【NINE小组】第十次作业——by wywcgs

wywcgsUID: 2565269

Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.

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

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

Someone claims that governments should support anyone poor who wants to receive university education by spending education fee for them. However, the statement is so absolute that it fails to consider the diversity of situations in different countries. In my point of view, there are no definite answers about government should or should not do. Instead, a specific consideration about the condition of the country is required to determine the policy.

Someone may believe that governments should defend people’s right to receive educations. In fact, governments have no duty to support students to attend universities. Unlike middle school education, education in university is an advanced one which is not necessary for everyone to live in the world. For example, the reason why I and most people around me go to university is that we want to get an opportunity to find a better job or get a more descent salary. We don’t think the education in university is necessary for us to live. It is just a kind of investment for our own future, so it is reasonable that we should afford the cost ourselves. In this aspect, it is no the governments’ duty to support us attending university.

However, it might be a waste of education resources if governments didn’t support poor students to attend university. A good selecting method for education is to select students who are suitable enough to receive higher education but not to select ones who are rich enough to afford education fees. If governments did ignore these poor students, people’s education level would be constrained by its economic conditions. Thus, the students entering university may be not excellent enough, which is a waste of education resources of course. Apparently, it is a phenomenon that should not occur in a thriving society.

In my opinion, when determining whether government should support poor students, governments should consider the current situations in country. That is to say, the answer depends on whether many highly educated students are required during the development of society. For instance, in 1980s, the development of China is just at the beginning. In that era, society needed many highly educated people to construct this country. So Chinese government encouraged people to receive university education, which successfully led to a rapid society development In contrast, nowadays China, under the policy which still encouraged students to pursue higher education degrees, many graduated students cannot even find a job because there are too many highly educated students graduate from universities every year. If such policy could make a change, this problem might not be as serious as present.

To sum up, both supporting and not supporting poor students to receive advanced education are not the best answer in general. Government leader should use his wisdom to consider the countries own requirement to design the policy.

wywcgsUID: 2565269

As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods."

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

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

To response the numerous complaints about the quality of the cans produced by Promofoods, the company claimed that their cans didn’t pose a health risk. In order to make their conclusion persuasive, the company maintained a testing on their cans to detect eight most common chemicals causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea and got a seeming positive result . However, the company’s conclusion is not as convincing as we thought at the first glance because they failed to answer several essential questions in reasoning.

The first question is whether their testing indeed implies the tested cans are harmless for our health. Firstly, they don’t tell us how much these chemicals appear in their cans and other cans. As we know, a paucity of harmful chemicals may not lead to a serious bad feeling. Maybe other canned foods contain much less of these chemicals than the tested cans do, so the common appearance cannot become an evidence to prove the tested cans are not harmful. Secondly, they don’t consider chemicals other than these eight ones. It is also possible that the tested cans contain several rare chemicals which can cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Thus, they cannot claim that the tested cans are harmless.

Even we concede the harmlessness of the tested cans, they cannot prove to be the same as the ones consumer brought. The company didn’t tell us whether the tested cans and the being brought ones were produced at the same time. The quality of ingredient may be distinct in cans produced in different time. It is possible that the being brought cans use some bad ingredient which contains harmful chemicals. An alternative possibility is perhaps the machine which produce cans had glitch when producing these cans, which made them not well cooked. The company should make further research to answer the question about the difference between the tested cans and the being brought ones.

Provided that the company does prove that the cans consumer brought contain no harmful chemicals, it is also presumptuous to conclude that their cans don’t pose a health risk. As we know, some kinds of foods cannot be eaten together, or there may be some noxious reactions among them. The company didn’t tell us whether their cans were one kind of these foods. For instance, maybe some consumers prefer to drinking wine when eating the cans, and the amalgam of wine and cans, after several chemical reactions, contains noxious elements which made them dizziness and nausea. Under this condition, though the cans themselves are not harmful to our health directly, it does contain a potential risk which the producer is also responsible to tell us.

In sum, it is not easy to determine that whether the cans are the reason of consumer’s dizziness and nausea. The company has so many questions to answer that further research is reuiqred.

ashtray_sUID: 3008202

Someone claims that governments should support anyone poor who wants to receive university education by spending education fee for them(题目里面不是这么说的吧•••是给那些已经被大学录取但是付不起学费的). However, the statement is so absolute that it fails to consider the diversity of situations in different countries. In my point of view, there are no definite answers about （whether）government should or should not do. Instead, a specific consideration about the condition of the country is required to determine the policy.

