issue20 用俞敏洪作文训练法练了一段时间，感觉效果不明显，还特费时间，还是坚持

happyman2000UID：136936

Issue 20政府为儿童所想所做应该比成人多。National governments should devote more of their social programs and services to children than to adults.

There is no doubt that in order to remain sustained prosperity of a social, the government should offer sufficient social programs and services, such as the education, to children. But it seems to go to another extreme by arguing that more social programs and services should be devoted to children rather than to adults, in that it will lead to over investments in some social infrastructures and thus serious low efficiency in public inputs, which in turn will eventually harm the benefits of children.

The principle of both equity and efficiency in government expenditures determines that governments should devote more of social programs and services to adults rather than to children. First of all, the population of adults in any society is certainly far much more than that of children. If children take too much proportion of public resources, the input for adults is necessarily going to fall into shortage. As a result, the average amount of social programs and services accessible to adults will significantly be less than that of children. Certainly it is unfair for adults.

Second, adults undertake almost all the social responsibilities and thus are more subjected to the cost incurred by all kinds of social disarrangements. Adults must be continuously caring about the rate of unemployment; they must pay for all kinds of social insurance programs; they must try their best to absorb the ever-increasing new knowledge to remain up to the date, etc.. In a word, adults are in such a social group that it must be accountable for not only the progress of the society, but also all the undesirable aftermaths of progress. Providing them with more of the social programs and services, therefore, become an absolute requirement for ensuring the sustained stability and prosperity of any society. That is why governments around the world put so many resources into professional education, unemployment compensation, and retirement pension, and so on, for adults.   

Thirdly, investment in social programs and services for adults will bring us observable benefits as opposed to that devoted to children. For example, the cost and revenue of most social programs or services for adults, such as professional education, can be clearly documented. Every input in these programs will produce relatively observable and definite benefits for the society. However, it is very difficult for us to determine whether many social programs for children are profitable and efficient. In fact, children can benefit more from playing with their fellows and from living with their parents. Too many social programs will impose over burdens upon them and maybe play an adverse role in their development. Therefore, those advocating more social programs for children, though from good-heart, have a very great possibility to be unwelcome by both parents and children themselves.

Another critical reason for more devotion of social programs and services to adults is that the welfare of adults has a great relevance to the future of children. Except for the orphans, the majority of children is brought up by their parent, and their growing is greatly affected by their parents’ educational background, living level, social standing, and many something else. To some extent, the social programs for adults can bring children benefits indirectly in that the improvement on the state of adults’ existence led to by these programs eventually conduces to a healthy growing of children. Many sociologists have pointed out that children are particularly susceptible to their family disarrangement, such as divorce and violence. When these unfortunate things take place actually, even much more programs for children cannot make a difference. Therefore, to benefit children, what is the critical for governments in many cases is to do something for adults rather than for children.

In conclusion, though the appeal for more social programs for children is perhaps out of a good-heart, it does virtually ignore that children’s problems in nature are primarily caused by social and thus family disarrangement. More of social programs should be devoted to adults because not only the society as a whole but children themselves can benefit from it.

augerUID：6588

老愈的方法？什么啊？

happyman2000UID：136936

就是先看一遍英文范文，然后看中文译文，并在不看原文的情况下把译文再翻译成英文。最后，把自己的翻译与英文原文对照找差距。

希望大家看看我的作文! 怎么我最近的几篇作文都没人看？我帮别人改得可不少啊！

feier521UID：109747

呵呵，happyman好久不见了，原来偷偷去练神功了！我帮你看看！

There is no doubt that in order to remain sustained prosperity of a social, the government should offer sufficient social programs and services, such as the education, to children. But it seems to go to another extreme by arguing that more social programs and services should be devoted to children rather than to adults, in that it will lead to over investments in some social infrastructures and thus serious low efficiency in public inputs, which in turn will eventually harm the benefits of children.

The principle of both equity and efficiency in government expenditures determines that governments should devote more of social programs and services to adults rather than to children. First of all, the population of adults in any society is certainly far much more than that of children. If children take too much proportion of public resources, the input for adults is necessarily going to fall into shortage. As a result, the average amount(修饰可数用number) of social programs and services accessible to adults will significantly be less than that of children. Certainly it is unfair for adults.

Second（ly）, adults undertake almost all the social responsibilities and thus are more subjected to the cost incurred by all kinds of social disarrangements. Adults must be continuously caring about the rate of unemployment; they must pay for all kinds of social insurance programs; they must try their best to absorb the ever-increasing new knowledge to remain up to （the） date, etc.. In a word, adults are （in） such a social group that it must be accountable for not only the progress of the society, but also all the undesirable aftermaths of progress. Providing them with more of the social programs and services, therefore, become(s) an absolute requirement for ensuring the sustained stability and prosperity of any society. That is why governments around the world put so many resources into professional education, unemployment compensation, and retirement pension(呵呵，养老金是给adults 的？), and so on, for adults.

Thirdly, investment in social programs and services for adults will bring us observable benefits as opposed to that devoted to children. For example, the cost and revenue of most social programs or services for adults, such as professional education, can be clearly documented. Every input in these programs will produce relatively observable and definite benefits for the society. However, it is very difficult for us to determine whether many social programs for children are profitable and efficient. In fact, children can benefit more from playing with their fellows and from living with their parents. Too many social programs will impose over burdens upon them and maybe play an adverse role in their development. Therefore, those advocating more social programs for children, though （from） good-heart（ed）, have a very great possibility to be unwelcome by both parents and children themselves.

Another critical reason for more devotion of social programs and services to adults is that the welfare of adults has a great relevance to the future of children. Except for the orphans, the majority of children is（are） brought up by their parent（s）, and their growing is greatly affected by their parents’ educational background, living level, social standing, and many something else. To some extent, the social programs for adults can bring children benefits indirectly in that the improvement on the state of adults’ existence led to（led OR produced） by these programs eventually conduces to a healthy growing of children. Many sociologists have pointed out that children are particularly susceptible to their family disarrangement, such as divorce and violence. When these unfortunate things take place actually, even much more programs for children cannot make a difference. Therefore, to benefit children, what is （the） critical for governments in many cases is to do something for adults rather than for children.

In conclusion, though the appeal for more social programs for children is perhaps out of a good-heart（good-heartedness）, it does virtually ignore that children’s problems in nature are primarily caused by social and thus(不如去掉thus) family disarrangement. More of social programs should be devoted to adults because not only the society as a whole but children themselves can benefit from it（them）.

厉害！四个理由！以后写这题有思路了！

feier521UID：109747

你的范文来自那里？嘉文？效果怎么样？
作文水平越来越好！向你学习！

happyman2000UID：136936

对，是嘉文。练了不到十篇，感觉在遣词造句方面有些启发。但是，老俞的方法实在是太费时间了，我承担不起。

另外，嘉文的范文虽然在语言方面值得我们模仿，但作者可能没有仔细的思考哪些问题，文章结构混乱，毫无思想性可言，车轱辘话，滚来滚去。实在不想模仿这种文章。

哪里可以找到更好的范文（带准确的中文译文）？ 少量模仿一些还是可以的！