【NINE小组】第4次作文—by wywcgs

wywcgsUID: 2565269

3 Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

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

I don't agree the statement that educational insitutions should constrain students by telling them what to do and what not to do. In fact, I tend to advocate that educational insitutions should encourage students to research everything they are interested in unless it is definitely impossible.

At first, the meaning of ambiguous conception "fields unlikely to succeed" should be clarified. In my definition, an unlikely succeed field is determined only by intuition. That is to say, we intuitionisticly believe someone is not suitable for a field without any convincing evidence. The dissuasion seems to be reasonable since the members of educational insitutions are probably arbiters in corresponding fields who undoubtedly have ample experiences. However, it is just this kind of dissuasion that is what I protest.

In fact, even an arbiter is not able to determine whether a student can succeed or not in a field. Sometimes success comes into being without any evidence. Let's take a famous legend of Dantzig, the father of linear programming, for example. Once a day in a statistic course the professor introduced to students two well-known unsolved problems in this field, while Dantzig thought them to be the homework of that course by mistake. Surprisingly, he accomplished these problems with perfect solutions after one-week striving, which was not anticipated even by his supervisor, a famous mathematician. Apparently it is impossible in common sence: How can a college student solve such a hard problem? But he does finish it perfectly. If he were dissuaded in time, mathematics would miss a good chance to go a large step forward.

One may argue that it is a waste of time for students if they devote in the wrong field. But I don't afraid of that. In my opinion, a student should be encouraged to research in one field if he is interested in it. As the famous idiom said, "Interest is the best teacher of everyone". The interests is sufficient for a student to success in a field. Let's look at the experience of Kolmogolov who is considered to be the greatest mathematician in 20th century. His subject is history at the beginning of his college life, but he found math is his favourite and altered to mathematics at last. Being too late to succeed in such a hard field in common sense, Kolmogolov made many far-reaching contributions to math. It is the power of interests.

To sum up, educational insitutions should not prevent students from researching in a "wrong" field in their opinion. Instead, students should be encouraged to devote to any fields as long as it is their favourite. It can not help but make improvment on science.

wywcgsUID: 2565269

The following appeared in a healthnewsletter.

A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number ofserious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program thatconcentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary forbicycle safety."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

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

The conclusion the arguer made seems to be reasonable at the first glance, but in fact he fails to accomplish a cogent reasoning by neglecting several essential questions.

First of all, the arguer fails to provide a persuasive evidence to illustrate the emergency of bicycle accident. The only reason is the increasing of the number of accident. It’s not sufficient since the truly cogent data should be the accident rate but not the accident number. The accident number will be affected by many reasons such as the increasing of population which definitely leads to the increasing of bicyclists or the favor of less polluted vehicles among which bicycle is an obvious good choice. In fact, if the accident rate is not too high, there is no need for government to tackle this problem urgently. It’s a waste of resources which should be harnessed in something more important.

Even we concede the assumption that the bicycle accident would be a serious problem, the arguer fails to prove that helmets make the negative effect in accidents. The simultaneous occurrence of the increasing of wearing helmets and that of accident don’t necessarily indicate there is causality between them. In fact, the arguer should provide the accident rateof bicyclist who do and don’t wear helmets. It is the comparison between them but not the rate of wearing helmets that can illustrate the helmets' effect. Apparently, the negative effect of helmets is substantiated only when the accident rate of one wearing helmets is higher than of one not wearing them.

Moreover, the arguer don’t give us any proof on his statement which claims that the helmets lead to the abrupt actions of bicyclists. The statement is full of surmising without any evidence which makes the statement very vulnerable. It’s even absurd in my opinion. The prudent bicyclist tends to be chary of his safe no matter how much protection he has, while the adventurous one tends to do something exciting even he don’t wear helmets. Of course what I said may not be true, but it is more reasonable than the statement the arguer claimed. Obviously a further research should be taken in order to reveal the relationship between the existence of helmets and the idea of bicyclists.

To sum up, there are many situations thearguer neglects, and the feasibility of the suggestion should be carefully determined with answering the questions stated above. A further research about the effect of helmets is also required.

winterfineUID: 3141531

I don't agree (with) the statement that educational insitutions (institutions) should constrain students by telling them what to do and what not to do. In fact, I tend to advocate that educational insitutions (institutions) should encourage students to research (into) everything they are interested in unless it is definitely impossible.

At first, the meaning of ambiguous conception "fields unlikely to succeed" should be clarified. In my definition, an unlikely succeed field is determined only by intuition. That is to say, we intuitionisticly (intuitively) believe someone is not suitable for a field without any convincing evidence. The dissuasion seems to be reasonable since the members of educational insitutions (institutions) are probably arbiters in corresponding fields who undoubtedly have ample experiences. However, it is just this kind of dissuasion that is what I protest.

