新概念小组组员作文练习

GodZUID：3018936

1 Educational institutions have aresponsibility to dissuade students from
pursuing fields of study in whichthey are unlikely to succeed.

Write a response in which youdiscuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the claim. Indeveloping and supporting your position, be
sure to address the most compellingreasons and/or examples that could
be used to challenge your position.

The statement above asserts thatthe educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields ofstudy in which they are unlikely to succeed. It might be tempting to agree withthe statement on the basis that every student should decide his field of studybased on the probability of success. However, this statement offers anautocratic attitude of education, which prevent students from pursuing thefields they might have lots of interests just for the arbitraryreason:"You are unlikely to succeed in this field."


First of all, it's irresponsiblefor educational institutions to decide one students field just by theirassertion, which could be possibly wrong. A person's potential under somepositive stimulations could be always underestimated. Besides, there is noauthority who can give a conclusion of one student's future in some field, letalone some educational institutions. Some might argue that the educationinstitutions could prevent some students who are obviously not fit for thefield. However, many great successes were achieved by the people who werejudged not fit before. Churchill, one of the greatest politician and orator inhuman history, was regarded to have no way to success in speech for his stammeras a boy. But now we could see how the judgment is ridiculous. The purpose ofeducational institutions is to guide students to the fields they like, to bringknowledge in sights and to solve the problems coming from the students, not tojudge whether a students is likely to succeed or not.

Compared to the probability tosuccess, the interests and eagerness , are more important factors for studentsto decide the fields of study. In the educational institute's idea, the word"succeed" means that the students might achieve some fame or wealthin this field because fitness of the character. However, if the students don'thave any interests or eagerness in this chosen field, how could he fully beinvolved in this field, how could he achieved the big success as theeducational institution's imagination. Maybe it is not suitable for the studentsto choose this field right now, but if he is really interested in this area, heis likely to succeed some day.

However, I agree that theeducational institutions have a responsibility to help the students get a widesight in all the fields of study, as well as offer some useful advice. Onecould only make the right decision for his study field after he got a distinctoverview of all the fields. Students should be encouraged to try some studyfields with the advice and guide offered by the educational institutions. Or heor she might waste lots of time and energy . However, as stated above, it isnever a responsibility of the educational institution to dissuade students frompursuing fields of study.

Driven by interests, even thoughthe students might not be suited to the field he has chosen, the students willmuch happier than the students who are judged "very likely to succeed inthe field" , but with no interests. Thus, the probability to achievesuccess might be higher as well.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Governments should offer a freeuniversity education to any student who
has been admitted to a universitybut who cannot afford the tuition.

Write a response in which youdiscuss your views on the policy and
explain your reasoning for theposition you take. In developing and
supporting your position, youshould consider the possible consequences
of implementing the policy andexplain how these consequences shape
your position.

The statement asserts thatgovernments should offer a free university education to any students who hasbeen admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.
It sounds logical that thisstatement on government's policy upon education is humane, and it will helpslots of students from the expensive tuition. Yet, at the same time, we shouldalso consider the governments financial burden, otherwise it will be toorigorous to let governments pay all the bills.

When a student has been admittedto a university, it is too pathetic for him to miss this opportunity touniversity. As we all know, university education is essential for a student toform his concepts of values, success and life.
During university education, one may also find out his study interests,and will get lots of technical practice and skills which are very valuable forhis careers. Moreover, university education might enable a students find histalent in some subjects and the university is just a beginning ofthe research journey. Not only the student, but also the government would benefit from this investment a lot.However, if the gate of university is closed for the students not for thereason of the student's quality, but because the problem of tuition, thestudent's life might totally be discounted, the government would also have agreat loss compared to this tuition.

However, paying for a student'stuition should not be a responsibility of governments. Admittedly, education isso essential to the development of the country, even in the whole world, andeducation could be never paid too much attention. But, we should consider thegovernment's financial burden at the same time. Ifgovernment offer a free university education to any student who has beenadmitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition, there would belarge mount of additional financial expenditure of the government. As we know,there are always many certain objectives, such as public health and safety, areso essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government hasa duty to ensure them to be dealt with well. So an accidentally increased large amountof financial expenditure will pose a intractable problem of the government aswell as the society.

Secondly, there are already manyways in coping with the students tuition burden. Many universities have setmany kinds of scholarship for the qualified students, as well as privateindividuals and businesses. Besides, the students could also do many kinds ofpart-time jobs or intern to help themselves, which will also make them strongerin character. So the reality is not that the admitted students who cannotafford the tuition have no accesses into the campus except for the government'said. If such kind of scholarship is still not sufficient, maybe some other kindof stimulating bonus could be set to make the students qualifiedless stressed ,which will benefit both the students and the universities. Ifany students who are admitted but cannot afford the tuition is paid by thegovernment, another big problem might emerge that they will be quite at ease.This problem could also be prevented by such kind of stimulating bonus, whichalways reward the excellent students.

