1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Issue）

tyarelUID：2756223

TOPIC: ISSUE25 - "Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is to move in the opposite direction-in other words, to make things as simple as possible."


The speaker asserts that it is a simple thing to render things bigger and more complicated, which can be achieved by each individual. To the contrary, making things as simple as possible calls for real effort and courage. I strongly agree with this statement as to make things simple requires us to have comprehensive understanding of it and then command the core.

The speaker's assertion that anyone can make things bigger and more complex is quite true. Sometimes we can achieve that merely by simple repeat. Complicated things are composed of numerous simple things, during which some play a pivotal role while others just serve to add to complicity. The more the irrelevant things（they own）, the more complex the things will be. Consider(Considering?这里的表达我不是很理解), for example, in the event that we have three English classes today, therefore we need to take English book to school, yet if we take books of all disciplines only has things become bigger and more complex.(only前面漏了主语，或者去掉if，直接把taking books作为主语？) Another example is that complex thing is similar to solving a mathematic justification we can utilize widely acknowledged laws to prove it, however, many others might also exert their utmost efforts to prove the laws. (好长的句子…个人建议还是拆分开来)Indisputably, they have made an initially simple thing become increasingly complicated. In short, it is a rather simple thing to make things become more complex just by adding irrelevant things.
我不知道我对你第二个例子的理解正不正确，是不是想说，数学证明题可以用一些已知公式去证，结果还有很多人花很大力气先把公式证明一遍，所以把简单的事情搞复杂了？
个人觉得２个例子都有点牵强。根据你的分析simple repeat才是你这里认为把事物复杂化的原因吧。但看你的例子，我觉得难以支持repeat，反倒是说明了“做无用功”使得原本简单的事情复杂。带不需要的书啦或者证明是花力气去证明本不需要证明的东西啦。这里例子的价值就体现不出来，和分析脱轨了。

(加个Besides或者别的什么连词，把２段的逻辑关系连接起来，就显得上下不是那么生硬了)We cannot deny the fact making things as simple as possible requires us to dedicate great effort and courage. We(改成Our，把attempt做主语；或者改成从句做主语) attempt to transform complex thing into simple one should be based on the fact that we have comprehensive understanding toward it as well as command the core of it. Then we can obliterate useless things or programs and carry out the crucial one. Actually, the foundation of any new theory has experienced the process from complexity to simplicity. Consider, for example, the creation of Genetics. Mendel who is hailed as the father of genetics spent eight years observing the inherent characteristic of pea plants, and documented the phenomenon according to what he had observed. Finally he generalized all these complicated characteristics and deletes worthless ones to formulate the new theory ------- genetics. Another example involves the research of perpetual motion machine which was initially designed to provide energy without input,(.逗号是不可以用来连接２句独立的句子的) scientists had devoted great efforts and invaluable resources to this research, however, at the end as it turns out this machine violated the law of energy conservation. If researchers had turn to the conservation law at the beginning, the end result would be that scientists could economize considerable resources and time.
对这一段我想提的还是关于例子使用的问题，第一个例子我认为还算符合分析，就是稍显简单，例子重点应该侧重在Mendel如何去简化的他的理论，感觉这里被一笔带过了，还不够充分。第二个从我的理解角度上来说就不是很符合了。显然，对于永动机的研究是由于对理论的认识不够，但是永动机是完全错误的研究，而不是把简单的事物想复杂了吧，所以感觉这个例子还是有点偏差的.

In sum, I concede that making a thing bigger and more complex is rather simple which can be attained by anyone. Yet, to transform complicated things into simple ones necessarily costs great effort and courage due to the fact that we have to command the core of it.

全文读下来感觉观点还是蛮清晰的，结构上很清楚，说理也比较充分了。另外在举完例子后对例子再进行分析使得论述更加完整了，是很好的习惯。只是个人觉得例子使用的不是非常贴切，可能还需要在例子描述上加工一下，或者重新斟酌一下新的例子。

tyarelUID：2756223

31"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
花在研究上的资金基本上都是不错的投资，即使研究的结果是有争议的。

It is generally acknowledged nowadays that scientific research, which leads to a great number of companies’ sponsorship on research, is playing and will play an important, or even critical, role in changing and improving our lives. However, whether this money spending on research is a good investment? The answers and the criteria may be quite diverse to different people.

Foremost, those sponsors may consider the questions, care the answers and evaluate the investment more than others. And the only reason of their investment is the revenue. Whether the research results are controversial or not, the key point to these corporations is what the research results can bring. In short, the criterion is the profit. Hence, if the result of the research is not that profitable, the investment will be turned to a wrong decision even if the research is meaningful and significant in scientific fields. For instance, the famous founder of the Origin System (OS), a great game developer who released more than 1000 games and won wide recognition through its Ultima series, Richard Garriott, known as the father of the Massively Multiplayer Online Game, is a big fan of astronomy and absorbed in exploring space even after he operated OS. When the whole company members dedicated all their energies to the soon released Ultima 9, Garriott made the decision to sponsor the space project of Russia, which stunned everyone at that time. Admittedly, the research succeeded in the end and Garriott became the first individual to work on the space station, who is not working as an astronaut for the government. However, it is obviously that the investment is not so worthwhile to OS since it brought great damage to the development of Ultima 9 and the economic constraint placed on them was the major contributor to OS’s being purchased by EA Entertainment after Garriott’s investment on space research.

