【NINE小组】【作业集】---by lovetian (更新至第十二次I)

panmingming2008UID：2535351

第六篇 I
[quote]Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

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

Different from the author’s claim, in my point of view, government has no reason to postpone their funding for the arts, especially when significant numbers of their citizens are suffered from hunger and unemployment. Furthermore, compared with funding for art when financial condition is healthy, government should take pains to invest money in art during this hard time that many people are suffering from hunger and losing their jobs. (黑体加粗作为中心论点是清楚的. 接下来的"furthermore" 就不太妥当了. 用一句话简单清楚表达观点是最好的.)

There is no doubt that art can provide a lot to us, like courage and inspiration. These things are very important to us in our daily life as well as to those people experiencing the sorrow of losing jobs or being hungry. Being unemployed, without any money earned, and having to stay at home, these people will possibly be upset and even decadent. But if these people have access to enjoying art in their daily life, this condition will be improved and the public’s psychology will also be healthier than before.[BEN: HOW? WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS to support this claim? ] Holding an exhibition of Inspirational film, opening museums free of charge, and showing encouraging paintings at city center, all of this can be effective to solve problems following the economic slowdown. For instance, if a person takes a glance at Van Gogh's Sunflower at somewhere in daily life, maybe just on their way to home, having seen such a bright and gorgeous picture, people will be inspired with a feeling of encouragement and inspiration. This feeling will be significant to a person so that he/she can be encouraged to fighting against the frustration in life.

Government should fund for art as well as for resolving the surviving troubles. The statement linking funding for art negatively with solving the social problem in a hard time is supposed to be wrong. No evidence can show that government can only fund for one thing among them.[the meaning of this sentence is vague--NOT CLEAR.] Funding for both of them, citizens will be inspired with the faith to overcome the problems, and the market is encouraged by the fund from government, everything will be fine after a period of time. If government only put emphasis on helping the market, since the influence wouldn’t show in a short time, the public will still sink into the feeling of pessimism. In order to get rid of surviving problems, [是想说现存问题吗?正确表达法应为current problems]the government should fund for art as well as realistic problems.

To sum up, government’s funding for art when a lot of people are hungry and losing jobs, which is not oppose to inventing money in some direct methods to solve problem, but helpful to them.

这个conclusion 用的which 从句,  把几个意思串错一起, 句意不清, 读出来有些别扭. [/quote]


本习作中心论点还算清楚, furthermore有些画蛇添足.
分论点还算简单明白. 但是支持的理由略不够有说服力, 例子有些牵强. 并且有不少没有根据支持的claims--这些不能作为理由支持分论点.

一例胜过千言万语. 没有例子硬说理容易沉浸于无依据的空话. 自己读起来不顺畅,

读者更是一头雾水.

语言方面需要多读些简明英文小说, 像牛津书虫系列不错. 通过简明对话吸取造句的基本功.

panmingming2008UID：2535351

Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear

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

I totally disagree with the author's claim that government should fund only for those researches whose consequences are clear. In terms of the essence of research or the reason why should government have a clear picture of research, the argument is unreasonable and absurd. Although a few researches' results have brought some calamities to our human beings, it is just the problem in the way of using scientific technology, scientific research itself is innocent.

To begin with, taking the result of research is clear or not as a factor to determine if government should fund for is a terrible idea. [这个句子有些别扭. 几乎是汉语硬译过来. 要改写.]No one can prove that the investment to any research whose consequence is unclear has no value. We must notice that the essence of scientific research is such a process in which scientists use a logical and systematic way to search for new and unknown information on a particular topic. The invention of Penicillin is such an example that nobody includes Alexander Fleming himself knows what he will find by his experimen

t on bacteriology, not to mention, no one can predict that the result of this research is such a great one, which almost change the whole world and let millions of people away from death. As scientists are search in an undiscovered field, we have no reason to ask them tell us what they will find in the end.

Second, maybe the reason why the author suggests that government should not fund for unclear research is he/she holds the view that investing in some researches which turn to a failure is a waste of money. [句子要从简单造起. 不怕短小, 就怕又长又不清楚.]However, no matter what an experiment's result is, success or failure, it still has value to let government invests in it. For instance, the contrivance of airplane has experienced countless failures until the Wright brothers successfully made the first propeller plane. Although there are so many unsuccessful experiments before the Wright brothers, the huge amount of money government has invested in these failed researches is still desirable, because all these failures do lead to the final success. ( Wright bros的技术发明与美国政府资助与否有关系吗? 例子要与论点有关.)


Finally, it is true that government will fund for some researches whose consequence may cause a calamity to the public without inspecting the research in advance. However, a kind of supervision system can be set up instead of simply holding such recommendation. Government can let someone to supervise and estimate the process of the research they funding for, and through this way, we can successfully avoid the calamity brought by scientific research. Besides, most of calamities made by science are not because the research is harmful to us, but the methods we use might make these disasters happen. If we can use the result of scientific research in some right ways, our society will benefit from it a lot and those unpleasant things will not come true.

In sum up, recommendation made by the author is somewhat irrational; if the government adopt such advice, it is possible that no new discovery will be made. So that, we shouldn’t choose which research to be invested in just by if the research’s consequence is clear or not.

