[1010G]8月中旬上海YY作文进阶小组-北美作文中译英

grassfreeUID: 2807794

Issue 190

The speaker assert that it is unreasonable to use public resources to support the arts in a society where some people are still hungry or out of work or lack the basic skill needed to survive. Art is not human's basic necessity, and it is not totally worthy to believe on the government as to their motive and measure of supporting on art, so the point of speaker may easy to acquire people's agreement. However, some economic and other social profits that come from the active support on art by government are neglected.

The potential theory basis of speaker's statement is that the important of food, clothing and house weights in contrast with compared to the important of culture variety. It is undeniable that the latter needs are certainly more basic. After all, would the hungry people prefer a wonderful painting to a coarse meal? Therefore, I admit that when it comes to using public resources, it is entirely appropriate 合适的 that we give the pressing social problem superior and then the art. But if we don't establish the public art fund until unemployment and hungry are totally eliminated 消失, the fund would been not established at all. Anyone who is informed but don't agree with this point is presuming envisioning 设想 a pure socialist state（代表政权，比country好） where the government will satisfy all the needs citizens required, but this presume amount to fantasy 幻想.

To sponsor art is not the government's necessary and certainly duty, because of this, the point of speaker is easy to accept. This point has three considerable merits. First of all, it seems impolitic that put the decision and alternative clout of art foundation provision into minority bureaucrat官僚's hands. These people may decide according to their eccentric idea about art, and their decision may be easily controlled by the influence they acclaim around. Secondly, private charity institution and charity cause appear to be vigor and function well. For example, public broadcast system can survive year after year, even can grow up and become strong under the help of private foundation and personal donate. Thirdly, the government foundation has got large amount of tax from our bag, so the dollars that could be used to support art were reduced. While our support to art could be more direct and effective than any administration.

On the other hand, there are two persuasive points. They think that no matter the problems of unemployment and hunger are solved, the support of art from public is necessary. One of these points is that it is helpful to allocate public resources to art cause when we solve these social problems. Considered about the film industry in Canada, it acquired large allowance and help from government. It results that the film industry offered uncountable employment opportunities for film workers. The Canada government has also encouraged American film producers to make film in Canada by provide them kinds of encourage meanings. These encourage means added vitality to Canada economy, and stimulated employment growth and wealth acceleration. These growth and wealth can be applied on education, career cultivate and social program. The example of Canada demonstrates that supporting art contributes to solving those social problems that the speaker cares.

The second point that conflicted with speaker's point is about the function and final invention of art cause. Art can be used to promote human's spirits, and enable us closer with feeling, weakness and fate of ourselves. In short, that is closer with our nature. As the sensitivity of human living situation is increasing, the consciousness of egoism of our own becomes weak. We are more considerable and denotable. That means our society is more clement, are more willing to give a hand to those unfortunate people who are cared by the speaker. Of course, the speaker may argue that we actually hurt them when we give those people a hand, because we make them survive on our help. Yet, the core of this paradox present a kind of apathy and the absent of sympathy which, in my opinion, should be try to eliminated in any society. Besides 此外, this point will lead to some kind of politic, philosophy and ethic problems, and these problems can't be solved in these issue.

All in all, the benefit of public art fund are not only acquired by elites those who wander in museums, appropriate sorts of symphony and join in the ceremony of art gallery, as the speaker might have us believe. Allocate public resources to art can creat employment opportunities for artists, as well as for those who feed on prosperous and dynamic culture, which cultivate the charitable concern to the hungry, the helpless and the unfortunate.

四月小薇UID: 2680355

I 190
The speaker assert that it is inappropriate to use public resources to support the arts when there still have people who are hungry , out of work or lack the basic skill needed to survive . Considering that arts are not the basic need of human and the government is not totally trustworthy in its motive and measure , the speaker’s assertion is acceptable. However, he neglect some economic and social benefits which government’s active support for arts will bring.

It’s seems that the fundamental theory the speaker’s assertion interferes is that the importance of various arts if much less than that of food , cloth and house. The latter are human’s basic need ,which is undoubtable. After all ,which hungry man would want a great painting more than a bad meal? Thus, I agree that those pressing social problems should have the priority, not arts, to get the public resources, which is absolutely appropriate. However, if we can only set up public art found until unemployment and starvation has been wiped then it will never been. If any educated man disagree with that ,then he is imaging a pure socialism country where the government will satisfy all the citizen’s needs , which is almost a hallucination .