On the other side, compared with those bosses, scientists only concern whether they can fulfill the research. Since the majority of them dedicate themselves to their research, researchers place the work higher than anything else even though the result of it is controversial and the sponsorship helping buy equipments or experiment materials is actually critical to the progress. Taking the research done in my applied mechanic institute for example, the equipments, such as the vibrator platforms which can be purchased because of the sponsorship from many enterprises, are one of the most vital factors to the success of the research. Therefore, from these scientists’ point of view, every penny supporting the experiment and research is worthy especially when the work is bogged due to the lack of money. In short, the answer from scientists to the question is definitely yes.

Last but not least, the public is also the judge since almost all the research results are closely related to them. Understandably, the impacts of the research results, those controversial ones in particular, placing on their daily lives are what they refer to when they make the judgment. To those patients needing organ-transplantation, the cost on clone is undoubtedly a good investment as the technology may solve the problem of searching suitable organs while the others worrying about the moral and ethical problems may have the opposite opinion. Thus, clearly, if it does do good to them, people will applaud for the research result, otherwise the attitude will be the reverse.

In conclusion, just like the a thousand Hamlets in those a thousand people's eyes, whether money spent on research is almost always a good investment is not the same to everyone.


这篇是已经在前面放上来过的文章，有G友对语言提过些建议了，希望lx的G友可以帮我在结构，逻辑上再看看，谢谢了

江雪UID：2790520

tyarel：你的占位没错 我明天把那个回复删除。eddie_h：请跟据一楼的规则 先删除你的文章 占楼改你楼上的文章 再发你的文章。否则你的楼下直接从tyarel那篇改起 你那篇将被我删除。

追梦小木耳UID：2781857

31"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
花在研究上的资金基本上都是不错的投资，即使研究的结果是有争议的。

It is generally acknowledged nowadays that scientific research, which leads to a great number of companies’ sponsorship on research, is playing and will play an important, or even critical, role in changing and improving our lives. However, whether this money spending on research is a good investment? The answers and the criteria may be quite diverse to different people.

Foremost, those sponsors may consider the questions, care the answers and evaluate the investment more than others. And the only reason of their investment is the revenue. Whether the research results are controversial or not, the key point to these corporations is what the research results can bring. In short, the criterion is the profit. 这两句话有点罗嗦了，说来说去都是说投资研究是为了利益Hence, if the result of the research is not that profitable, the investment will be turned to a wrong decision even if the research is meaningful and significant in scientific fields. For instance, the famous founder of the Origin System (OS), （把人名放在这里是不是好一点）a great game developer who released more than 1000 games and won wide recognition through its Ultima series, Richard Garriott, known as the father of the Massively Multiplayer Online Game, is a big fan of astronomy and absorbed in exploring space even after he operated OS. When the whole company members dedicated all their energies to the soon released Ultima 9, Garriott made the decision to sponsor the space project of Russia, which stunned everyone at that time. Admittedly, the research succeeded in the end and Garriott became the first individual to work on the space station, who is not working as an astronaut for the government. However, it is obviously obvious that the investment is not so worthwhile to OS since it brought great damage to the development of Ultima 9 and the economic constraint placed on them was the major contributor to OS’s being purchased by EA Entertainment after Garriott’s investment on space research.
我觉得这个例子和论点都不是很合适，你说的是sponser,我理解为资助的人，那么资助带来的就包括商业效益和社会效益了。社会效益也是一种很大的利益呀。间接的广告啊。
On the other side, compared with those bosses, scientists only concern whether they can fulfill the research. Since the majority of them dedicate themselves to their research, researchers place the work higher than anything else even though the result of it is controversial and the sponsorship helping buy equipments or experiment materials is actually critical to the progress. Taking the research done in my applied mechanic institute for example, the equipments, such as the vibrator platforms which can be purchased because of the sponsorship from many enterprises, are one of the most vital factors to the success of the research. Therefore, from these scientists’ point of view, every penny supporting the experiment and research is worthy especially when the work is bogged due to the lack of money. In short, the answer from scientists to the question is definitely yes.
这段说对于科学家总是值得的，因为他们不用出钱
但是你这也是和第一段一样，从钱的角度出发的，但是人群却不一样，这就有问题了。因为这里科学家的投入是时间和精力啊，如果研究结果有争议，浪费了时间和精力不说，还有损他们的声誉，甚至身败名裂。因此你这样说他们从不用出钱的角度说是不合理的
Last but not least, the public is also the judge since almost all the research results are closely related to them. Understandably, the impacts of the research results, those controversial ones in particular, placing on their daily lives are what they refer to when they make the judgment. To those patients needing organ-transplantation, the cost on clone is undoubtedly a good investment as the technology may solve the problem of searching suitable organs while the others worrying about the moral and ethical problems may have the opposite opinion. Thus, clearly, if it does do good to them, people will applaud for the research result, otherwise the attitude will be the reverse.
这一段是说公众认为有益的研究结果就值得，没有益处的就不值得。
其实我觉得公众是最终评判研究有没有价值的人群。而且公众不用投资。只有研究结果是他们关心的。那么公众是没有权利决定要不要投资，因此我认为不能从公众角度去评价投资是不是值得。就像一个公司投资研究开发一种产品，认为产品好的消费者就认为这个研究值得，认为不好的 就说不值得？还是像你第一段说的，只要投资有回报了，公司就承认是值得的。
In conclusion, just like the a thousand Hamlets in those a thousand people's eyes, whether money spent on research is almost always a good investment is not the same to everyone.