句子要从简短造起.
为文要点是清楚明白. 如果grammar不熟练, 要先从短句写起. 然后对自己不熟悉的语法要点专攻一下, 掌握了一点再学另外的一点. [不是为语法而语法, 而是为把想法表达清楚]
如果你的句子写得清楚, 分数会上来-- 起码不会因为句意不明白而掉到3分以下.

然后再在其他审题\例子方面下些工夫. 例子要与论点相关, 而不是仅仅塞一个例子进来, 与要论证的论点没有直接联系.

想像你跟朋友对话, 这样的例子说明某个道理, 朋友会听得懂吗, 对方会信服吗?

lovetianUID：2899734

第六篇 A
The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors.
Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food stores. Since many of the food products currently marketed by Old Dairy Industries are high in fat and cholesterol, the company's sales are likely to diminish greatly and company profits will no doubt decrease. We therefore advise Old Dairy stockholders to sell their shares, and other investors not to purchase stock in this company."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice 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 advice.

In this argument, the author recommends that Old Dairy (OD) stockholders should sell their shares, and other investors shouldn't purchase stock in this company. To strengthen this recommendation, he/she cites a report, in which most of respondents show an attitude that they would like to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, while OD's most food products are high in fat and cholesterol. Seemingly, this recommendation is somewhat persuasive; in fact, it provides little credible support for the effectiveness of such investment advice.

To begin with, the report cited in this argument claims that most of people would change their eating habit. However, this might not be the case. The arguer obviously overlooks other possible explanations for this result. Firstly, the report doesn't tell us the real number of respondents and only provides a vague proportion, we have every reason to doubt the authenticity of this report. Perhaps there are only 10 people to take such report and 8 people are the employees of other Industries which are competing with OD, and perhaps the question in the report are irrational, which trends to reach such a conclusion. Without ruling out such possibilities, the report in this argument has no persuasion to support the idea held by the speaker.

Second, even I concede that the report is rational and the result of it is creditable, the argument is still unreasonable. This report only shows a desire of people that they would like to choose low-fat products in the future, however, such desires maybe just show what kind of food is healthy in their mind but they will still take high-fat foods as usual, such paradox can easily be found
in our daily life. For example, we all know smoking is harmful to our health but there are still millions of people keeping smoking in the Earth. Even though that all the people will really choose low-fat foods and change their eating habits, we still couldn't conclude that OD's sales will decrease. Although many of the food products marketed by OD are high in fat and cholesterol, facing such circumstance, these industies may improve their products and produce low-fat food products in the future. Without accounting for all these explanations, the arguer cannot reasonably draw such a conclusion that the sales of OD will decrease.

Finally, even assuming that the sales of OD decrease for the reason held by the author, it is unbelievable that company profits will no doubt diminish greatly. In the financial market, there exist many ways to obtain profit from besides the sales of an industry. And the price of a stock doesn't only depend on the profit made by the company. Investors can earn money from some companies' stock whose sales are not very good because many investors are selling and buying the stock. Without thinking about these alternatives, the recommendation cannot be accepted by any investor.

To sum up, the arguer's advice about how to deal with the OD's stock is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide move evidences.

panmingming2008UID：2535351

8# winterfine
把之前的习作一稿\同学批改稿\修改稿 都传上来. 这样的【习作集】会很赞.

主帖若改为"【NINE小组】【作业集】---by LOVETIAN （第xx次习作已更新）" 会更好.
也方便批改的同学前后参考, 自己也能上下浏览发现重复犯的错误 -- 然后通过"重点打击" 重点练习加以改进.

I am the master of my fate.
I am the captain of my soul.

"Invictus" (2009 film)

自胜者强。

COME ON!

lovetianUID：2899734

第九篇 I
Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.

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

I don't agree with the author's claim, and in my view, the goal of politics should be the pursuit of both an ideal and the common ground and reasonable consensus. Ideal, as well as common ground and reasonable consensus, is important to the politicians and society, and ideal can contribute to the common welfare of whole human race; common ground and reasonable consensus is the best way to solve recent social problems.

In the short term, searching for common ground and reasonable consensus in politics will solve current social troubles effectively and make the well-being of society and people better. Since common ground reasonable consensus is the prerequisite of any stable society, without which talking about any ideal makes no senses. Chairman Deng, for instance, instead of gripping the idealism of communism, enacted the marvelous and far-reaching policies of "one country, two systems", which earned not only national support but also international acknowledgement. This is a policy, which lead to the result of compromise, alleviate the opposite difference between capitalism and socialism, and successfully make the unite of Hong Kong to its motherland, China.

However, in the long term, it is important and necessary for politicians to pursue an ideal, which aim at gaining the common welfare of all the civilians. Only pursuing the common ground and reasonable consensus and ignoring the essential ideal will make the country lose its profit constantly and disappear from the Earth eventually. Gandhi, an Indian spiritual leader who leaded the nonviolent resistance movement and finally won the independence of India from the Great British, is such a politician who only pursues the ideal in his mind and neglects the common consensus. Without the pursuit of the ideal for many decades and with the common ground and reasonable consensus, India may be still a colony of British.

In sum up, it is true that politicians can pander and compromise to build a consensus so as to overcome some short-term problems, but when it comes to a long-term one, insisting the ideal in their mind is what they should do. Politicians should not only pursue the common consensus in order to gain his/her political power, but also keep the pursuit of an ideal in their mind, even which is elusive.