issue98 麻烦大家了。谢谢啊！

beicyerUID: 154781

麻烦了，帮我看一下好么？谢谢

“Colleges and universities should offer more course on popular music, film, advertising, and television because contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do ares and literature of the past”

My position : disagree

Many people think that since contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than
do arts and literature of the past , universities and colleges should offer more courses on popular
music, films, advertising and television. However, in my view, although I agree that the contemporary culture is relevant to students more greatly than the past culture, it is not necessary for colleges and universities to offer more courses on contemporary culture such as films and pop music.

In the first place, universities and colleges offering more courses on contemporary culture may be a waste of money, and it is not the best we for students to understand the culture really. The speaker says 'much greater relevance' in the topic. What does it mean? The 'much greater relevance means that students can approach the culture not only in lots of ways , but also accquire it easily. For example, students can listen to the pop music from radio,taper,or using the computer; they can watch TV not only from using television, but also from downloading from LAN in the campus; they can see the advertises everywhere. And the knowledge students accquire from these ways is more active and in a bigger range than from the relative courses. Now the knowledge on the contemporary culture students can learn not from the courses is large, what is the need universities and colleges offer more the course? And as we know, offering a courses, needs the teachers, the classrooms, the machines used for teaching and so on ,which need a lot of money. So we need not offer the courses to avoid wasting of money.

Secondly, if universities and colleges offer more courses on contemporary culture, it seems to lower the importance of the arts and literature of the past in a sense. Once offering more courses on the contemporary culture, students may pay time on them , and the time rest is less. As we know, the arts and literature of the past is relatively far from us. If we do not approach it with conscious and activity, the knowledge about it may be less. And it is not a good thing because the past culture is as important as the contemporary culture. Firstly, we can learn much form the past
culture. For example, form the beautiful poems in the past, we can know the life of our forebears
and the circumstance of the past society, not only our own country, but other countries; from the
biography written by our ancesters, we can know much about managing . Secondly, knowing the past culture well can help us understanding the contemporary culture better, since each culture has its historical background. Although the past culture is important, many students do not realize it. If colleges and universities do not lead them to past culture and just emphasize the importance of the contemporary culture, where the past culture will go?

In sum, 'much more greater relevant ' does not mean 'more important'. Universities and colleges should not offer more courses on contemporary culture, because the emphasis on it is enough, instead ,they should offer more courses on the past culture to balance the knowledge students acquire.

galaxysongUID: 152834

“Colleges and universities should offer more course on popular music, film, advertising, and television because ontemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do arts and literature of the past.”

[You typed the topic of this issue into computer? Don't you have an electronic edition of the collection of all the topics? Download one, and model issues as well, from this bbs if you don't have it. ]

My position : disagree

Many people think that since contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do arts and literature of the past, universities and colleges should offer more courses on popular music, films, advertising and television. However, in my view, although I agree ["However" and "although" are iterant. "I agree" also overlaps "In my view".] that the contemporary culture is relevant to students more greatly than [+is] the past culture, it is not necessary for colleges and universities to offer more courses on contemporary culture such as films and pop music.

[Your threshold sentence extends the speaker's assertion into many people's view. I've never seen any model issue does so and  I thereby don't regard it as an adoptable expression in an issue. ]

In the first place, universities and colleges offering more courses on contemporary culture may be a waste of money, and it is not the best we for students to understand the culture really [Chinglish. I'm afraid no American can understand it.]. The speaker says 'much greater relevance' in the topic. What does it mean? [--. I mean, delete these two sentence, for they contribute nothing to the reasoning of the passage.] The 'much greater relevance means that students can approach the culture not only in lots of ways , but also accquire it easily. [Remember, you are writing an issue, not argument. You don't need to fire at what the speaker says directly. Rather, you should make your own idea and make sense of it. In other words, you need to write in the way a speechmaker talks to the public other than a protestor debates with the speaker.] For example, students can listen to the pop music from [on] radio,taper [Look "taper" up in a dictionary!],or using the computer; they can watch TV [You actually mean video plays and programs, don't you?] not only from using [from using -> via] television, but also from downloading from LAN in the campus [You really need to reinforce the degree of your familiarity with prepositions.]; they can see the [-the] advertises everywhere. And the knowledge students accquire from these ways is more active and in a bigger range than from the relative courses. Now the knowledge on the contemporary culture students can learn not from the courses is large, what is the need universities and colleges offer more the course? And as we know, offering a courses, needs the teachers, the classrooms, the machines used for teaching and so on ,which need a lot of money. So we need not offer the courses to avoid wasting of money.

[Your first sentence, which only abuses the speaker's claim as "a waste of money", fails to point out the main idea of the paragraph clearly. I can understand what you mean, but Americans are not likely to. Ask yourself, if only in one short sentence, what you will say to your reader?]
[There are more advantages of free and open learning of modern arts. For instance, it's most up-to-date, and more inspiring than is an academic study.]

Secondly, if universities and colleges offer more courses on contemporary culture, it seems to lower the importance of the arts and literature of the past in a sense. [Of course. It is the assumption, suggested by the speaker, that arts in the past are of less importance to students that leads to the claim for more courses on contermporary culture.] Once offering [offering -> offered] more courses on the contemporary culture, students may pay time on them , and the time rest is less. [This reasoning is too shallow. Americans are not so stupid after all. Thus, just ommit this sentence and go on.] As we know, the arts and literature of the past is relatively far from us. If we do not approach it with conscious and activity, the knowledge about it may be less. [Shallow again.] And it is not a good thing because the past culture is as important as the contemporary culture. [At last, you make out your point. How late it is!] Firstly, we can learn much form the past culture. For example, form the beautiful poems in the past, we can know the life of our forebears and the circumstance of the past society, [Conjunction needed.] not only our own country, but other countries; from the biography written by our ancesters, we can know much about managing [???]. Secondly, knowing the past culture well can help us understanding the contemporary culture better[Quite right!], since each culture has its historical background. Although the past culture is important, many students do not realize it. [You stray away a little far.] If colleges and universities do not lead them to past culture and just emphasize the importance of the contemporary culture, where the past culture will go? [Just say, the past culture will disappear. But so what? What's the consquence of that? This is the key problem you are supposed to discuss thoroughly.]

[If listing out all objects and ideas in this big paragraph, you will be stunned. The former half paragraph shows little value, and the latter half needs enriching.]

In sum, 'much more greater relevant ' does not mean 'more important'. [Look back at what your threshold claim is!] Universities and colleges should not offer more courses on contemporary culture, because the emphasis on it is enough,[,->.] instead [->Instead],they should offer more courses on the past culture to balance the knowledge students acquire. [You provide new claims here and almost none of ideas discussed in foregoing paragraphs is mentioned.]

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

Congratulations! You have improved significantly.

As to your reasoning, if you write out an outline, which is also called syllabus, you will stand to gain.

Again, I think it necessary to repeat what I said above:
"Remember, you are writing an issue, not argument. You don't need to fire at what the speaker says directly. Rather, you should make your own idea and make sense of it. In other words, you need to write in the way a speechmaker talks to the public other than a protestor debates with the speaker."

I suggest you should write simple mini issues at the beginning and keep reading model issues one after one. If you can find yourself have created some expressions that don't seem English immediate after you made them, which indicts that you have already set a ruler of language within your heart, you will be on the right route.