总的来说，你分人群来说投资研究值不值得有些偏题了。其实issue里的所有题你都可以这样说，有的人赞同，因为。。。有的人反对，因为。。。可是说来说去也没有说出来你自己的观点。你是站在公司、科学家还是公众的角度呢？如果真的要做这么一个研究，到底是最看重谁的意见呢？谁的意见来决定这个研究到底值不值得呢？原因又是什么呢？
因此你可以把自己放在其中的一个阵营里。先让步，说其他两方观点，然后说自己的观点。比如你是站在公众这一方说的，你可以说企业考虑利益、科学家考虑自己的学术地位，但是应该把社会效益放在首位来评判一个研究到底值不值得，原因有哪些等等。
以上是我的意见，可以考虑

追梦小木耳UID：2781857

"The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much about a society's ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."

Word 567

As society is turning more complicated, people tend to hide their true attitudes rather than express the thoughts through appearance and behavior. Therefore, it seems presumptuous to define a society’s ideas and values by simply observing people’s appearance and behavior.

When identify a person, we could hardly learn his character through the way he looks, dresses or even how he behaves, which, in fact could only reveal his living habits, but not his interests and attitudes. On most conditions, people’s appearance and behavior depend on their occupations other than their tastes. For instance, solders are required to be wearing uniforms and well disciplined. Only Judging from their appearance without any communication can we hardly tell each individual’s attitudes and characteristics. Perhaps, some of them only behave exceptionally brave and strict in militaries. But once meet difficulties in real life, they are not even as strong as common persons. Another forceful example is the politicians, who always be wearing and behaving formally not at wills. It is also known that in most of their persuasive lectures, they are speaking for their parties or groups, but not expressing themselves. As for general people, dresses and looks are determined by fashion rather than their own choices. We may see the value of a society do not change too much within five years but the main style of clothes differs entirely, which is mostly affected by designers and business.

Since in society, the way people look and act is not the reflection of their characters and attitudes, it could not reveal the ideas and values as well. Actually, the behavior of a certain group of people is determined by tradition, even though the group does not follow traditional ideas any more. We may cite an obvious example of Chinese people’s attitude toward modesty. Traditional conceptions viewed modesty valuable, which tended to prevent the junior expressing their new and challenging ideas in attempt to show respect to the senior. Although, Chinese are still behaving modestly in modern society, it only remains to be a way of politeness. On the opposite, the expression of one’s idea bravely is thoroughly appreciated and encouraged in Chinese society. We can not conclude from the polite and modest way in which Chinese people behave that they praise modesty as traditional view. In many nations, people follow traditions as ways they dress and act, but traditional values are disappearing, which would not be observed from those customs. Hence, people’s appearance and behavior do not show the ideas and values of a society.

In order to identify a society, to ascertain its values and ideas, one must consider the overall circumstances and elements. The key component of education shows the crucial value that people want to impart to the next generations; Modern arts reflect common people’s attitudes toward contemporary times; Articles published reveal the concerns of entire society; Novels and Movies indicate the idea about reality and desire for future. Without including all these factors but only focus on people’s appearance and behavior, one can only acknowledge the superficial feature of a society but will never arrive at the deep value.

To sum up, as we can not truly know a person only from his looks and acts, we can never discover the value of a society through merely the observation of people’s appearance and behavior. To better describe a society, various conditions and elements need taking into consideration.

sucre1990UID：2619918

35# 追梦小木耳"The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much about a society's ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."

Word 567

As society is turning more complicated, people tend to hide their true attitudes rather than express the thoughts through appearance and behavior. Therefore, it seems presumptuous to define a society’s ideas and values by simply observing people’s appearance and behavior.

When identify a person, we could hardly learn his character through the way he looks, dresses or even how he behaves, which, in fact ,could only reveal his living habits, but not his interests and attitudes. On most conditions, people’s appearance and behavior depend on their occupations other than their tastes. (两句是否有点重复 或者说有点矛盾 能否合并观点)For instance, solders（笔误？） are required to be wearing uniforms and well disciplined. Only Judging from their appearance without any communication can we hardly tell each individual’s attitudes and characteristics（character）. Perhaps, some of them only behave exceptionally brave and strict in militaries. But once （缺少主语）meet difficulties in real life, they are not even as strong as common persons（是否people会更好？）. Another forceful example is the politicians, who always be（are always） wearing and behaving formally not at wills. It is also known that in most of their persuasive lectures, they are speaking for their parties or groups, but（改成and？） not expressing themselves. As for general people, dresses and looks are determined by fashion rather than their own choices. We may see the value of a society do not change too much within five years but the main style of clothes differs entirely, which is mostly affected by designers and business.（改为We may see the value of a society do not change too much within five years but the main style of clothes which is mostly affected by designers and business differs entirely.先行词问题）

Since in society, the way people look and act is not the reflection of their characters and attitudes, it could not reveal the ideas and values as well. Actually, the behavior of a certain group of people is determined by tradition, even though the group does not follow traditional ideas any more. We may cite an obvious example of Chinese people’s attitude toward modesty. Traditional conceptions viewed modesty valuable, which tended to prevent the junior expressing their new and challenging ideas in attempt to show respect to the senior. Although, Chinese are still behaving modestly in modern society, it only remains to be a way of politeness. On the opposite, the expression of one’s idea bravely is thoroughly appreciated and encouraged in Chinese society. We can not conclude from the polite and modest way in which Chinese people behave that they praise modesty as traditional view. In many nations, people follow traditions as ways they dress and act, but traditional values are disappearing, which would（时态） not be observed from those customs. Hence, people’s appearance and behavior do not show the ideas and values of a society.（第三段的论证出现了点错误在文章末会提到）

In order to identify a society, to ascertain its values and ideas, one must consider the overall circumstances and elements. The key component of education shows the crucial value that people want to impart to the next generations; Modern arts reflect common people’s attitudes toward contemporary times; Articles published reveal the concerns of entire society; Novels and Movies indicate the idea about reality and desire for future. Without including all these factors but only focus on people’s appearance and behavior, one can only acknowledge the superficial feature of a society but will never arrive at the deep value.