Supporting arts is not a compulsory and necessary responsibility of government ,basing on that, the speaker’s assertion if generally acceptable. This  assertion values in 3 aspects. First, it is unreasonable to give the power of decision and selection for art found to some government servants. They might make their decision on their own wired judgment ,which is easily been effected by the surroundings. Second ,today’s private charities runs well and vigorous. For instance, the public broadcasting system can survive and even thrive after so many years only depends on the help from private charity an personal donation. Third, the government take large amount of tax money from us leaving less money to us to support arts, while our help is more direct and efficient.

On the other hand ,there’re 2 assertions pointing out that no matter the problems of unemployment and starvation have been solved, the public support for arts is necessary. One of them is that it will actually help us solve the problems. Take Canadian film industry as an example. It gets lots support from the government. In result, Canadian film industry provides countless job opportunities for film workers . The government also provides help for American film makers encouraging them to make and produce movies in Canada. These encouraging measures bring activity to Canada’s economy and stimulate the improvement of employment and the growth of wealth, which can be used for education , career training and social projects. This example proves that public support for arts can also help solve those social problem the speaker concerned about.

The second assertion which against the speaker’s is about the function and eventual aim of arts . Arts can lift human’s spirit and make us more close to our feeling, weakness and fate , which in a word is to be more close to ourselves. Along with the increase of sensitivity of human being ,our self-centered conscious is fading and we think more about others and willing to give out ourselves.
In another word, we are stepping into a more moral society and more willing to help those the speaker care about. Of course, the speaker may argue that when we reach out a hand to those people we actually do harm to them in that we also make them depend more on us. But the center of these views shows the coldness and lack of compassion, and in my view, that should be eliminated in any society. In addition, this view will lead to some problem on politics, philosophy and morality, which we can’t solve in this brief article.

In conclusion, people who benefit from public art found is not just the elites wandering in the big city’s museum or attending the symphonies and opening ceremony of gallery like the speaker asserts. Allocating public resources to arts creates job opportunities for artists and people who earn their living from thriving and abundant culture, which cultivate the kindness to help those who are hungry ,helpless and unfortunate.

这个有很多问题，欢迎大家拍砖~~~

四月小薇UID: 2680355

闪亮点&疑问点：
It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that art is not a fundamental human need , and that government is not entirely trustworthy when it comes to its motives and methods.
这个句型可以借用，说得比较婉转，不完全支持，也不完全否定。文中出现多次。

….when government assumes an active role ….
Assume 这里的是用作假装，还是用作开始行使权力，担任要职？

The implicit rationale behind the speaker’s statement seems to be that cultural enrichment pales in importance compared to food , clothing and shelter.
句型可以用于对题目的分析里。
Pale这个单词用的很好啊~~不过查了点字典，都没有pale做动词的呢。。。

This argument has considerable merit , in three respects.
这句话不管是中文还是英文我都不能理解，麻烦解释下~~

破折号的运用也是这篇文章给我的比较深的印象，可以表达很多意思，那么具体用法有什么特别之处么？哪位达人说下~~

Besides, the argument leads inexorably to certain political , philosophical , and moral issues that this brief essay cannot begin to address.
虽然这句话好像是一笔带过了很多问题，但我总感觉它就是用来给不知道怎么收尾的收尾。

整篇文章是字字玑珠，都抄小本子上了，这里就简单的说点我觉得有特色的。

grassfreeUID: 2807794

18# 四月小薇

assume这里应该是承担职责的意思吧，个人认为和play a ... role的用法差不多的

pale当然可以作动词，使。。。变的苍白，这里么引申下啦O(∩_∩)O~

considerable 是 相当大的 的意思，整句话的意思是，这一论点有相当大的价值，我觉得就是说这一论点很有道理，具体体现在三个方面。

四月小薇UID: 2680355

19# grassfree
Thanks~

goingcvUID: 2768476

Issue 190
  The speaker asserts that using public resources to support arts is cruel, when people in a society are still bearing the hunger, unemployment or lackage of essential survival skills.Owing to art is not the basic need of human and government is not completely convinced when we consider the purpose and method to support art, perhapse the speaker`s statement can be easily accepted.However, the speaker ignores certain economical and social benefit(效益),when government make positive effort to promote the development of art.