Someone may believe that governments should defend people’s right to receive educations. In fact, governments have no duty to support students to attend universities.(我觉得不用说someone may believe,直接给出作者的观点) Unlike middle school education, education in university is an advanced one which is not necessary for everyone to live in the world. For example, the reason why I and most people around me go to university is that we want to get an opportunity to find a better job or get a more descent salary. We don’t think the education in university is necessary for us to live. It is just a kind of investment for our own future, so it is reasonable that we should afford （pay比较准确吧）the cost ourselves. In this aspect, it is no（not） the governments’ duty to support us attending(to attend) university.
提供高等教育不是国家的义务。

However, it might be a waste of education resources if governments （感觉文章中governments, the government，government用的比较混乱）didn’t（为什么要用didn’t?） support poor students to attend university. A good selecting method for education is to select students who are suitable enough to receive higher education but not to select ones (those)who are rich enough to afford education fees. If governments did ignore these poor students, people’s education level would be constrained by its(its指的是？) economic conditions. Thus, the students entering university may be not excellent enough（我觉得这里写might be not so excellent as they should be）, which is a waste of education resources of course. Apparently, it is a phenomenon that should not occur in a thriving society.
不支持穷困学生会造成教育资源的浪费。

In my opinion, when determining whether government should support poor students, governments should consider the current situations in country. That is to say, the answer depends on whether many highly educated students are required during the development of society. For instance, in 1980s, the development of China is just at the beginning. In that era, society needed many highly educated people to construct this country. So Chinese government encouraged people to receive university education, which successfully led to a rapid society development In contrast, nowadays China, under the policy which still encouraged students to pursue higher education degrees, many graduated students cannot even find a job because there are too many highly educated students graduate from universities every year. If such policy could make a change, this problem might not be as serious as present.（作者这里的言下之意是大学生失业的原因是在于大学生太多了所以应该少让些人接受高等教育么？恐怕这点不太能让人信服吧。况且，这么多大学生找不到工作也并不代表国家不需要高等人才，如果是这样，作者至少应该提供一个alternative.作者这个例子似乎没有有力地说明本段的论点）

To sum up, both supporting and not supporting poor students to receive advanced education are not the best answer in general（感觉这里用neither nor的结构顺畅一点）. Government leader should use his wisdom to consider the countries own requirement to design the policy.

感觉文章的观点有失偏颇••给不给穷苦学生提供资助取决于社会的需求，似乎有点政府说了算的感觉，作者似乎完全没有考虑到那些学生的立场。

ashtray_sUID: 3008202

To response the numerous complaints about the quality of the cans produced by Promofoods, the company claimed that their cans didn’t pose a health risk. In order to make their conclusion persuasive, the company maintained a testing on their cans to detect eight most common chemicals causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea and got a seeming(seemingly) positive result . However, the company’s conclusion is not as convincing as we thought at the first glance because they failed to answer several essential questions in reasoning.

The first question is whether their testing indeed implies the tested cans are harmless for our health. Firstly, they don’t tell us how much these chemicals(which chemicals?（指代不明)) appear in their cans and other cans. As we know, a paucity of harmful chemicals may not lead to a serious bad feeling. Maybe other canned foods contain much less of these chemicals than the tested cans do, so the common appearance cannot become an evidence to prove the tested cans are not harmful. Secondly, they don’t consider chemicals other than these eight ones. It is also possible that the tested cans contain several rare chemicals which can cause symptoms of dizziness and nausea. Thus, they cannot claim that the tested cans are harmless.（这段的brought应该都是bought吧••）
根据你下面两段的内容，我觉得你这段应该是质疑 被检测的罐头不包含有害的chemicals）

Even we concede the harmlessness of the tested cans, they cannot prove to be the same as the ones consumer brought. The company didn’t tell us whether the tested cans and the being brought ones were produced at the same time. The quality of ingredient may be distinct in cans produced in different time. It is possible that the being brought cans use some bad ingredient which contains harmful chemicals. An alternative possibility is perhaps the machine which produce cans had glitch when producing these cans, which made them not well cooked. The company should make further research to answer the question about the difference between the tested cans and the being brought ones.

