic skills, and strong emotions. For example, the works of Vincent Van Gogh show how outstanding his painting skills were and how strong feelings he had for life, therefore they impress people and lead them to live optimistic. The lasting value of Van Gogh's works is given by himself, but not the critics of his time, because his contemporary critics did not recognized his value and never praise his works. And the similar cases are frequent in the artistic history, ranging from Bronte Sisters' literature work and Beethoven's music. Therefore, I believe, when considering the value of art, who gives the society lasting value is the artist, not the critic.

The other lasting value given by artist is the value of history and culture. In this case, works of art are not merely valued for they represent the artist's individuality and skills, but more importantly, they record a period of history and culture. Two of the most splendid artistic eras--the Ancient Greek and the Renaissance time are apt illustrations of it. When people view the works of the Ancient Greek, they admire the sculpture, painting, and poems of that time not just because they are delicately made, but because they remind us of the noble spirit of the Ancient Greek people---- freedom, democracy, and justice, which are still pursued by people of today. Again, the value of this type is not given by the critic, but the artist themselves, considering there is entirely no critic in the time of Ancient Greek. The artistic works of that time remain, last, and are honored because of their inner quality. In this sense, when considering the works of art's value of history and culture, the lasting value is given by the artists and not the critic.

The critics do have some important functions, but this function does not involve giving value to society, but to help show the value to the public. They are the medium between the artists and the public. They influence how people treat the works of art, but cannot determine, and this influence usually does not last long. It can be illustrated by the fact that what last for years are the great artists' names and works, but the critics' words and even their names are seldom remembered. It was because the critics are usually limited for some reasons: their knowledge, the standard of their time and their own favors. If there is a very great critic who can tell immediately and correctly whether a work of art is valuable perhaps will be honored by people, because time and history are no longer needed to test the value of works of art.

In summary, I hold the position that who gives the society something of lasting value is the artist, no matter considering the value of art and value of history and culture, because artist are the creator of art, while the critic serves an important role to show the value of art to the public.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

2.7日：
Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem. 10-02-07 12:24--13:39

Should researchers and scholars pursue their own interests, instead of the common benefits they could bring to the public, as the speaker asserts? I disagree with the position that the researchers have to choose between their own interest and the benefits to society in that they are not contradictive but compatible. There are different types of researches, just as there are different societies, lifestyles and people, and people cannot judge unfairly which type is worth and which is not. Some researches aim at pursuing personal interests and some at bringing benefits to the larger society.

There are some researches originating from the scholars' own interests to understand the world. Sometimes, the results of these researches are surprising, because they benefit society to a large extent. For example, when the first philosopher in history, Thales, concluded that the world comes from water after days of thinking and observation, he just wanted to understand the essence of the world. He didn't aim to give society any benefits, but the result of his researches is perhaps quite out of his imagination: the beginning of the philosophy and science. Sometimes however, the consequences of these researches are unclear or do not benefit the society in a direct way, but they still agglomerate human intellect and are possible to cause dynamic and positive influence to society. Take Einstein's Relativity theory for example. Understanding the relativity of time and space did not bring a direct and clear benefit to the contemporary society when it was first raised, with the science not advanced enough to understand. But with technology and science developing into a higher level, this theory has played a vital role in forming the way how people look at the world and innovating people's life. In this case, people should respect the researches that come out of scholars' own interests, no matter these researches are beneficial to society or not.

On the other hand, there are some researches that aim at solving some social problems, changing people's life, and benefiting society. Among these researches, some are interesting to scholars while the others are not. Firstly, many researchers are interested in solving the immediate social problems. For instance, the financial crisis going on in most areas in the world has been attached great importance on by economical scholars all around the world, especially the university professors in America. Nobody urged them to do so, but they are interested to work on it, hoping to understand it better and giving useful suggestions to people in order to conquer it sooner. And the researches done by different scholars help people understand the crisis in different ways and angles. In this case, people should notice that personal interests can be united with contributions to society closely. Moreover, there are many pending social problems which require solution, but in which few researchers are interested. If every researcher just cares about their own interests, these problems can never be solved. The environmental problem is one of them. To reduce environmental pollution, some actions must be taken. But the potential resistance and incorporation those actions would receive from governments, business enterprises, and politics are the main factor that few researchers would love to step into this field. But if people didn't encourage researchers to work on these issues, the problems would continue and finally bring disaster to human beings. Therefore, the researches that aim at solving social problems are of great significance too.

