:【NINE小组】【作业集】---by 夜猫 (更新到第15次作业 I)

amber_cUID: 3131341

第十一次作业：
ISSUE 36 Governments should not fund any scientificresearch whose consequences are unclear.

I disagree with the author’s claim that scientific researches without clear consequences should not be funded by the government. Any scientific research has a risk to take and no one can foresee the consequences after the invention or application of certain technology. If we abandon the research because of our scare of its uncertainty, we also give up our most instrumental tool to create a better world for humanity. The government, instead of arbitrarily cut off researching funds, should confront the challenge and regulate uncertain researches, sparing no effort to ensure that technology serves rather than harm humanity.
反对。观点明确。
Governments should widely fund scientific researches even though their consequences may be unclear. One of the major reasons why we can live such a comfortable life is the technology brought by scientific researches among which many of their consequences were not clear at the time they were under development. Most basic researches have been being funded by the government because of the cost and hazards which enterprises usually cannot withstand. If the government cuts off researching funds due to uncertain consequences, then we may lose one of the most revolutionary inventions of the 20th century, the internet, whose fund mainly came from the US government first aiming at improving its military communication. Unlike applied researches（指什么？basic researches又指什么？）, governments are the only funders of basic researches in many circumstances. It is indispensable that governments maintain the financial support for scientific researches.
政府应该资助科学研究，即使结果未明。因为科学研究会带来人类进步。
Also, if we abandon certain scientific research due to its uncertain consequences or just possibly negative effects, then we also lose our best hope to build a better world. It is known to everyone that, big or small, doing a thing has a risk to take, and scientific researches are not exceptional. If governments stop funding the research of transgenic technology, indeed we may avoid a possible health problem caused by the transgenic foods（这句话实际上可以去掉，因为文中要说明的是后面那句话。）. But equally we lose a great opportunity to end the starvation in the globe. In addition, there may seem to be sound reasons for governments to stop funding the cloning technology（why？应该解释一下）, but in that way we also shut the window of opportunity to cure people with severe disease using cloning organs. So from my perspective, governments’ not funding researches with uncertain consequences is shifting the responsibility to face the challenge. For the general good of the public, governments are supposed to support scientific researches and try the best to regulate them to seek for a better future for the citizens.
不资助科学研究的弊端。举了两次例子：转基因食物和克隆技术。个人觉得，可以不谈他们的坏处，因为本文要说的是结果不明的科学研究，而不是可能带来弊端的研究。直接说，如果政府不资助，我们将会失去什么XXX的机会或者益处。觉得这一段和中心句有点偏离。是要说不资助后果不明的研究会带来什么坏处？还是说为了减少研究带来的坏处，政府应该有效管理和控制？有点模糊。
To sum up, I consider it necessary for governments to fund scientific researches even with uncertain consequences for the moment. And more importantly governments should fulfill their responsibility to supervise and regulate researches to ensure a bright future for humanity.
思路很清楚，语言也很简洁。向夜猫学习~

m7catsueUID: 3040890

A076：


Basedon a survey showing respondents’ desire to reduce their intake of foods containingfats and cholesterol, the author concludes that the sales of Old Dairy, thecompany that markets many high fats and cholesterol foods, are likely todecrease and try to persuade shareholders to sell their shares. At first glance,this argument seems valid, but with further reflection, I find this argumentsuffered several critical flaws and is therefore not convincing as it stands.

Inthe first place, the author fails to provide detailed information about thesurvey. Although 80 percent of the respondents report their desire to reducethe intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, we have no idea of the validityof survey. How many people participate in the survey? What are their socialstatuses? In what area this survey is conducted? Can its result represent thecondition of the whole country? Only after all these questions being answered,can the author draw his/her conclusion safely and persuade shareholders and investorsinto the right decision.

Inthe second place, the author points out that low-fat products abound in manyfood stores but with no further information of their sales. The presence ofmany low-fat food products in stores does not necessarily indicate good salesof these products. They may be some newly introduced products just entering themarket and not able to compete with Old Dairy’s traditional products in sales althoughcontaining less fats and cholesterol. And we also do not know whether Old dairyhas introduced any low-fat food product into the market and its sale’scondition. So more information about the sales of low-fat food products areneeded to examine the author’s conclusion.