Provided that the company does prove that the cans consumer brought contain no harmful chemicals, it is also presumptuous to conclude that their cans don’t pose a health risk. As we know, some kinds of foods cannot be eaten together, or there may be some noxious reactions among them. The company didn’t tell us whether their cans were one kind of these foods. For instance, maybe some consumers prefer to drinking wine when eating the cans, and the amalgam of wine and cans, after several chemical reactions, contains noxious elements which made them dizziness and nausea. Under this condition, though the cans themselves are not harmful to our health directly, it does contain a potential risk which the producer is also responsible to tell us.(即便消费者购买的罐头里面没有有害的化学物质，也并不代表它们无害。我觉得你这段的论证有点问题，你这里举的物质之间的相互反应应该说是这种罐头里面的元素相互之间的反映，即“即使没有有害的化学物质，这些无害的化学物质之间发生反应会产生有害的物质。”不然， 罐头里面的物质跟其他食物发生反应这不能说明这罐头有问题，比如有些蔬菜都不能一起吃，也不能就说这些蔬菜对人们的健康有害嘛。)

In sum, it is not easy to determine that whether the cans are the reason of consumer’s dizziness and nausea. The company has so many questions to answer that further research is required.

wywcgsUID: 2565269

2# wywcgs

对I的回应：
当然是政府说了算啊。政府要执行什么样的的政策，政府说了不算，那谁说了算?
事实上我第一段说明了政府没有义务必须要这么做，所以政府选择不这么做是可以的。第二段说不这么做有时候也是有害的。所以绝对的政策都是有问题的。那到底该不该这么做？当然就是看这么做好不好了，也就是我最后一段说明的。
你说学生的立场，是指什么？从学生的角度论证是否可行？事实上我第一段全是从学生的角度出发，说明政府没必要这么做啊。非要从学生的角度出发论证政府应该这么做，才叫“从学生的角度论证”么？

对A的回应：

我第一段就是说论证实验并不能证明cans本身真的会导致呕吐和恶心(是否harmlessness)，而不是论证罐头是不是含有有害物。我的主题句里面也没有指明我只论证后面那一条。
事实上我的逻辑链是：实验并不能证明该罐头本身会导致不适 -> 就算证明了，也能证明消费者买的罐头就不会导致 -> 就算消费者买的罐头本身不会导致，也有可能是一些和罐头有关的因素导致（比如我举的例子，和就一起喝可能会导致）。
至于你所说的最后一段的问题。我直到可能会有你说的这个问题，所以我还特意写了一段话，“虽然cans本身不会直接导致不适，但是他却包含潜在危险”，这和罐头公司claim的“该罐头不会导致健康危险”，也是对立的吧？他们的说法是绝对化的，我虽然没有站在他们的绝对对立面，可是也是weaken他们的结论吧。
至于你说的“罐头内部反应”。如果罐头内部真的反应了，为啥在抽样测试的时候调查不出来呢？总不能是测试的时候不反应，测试之后就反应了吧。如果你的意思是说“这是一个长期的反应”，那基本上就是“罐头保质期”的问题，这个时候应该归入第二段的说明：消费者买的罐头过了保质期，和受检的罐头不一样。

以上。

ashtray_sUID: 3008202

5# wywcgs

我之所以觉得你写的像是政府说了算并且没有考虑到学生的立场主要是在于第三段，你说If such policy could make a change, this problem might not be as serious as present，那是说应该把受教育的机会只给小部分人这样竞争就少了就不会有失业问题了？那那些没有接受机会接受大学教育的人呢？社会留给他们的机会是什么？所以我说作者至少应该举个例子，比起接受大学教育更能适应社会需要的方法。



我觉得不能说因为罐头跟其他物质一起会发生反应就代表它存在潜在的危险，那照你这么说什么吃的都能发生潜在危险，胡萝卜和白萝卜吃了还有毒呢。这里可能我跟你对health risk的理解有些不一样。
另外，我的意思不是罐头内部反应，我的意思是，尽管这三种物质在其他罐头里面也有用，但是可能这三种物质内部之间可能发生反应，它们一起食用的话，可能会人体里会发生反应。毕竟它只是测试了这三种物质是否存在。

