3.22上考场，希望大侠们帮我看看【issue69】

qqwwzynUID: 2639175

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 730
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-3-18 14:32:24

Should government place restrictions on scientific research and development, as the speaker claims? Fundamentally I agree with the speaker's broad claim as restrictions on science sometimes may amount to counterproductive. Nevertheless, in some exceptional cases, restrictions on research are desirable.

To begain with, I feel obligated to point out that it is impractical and unreasonable for governments to determine whether a certain scientific research is worthy or not. After all, most officials are not scientists or researchers, and hence their judgment of a certain research may be subjective. Yet a strong possibility is that it is the researchers who are involved in the study that have the most profound understanding of the value of their research. When Einstain first established the famous Theory of Relativity, it was said that there were only five individuals can realize the value of it at that time. And when Stephenson invited the first train, his neighhood did nothing but laughed at the odd mechine, and claimed that it would be of no use. Another typical example is John Nash, a renowned mathematician, who won the 1994's Noble Prize in Economic sciences because of his study on game theory. However, when he did researches in college, his faculty around him showed great contempt to his work. These examples illustrate that it is usually difficult for contemporaries to define a reseach's value.

My second point of agreement with the speaker is that restrictions on research would dampen the individuals' interest in science and technology, which is detrimental for a society's development. While any thoughtful individual would argue about the value of interest, in my opinion, interest is just like the beacon in the dark, pointing out the right direction for people, giving people courage and hope to get through all the difficulties and obstacles. Edison knew 1800 ways not to invent a light bulb. But for his sustainable interest in his research, he would cease to be the greatest inventors in 20th centuries. Similarly, the invention of explosive is also attributable to interest. Without Nobel's interest in his work, he would not take the risk to conduct 400 experiments on explosive. Since interest is the paramount impetus of research, governments should take restrictions on scientific research seriously in order not to impede this valuable virtue.

Asider from the merits of the speaker's claim, however, in some exceptional cases, restrictions are indispensible. It is expecially true when the result of the research is too vague or even harmful. One should look no further than the study of human cloning. While the ethical problem of human cloning is not addressed properly, and we have not excluded its potential negative effects yet, research on this area should be prohibited. Another typical example is that the hackers, if can be regarded as "researchers" for their enthusiam in the Internet, their study of how to attack others' private computers--especially conputers of some confidential departments--must be stopped with certain. In short, as long as the research might threaten the society, some restrictions on it is needed.

Additionally, because the task of government is to ensure the welfare of the overall group of people, sometimes, it has no choice but to interfere scientists' research for the reason some issues are so urgent and severe that must be handled with immediately. The recent Copenhagen Climate Conference draws our attention toward the global warming. It is reported that some island countries in Pecific Ocean are facing the cruel fact that they would be swallowed by the ever-increasing sea level in no time. Thus it is the government's responsibility to call on scientists to do research on this problem. After all, according Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we must first tackle with our living problems as well as secure problems. Another examples such as energy shortage, increasing population, and the bad condition of environment are all the same cases. If all the most gifted scientists simply puesue their interests and do not take part in this important research, as a consequence, human being would perhaps extinct.

In sum, from the above analysis, I am convinced that the optimal means of dealing with the complicated and intrucate issue is to take an all-sided consideration and strike a balance among the competing factors. While restrictions can be undesirable at times, no restrictions at all would render us bogged down in the situation where our sustained development is threatened greatly.


TOPIC: ARGUMENT241 - The following appeared in a memo at the XYZ company.

"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating resumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less-expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
WORDS: 417
TIME: 00:29:27
DATE: 2010-3-18 14:32:24

The author claims that XYZ should hire Delany (D) instead of Walsh (W) in order to help laid-off employees to find jobs. Although the author's reasoning may seem cogent at first glance, this arguemnt depends on several unwarranted assumptions, which render it dubious as it stands.

A threshold problem with the argument is that the author assumes that the fact that some laid-off employees found jobs more quickly is attributable to D's service. Although it is entirely possible, the author provides no affirmative to convince me of that assertion. Perhaps those who used D are more eager to find jobs and did not care about the quality of jobs. Thus the condition of their new jobs would be comparably worse, such as those jobs involving a lot of physical labor but provide low salary. Until the author can consider and rule out the possible scenarios, I would not take the conclusion seriously.

A second problem with the argument is that the author assumes that W's service is poor merely because of the indefensible evidence of eight years ago. Yet there is a strong possibility that XYZ was a fameless company eight years ago while now it is a renowned comany. And this can illustrate why the laid-off employees of eight years spent more time to find new jobs, since we are informed that employees of a famous company are generally more competent compared those of a less famous company. What is more, it is very likely that W has improved its service since eight years ago, thus it performance at that time could not be a indication of its current condition. Unless the speaker can provide clear evidence to exclude these factors, the conclusion involved in this argument is open to doubt.

The final problem with the argument involves the author's assumption that bigger staff and more offices equal to better service. There is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case. However, these can simply amount to an indication of low efficiency. So we would doubt whether a higher price of D is worthy. Moreover, the author fails to provide detailed information of the kinds of jobs. It is very possible that W's jobs are finer than D's, thus more time would be worthy. Lacking such evidence, the speaker's recommendation would be weakened greatly.

In a nutshell, the argument is simply not credible on basis of scant evidence. To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide further evidence that D's service is indeed better than W's.

qqwwzynUID: 2639175

这是小弟精心准备过的题目，今天模考时写的，可谓巅峰之作了。我对自己要求比较高，保4争5.。。希望大家能毫不客气地指出我的缺乏和不足，最后三天我再集中突破一下。

之前也没对寄托做过什么贡献，主要是因为个人准备比较晚，3.1开始的，时间比较紧。 如果大家能支持我的话，考完后一定来发经验贴，为寄托做贡献！