In the final analysis,governments should not offer a free university education to anystudents admitted but cannot afford the tuition. Not only for the government'sfinancial burden, but also in consideration of students. The willing is good,but it's still a idealistic advice, as stated above.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Formal education tends torestrain our minds and spirits rather than set
them free.

Write a response in which youdiscuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the statement andexplain your reasoning for the position
you take. In developing andsupporting your position, you should consider
ways in which the statement mightor might not hold true and explain how
these considerations shape yourposition.

I fundamentally agree with the statement that formaleducation tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather set them free.
The main reason is that in form education,students are always been told what is right or wrong, regardless of therelativity of right over wrong. While, the reason why right or wrong happens ismuch more important than right or wrong themselves.

The main purpose of formal education is to teach thestudents some kind of knowledge.
Duringour formal education, the most important thing is not how the knowledge are formed and the exactness of the knowledge, butwhether you have understand it and whether you can remember the knowledge. Andto test if we have reach this kind of purpose of formal education, examinationsare provided. Students have not passed the examinations are consideredunqualified for the class. It's logical for the educational institutions toteach knowledge and test the students, while in my view, the most essentialthing in education is not the knowledge itself, but how the knowledge has formed.

Moreover, overemphasizing the knowledge without doubting if the knowlege will go wrongunder some circumstance or if there are some logical mistakes in it willcertainly restrain our minds and spirits. From the human history, we could seethat there are many kind of knowledge that were validfied once mightfall wrong some time when the cognition of human improves. For example, theHeliocentric was consider undoubtly right once, and people were told this"reality" once and again that almost no one dare to doubt thisauthority until Copernicus. Many people' s minds
were so restrained that even then, they wouldnot believe his theory.

Besides this, the lack of discussion classes will alsoconstrained the students' minds and spirits. In many research field, such associal sciences, compared to the formal education that teacher teaches, students listen, the discussion classes might be moreeffective and be more open to the minds. Students are required to get theability to think critically and logically on some policies or some kind ofphenomenon in society rather than just obtaining some kind of conclusion. Thiswill enable us to set our minds and spirits free rather than keeping in mindonly some knowledge.

Last but most important, the reason why formaleducation tends to restrain our minds and spirits is that through formaleducation, our view is restrained. Compared to tedious teaching, the richexperiment in actual manufacture and the most part of the complex society ismore impressive. The rapid speed of development of society and technologyrequires students to be more free in mind and thinking, which we can't get fromthe formal education.

In the final analysis, formal education tends to restrainour minds and spirits rather than set them free, especially in the modern world. To open our mind, we need not only theknowledge, but also the critically thinking ability and other ways to applyingthem.

GodZUID：3018936

1 Claim: Governments mustensure that their major cities receive the
financial support they need inorder to thrive.

Reason: It is primarily incities that a nation's cultural traditions are
preserved and generated.

Write a response in which youdiscuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the claim andthe reason on which that claim is based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim suggests thatgovernment must provide their major cities financial support they need in orderto thrive, because that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved andgenerated primarily in cities. There is doubt that the major cities of acountry should be paid more attention and be supported in financial, however,it doesn't seem quite rational to connect the suggestion and the reason. Thereasons why I think there are no direct causal relationships between thesuggestion on city financial support and cultural traditions are threefold asfollows.

First of all, providing financialsupport for the cultural traditions is not a responsibility of the government.
Compared to subsidizing culturaltradition, there are lots of much more essential objectives for the governmentto care and devote to make the citizen life better, such as the public healthand social security. However, culture is never one of the projects that must besolved and provide enough financial support. The government's financialexpenditure is so limited that if large amount of money are spent in city'scultural traditions, some essential part would be causally paid less, whichwould lead to lots of expected social problems.

Secondly, it's true thatcultural traditions are very important to people's life, they have played avery important role in human's entertainment and culture. Imagine how tediousit would be if there is not any form of art or cultural activities!
However, it's the people, not the governmentwho decides the development of cultural traditions. From the human history, wecan see that most nation's cultural traditions are developed through centuries,based on people life and culture, not on the financial support of thegovernment. Without any financial support, the cultural traditions would growand develop as well, because they are just indivisible parts of human lives.Even in some extremely poor areas in one country, there are also some kinds ofcultural traditions.

Finally, but perhaps mostimportantly, there are not sufficient reasons to assert that it is cities whichprimarily preserve and generate a nation's cultural traditions. Does this soundlogical that a nation's cultural traditions only emerge in large cities?
Samba is one of the most famous culturaltraditions in the world. However, not only in major cities, such as Rio, doesthe people enjoy Samba, but also all the nationals in Brazil, from thepresident to the poor children living in the gutter. The real spirit of Sambalies in all the citizens of Brazil, not only in the major cities. BesidesSamba, many kinds of cultural traditions are generated not in the major city,for example, the Duan Wu festival, which is generated to commemorate a greatpatriotic poet and this cultural traditions are preserved by people all overchina. As a result, it is not appropriate to affirm that cities primarilypreserve and generate a nation's cultural traditions.

A nation's cultural traditionsdeserve attention and preserving carefully, but this could not be the reason tosay they are generated and preserved primarily in cities, and the claim thatgovernments should provide financial support for major cities for thisunreasonable cause is not rational as well.