wywcgsUID: 2565269

6# ashtray_s

先说A吧。
1. 我觉得我们讨论的重点应该是我的论证是否有问题，而不是还有其他什么可能情况。
你所说的“三种物质反应”确实也是一种可能情况，可是可能情况太多了，谁也没办法列举完。只要我举的例子weaken了推理过程论点，我认为那就没有问题。我第一段列举的例子有问题么？还是说偏离了论点呢？
2. 你要是真的能证明了胡萝卜和白萝卜一起吃会导致中毒或者什么不良反应，我当然可以说这两个东西会有潜在危险。
再比如说，豆角没煮熟是有毒的，熟了的时候无毒，你觉得有人宣称“吃豆角不会对健康造成威胁”，这个论题有没有问题？我认为当然有问题，至少我可以举出让这个陈述有问题的例子。
同样的道理，如果罐头和酒一起吃真的会造成不适，这种情况下罐头在造成不适这件事情上至少是脱不了干系的。这时你如果想说“罐头不会造成不适”，最起码的加个限定条件吧。抽象点说，他宣称“A一定是对的”，我没有说“A一定是错的”，我只是说“在B发生的情况下A是错的”，这不算是weaken么？
再者说，这个公司是为了回应对吃完罐头之后恶心呕吐的回应才做的这个陈述，也就是说他们认为恶心呕吐不是罐头的问题。我只要能说明罐头有可能是造成恶心呕吐的因素就可以了，不是么。前面的那些论述，最终的目不都是为了weaken这个论断么。

wywcgsUID: 2565269

6# ashtray_s
对你I的回应：
我说的是，“如果这样的政策可以做一下改变，失业问题就不会这么严重”。而你说的是“把受教育的机会只给小部分人这样竞争就少了就不会有失业问题了”？这完全不搭边吧。看起来就像是阅读中的典型错误，把原文的陈述无端最高级化……

你之前的质疑，“就算是这样社会仍然需要很多大学生”，我觉得weaken不了我的论断。就像你家里已经有了太多的大米以至于他们都快发烂了，不管你在怎么论证你的饭量有多大，也无法对“我们不该继续买大米”这个论断造成影响。

另外，实际上我的论述是说：
在社会需要很多大学生的时候，这么做有利；在社会不需要太多大学生的时候，这么做有害。这样做应该足以说明 社会的需求和政策的制定 是相关的了吧。 当然，你可以说还有其他的因素可需要考虑，但是这也无法否定我这个因素的有效性啊。

至于你说机会问题，我觉得你说的“应该指出别的出路”这个论断的前提是“一个人除了读书找好工作之外，就没有什么其他的机会改善生活了”，不是么。当然我觉得这个在中国很可能是对的，不过我其实很刻意避免这种 中国特色的情况论断。另外，我觉得除了读书还有什么样的其他出路，和主题没什么太大的关系吧。

ashtray_sUID: 3008202

先说I吧。
首先，无论是失业问题不会这么严重还是不会有失业问题，你都没有论证这两者的因果关系，你说如果这样的政策做一下改变，失业问题就不会这么严重，你的假设就是失业问题的产生至少是部分来自于大学教育，但你没有提供证据。
其次，你这大米的例子，如果你家里有大多的大米以至于他们都快发烂了，你是不是应该首先考虑的是是什么导致了你这大米发烂？如果是大米的质量不好而不是大米太多了，那当然应该继续买大米，而且同时还应该提高买的大米的质量。按照你的论述，你举例说1980年中国需要很多大学生，政府鼓励大家上大学造成了好的结果，是说的前一种情况；on contrast,你这对比的不就是说现在中国不需要这么多大学生么，这个例子就是不成立的，因为没有证据证明中国现在不需要这么多大学生。
此外，我不是说让你给那些学生指别的出路，我只是建议，在你的论述下，如果能举个例子说，中国不需要太多大学生，需要的是什么，能strengthen你的观点。

ashtray_sUID: 3008202

A
貌似我们的分歧就是在于第三点，关于health risk, 我还是认为它不应该指跟其他东西一起吃发生了反应。如果是这样的话，任何事物都有化学物质，都有health risk,胡萝卜不能和白萝卜一起吃，但卖胡萝卜的人也没有义务在标签上给消费者提醒说“此物不能和白萝卜一起吃”，卖酒的人也没见着说在酒的包装上写“酒后不能驾车”。按你这样定义的话，要想证明它没有health risk,那除非厂家把罐头里面的每一种化学物质跟其他物质都反应一遍，看有没有产生有毒的物质。厂家能做的是把它所用的化学成分都写在标签上，消费者自己来判断不能跟什么一起吃。

不过我觉得你说的也挺有道理的，health risk按你这么定义的话你这样论证应该也没什么问题。

会飞的橙子UID: 3012240

10# ashtray_s
那如果说是本身食品里的两种东西在一起起了什么反应的话，这个应该算是healthy risk 吧，毕竟和外部吃的东西木有关系？