Additionally,one of the reasons the author mentioned to support his/her conclusion is that manyof the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fatand cholesterol, but he/she fails to consider the possibility that Old Dairy canchange its strategy by introducing more low-fat food products in the future,based on a valid survey. If Old Dairy is well managed and able to adapt to thechange of desires of consumers, it will still occupy the market and its sharesare definitely going to soar. Therefore more background information of OldDairy is necessary when it comes to evaluating the company’s shares and behaviorsin the long run.

Tosum up, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument,more detailed information about the survey and the current sale condition ofthe law-fat food products is needed. And an assessment on the company’sadaptability to market is also indispensable when shareholders are consideringwhether to sell their shares or not.


先把argument贴上来，感觉写得头昏脑胀的。。

m7catsueUID: 3040890

16# amber_c
Idisagree with the author’s claim that scientific researches without clearconsequences should not be funded by the government. Any scientific researchhas a risk to take and no one can foresee the consequences after the inventionor application of certain technology. If we abandon the research because of ourscare of its uncertainty, we also give up our most instrumental tool to createa better world for humanity. The government, instead of arbitrarily cut offresearching funds, should confront the challenge and regulate uncertain researches,sparing no effort to ensure that technology serves rather than harm humanity.

Governmentsshould widely fund scientific researches even though their consequences may be unclear.One of the major reasons why we can live such a comfortable life is thetechnology brought by scientific researches among which many of theirconsequences were not clear at the time they were under development. Most basicresearches have been being funded by the government because of the cost and hazardswhich enterprises usually cannot withstand. If the government cuts off researchingfunds due to uncertain consequences, then we may lose one of the mostrevolutionary inventions of the 20th century, the internet, whosefund mainly came from the US government first aiming at improving its militarycommunication. Unlike applied researches whose funders are mainly corporations,governments are the only funders of basic researches in most circumstances. Itis indispensable that governments maintain the financial support for scientificresearches.

Also,if governments abandon certain scientific research due to its uncertain consequencesor just possibly negative effects, then we also lose our best hope to build abetter world. It is known to everyone that, big or small, doing a thing has arisk to take, and scientific researches are not exceptional. If governmentsstop funding the research of transgenic technology, indeed we may avoid apossible health problem caused by the transgenic foods. But equally we lose agreat opportunity to end the starvation in the globe. In addition, there mayseem to be sound reasons for governments to stop funding the cloning technology,but in that way we also shut the window of opportunity to cure people withsevere disease using cloning organs. So from my perspective, governments’ notfunding researches with uncertain consequences is shifting the responsibilityto face the challenge. For the general good of the public, governments aresupposed to support scientific researches and try the best to regulate them toseek for a better future for the citizens.

Tosum up, I consider it necessary for governments to fund scientific researches evenwith uncertain consequences for the moment. And more importantly governmentsshould fulfill their responsibility to supervise and regulate researches toensure a bright future for humanity.


谢谢批改~
我是想表达applied research应用研究主要是公司资助，basic research基础研究主要是政府资助的。已经补充。
解释一下第三段：我觉得uncertain consequence可以两种理解：1结果不明确的研究 指 这个研究不知道会不会出成果   2 后果不明确的研究 指 这个研究 可能带来好处，也可能带来坏的结果，所以就举的那两个例子，说明要是不资助，那可能会失去XX机会。然后顺带一句话说明一下政府这样直接不资助后果不明确的研究是逃避责任，应该资助且有效管理。
我觉得我第二点还是写的多清楚的啊。。首句和最后一句都写的政府应该继续支持。