  The theoretical foundation of the speaker`s statement seems to be that the importance of art when compared with the importance of the hunger ,clothes and house is negligible（微不足道的）.It is the truth that the later factors is exactly the more fundamental acquirement of us. After all,反问句. Therefore, I concede that public resources should be  But, if we don`t build the public fund of art until we completely eliminate hunger and joblessness, we can never accomplish it .If Any people who have adequate knowledge think the situation is not like that, he is imaging a pure socialistic(社会主义的) nation, in which government will satisfy all needs of its people —such idea equals daydream(空想).

  Supporting art is not the certain and necessary obligation（职责）,because of it, speaker`s assertion is also easily consented.The viewpoint has sizable(相当大的) value in the following three aspects.Firstly, it is wrong to  These people might decide based on their antic illusion to art, and their decide usually is effected by the advertisements(四处兜售)
Secondly, nowadays social private charity corporation and Career(事业) appears vitality(活力) and operate well. For example, thanks to the help of the private foundation（基金会） and personal donation, the mass broadcast system can survive year after year, even make development and become strong. Thirdly, government fund pose a large number of tax, which make us use less money to contribute to art, whereas our action to support art 原本 is more directive(直接) and effective（有效） than any bureaucrat(官僚)`s action.

  On the other hand, there are two cogent(有说服力的) argument to think  One of the statement is to distribute the public resources to art, actually which make good effect for us to solve these social problems. Take the Canadian movie industry for a example, it obtains a good deal of(大量的) govenment`s payment. The consequence is that Canadian movie industry offers their actors innumberable(无数的) chance to find a job.The Canadian govenment also provide various kinds of motivative measures measures for American movie corporations,encouraging them shoot tmovies(拍电影) in canada.These motivative measures add the vatality(活力),从而，stimulating the increase of job`s opportunities and simulation of the weath. which can be applied to education, vocational training(职业培训) and social enginer. The Canadian case demostrates supporting public art can be conducive to solve those social problem noticed by the speaker.

  art can be used to promote our spirit(精神境界), making us approach our feelings, weakness and destiny.In a word, it is nearer our nature.With the increase of , in another word,  we are becoming a more charity socity,Certainly, the speaker may argue that we are actually harming them when we help them, because, which make them have to live on us. But the core of this colourable(似是而非) statement embody(体现出) the lackage of compassion and unconcerned(冷漠)。Addition, this viewpoint must be inducing some political, philosiphi and moral problems, which can`t be solved by this artical.

  Above all, the beneficiaries(受益者) of public art fund isn`t the elites who wander in libariries in big cities, appreciate various symphonies and participate the opening ceremony(开幕典礼) of galleries.Distributing public resources to art provides artists and those who live on vital and abundant culture the opportunities to get a job, it is this culture that foster(培育) those charity heart.
迟到的作业，从昨天晚上一直到现在才翻完。

cant0577UID: 2781482

I121

观点句 学习句词

1.The limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction

2..The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience,self-preservation and economics.

3.On balance, I fundamentally agree with the notion that

4.At the expense of

5.As I see it, there are three fundamentally arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some responsibilities to preserve endangered species

6.The first has to do culpability. The second argument has to do with capability. The third argument is an appeal to self -preservation.

7.According to this argument, to the extinct that

8.anthropogenic events/ factors

9.have the duty to take affirmative measures

10.instead, the argument goes,

11.what steps are needed to prevent extinction

12.we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction,

13.place a very high affirmative duty on humans to do sth

14. Sth is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationship. 换一下词可以用到社会，教育中

15.this claim might sound far-fetched to some 万能句啊

16Environmental exports assure us that in the long run it is a very real possibility. 记住记住 唬人用的

17nature selection  Darwinian

18 sb be exempt from sth

19 would no doubt assert

20.an appeal to logic over emotion 换一下词可以用到艺术，教育中

21.Be due to natural forces

22.In any event

23.It is far beyond our ability to do sth.

24.In my observation, we tend to favour ...万能句啊

25.But there is not logical justification for such standard. 万能句啊

26.What make us sense is to decide based on our own economic self-interest

27.Thus, there are no easy or certain answers. 万能句啊

Take precedence over vague notions about moral duty. 换一下词可以用到艺术，教育中

cant0577UID: 2781482

21# goingcv
加油哦~~

慢慢赶上我们的进度

重点在于吸收精华~~

elvisxiaoUID: 2735076

Issue 121



1.The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience(良知), self-preservation, and economics.


2.On balance（总的说来）, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make "extraordinary"efforts--at the expense of money and jobs- to ensure the preservation of any endangered species.



