issue119 大家砌砖！：D

feier521UID: 109747

119"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

I fundamentally agree with the speaker insofar as that in some areas such as education, politics, the research priorities should be set according to whether they are beneficial for people's lives, nevertheless, in other realms such as science, art, and so on, the most important question need to take in consideration may be have less, if any, bearing with improving people's lives.

When it comes to the education field, researchers should take the benefit to overall students in the first place, or else, it will be proved meaningless. Research, no matter whether on curriculum or on the reformation of the educational system, should aim at the students' interests which otherwise will not only affected the operation of these changes but also stifling the growing and development of the youth. For instance, suppose that a college want to cut the art courses instead increase more practical lessons, such as business, management, and so on, after investigating an increasing concern of utilitarian profit and future jobs among some students. Do you think this policy is beneficial or not? Although it can meet the need of some students to some extent, it must damage the interests of those who pursue the artistic creations, I think, the proportion that these students account for is not small.

Likewise, when making political policy, serving for the public may be of the first-rate importance. Admittedly, nowadays many politicians take only interesting in electing and reelecting, say, the short-term survival rather than the people's lives, and some legislators and officials attempt to pander the potent and the wealthy at expense of people’s interests. However, without considering the profit of the public, the laws and official's tenure can not withstand the test of the time. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King serve as apt illustrations to this point. Had they concerned merely with short-term and mediate needs rather than with the public’s long-run interests, today's America and India might still be British' colonies.

As for the technology and art fields, I take exception with the speaker's claim. Many researchers and scientists are the elites of our society, their researches and discoveries spring from their interests and imagination, and may outstep the limit of common people's comprehension. Therefore, the threshold of their researches may have less to do with improving people's lives. Although the ultimate goal is to put their research outcomes into practice, however, there is no need to require researchers and scientists to cater for the need of the public when initiating their undertakings, or else, it will hinder their enthusiasm. When it comes to art, similarly, what the artists pursue is their inspiration and imagination, which are the precondition of the outstanding and classic artworks, adapting themselves to the taste and appreciation level of the average people will make their artworks lose the essence and creativity, and only be labeled as mundane and pedestrian “goods”.

In conclusion, not all researches should set priority for improving people's lives. In some fields, such as education and politics, which are deeply related with people's daily study and lives, researchers should aim at improving people's lives, while in other realms, such as art and technology, where ask for pursuing creativity and interests, engagers should be given enough space to develop their own individuality.

大家是否注意到：象这样的题目（有such as的，有列举的），可以考虑从不同的领域分开写。如：

116"With the growth of global networks in such areas as economics and communication, there is no doubt that every aspect of society—including education, politics, the arts, and the sciences—will benefit greatly from international influences."（呵呵，偶刚写过也是这么写的）

glidingshUID: 110700

我只改了两个地方，不到之处请求原谅
1）Had they concerned merely with short-term and mediate needs rather than with the public’s long-run interests, today's America and India might still be British' colonies[one of British’s colonies].
2）Many researchers and scientists are the elites of our society, their researches and discoveries spring from their interests and imagination, and may outstep[out of step?] the limit of common people's comprehension.
你的语言很好，赫赫

feier521UID: 109747

谢谢glidingsh
1 主语是america 和india 所以就不用使 one of British‘s colonies 啦。
2 outstep the limit－超过限制 out of step 不可以做动词使用吧。
：D

gambellUID: 122696

我的水品很烂，说错了你就当我在发疯吧
依我看，你是在第2，3段分别从教育和政治同意作者的观点
但是我觉得在论述教育的首要问题时，最好还是把教育改革和课程设计和学生将来的lives will be improved 扣紧一点，而且你的例子似乎还起到了反效果
如果是我的话，大概会以素质教育为例子（当然用日本或老美的了^_^），讲述实行这些的首要目的在于全面发展学生，使之具备完整的基本素质，从而在未来的社会生活中能适应多方面的环境及压力，然后 improve.....了。
政策方面可以正反两面说，符合的成功，不符合的失败，例子还是很多的，看报纸吧，别老用n年以前的
我的语言不行，开头结尾也差，要想你学习啊
就这样了
还是那句话，说错了别骂我

for your sakeUID: 141183

119"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

I fundamentally agree with the speaker insofar as that in some areas such as education, politics, the research priorities should be set according to whether they are beneficial for people's lives, nevertheless, in other realms such as science, art, and so on, the most important question need to take in consideration may be have less, if any, bearing with improving people's lives.

When it comes to the education field, researchers should take the benefit to overall students in the first place, or else, it will be proved meaningless. Research, no matter whether on curriculum or on the reformation of the educational system, should aim at the students' interests which otherwise will not only affected the operation of these changes but also stifling the growing and development of the youth. For instance, suppose that a college want to cut the art courses instead increase more practical lessons, such as business, management, and so on, after investigating an increasing concern of utilitarian profit and future jobs among some students. Do you think this policy is beneficial or not? Although it can meet the need of some students to some extent, it must damage the interests of those who pursue the artistic creations, I think, the proportion that these students account for is not small.(最后一个例子不是很有说服力，说的有些软了)

Likewise, when making political policy, serving for the public may be of the first-rate importance. Admittedly, nowadays many politicians take only interesting in electing and reelecting, say, the short-term survival rather than the people's lives, and some legislators and officials attempt to pander the potent and the wealthy at expense of people’s interests. However, without considering the profit of the public, the laws and official's tenure can not withstand the test of the time. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King serve as apt illustrations to this point. Had they concerned merely with short-term and mediate needs rather than with the public’s long-run interests, today's America and India might still be British' colonies.

As for the technology and art fields, I take exception with the speaker's claim. Many researchers and scientists are the elites of our society, their researches and discoveries spring from their interests and imagination, and may outstep the limit of common people's comprehension. Therefore, the threshold of their researches may have less to do with improving people's lives. Although the ultimate goal is to put their research outcomes into practice, however, there is no need to require researchers and scientists to cater for the need of the public when initiating their undertakings, or else, it will hinder their enthusiasm. When it comes to art, similarly, what the artists pursue is their inspiration and imagination, which are the precondition of the outstanding and classic artworks, adapting themselves to the taste and appreciation level of the average people will make their artworks lose the essence and creativity, and only be labeled as mundane and pedestrian “goods”.

In conclusion, not all researches should set priority for improving people's lives. In some fields, such as education and politics, which are deeply related with people's daily study and lives, researchers should aim at improving people's lives, while in other realms, such as art and technology, where ask for pursuing creativity and interests, engagers should be given enough space to develop their own individuality.

觉得比较一般，没有特别出彩的地方。
语言流畅，这是你一贯的作风啊呵呵

feier521UID: 109747

to gambell.
你太谦虚了，你说的很对！我的教育方面的例子写的时候就觉得很不cogent。

to for your sake
是啊，这一篇确实非常一般
45分钟的时间里，要写的很深入真是很难啊！

谢谢2位！

sacrabUID: 140880

还有个常识性的错误，Martin Luther King和英国殖民地没关系的，前后差近两百年呢

glidingshUID: 110700

偶真是丢人
好不容易改了两个，还是错的
谢谢指正

feier521UID: 109747

to sacrab， 汗颜，多谢多谢提醒，要是考试的时候这么写的话，就玩完了.。：D

西西，glidingsh 不要这么说嘛？偶也经常给人家给错的，face 都练出来啦（捏了一下: 2 CM）。而且越是改错了，越是记得深啊！

glidingshUID: 110700

feier521 DD说得对，不过2厘米不算厚，看来你还要继续努力