To sum up, as we can not truly know a person only from his looks and acts, we can never discover the value of a society through merely the observation of people’s appearance and behavior. To better describe a society, various conditions and elements need taking（to be taken？） into consideration.
文章中的例子蛮有说服力的 字数也不错 语言方面除了时态错误和拼写应该问题不大
但论证方面我觉得有点思路不清（下面我说我的看法）
文章从头开始看到第三段的论证我觉得都可以，但到了第三段我觉得有问题了。文章的中心思想是说不能从人们的衣着和行为来判断一个人的性格和想法，所以不能根据人们的穿着和行为来判定社会的价值取向，如果需要了解社会的价值取向需要综合考虑。从你的第二段也就是论证的第一段来看你是在论证人们的衣着不能反映人们的性格和想法，如果按照常规你需要论证人们的行为也不能反映人们的内心。但从第三段开始你就来了个总结我觉得很突兀，觉得你想光从人们的外表不能反映内心来直接反驳不能反映社会，但明显你后面的内容表明你没有忘掉行为，这里是否可以把这一句放在和行为不能反映人们的内心一起反驳不能反映社会的价值取向？（还有这里反驳的不是太充分，你只是说外表和行为不能反映人内心，就由此反驳不能反映社会的价值取向，是否可以假设人们的衣着和行为确实反映出人的内心，但社会的取向还是不能光从人们的外表和行为上来看出，我想这样会更严密）注：括号里的只是个人观点。
怎么颜色没了 把邮箱告诉我我发word给你

sucre1990UID：2619918

Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student.

If we claim something to be effective, we always not only mean it works but also want it to cost less or relatively less. If under this definition the education which is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student may be good but definitely not effective in the view of the result.

The process of education is to offer the basic knowledge for people and guide them to have an good value of the world and themselves, then they can lead their own life and develop their career in a meaningful direction based on their own special talent. When education is on the basic level--the primary knowledge level--it is not necessary for educator to design specific plan for every individual. Basic knowledge is the instinctive tool, it is basically the same. To this point the most effective way is surely to be taught together. Some opponents may declaim it can be taught separately. And to this view I concede that it can happen, but it cost unnecessarily which could have spent on more effective things.

Move to the high level of education which is the most essential part of it, developing individual's own value about the world and outlook on life. It may seem to be very reasonable to meet every single one's interest and design plan for each one, but in fact it is not as sound as it seems like. The world view and the philosophy are cultivated during one's childhood and all his or her teenage time .If one is always "being taken care of" through his or her education, he or she may have a wrong belief that the world is all for him or her. It is obvious not a good symbol for his or her future career. Besides we should back to ground. Do we do have the ability to accomplish the huge work to specifically design to meet the individual needs and interests of each student?

Back to the one that receive the education. Special care is always harmful for them. During childhood the one who is different from others is always isolated. If this situation continues, the spirit of cooperation which is very important in modern society must disappear from his or her character.

Human beings are always concern about the education problems for its unique role in society development. And how to make our education system effective is a hot topic all the time. To argue about this we must keep the basic function of education in mind that education is to help people to be a better a person. Create a good circumstance and help them to develop their own potential instead of designing plan for individual.

beanie加油UID：2843548

跟贴占37楼
额。看完你这篇文章后首先让人感觉像一片说明文，而不是一篇议论性的文章。整篇文章感觉在围绕education如何应该effective来展开。首段说明effective是如何如何。。紧接着正文一段和二段在围绕着education的不同level来说明不同的effective way..这些跟issue对文章的要求差得有些远。其实issue跟咱们高考的文章差不多。一篇文章第一段两观点，正文解释观点，支持or 反对，正or负，而不是解释题目中的某个词。。这篇文章你可这样考虑（自己观点，仅供参考）
the speaker claims that education…., which is certainly the case. Given that the students are the major benefical of the education, professional educators should focus more on what they are actually interested in rather than arrange their courses in general. However, a general educational standard to the entire students is required for it strenghtens the education to be more effective.

First, it is quite likely that students can stimulate their learning ability when comes to their interested subjects……
however, individual needs and interests sometimes can not keep the pace with the current socal needs.学生的兴趣有时候不是社会所需的，一味纵容学生会让他们在未来遇到更多的挫折。同时很对学生对自己的interest and needs没有很明确的理解，错误的designed education反而会耽误他们。Also, the schools can not provide enough facilities and courese to meet each student’ preference.