我是这么理解的，欢迎继续讨论~

amber_cUID: 3131341

Based on a survey showing respondents’ desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, the author concludes that the sales of Old Dairy, the company that markets many high fats and cholesterol foods, are likely to decrease and try (tries) to persuade shareholders to sell their shares. At first glance, this argument seems valid, but with further reflection, I find this argument suffered several critical flaws and is therefore not convincing as it stands.
In the first place, the author fails to provide detailed information about the survey. Although 80 percent of the respondents report their desire to reduce the intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, we have no idea of the validity of survey. How many people participate in the survey? What are their social statuses? In what area this survey is conducted? Can its result represent the condition of the whole country? (如果每个问题后面加一种情况假设，如If….then…,应该会更好。不然读者不知道提这些问题是出于什么目的。)Only after all these questions being answered, can the author draw his/her conclusion safely （安全地？）and persuade shareholders and investors into the right decision.
提出survey的不可靠。
In the second place, the author points out that low-fat products abound in many food stores but with no further information of their sales. The presence of many low-fat food products in stores does not necessarily indicate good sales of these products. They may be some newly introduced products just entering the market and not able to compete with Old Dairy’s traditional products in sales although containing less fats and cholesterol. And we also do not know whether Old dairy has introduced any low-fat food product into the market and its sale’s condition. （还是和上面一样，如果可以假设可能出现的一种情况，会更有说服力。）So more information about the sales of low-fat food products are needed to examine the author’s conclusion.
市场上许多low-fat food 可能是刚进入市场，还不具备竞争力。
Additionally, one of the reasons the author mentioned to support his/her conclusion is that many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, but he/she fails to consider the possibility that Old Dairy can change its strategy by introducing more low-fat food products in the future, based on a valid survey. If Old Dairy is well managed and able to adapt to the change of desires of consumers, it will still occupy the market and its shares are definitely going to soar. Therefore more background information of Old Dairy is necessary when it comes to evaluating the company’s shares and behaviors in the long run.
OD可能改变市场策略，推出low-fat food。
To sum up, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, more detailed information about the survey and the current sale condition of the law-fat food products is needed. And an assessment on the company’s adaptability to market is also indispensable when shareholders are considering whether to sell their shares or not.

幸福的马赛克UID: 2803253

never too old to learn~

幸福的马赛克UID: 2803253

学习了，谢谢分享~

m7catsueUID: 3040890

60 Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonableconsensus rather than elusive ideals.

I consider both the reasonable consensusand further social ideals desirable objectives for the society to make effortsfor.

In general cases, politicians shouldfirst emphasize on the pursuit of a common ground or a reasonable consensus withinthe society. As delegates of their electorate, politicians represent thegeneral interests of the public and its concerns. If a reasonable consensuscannot be achieved before the pursuit of further social ideals, then thesociety’s stability and normal development may be disturbed. In the culturalrevolution from 1966 to 1976, the Chinese society was fanatic about the elusivesocial ideal of communism proposed by the politicians, lacking a reasonableconsensus, which only led to formidable destruction to China’s economy and itsculture. The social disorder did not subside until in 1978 politicians carriedout the reform and opening up policy, based on a common ground of a strongdesire from the public, to require the government focusing on economicdevelopment. Therefore in most circumstances, further social ideals should notbe pursued, until the public achieves a reasonable consensus within thesociety.

However, politicians are also responsiblefor leading people to pursue the right social ideals. Public opinions must beheard, but political leaders should not become populists. Sometimes limited byits knowledge and experience, the public cannot reach a reasonable consensus andeven promotes inequitable ideals against other people within the society. Inthis condition, politicians should fulfill their responsibility and lead peopleto fight against prejudices and inequity. For instance, in order to attain theright social ideals, president Abraham Lincoln pronouncedthe abolishment of slavery in the United States. Though lacking a common groundbetween the South and the North, the pursuit of the social ideals, equity andfreedom, were more than desirable and America was stronger than ever before forits free spirits after the civil war. So the right social ideals need to beattained, under the leadership of responsible politicians, even lacking areasonable consensus in some extreme circumstances.