3.As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for imposing（强加于） on ourselves at least some responsibility to preserve endangered species.



4.According to this argument,to the extent that endangerment is the result of anthropogenic events such as clear-cutting of forests or polluting of lakes and streams（小溪）, we humans have duty to take affirmative（肯定的，积极的） measures to protect the species whose survival we've placed in jeopardy（危险）.


5.Instead, the argument goes, if we are aware of the danger, know what steps are needed to prevent extinction, and can take those steps, then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction.


6.Severing（切断，分离） certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey, can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a species.（motion 之后的a series of...做什么成分，没看懂）


7.While this claim might sound far-fetched（牵强的） to some, environmental experts assure us that in the long run it is a very real possibility.


8.On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to protect endangered species.


9.Accordingly（因此）,if we see fit to eradicate（根除） other species in order to facilitate（帮助，使便利） our survival, then so be it. We are only behaving as animals must, Darwin would no doubt（这个词组是作副词用的么？能不能用with no doubt） assert.


10.The second argument, and the one that I find most compelling, is an appeal to logic over emotion.


11.In any event, it is far beyond our ability to save them all.


12.In my observation, we tend to favor animals with human-like physical characteristics and behaviors.


13.This preference is understandable; after all, dolphins are far more endearing（惹人喜爱的） than bugs.But there is no logical justification for such a standard.


14.In sum, the issue of endangered-species protection is a complex one, requiring subjective judgments about moral duty and the comparative value of various life-forms.


15.Yet it is for this very reason I agree that economic self-interest should take precedence（优先权=priority） over vague notions about moral duty when it comes to saving endangered species.


16.In the final analysis, at a point when it becomes critical(关键的) for our own survival as a species to save certain others, then we humans will do so if we are fit--in accordance with Darwin's observed（遵守，奉行） process of natural selection.

cant0577UID: 2781482

24# elvisxiao

Severing（切断，分离） certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey, can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a species.（motion 之后的a series of...做什么成分，没看懂）

我觉得是同位语 解释motion

四月小薇UID: 2680355

I 121

On balance,however,I fundamentally agree with ….
On balance总的来说

As I see it ….就我看来

The first has to do culpability.
我觉得少了with,是怎么回事啊 ？

Instead,the argument goes,if we are aware of the danger,know what steps are needed to prevent extinction,and can take those steps,then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction.
开头特别好，以前只知道 as the saying goes,又多一种用法

Serving certain relationships,such as that between a predator and its natural prey, can set into motion a series of extictions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a species.
（非常复杂的中文翻译，可是也没法简化，强烈体现中英文差异）

Accordingly,if we see fit to eradicate other species in order to facilitate our survival, then so be it.

四月小薇UID: 2680355

I186
1.I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of scientific research today.
在涉及某一方面时持有异议

2.litmus test试金石

3.after all , business administration is fundamentally about practicality and pragmatism- that is, ""getting the job done" and paying attention to the "bottom line."
再见破折号

4.very few architectural masterpieces find their way past the bluprint stage anymore.
黑体部分很好

5.Finally, query whether the claim begs the question.
最后，这种说法是否是回避问题时以假定为论据的狡辩还有待商榷。

6.it also embraces long-term planning and 。。。
embrace这个词用得很多意思也很多元。

3篇过后发现很多论证模式是重复的，看到些许模版的影子。

cant0577UID: 2781482

I186
昨天满天课，还没时间整理
今天补上

Is practicality our idol in today's wold, which all powers and talents must serve? This propsoal has considerable merit in most areas of occupations which people take, including education, art and policy. But when it comes to the direction of the scientific research, I hold an argument to it.

Practicality seems a testingstone for today's education. Pupils are as studying the talent of reading and writing as learning the skills of computer. Art courses are declining in our middle schools and high schools, which are not high practical than others in face.There are more and more college students choosing study techonoligical subjects in order to instantly get a job after graduation. No denying that a plenty of students who have graduated still get a further study, trying to get a master degree, but the most porpular master degree is MBA. After all, business arrangment foundenmentally is about practicality and pragmatism, that is to accomplish work and pay attention to baseline.