So in order to equip students with more useful knowledge, professional educators should require all the students to take the same genral courses.
因为教育者最了解学生，因为教育者有很专业的教育背景，因为这样方便学生在今后的further education中更受益等等。解释好处2到3段。最后结尾。
这样会比你那样更符合issue对文章的要求，个人感觉。继续加油！

beanie加油UID：2843548

跟自己的文章，望猛批
133. Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.
     Many people assume that “seeing is believing” without questioning whether the ways they have organized their perceptions are accurate. But is there more to seeing than meets the eye? To view and interpret reality, do we perceive in ways that may produce a biased distortion? Students of perceptual psychology think so. They maintain that seeing is not a strictly passive act: what we observe is partially influenced by our preexisting values and expectations. So when putting the seeing in the study, students call for a certain skepticism to whatever they acknowledge even though it turns out to be wrong. It is the process instead of the result that they are beneficial from.
     In the first place, holding skepticism can help students develop the critical thinking ability, which is quite significant in their study. The fact is that students are usually convinced by the great laws and principles proposed by those renowned people and accept them without raising any doubts. In their eyes, their understanding about knowledge is far behind the great people’s and therefore it is absolutely stupid to question their fruitions. This offers the best explanation for them of being inevitably the passive receiver and mechanized operator. For instance, every one has the experience when he or she was in a physics class. While the professor teaches one famous formula, students copy it on their notebooks and memorize them simultaneously. Under such a circumstance, they are like the mechanized roberts working in accordance with the instruction regardless whether the order is reasonable. Skepticism, however, provides the students with the opportunity to analyze the knowledge they learn thoroughly and try to come up with a controversial view. They are not the passive learner any longer, instead they lead their study to the direction they want to gain an understanding about. Meanwhile, they develop their critical thinking ability, which not only requires a full understanding about the knowledge, but also challenge their thinking depth and scopes.
     Secondly, students can discover the existing potential problems by skepticism. Aristotle, who put forward the geocentrism, was strongly supported by the religious group for many years. But his great thought was questioned by a brave young man whose name is Corbanie. He believed that the sun, rather than the earth is the center of the cosmos. The heliocentrism he insisted on was later proven the truth and recognized by each generation. If without his brave doubt, people at that time, or even in the following ages might be consistently input with the theory that those extreme religious groups fanatically believe. If without his embrace to the truth, this scientific theory might be covered for thousands of year and unraveled until present time. Nicolaus Copernicus’s skepticism reminds us that only the truth can stand strong with no fear of question and only the doubts can stir us to unbury the earth on the face of the truth.
     However, the ability to question is not open for all ages of people. Those young students are not equipped with skepticism. Take the elementary school students as an example. On account of their immature way of thinking and the little information accumulation, it may produce a contrary result if they are required to learn to question. They may feel discouraged when they are limited by their knowledge to raise a question and probably be down by seeing everything with a skeptical perspective. These are quite likely for them to hold a passive mind in their later life. So it will be better for them to learn to question when they reach a certain age and their information stock can meet their requirement of skepticism.
     To simply put, students should cultivate the skepticism to whatever they study. It is not a distortion and challenge to the prevailing theory, but is a kind of pursuit to the truth and a self-improvement to the study ability. Hence, we should call for the skepticism when we study rather than being the slave and the passive receiver of the preexisting information.

费话先生UID：2788924

133. Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively.
     Many people assume that “seeing is believing” without questioning whether the ways they have organized their perceptions are accurate. But is there more to seeing than meets the eye? To view and interpret reality, do we perceive in ways that may produce a biased distortion? Students of perceptual psychology think so. They maintain that seeing is not a strictly passive act: what we observe is partially influenced by our preexisting values and expectations. So when putting the seeing in the study, students call for a certain skepticism to whatever they acknowledge even though it turns out to be wrong. It is the process instead of the result that they are beneficial from.
     In the first place, holding skepticism can help students develop the critical thinking ability, which is quite significant in their study. The fact is that students are usually convinced by the great laws and principles proposed by those renowned people and accept them without raising any doubts. In their eyes, their understanding about knowledge is far behind the great people’s and therefore it is absolutely stupid to question their fruitions. This offers the best explanation for them of being inevitably the passive receiver and mechanized operator. For instance, every one has the experience when he or she was in a physics class. While the professor teaches one famous formula, students copy it on their notebooks and memorize them simultaneously. Under such a circumstance, they are like the mechanized roberts working in accordance with the instruction regardless whether the order is reasonable. Skepticism, however, provides the students with the opportunity to analyze the knowledge they learn thoroughly and try to come up with a controversial view. They are not the passive learner any longer, instead they lead their study to the direction they want to gain an understanding about. Meanwhile, they develop their critical thinking ability, which not only requires a full understanding about the knowledge, but also challenge their thinking depth and scopes.
     Secondly, students can discover the existing potential problems by skepticism. Aristotle, who put forward the geocentrism, was strongly supported by the religious group for many years. But his great thought was questioned by a brave young man whose name is Corbanie. He believed that the sun, rather than the earth is the center of the cosmos. The heliocentrism he insisted on was later proven the truth and recognized by each generation. If without his brave doubt, people at that time, or even in the following ages might be consistently input with the theory that those extreme religious groups fanatically believe. If without his embrace to the truth, this scientific theory might be covered for thousands of year and unraveled until present time. Nicolaus Copernicus’s skepticism reminds us that only the truth can stand strong with no fear of question and only the doubts can stir us to unbury the earth on the face of the truth.
     However, the ability to question is not open for all ages of people. Those young students are not equipped with skepticism. Take the elementary school students as an example. On account of their immature way of thinking and the little information accumulation, it may produce a contrary result if they are required to learn to question. They may feel discouraged when they are limited by their knowledge to raise a question and probably be down by seeing everything with a skeptical perspective. These are quite likely for them to hold a passive mind in their later life. So it will be better for them to learn to question when they reach a certain age and their information stock can meet their requirement of skepticism.
     To simply put, students should cultivate the skepticism to whatever they study. It is not a distortion and challenge to the prevailing theory, but is a kind of pursuit to the truth and a self-improvement to the study ability. Hence, we should call for the skepticism when we study rather than being the slave and the passive receiver of the preexisting information.
开头：一边倒
1、有助于批判思考的能力
2、发现潜在的问题
3、要考虑到不同的年龄层
结尾：一边倒
最让我佩服的一点就是用词，这句子造的和这词用的，真的很不错。
既然这位版友希望我着重看逻辑，那我就尽力给自己的一些愚见，鄙人认为我逻辑还是不错的。。。语言。。掩面泪奔。
我从开头读完，我还以为你要写一边倒的文章。正准备接下来看你如何酣畅淋漓地分析，结果蓦然发现最后一段搞了个让步。。。。然后结尾也是一边倒的观点。我觉得完全可以把最后一段让步删掉，要不就把开头结尾改掉。否则开头结尾没有提纲挈领和总结的意义了。