To sum up, a reasonable consensus withinthe society accepted by the general public is the basis on which the pursuit offurther social ideals relies. While in necessary circumstances, politicians musthave to the courage to pursuit the right ideals, against the evil and inequity,even if a reasonable social consensus may not be reached.

jasonliu217UID: 3164590

本人10G，六级590+，红包单词已背3-4遍，作文起步有半个月了，写了几篇习作，希望能加入你们小组，求共同进步！PS：本人课程均在上午，每天都有5-7小时投入到GRE的备考中，时间充裕，绝对能按时完成小组任务！
QQ 365473538，邮箱 365473538@qq.com

m7catsueUID: 3040890

23# jasonliu217
你去看小组召集帖里面好像有群号，我不是管理员啊。。

m7catsueUID: 3040890

8 Claim: In any field—business, politics, education,government—those in power should step down after five years.

Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise isrevitalization through new leadership.

Comparedto the claim, I am inclined to support the idea that in fields like politicsand education, every four or five years there should be an election to decidewhether people in power now should maintain the leadership in the future. Whilein fields of relatively private affairs like business, it is the shareholders’right to decide the leadership of a corporation, if the present administrationis doing well, then there is no need to consider the shift of currentleadership.

Tobegin with, in the fields concerning interests of the public, like politics andeducation, power should be restricted and supervised effectively, and electionfor leadership every five years is a good resolution. Shifting leadership accordingto the majority’s will in public fields can provide innovation and fresh ideasfor the current system, and in the fields like politics and education it willalso prevent corruption. For instance, in democratic society politicalleadership is reelected every four or five years. This mechanism reflectspublic opinions and limits the power of administration. As lord Acton says, powercorrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The tenured leadership is farfrom efficiency and may lead to corruption. In this situation people in powerdo not need to worry about their performance at work due to the completenonexistence of the mechanism of competition. And many previous and recentresults of surveys have substantiated that the administrative efficiency indemocratic countries where there is elections every four or five years is muchhigher than countries with tenured leadership. So in public fields, for the generalinterests of most people, the mechanism of redetermination of leadership everyfour or five years is necessary to ensure the efficiency of administration and theprevention of corruption.

However,in the fields like business relating to mostly private interests, the leadershipis supposed to be decided by the stakeholders and tenured leadership may beacceptable. If the current leadership for example of a corporation or privatefoundation is efficient, shifting leadership frequently will only cause chaosin current system, damaging stakeholders’ interests. Microsoft has been underthe leadership of Bill Gates for 28 years, and it helped the company to becomeone of the most successful IT companies in the world. Also Warren Buffett hasbeen managing Berkshire Hathaway for more than four decades, his sensibleleadership contributes to the company’s wide-spread legend of investment. Hencethe leadership in fields of private affairs should be decided by specific performanceof the organization, and the tenured leadership is acceptable as long as itsperformance is unexceptionable.

Tosum up, it needs a case by case analysis when it comes to the issue ofleadership. From my perspective, in the fields concerning public affairs,shifting leadership is beneficial to both higher efficiency of the currentsystem and the prevention of corruption, while in the fields of relativelyprivate affairs the determination of leadership should be based on thestakeholders’ evaluation of current performance of maybe a corporation.