Practicality also donates which kind of arts should be made out in today. Nowadays, most of new architectures are influented by the fundations, safety and costing fators, . The considering of population totally dominates the contents of today's stories and musics, that is to say, to satisfy the interesting of group consisting with 18 to 35 years old people, who are the chief consuming group. But what today's publishity firstly think over is to publish those productions which may be sold well. Our shelves fullfied with mulitiple books which teaching people practical operating metholds,  this point also proofs that publishers are trying to meet with our request to practicality. But it doesn't mean arts do not create high artful perfect masterpieces any more. There are still a large amount of dependent CD companies, film makers and publishment exsisting nowadays. In general view, the only things which the developers of estates, the rich of entaintament and the leaders of publishment care about is the practicality of products and profits being made, rather than whether its art value is prefect or not.

Practicality is also the primary question considered by the policy. Most of policers seem to be drove by the profits whether could be or continuously be ellected, just their short politic life--rather than somewhatthe sense of mission , even not the sense of responsibility for their electorates or state. The maneuvers in diplomatism and negotion usually seems to meet the need for each related--spending the least money, keeping the right of choice and so farth. Those who defend for the speaker's notion may claim those who set up public,inciting revolution, and to materialize sense of policy  are idealism, rather than practicality. Those American founder and /// or /// ara such kind of idealism. If those idealism just think their short life and need in short-term, inteading of their persuation to ideal society, America and India may still be colonized by Britain, and American blackman may still sit on the back of bus. Although I concede that point, but truth is that such idealism is ferer and ferer in today.

In other hand, when it comes to today's scientific reseatch, such statement appares unpractical. Cosmetics is the most ordinary surgery in today's physic, thinking about the risk of healthy and large expense of moneny, so I concede it is very unpractial. No denying, today's digital revolution serve for more practical needs, such as making communication and getting information much quiker and more effective. Some chemical research's aims is also practicality--for providing us convenience, making us feel more comfortable. But in many other aspects, scietntific is not drived by the immediate practicality, but by some long terms, just like public  hygiene, quality of life and environmental protection.

In all, in the aspects of education, art, policy and so farth, the practicality may be our idol in today, But I find it is not allways right in scientific areas. Finally, such statement/// After all, practicality doesn't only mean the short-term needs. It also concluding our future quanlity of life and a long-term plan and prevent work as existance of a species.


1. All powers and talents must serve sth.  好句子， 可以用在教育，艺术 历史等


2. I take exception with the claim when it comes to  提出反面观点


3. Practicality seems clearly to be the litmus tests for education,


4. Practicality also dictates what sort of art is produced today.


5. Practicality is also the overriding concern in contemporary politics


6. Sth ostensibly has less practical value than..


7. Admittedly


8. Practicality and pragmatism


9. Be driven by


10. Pander to the interests of  绝对可以用在教育中


11. Immediate concern to do sth


12. Any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency or county.


13. Although I concede this point, the plain fact is that... 提出反面例证


14. One the other hand, the claim amounts to an overstatement


15. Health risks

16. Access information


17. Broad, long-term objectives


18. Ba majoring in


19. Sth be fewer in number



感觉以上摘抄的基本上可以用在各个范围内 所以大家根据自己的实际情况背诵哦！！

grassfreeUID: 2807794

Issue 212

What extent of our duty as to saving endangered species? This statement leads to variety of problems about morality, conscience, self-protect and economics. Yet, I generally agree with this argument, that is, human need not to do great effort (in the cost of money and employment opportunity) to ensure survive of endangered species.

As for me, there are three main arguments to support that we must at least take some responsibility of endangered species' protection. The first argument is about guilty. They think that just because the man-oriented accidents, like forest fall-up and lake and river pollution, lead to a endangered species situation. To this extent, it is human's duty to take some effective measures to protect those endangered species because we threat their surviving.

The second argument is about capability. This argument doesn’t pay attention to the extent of hurts which men caused. In contrary, this argument thinks that, if we has already realized this dangerous and know what kind of measures are need to prevent the species from extinction and  have the ability to do, then we have the responsibility to prevent the endangered species from extinction on the ethic position. This argument requires human taking very active responsibility on protecting endangered species aspect.

The third argument is about appeal for human self-protect. The structure of animal kingdom is very intricate, and there exists relationships between every kind of animals. In this structure, every animal's survive depends on other species' existence. The break of certain relationships, such as the relationship between some kind of carnivorous animal and its nature prey, would lead to a series of species extinction. As a species of nature, the survival of our human beings would also be threatened. Although someone think this assert is a little far-fetched, but the environmentalists ensure that this situation may happen.