其实一边倒没什么不好，至少在这个题目中，我觉得一边倒会比较好论证。两边兼顾很容易啥结论都没得出。关键还是论证的问题。

然后第二段和第三段，我觉得观点是有重叠。其实内在原理都一样，只不过对象从学生换成学者。内在原理就是质疑现在的结论，然后推陈出新。嗯，而且每段论证太散，我把文章一句句翻成中文后发现，几乎就是emotional assertion。

第四段的让步我觉得着实多余，一则开头结尾没提，二则它和前面两段还有点矛盾，第二段都是students，不就包含了各个年龄段么，然后第四段说，其实只是部分students。如果要让步，至少得搭建另一个平台。
另外，有一个最重要的点要讨论，那就是是不是要质疑一切呢？我觉得body段没有围绕着这个进行，有偏题的嫌疑，说实在的。这个题目难写就难在这儿。要不要质疑一切呢？其实大家都知道质疑有好处，但是大家只是想知道这个度在哪儿。所以第二段和第三段建议合并为一段，并且不要太多字，大意就是质疑很好。然后接下来铺陈，要不要质疑一切，如果不要那么我们应该接受哪些东西？如果要质疑一切，那就引入质疑的定义讨论，比如质疑的定义你可以说是批判接受，不是上来就否定，是after evaluation后再。。。。
嗯，个人愚见。

费话先生UID：2788924

谢谢啦O(∩_∩)O
TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 618
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-7-14 18:00:29



The author claims that the artist rather than critic gives society something of external and universal value. Since the arts is a form for artists to provide beauty, pleasure and expressions of some private feelings, so whether a work of art such as a painting, a piece of music or a film is valuable or not relies on the talents of artists. From this point of view, I agree that artists are the most important factor to decide the value of a work of art. But it is unfair to exclude all merits of critics, since the critics also play an important though not indispensable role to help artists to give the future generation some lasting value.

The lasting value of arts can be definite as something of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of the artists. We feel it pleasure to see a great comedy like “Amelie” which removes us from the daily chaos. We also bathed ourselves in the calm beautiful paintings such as a seascape painting. Moreover, some expressions including the revelation of the then society or moral instructions, all provide us with rich sources to know what our human's have suffered or what accomplished we have achieved and inherited.


As I mention above, it is artists rather than critics that create those immortal art works full of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of their own. Without artists, any elaborate evaluation of art works is merely a castle in the air. We can ignore how New York Times appraise Spielberg’s films, but we cannot miss any chance to watch his film. Many people would agree that a great movie is far more important than the appraisement published on a certain column. Similarly, if there had no Van Gogh, there must had no “sunflower”, while if no critics in Van Gogh’s time, we still could appreciate the excellent painting. Thus, the artists can offer the society some lasting value without the participant of critic, but the critic cannot otherwise.
Moreover, it is artists not critics decide the internal value of an art work. To a large measure, how critics depreciate a certain great work will not impede us to enjoy it. For example, the titanic film, although a lot of critics have a strong opposition against it, we still burst into tears when jack saved rose in sacrifice of his own life. On the contrary, a volume of weak engravings, no matter how critics praise it，it will not provide us with entertainment or beauty. So, the artists should be most credited since they instead of critics decide the value of an art work, while what critics has said has nothing to do with the value of arts.



Although I agree that artists create the lasting value, we cannot ignore the merits of critics though they are secondarily important. First, they supplement artists to create more valuable works. Their critiques or reviews help artists to find their own defects and hence improve them afterwards. Some great critics such as Susannek Langer bring about many innovational theories on arts. Indeed, her books describing how to make criteria to determine the value of arts have regarded as beautiful literatures. Moreover, the critics still play an important role to the dissemination of arts. They guide the ordinary people to better know about the external meaning of arts. Without critics, there may be fewer people to realize the emotions embedded in Picasso’s abstract paintings.


In sum, the artists determine the value of the art works and hence carry on the precious value to us. If they are compared to a building, the critics are like the ornaments of a building. Under no circumstances would critics be posed to higher position.