这个Issue举例举得好伤心..
第一次写这种claim和reason的类型。。感觉有点悬。。

amber_cUID: 3131341

Compared to the claim, I am inclined to support the idea that in fields like politics and education, every four or five years there should be an election to decide whether people in power now should maintain the leadership in the future. While in fields of relatively private affairs like business, it is the share holders’ right to decide the leadership of a corporation, if the present administration is doing well, then there is no need to consider the shift of current leadership.（这是几句话？）
politics & education 应该。
Private affairs 不一定。
To begin with, in the fields concerning interests of the public, like politics and education, power should be restricted and supervised effectively, and election for leadership every five years is a good resolution.（开门见山，将涉及公共利益的机构归为一类。） Shifting leadership according to the majority’s will in public fields can provide innovation and fresh ideas for the current system, and in the fields like politics and education it will also prevent corruption（教育和腐败？）. For instance, in democratic society political leadership is reelected every four or five years. This mechanism reflects public opinions and limits the power of administration. As lord Acton says, power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The tenured leadership is far from efficiency and may lead to corruption. In this situation people in power do not need to worry about their performance at work due to the complete nonexistence of the mechanism of competition. And many previous and recent results of surveys have substantiated that the administrative efficiency in democratic countries where there is elections every four or five years is much higher than countries with tenured leadership.（有木有具体的数据or例子？） So in public fields, for the general interests of most people, the mechanism of redetermination of leadership every four or five years is necessary to ensure the efficiency of administration and the prevention of corruption.
However, in the fields like business relating to mostly private interests, the leadership is supposed to be decided by the stakeholders and tenured leadership may be acceptable. If the current leadership for example of a corporation or private foundation is efficient, shifting leadership frequently will only cause chaos in current system, damaging stakeholders’ interests.（提到可能出现的负面影响，如果举完例子后可以呼应一下，假设Gates or Buffett 被替代可能发生什么……可能会更好。个人意见而已） Microsoft has been under the leadership of Bill Gates for 28 years, and it helped the company to become one of the most successful IT companies in the world. Also Warren Buffett has been managing Berkshire Hathaway for more than four decades, his sensible leadership contributes to the company’s wide-spread legend of investment. Hence the leadership in fields of private affairs should be decided by specific performance of the organization, and the tenured leadership is acceptable as long as its performance is unexceptionable.
To sum up, it needs a case by case analysis when it comes to the issue of leadership. From my perspective (直接说观点就可以了。BEN说除了第一段提出自己的观点，后面都直接陈述客观事实就可以。而且最后一段用这个，感觉有点别扭), in the fields concerning public affairs, shifting leadership is beneficial to both higher efficiency of the current system and the prevention of corruption, while in the fields of relatively private affairs the determination of leadership should be based on the stake holders’ evaluation of current performance of maybe a corporation.
貌似大家都一样，没理reason，只顾着claim了。
对于这种题，还真的应该大家讨论一下，或者请BEN指导一下~
个人意见，欢迎讨论~

amber_cUID: 3131341

这格式。。我要疯了

m7catsueUID: 3040890

67 Some people believe that society should try to saveevery plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time,and financial well-being.

Others believe that society need not make extraordinaryefforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangeredspecies.

Should we spend resources savingendangered species? I believe no one would oppose this suggestion. But to what extentshould we try to save endangered species at the price of people’s time, jobsand financial well-being? From my perspective, society should make efforts tomaintain biodiversity and save species whose existence is under the threat ofhuman activities according to the current financial and technologicalcapacities.

Saving endangered species is a desirablegoal to make efforts, not only for the biodiversity and stability of theecosystem, but also for the survival of ourselves. Given what we know, a morediversified ecosystem which is an indispensable condition for humans to survive,is more stable and more sustainable. If we leave the present frail ecosystem inwhich species are dying off alone without any effective measures to intervene,then we are committing murders of both animals and ourselves. We are standingon the top of the food chain, and our dominance on earth depends on aconsiderable number of other species which become our food directly or ultimately.If one species becomes extinct, the whole food chain will be weakened. And theextinction of a certain species may cut off the food chain of another at ahigher position, which may become a concatenate reaction eventually threateningour own survival. Though maybe not arresting, this reaction is operative aslong as a certain species somewhere in the world is dying off. Thereforeeffective measures must be taken to protect endangered species, for bothbiodiversity and our own survival.

While we are trying to save lives ofendangered species, the society’s financial and technological capacities also needto be taken into consideration. Though it is a noble goal to save lives and maintainthe biodiversity of the earth, we have to set limitations on our possibleactions. Due to the finite financial and technological capacities it is neitherpossible nor provident to try to save all endangered species around the worldespecially those which are to be eliminated by the process of natural selection.The only sensible solution in my opinion is to first save those relativelyimportant species directly in the food chain at which we are on the top. Our ultimateobjective of saving endangered species is to maintain the biodiversity of the ecosystemin which we live, thus protecting ourselves. We should try to save those endangeredspecies and at the same time also try to maintain the current level of financialwell-being, because only in this way can we rally support from the public to carry out the policy. Although it is hard tobalance, this is the ideal condition we are supposed to attain.