On the other hand, there are two persuasive arguments that disagree taking responsibility of preserving endangered species. The first one basically inherits D's theory that species extinction is the result of so called "natural selection”, which is very uncharitable. In this process, stronger species are survived while the weaker ones are eliminated. Moreover, we human beings also can't evade this process. Therefore, it is reasonable if eradicating other species for providing convenience to our survival is reasonable. D would surely say that we just do what the animals do.

The second one, which is the most convinced one as I see, put more appeal to logic over emotion. It is a scientific fact that hundreds of thousands of species eliminate on earth every year. Large part of this is caused by nature power. Anyway, saving all the species is beyond of our capability. Then what criterion could be used to decide which species should be saved or not? In my opinion, we should be apt to preserve animals whose appearance and behaviors are assemble to human. This kind of preference is reasonable; after all, dolphin is cuter than bug. But this criterion has no reasonable reason, so it is more reasonable to decide by our own benefit. In other words, the more dollars and labors we would invest on some species' preserving, the less we should consider about it.

In sum, preserving endangered species is an intricate problem, in which our subjective judgment about moral responsibility and relative value of different animate individual is needed, so there is no simple or right answer. But just because of this, compared to morality which is vague defined, I think priority should be given to self-interest when we talk about preserving endangered species. All in all, when we come to the very critical time that we must to preserve some other species for our survival, as a species, we would do so when we should-----this is consistent with the natural selection which D had pursued.

昨天太忙了没来得及交作业，呵呵，今天补上哈~~

grassfreeUID: 2807794

然后是今天的作业 O(∩_∩)O~

Issue 186

Is the practicality our idol which all energy and talents must serve in the modern world? This assertion is considerable worthwhile in most part of our work field, including education, art and political. But I disagree with this assertion when it comes to scientific research nowadays.

Practicality is like a golden for today’s education. The pupils are practicing reading and writing skills as well as computer skill at the same time. In our junior and senior schools, art lessons which seem have less practical value than others are decreasing. More and more undergraduates choose technology as their major, hoping for immediately finding a good job upon graduation. It is no denying that many graduates will go on studying for as a post graduates, but the most popular master degree is MBA now. After all, business administration is fundamentally about practicality and pragmatism, that is "accomplished the job" and pay attention to "bottom line".

Practicality also dominates what kind of art can be generated today. Most new architecture is driven by functionality, safety and cost; few distinguish architectures can through blueprint design step. Consideration on concesus entirely dictates the content of feature film and music. That is to cater the interests of 18-35 age people, who is the main expense people on movie tickets and music CD. The first thing the publisher should pay attention to is circulating books which may easy to sell. Our shelves are fulfilled with sorts of books teaching how to practice, demonstrating the publishers are trying to cater our demands about practicality. This dose not means the artists not to create art workings which are highly valued in art. There are still lots of independent CD company, movie product and press today. This only means they have not developed well, constituting a minuscule segment of the market. Today’s real-estate developers, entertainment moguls and publishing executives only pay attention to the practicality and profit of their products, and don't care about its artistic value and integrity.

Practicality is also the first concern in politics. Most politicians are seem to driven by the profit of whether them can be voted and reelected which is their short time politic life, not by mission, even not by the obligation to their constituents or state. Diplomatic and legal maneuverings and negotiation seems to satisfy practicality of both sides, those are paying least money, preserving election and so forth. Those who would argue for the speaker might claim that those who initiate the masses, instigating revolution and enabling political ideology reality are not pragmatists, but idealists. Those who establish the US or Gandhi or M are all this kind of idealists. If these idealists only had considered about their own short-period survival and immediately needs but paid no attention to pursuit their belief about idea society, America and India were still colonies of England and American black might still be relegated to the back of buses. Although I admit this point, this kind of idealist is becoming less and less today.

On the other hand, this argument doesn’t meet the reality when it comes to scientific research today. The most common operation today is cosmetic, consider the danger it brings to and dollars it costs, I think this operation is not practical. It is no denying that digital revolution service many practical needs, such as make the communication and information acquirement more effective and fast. Many chemistry researches are also aim at practicality-----providing convenience for us and make our lives more comfortable. But in many other aspects, scientific research is not driven by immediate practicality, but for some broad and long time goal, such as public health, quality of living and environment protection.

In sum, practicality may be our idol today in education, art and politics. But this argument is not applied in scientific field. Finally, query whether the claim begs the question. After all, practicality does not only mean satisfying immediate needs, it also includes the long-time plan and prevention for ensuring our living quality in the future and our surviving as a species.