奔跑的阿甘UID：2635861

TOPIC: ISSUE95 - "People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."
WORDS: 451
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/16 13:16:53

        The statement asserts that people can work more productively in teams than individually due to the fact that teamwork calls for cooperation which offers people more motivation than individual competition does. It has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar because individuals are able to boost working efficiency in teams. However, the statement is indefensible as it wrongly recommends that teamwork motivates people much more than individual competition does.
       The speaker's assertion that people work more productively in teams is quite true. a host of people constitute a team in order to achieve a collective objective, they assist and courage each other which will not appear in terms of working individually, thereby enhancing efficiency. in addition, teamwork can create a sound atomosphere which could ensure us to keep working passion and postivity for a long time. for example, an employee might cease his job at hand if he feels tired, yet whenever he finds other colleagues exert themselves in work, he is most likely to continue his job as the nice ambience impells him. nonetheless, when people work individually, he might stop his work even though he does not feel exhausted. after all, the job can be finished the next day. finally, with the development of society as well as technology, job inherently requires specialists which places higher requirements on us than before, in the meantime it is rarely for a person to be a generalist. accordingly, teamwork is the result of the development of society.
        Beyond this concession, however I disagree with the statement because it wrongly assumes that teamwork provides more motivation than individual competition. indisputably, competition is the strong motivation in any one area which can pomote the advance and progress. In the field of politics, competition can render politic democratic and transparent as well as we can select an approapriate politician who can ensure comfortable life for general populace. In the field of science and technology, competition can make scientists and researches possess long-term passion and positivity, after all, the breakthrough who make initially can acquire knowledge right and patent. In the field of business, competition will impell producers to enhance the quality of products and reduce operating costs through technologic innovation. it can also ensure comsumers obtain high-quality goods and services at low price. As for teamwork, the colleagues might depend on each other resulting in less motivation.
       In sum, I concede that people can have higher effeciency when it comes to working together since teamwork can provide a sound working atomosphere which could ensure employees possess working passion and positivity, in the meantime colleagues can help each other. however, individual competition can motivate people more effeciently. competition is the rout cause of development and progress.

奔跑的阿甘UID：2635861

The author claims that the artist rather than critic gives society something of external and universal value, since the arts is a form for artists to provide beauty, pleasure and expressions of some private feelings. so(删除） whether a work of art such as a painting, a piece of music or a film is valuable or not relies on the talents of artists. From this point of view, I agree that artists are the most important factor to decide the value of a work of art. But it is unfair to exclude all merits of critics, since the critics also play an important though not indispensable role to help (in helping) 是不是这样表达会好些？ artists to give the future generation some lasting value.

The lasting value of arts can be definite as (similar to ) something of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of the artists. We feel it （删除）pleasure to see a great comedy like “Amelia” which removes us from the daily chaos（removes our daily chaos). We also bathed ourselves in the calm beautiful paintings such as a seascape painting. Moreover, some expressions including the revelation of the then(删除） society or moral instructions, all provide us with rich sources to know what our human's(删除） have suffered or what accomplishments we have achieved and inherited.

As I mentioned above, it is artists rather than critics that create those immortal art works full of beauty, pleasure and some expressions of their own. Without artists, any elaborate evaluation of art works is merely a castle in the air. We can ignore how New York Times appraise Spielberg’s films, but we cannot miss any chance to watch his film. Many people would agree that a great movie is far more important than the appraisement published on a certain column. Similarly, if there had no Van Gogh, there must had no “sunflower”, while if no critics in Van Gogh’s time, we still could appreciate the excellent painting. Thus, the artists can offer the society some lasting value without the participation of critic, but the critic cannot otherwise.
Moreover, it is artists not critics decide the internal value of an art work. To a large measure, how critics depreciate a certain great work will not impede us to enjoy it. For example, the titanic film, although a lot of critics have a strong opposition against it, we still burst into tears when jack saved rose in sacrifice of his own life. On the contrary, a volume of weak engravings, no matter how critics praise it，it will not provide us with entertainment or beauty. So, the artists should be most credited since they instead of critics decide the value of an art work, while what critics has said has nothing to do with the value of arts.
Although I agree that artists create the lasting value, we cannot ignore the merits of critics though they are secondarily important (in a subordinate role). First, they supplement (有歧义，补充作者创造更有价值的作品？) artists to create more valuable works. Their critiques or reviews help artists to find their own defects and hence improve them afterwards. Some great critics such as Susanne Langer bring about many innovational theories on arts. Indeed, her books describing how to make criteria to determine the value of arts have regarded as beautiful literatures. Moreover, the critics still play an important role to/in the dissemination of arts. They guide the ordinary people to better know about the external meaning of arts. Without critics, there may be fewer people to realize the emotions embedded in Picasso’s abstract paintings.

In sum, the artists determine the value of the art works and hence carry on the precious value to us. If they are compared to a building, the critics are like the ornaments of a building. Under no circumstances would critics be posed to higher position.