Admittedly, we should point out that there are some researches that neither originate from scholars' own interests, nor aim at solving the social problems. These researches primarily aim to pursue personal achievements and success, or the aggressive purpose to control the world. These researches are detrimental to society in that they waste time, money, and material to fulfill personal ambition, and should be stopped once noticed by people.

In summary, whether scholars and researchers should do researches for their own interests or to make contributions to the larger society is not a problem because they are two independent things. The society should give reasonable freedom to researchers, and let them pursue either of them. Both types of researches are beneficial to society and should not be eliminated.

hurongchildUID: 2595535

2.8
不知不觉十天就过去了 在复习的第一阶段 每天的计划基本没完成 就是作文写了几篇 但是也不见提高 除了字数越写越多 但是质量却丝毫没有提高 不过我还是觉得有一点点进步的 真的~起码写的时候逻辑比以前好一些了 但是一个题目怎么破题还是个很大的问题~总结一下这十天我完成的：
写了6篇issue（今天应该还有一篇） 写了issue前100提纲 argu题库过了一点点 背了几句话···
另外就是加入了一个作文互改小组 担任组长一职 自从加入了这个组 俺就比较认真地写作文了~组员也比较认真~赞一个~咱就不在寄托上灌水发作文贴了 反正看的人也不多
另外 为啥寄托的斑竹们都很少理会我的作文呢 也许水平太差了？但是水平差了才有提升的空间啊~也许你们说的一两句话就对我们有很大的作用 斑竹的最大的魅力就在于此啊····至于互改其实并不是目的 而是那一两句重要的话 也许有人看了我的作文后不屑一顾 觉得奇烂无比 但是也请你们留下一句骂我的话吧~ 让我知道我和你们的差距···不然我是不会进步的~准备aw的过程 其实不是追求分数的过程 还是我们不断成长、进步的过程 之后我们会发现我们不仅仅付出了 也收获了很多 而且收获的远远不是一个分数而已····

hurongchildUID: 2595535

2.9 为嘛还是没有人理我···泪奔···
Issue 184: it is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data.10-02-08 11:15-12:24

Is it a mistake to make theory before one has data, as the speaker asserts? As far as I am concerned, I agree with the speaker insofar as data is helpful for making theory, however, in many areas in natural science and social science, it is helpful and even necessary to make theories before people have data.

Sometimes, in many fields of science, such as biology, economics and astrology, without data's support and proving, the theory would just be a beautiful but unpractical imagination and illusion. And the theories are not proved to be true and cannot convince people. If the theories are based on data and can be further proved by data, they become stronger, more persuading and reasonable. For example, the Darwinism is based on Darwin's years of observation and his records of the appearances and characters of many plants and animals in different parts of the world. When this theory was first raised, it received strong opposition from society, but after hundreds of years of facts and data's sustentation, it is now considered as the most correct theory in explaining the process of evolution.

However, in most circumstances, it is helpful to raise the theory before one has data, because the theory can tell people how to find data to prove it. One of the greatest philosophers in the world, Aristotle, deemed that the falling velocity of an object depends on its weight: the heavier it is, the quicker it falls. But Galileo doubted its correctness because it will lead to a paradox when a heavier object is linked with a lighter object and they fall from a high point together. He then theorized, without any data, that the falling velocity has nothing to do with its weight. And to prove his theory, he carried out the experiment that is known to the world. In the development of science, the examples like these are abundant. To theorize before the scientists have data is quite a helpful way to reject the old and wrong theories in order to raise the newer and better ones.

In addition, when it comes to some social science areas, where data is not available to get, it is necessary to theorize without data's support, because if people do not theorize, they are unable to solve the problem forever. For example, many historical and geological problems lack data, but the answers to these questions are still pursued by many scientists: the formation of the earth and the continent, the annihilation of dinosaurs and the construction of some wonders like pyramid. Different theories to these questions are made based on some indirect data but the data cannot prove them directly. And perhaps, the answers cannot be reached by human in a short period of time. But people are still trying and making efforts and it is the process of pursuing the truth that really matters. In this case, when data is not available, people still need to theorize, and the theories are the premise of proving or refutation. The process of proving and refutation is the process of scientific development.

In a summary, data is a good support to make theory strong and persuading, but to theorize before having data is also helpful and even necessary for the development of science. The relation between data and theory is interrelating: the data is the source of theory, and after theory is made, further data helps to prove it. They help each other to develop into higher level.