To sum up, maintaining biodiversity ofthe ecosystem is a desirable goal, but limited by finance and technology we maynot be able to save all species in danger. We must strike a balance of currentbenefits, specifically the present financial well-being of citizens, and theinterests for humanity in the long run, stabilizing the ecosystem andprotecting ourselves.




看了大家写的几篇，我觉得我这个思路好狭窄啊。。

oncoUID: 3114426

Should we spend resources saving endangered species? I believe no one would oppose this suggestion. But to what extent should we try to save endangered species at the price of people’s time, jobs and financial well-being? From my perspective, society should make efforts to maintain biodiversity and save species whose existence is under the threat of human activities according to the current financial and technological capacities.
[题目不是说要“which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take.”么？是不是要从原文观点中选一个合适的来说呢？求共同讨论]
Saving endangered species is a desirable goal to make efforts, not only for the biodiversity and stability of the ecosystem, but also for the survival of ourselves. Given what we know, a more diversified ecosystem which is an indispensable condition for humans to survive, is more stable and more sustainable. If we leave the present frail ecosystem in which species are dying off alone without any effective measures to intervene, then we are committing murders of both animals and ourselves. We are standing on the top of the food chain, and our dominance on earth depends on a considerable number of other species which become our food directly or ultimately. If one species becomes extinct, the whole food chain will be weakened. And the extinction of a certain species may cut off the food chain of another at a higher position, which may become a concatenate reaction eventually threatening our own survival. Though maybe not arresting, this reaction is operative as long as a certain species somewhere in the world is dying off. (我觉得这个句子好晦涩…)Therefore effective measures must be taken to protect endangered species, for both biodiversity and our own survival.
[感觉用词还蛮深的，有很多比较“高级”的用法。但是我感觉读起来有点费力。是因为你从句用多了么。]
While we are trying to save lives of endangered species, the society’s financial and technological capacities also need to be taken into consideration. Though it is a noble goal to save lives and maintain the biodiversity of the earth, we have to set limitations on our possible actions. Due to the finite financial and technological capacities it is neither possible nor provident to try to save all endangered species around the world especially those which are to be eliminated by the process of natural selection. The only sensible solution in my opinion is to first save those relatively important species directly in the food chain at which we are on the top.(这句话意思不通吧？food chain at which we are on the top是指啥？）. Our ultimate objective of saving endangered species is to maintain the biodiversity of the ecosystem in which we live, thus protecting ourselves. We should try to save those endangered species and at the same time also try to maintain the current level of financial well-being, because only in this way can we rally support from the public to carry out the policy. Although it is hard to balance, this is the ideal condition we are supposed to attain.
[这一段提到了经济援助的度的问题。但是感觉论证很浅很浅。说了：要注意度；要拯救那些处于食物链顶端的生物, 要协调好关系，拯救他们对自己也有好处。但是，好空，一个具体的例子也没有啊。]
To sum up, maintaining biodiversity of the ecosystem is a desirable goal, but limited by finance and technology we may not be able to save all species in danger. We must strike a balance of current benefits, specifically the present financial well-being of citizens, and the interests for humanity in the long run, stabilizing the ecosystem and protecting ourselves.
[我倒是蛮欣赏结尾的。总结了要协调两者的关系]

panmingming2008UID: 2535351

Should we spend resources saving endangered species? I believe no one would oppose this suggestion. But to what extent should we try to save endangered species at the price of people’s time, jobs and ...
onco 发表于 2011-9-17 01:37

首段的中心论点写得很好。
第二段需要例子。or else Dear Reader will be lost in your vague and lengthy reasoning, without concrete reason(s).

一个好例远远胜于千言万语的喋喋不休的论述。
【a good example >>>>>> thousands of words】

什么是好例？

与论点有关，典型-- 例子表达的意思正是你的论点想要illustrate的。

那么，什么是illustrate?
illustrate：
to make the meaning of sth clearer by using examples, pictures, etc. (牛津高阶学习词典)
或

a : to make clear : clarify
b : to make clear by giving or by serving as an example or instance
（http://m-w.com/）

例句：To illustrate my point, let me tell you a little story.