tyarelUID：2756223

TOPIC: ISSUE95 - "People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."
WORDS: 451
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/16 13:16:53
        The statement asserts that people can work more productively in teams than individually due to the fact that teamwork calls for cooperation which offers people more motivation than individual competition does. It has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar (这里这个用法有点疑问，insofar一般不是和as连用么？) because individuals are able to boost working efficiency in teams. However, the statement is indefensible as it wrongly recommends that teamwork motivates people much more than individual competition does.
       The speaker's assertion that people work more productively in teams is quite true. a host of people constitute a team in order to achieve a collective objective, they assist and courage each other which will not appear in terms of working individually, thereby enhancing efficiency.(句子语法有点问题，要么拆成2句句子要么用连词连接，逗号是不能分隔2句话的) in addition, teamwork can create a sound atomosphere which could ensure us(前一句用的是they这里怎么又变成us了？细节也要注意，不然会给你逻辑紊乱的印象) to keep working passion and postivity for a long time. for example, an employee might cease his job at hand if he feels tired, yet whenever(when?) he finds other colleagues exert themselves in work, he is most likely to continue his job as the nice ambience impells him. nonetheless, when people work individually, he might stop his work even though he does not feel exhausted.(重复了，前面已经表达过这个意思了) after all, the job can be finished the next day. finally, with the development of society as well as technology, (前后都没有讲到technology，没有必要加这么一个)job inherently requires specialists which places higher requirements on us than before, in the meantime it is rarely for a person to be a generalist. accordingly, teamwork is the result of the development of society.
        Beyond this concession, however I disagree with the statement because it wrongly assumes that teamwork provides more motivation than individual competition. indisputably, competition is the strong motivation in any one area which can pomote the advance and progress. In the field of politics, competition can render politic democratic and transparent as well as we can select an approapriate politician who can ensure comfortable life for general populace. In the field of science and technology, competition can make scientists and researches possess long-term passion and positivity, after all, the breakthrough who make(makes) initially can acquire knowledge right and patent. In the field of business, competition will impell producers to enhance the quality of products and reduce operating costs through technologic innovation. it can also ensure comsumers　(to) obtain high-quality goods and services at low price. As for teamwork, the colleagues might depend on each other resulting in less motivation.
       In sum, I concede that people can have higher effeciency when it comes to working together since teamwork can provide a sound working atomosphere which could ensure employees possess working passion and positivity, in the meantime colleagues can help each other. however, individual competition can motivate people more effeciently. competition is the rout cause of development and progress.
全文看完提点看法。文章思路还是蛮清楚的，结构也很有条理。内容也挺饱满的。不过我觉得，因为只有2段论述，再加上论点其实是偏反驳的，那么在2段的详略上就需要有所安排。粗略看下，2段差不多长，甚至感觉第一段的让步在给出较为具体的例子以后显得更详实，反倒使得结构和文章思路有所矛盾了。建议其实可以让步略写，competition的部分写得再详细些，这样从结构上也能明确你是先让步再反驳，关键在反驳。或者其实可以考虑再加一段，对于让步是不是还可以再做下反驳？因为现在给人感觉让步纯粹就是为了让步，没有和后面主要的观点联系起来，如果可以对让步内容从另一个角度进行反驳一下，那么是不是就让你的论点显得更有说服力了呢？
还有就是既然论点是competition motivate people more efficiently more.那么是不是应该在第三段的反驳中对competition和cooperation进行下比较来体现这个more呢？这一点上做的好像还不够
红色标出来的是拼写错误，可以回word里再检查一下～
个人建议，希望有用。

tyarelUID：2756223

40. "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."
我们不应该仅仅关注学者和研究者的著作能否对社会做出贡献。更重要的是关注他们如何追求实现自己的兴趣，无论那些兴趣显得是多么的非同寻常。

不赞同。
1).必须承认，科研成果并不是研究的一切。即使没有成果，科学家也是值得人们敬佩的。
2).科学研究的本质目的就在于研究出来的结果为社会做出贡献。
3).科学研究本身要占用很多社会的资源，对社会不做出贡献的研究其实就是一种对于社会资源的浪费。

Nowadays, it seems to be accepted generally that the public should try to focus more on scientists’ pursuit of their research rather than the results.  However, it is not that wise in my opinion. Admittedly, how these scholars accomplish their research is quite important, but what is the matter is whether their work contribute to our society actually since that is the true target of scientific research and the all these researchers' responsibility.
The result should not be the only criterion to the research, at first. The results appearing to be useless and unfeasible right now are uncertain to be useless forever. It is, in fact, totally possible that those theories will be applied to improve both the development of scientific fields and of the quality of people’s lives in the future. Take Leonardo Da Vinci as an example, he is not only a prominent painter but also an outstanding scientist and clearly not all of his work is useful in his era. However, the majority of his seemingly worthless work is proved to be great and can be applied in daily life now, from bicycle to helicopter. It is the limit of manufacturing technology that attributes to the uselessness of these works. So why should we belittle the research that cannot contribute to the larger society right now yet? And at the same time, the progress also shows scientists' diligence and eagerness which should be respected by the public no matter which field they choose and whether effect of their work to society at once. Madame Curie died of staying with radial materials too long and Stephen Hawking insists his work even though he cannot talk or walk like an average man. Through their research progress, not the results, we still can find their eagerness and persistent to the truth. That's why it is my firm belief that even if excluding their research results, all the scientists dedicating to their research deserve our appreciation.
However, the reasons mentioned above don't imply that I think research results should be concerned less with. Indeed, result is still the core of research and the foremost factor leading to my opinion that it is contributing to the society, not anything else like interest, that is the true target of scientific research. For instance, what so many physicists work for? Maybe you will think it's the interest or thirst for knowledge. But the essence of these is the willingness to explore and exploit our world. And that is the contribution of their work.
What's more, another contributor to my attitude is that the researchers are responsible to the society and thus their work should be used to support our society. Unlike other jobs, scientists cannot work on their own. Lacking materials, equipment or money destroys their painstaking effort easily. So sponsorship from institute or corporations is necessary and essential to them. In the applied mechanic institute where I study, the equipment decisive to the experiment are all donated by the government or those firms sponsoring our college and obviously each one of them is unaffordable to researchers themselves without sponsorship. Therefore, it is effortlessly to image the reactions of the public if they find that their money is just used to gratify researchers' interest and will bring nothing to themselves and the larger society. If results of them are not beneficial to the society, the research will be a waste of resource only.
All in all, scientists should be responsible for their research and I hold the belief that it is the real motive power to their work that is to contribute to the larger society. So that's why I prefer that the results should be cared more.


谢谢楼下G友啦～