此段和下一段说的是一个方面的观点，比较容易给人重复的感觉。可以考虑加强一下本段，具体说明determined only by intuition都造成了什么不好，而下一段论证没有dissuasion的好处。这样两段侧重点区别开，也给人讨论周全严谨的感觉。

In fact, even an arbiter is not able to determine whether a student can succeed or not in a field. Sometimes success comes into being without any evidence. Let's take a famous legend of Dantzig, the father of linear programming, for example. Once a day in a statistic course the professor introduced to students two well-known unsolved problems in this field, while Dantzig thought them to be the homework of that course by mistake. Surprisingly, he accomplished these problems with perfect solutions after one-week striving, which was not anticipated even by his supervisor, a famous mathematician. Apparently it is impossible in common sence (sense): How can a college student solve such a hard problem? But he does (did) finish it perfectly. If he were dissuaded in time, mathematics would miss a good chance to go a large step forward.

这段举了一个例子说明没有dissuasion有利的一方面，比上一段充分。

One may argue that it is a waste of time for students if they devote in the wrong field. But I don't (am) afraid of that (我不害怕？). In my opinion, a student should be encouraged to research in one field if he is interested in it. As the famous idiom said, "Interest is the best teacher of everyone". The interests is sufficient for a student to success in a field. Let's look at the experience of Kolmogolov who is considered to be the greatest mathematician in 20th century. His subject (也许major更好一点？) is (was) history at the beginning of his college life, but he found math is（去掉） his favourite and altered to mathematics at last. Being too late to succeed in such a hard field in common sense (这里有点奇怪，这里有转折的意思在，考虑用相应结构替换?), Kolmogolov made many far-reaching contributions to math. It is the power of interests.

To sum up, educational insitutions (institutions) should not prevent students from researching in a "wrong" field in their opinion. Instead, students should be encouraged to devote to any fields as long as it is their favourite. It can not help but make improvement on science.
整体观点比较明确，但前两个主题段落划分得不是很清晰
语言上，参考范文啥的，个别句子可以适当修改。
拼写错误，在word上面就可以查出来的~
特别提醒一下institution的写法

flyingwindUID: 189320

呵呵

winterfineUID: 3141531

The conclusion the arguer made seems to be reasonable at the first glance, but in fact he fails to accomplish a cogent reasoning by neglecting several essential questions.
开头挺简洁、切题的。
First of all, the arguer fails to provide a persuasive evidence to illustrate the emergency of bicycle accident. The only reason is the increasing of the number of accident (这是结果吧？). It’s not sufficient since the truly cogent data should be the accident rate but not the accident number. The accident number will be affected by many reasons such as the increasing of population which definitely leads to the increasing of bicyclists or the favor of less polluted vehicles among which bicycle is an obvious good choice. In fact, if the accident rate is not too high, there is no need for government to tackle this problem urgently. It’s a waste of resources which should be harnessed in something more important.

Even we concede the assumption that the bicycle accident would be (is) a serious problem, the arguer fails to prove that helmets make the negative effect in accidents. The simultaneous occurrence of the increasing of wearing helmets and that of accident don’t necessarily indicate (that) there is causality between them. In fact, the arguer should provide the accident rate of bicyclist (bicyclists) who do and don’t wear helmets (respectively). It is the comparison between them but not the rate of wearing helmets that can illustrate the helmets' effect. Apparently, the negative effect of helmets is substantiated only when the accident rate of one wearing helmets is higher than (that) of one not wearing them. (是不是把one换成people更合适？)

Moreover, the arguer don’t (does not) give us any proof on his statement which claims that the helmets lead to the abrupt actions of bicyclists. The statement is full of surmising without any evidence which makes the statement very vulnerable. It’s even absurd in my opinion. (这两句太泛泛而谈了) The prudent bicyclist tends to be chary of his safe no matter how much protection he has, while the adventurous one tends to do something exciting even he don’t (does not) wear helmets. Of course what I said may not be true, but it is more reasonable than the statement the arguer claimed (别谦虚啊…). Obviously a further research should be taken in order to reveal the relationship between the existence of helmets and the idea of bicyclists.
这段话中，有几句比较空洞。
To sum up, there are many situations the arguer neglects, and the feasibility of the suggestion should be carefully determined with answering the questions stated above. A further research about the effect of helmets is also required.

字数偏少…
第二主题段落的意思是：the arguer fails to prove that helmets make the negative effect in accidents
第三主题段落的意思是：the arguer don’t (does not) give us any proof on his statement which claims that the helmets lead to the abrupt actions of bicyclists
我认为，现在这两段间得相互关系简单并列，但可以设置得更精心一些。其实，两个逻辑错误间存在着因果联系。