第一次写issue，求拍~~

dreamsprayUID: 2760964

TOPIC: ISSUE130 - "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."
WORDS: 611
TIME: 02:00:33
DATE: 2010-2-21 16:43:41

The author seems to be somewhat upset about the future, for the reason that the destiny of society is hinged on the socialization of children, whom, as the speaker claims, failed to develop the ability to help bring a better society due to the fact that we have not learned how to raise them. In my view, although the claim is not without merit, especially when it comes to certain qualities that contribute to one's achievements, yet it overlooks a compelling and fundamental fact that not only children, but also the youth as well as the old, plays an important role in the developing of the society, and that hard as we have been trying, we did gain a great progress in raising our next generation to help bring a better society.

Admittedly, the socialization of children is essential in the developing of society, and it is true that in some aspects, children today lack certain qualities compared to their ancestors. One telling example involves the phenomenon that our children lack the sense to settle rather than dispute, lack the ability to walk themselves out of the sorrow rather than indulge in the anger, lack the strong willing to achieve their goal in spite of all the difficulties rather than seek for another path to make them ease. That is why we find more and more news from broad media about campus shooting, that is why we hear the words like " the lost generation", that is why we consider our children somewhat like the greenhouse flowers. It is true that our next generation confront with critical voices for they do fail to heritage some of the merits from their ancestors.

However, aside from the forgoing proviso, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. The fact is that no society can ever gain its prosperity merely attribute to only one generation, therefore we should take into consideration the role our ancestors as well as the role we are playing. As the proverb goes," Rome is not built in a day", It is the old, at least to some extent, the vary power to hold the breathe of society. They help to organize the order in the area of economy,
to build the mainstream culture of a people, to make breakthrough in scientific field. Without them, the bright future of the society is groundless. No matter how well our children are socialized. As a result, undue emphasis on raising the next generation at the expense of focusing on the vary effort we are making, the society will definitely descend.

The speaker's assertion is also problematic in that it ignores the progress we have achieved in raising our children, not only socially, but also academically, both of which are important in benefiting the society. Hardly can we deny the importance of socialization, for example, coordination with our partners, developing a good relationship with boss, fellows etc. Yet, we can never overlooks other factors that led to success, such as academic knowledge, strong bodies, creative mind and something else, all of which our future generations far outweighs our ancestors. Otherwise, we would not be so excited about the excellent performance of athletes in the Olympics, who are much more younger than us; nor would we have long been teaching our children to be skeptical, to be intelligent. To them, all these are wealth, superiority, even power to make the society better.

In sum, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of socialization of children, at least to some extent, and the wrongly evaluation of our success in raising them. We should not neglect other essential qualities needed, as well as the great progress we have gained.




TOPIC: ARGUMENT116 - The following appeared in a memo from Grocery Town's regional manager.

"The new Grocery Town store in Elm City, located near a new residential development, has a 'high-low' pricing policy where average prices are relatively high, but deep discounts are offered on some items in weekly specials. This store has been showing increased profits every month at the nearby residential development gets closer to full capacity. It follows that people prefer a pricing policy where they can find bargains on specific items. Since there is a new residential development planned in Oak City, we should change the pricing policy at all of our Oak City stores from our current 'everyday low prices' policy to a 'high-low' policy. This will increase the profits at all of our stores in Oak City."
WORDS: 508
TIME: 00:50:29
DATE: 2010-2-21 16:43:41

In this memo, the regional manager of Grocery Town stores in Oak City, argues that in order to increase their profits at all their stores in Oak City, they should change the policy from their current's everyday low policy to a 'high-low' policy. To support the argument, the author notes that the one in Elm City has been showing increased profits every month after this policy is put into practice. The speaker also points out that a new residential development is planned in Oak City. Though the argument seems to be somewhat reasonable at the first glance, yet close scrutiny reviews the argument suffers from several critical flaws as discussed below, and is therefore unpersuasive.

In the first place, the author presumes that it is the "high-low" policy that helps to attract the customers. Instead of the price, the author fails to consider other factors that attribute to the success of the store in Elm City, for example, the quality of the goods, the attitude of the clerks as well as the after-sale servant. It is likely that customers are more willing to shopping there most because of the nice environment rather than the price. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the 'high-low' policy helps to increase the profit.

On the other hand, the author also commits a false analogy. It is highly doubtful that strategies drawn from Elm City are capable to Oak City. Without better evidence, to conclude Oak City would suffer the same fate is unwarranted. It is possible that residents in Oak City would consider the "high-low' policy to be somewhat business cheating and would not willing to shopping there. Or other stores always sell their goods at a particular low price, which attracts most of the customers. If true, these differences may seriously weaken the conclusion based on the analogy between Elm city and Oak City.


Besides, even if the "high-low" policy work out in stores in Oak City,
the profits would not necessarily increase as a result. Perhaps, before the policy is put into practice, due to the low price, people are willing to come and buy most of the goods sold in the store, but after the policy carried out by the store, customers only come for weekly specials. As a result, the total profit decrease. Lacking of a detailed analysis, the author cannot convince me that the proposed policy would increase the store's profits.

Last but not least, even if the policy work out on the store in the new residential development planned in Oak City, it does not indicate that all the stores in Oak City should follow the same action. It is possible that other stores in Oak City might suffer from a decrease in profits due to the policy.

In sum, the argument is not well proposed. To bolster it the author must provide significant evidence that the two cities are quite similar in most of the aspects, and that it is the price rather than other factors that affect the sales.