--------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Some people believe thatgovernment funding of the arts is necessary to
ensure that the arts canflourish and be available to all people. Others
believe that governmentfunding of the arts threatens the integrity of the
arts.

Write a response in which youdiscuss which view more closely aligns with
your own position and explainyour reasoning for the position you take. In
developing and supporting yourposition, you should address both of the
views presented.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Is government fundingnecessary? I agree with this viewpoint that government funding could be helpfulto make arts thrive and be available to all people, while the argument that thegovernment funding of arts would threaten the integrity of the arts does alsomake sense. However, the integrity problem of arts depends on the kind ofgovernment funding, and in some form of government funding, the integrityproblem is totally avoidable.

Government funding has playedan important role in making art flourish and available to all people inhistory. Arts, as a way to transfer the ideas and spirits of the artists, playsan essential role in culture and life. Without arts, the fantastic paintings ofDa vinci, the touching symphony of Beethoven, the magnificent sculpture ofMichelangelo would not exist, which would deprive colors from the world.However, the process of accomplishing the impressive arts is so tough that onecannot imagine. So the funding for art is essential to make art flourish. Forexample. Michelangelo were funded by the Florence government duringrenaissance, and many of his great works are accomplished then. Actually thereason why arts could thrive is due to funding for arts from the government aswell as many native nobles. There is no doubt that funding for art contributesto the thrivingness of arts. Besides, government funding will be helpful forthe arts to be available to all people. Through inviting many great musician togive an impressive performance, or building up some art museums, many peoplecould have an access of the arts.

While at the same time, theconcern that the government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of artsis not unreasonable as well. Real art should be honest, should reflect the realspirits and thoughts of the artists. The government funding might have somedirectional guidance, which may have an influence on arts. Also, takeMichelagelo as an examplethat works funded by the government are mostly themed by religion, which mightnot the purpose of him. Art itself should be separated from politics distinctively.

However, not all kinds ofgovernment funding of the arts would threaten the integrity of the arts. Manyforms of providing facilities, such as art museums, or funding without anypolitical purpose won't have a bad influence on the integrity of the arts. Suchkind of funding will not intervene the artist's mind and idea, and will benecessary to ensure the arts can flourish and be available to all people.

In summary, government fundingis essential to make art flourish and available to all people, and it is preferred to only provide the financial support not the intervention in thecreation of the art, avoiding to threaten the integrity of arts.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Governments should focus onsolving the immediate problems of today
rather than on trying to solvethe anticipated problems of the future.

Write a response in which youdiscuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with therecommendation and explain your reasoning for the
position you take. Indeveloping and supporting your position, describe
specific circumstances inwhich adopting the recommendation would or
would not be advantageous andexplain how these examples shape your
position.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one is more importantfor the government, the immediate problem of today or the anticipated problemof the future? I fundamentally agree with the statement that the governmentshould focus on solving the immediate problems of today. Just like the diseasesin human body, we must try to cure the diseases that have already happened, aswell as have a physical examination every once in a while.

The current problem should beconsidered firstly. If the problem that has already emerged not been paidenough attention, many other relative problems would come along, and the originproblem itself might be growing into a huge one that could be more difficult tosolve. In society, there might always be all kinds of current problems to besolved, such as society security, employment. At the same time, anticipatedproblems may be although very important to society, its priority might not bein the first place. Moreover, the ability and energy of government is limited,if governments focus on solving the anticipated problem rather than theimmediate problem, many people would suffering from the current problem. Takethe Soviet Union as an example, in the 1980s, most of the people in SovietUnion suffered from the big depression, while instead of improving the life ofthe people and bringing back the economy, Soviet Union still devotes lots ofits fiscal expenditure on the cold war against the USA, which is certainly notthe prior threaten to the society. This eventually caused the disintegration ofSoviet Union.

Another reason that theanticipated problem should not be consider prior to the current problem is thatthe validity of the anticipation. If the severity of the anticipated problemsare over estimated, then not only the efforts to solve it would be in vain, andat the same time, those current problems that could have already been solvedinstead would have became more severe, resulting loss in the government andsociety. Compared to the anticipated problems, the immediate problem could beestimated more accurately, which is helpful to help the government to draw up aplan that could minimizing the potential loss.

However, while focusing onsolving the problems of today, government should also pay some attentions tothe anticipated problems according to the severity of the problems.
Some severe anticipated problems should bebetter solved before they form and grow, otherwise they might be impossible toaddress after. For example, if the governments had paid enough attention to ElNino, the extent of global warming might not have increased so fast. If thegovernment of Sichuan province had considered seriously many sighs of theforeshadow of earthquake or the problem of jerry-built projects, Sichuan peoplemight not had suffered so much from the huge earthquake in 2008.

In conclusion, governmentsshould focus on the immediate problem of today, as well as pay attention tosome anticipated problems of which the severity is quite great, based on aaccurate estimation. Thus, the government could solve the current problems welland could also prevent some great problems from happening, as expected.