（推荐新手看这个帖）我的AW笔记本（内有老外280的分析，资料基本上看这个就够了）

cywaUID：147517

你不考医生考试吗,考g干什么

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

（一） 历史与现代：7，26，38，110，147，155，54，103，120，125，189
38．38 "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."
在电视机时代，阅读书籍已经没有原来那样重要了。人们从电视上学到的东西丝毫不比从书本中学来的少。
7 "The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
7．数码相机可以精确、令人信服地记录当代人们的生活，作为一种记录方式，它的重要性已经超过了纸笔记录。
26 "Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served."
26．很多人认为建筑代表了一个社会过去的历史价值，但是当现代城市的规划者想要利用老建筑占用的地盘做新的规划时，就会引起很多争辩。在这样的情况下，现代的发展应该优先被考虑，以使当代的需要得到满足。
110 "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."
110．当我们研究历史时，我们变成了讲故事的人。因为我们无从直接知道过去发生的事情，必须通过一些证据来构建，所以历史研究是一个有创造成分的领域，而并非一个客观的学科。所有的历史学家都是讲故事的人（storyteller）。
147 "Tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them."
147．传统和现代不相容。人们必须在二者之间做出选择。
155 "Contemporary society offers so many ways of learning that reading books is no longer very important."
155．当代社会提供了很多学习的途径，读书这种学习方式已经不是很重要了。
54 "History teaches us only one thing: knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today."
54．历史只教会我们一件事：了解过去并不能帮助今天的人们在重大的事情上做决定。
103 "The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives."
103．研究历史的价值只体现在这种研究和我们的日常生活相关时。
120 "So much is new and complex today that looking back for an understanding of the past provides little guidance for living in the present."
120．现代生活是崭新、复杂的，认知过去对现在没有指导价值。
125 "The past is no predictor of the future."
125．过去并不能预示将来。
189 "If people disregard the great works of the past, it is because these works no longer answer the needs of the present."
189．如果人们忽视了过去的伟大成就，那是因为这些成就已不能再回应目前的需要。

（二） 历史作用：81，103，221
81 "Patriotic reverence for the history of a nation often does more to impede than to encourage progress."
81．对国家历史的带有爱国主义色彩的崇敬往往对国家发展起阻碍作用，而不是推动作用。
103 "The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives."
103．研究历史的价值只体现在这种研究和我们的日常生活相关时。
221 "The chief benefit of the study of history is to break down the illusion that people in one period of time are significantly different from people who lived at any other time in history."
221．研究历史最明显的好处就是消除了这样的错觉，某个时代的人们与历史上另一个时代的人们有重大的差别

（三） 个人得失与历史：48，241
241．"An individual's greatness cannot be judged objectively by his or her contemporaries; the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time."
241．个体的伟大成就不能由同时代的人来评判；对于成就最客观的评价者是后来人。
48 "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
48．对历史的研究把太多的重点放在对某些个人上。而历史上一些重大的事件和发展趋势不是由个别名人决定的，而是由那些已经被人们淡忘的社会群体所创造的。

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

by leongfish

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768013434
As a process of acquiring new knowledge and gaining the abilities to perform new behaviors, learning an academic discipline not only alters the way we perceive the world, but also develop the methods by which we reconstruct the world.

Every discipline could help us realize the childish faults in our set point of views. When we encounter a new idea or notion, we tend to form a simple good-or-bad opinion about it--which is always too partial to be precise and would probably companies us from then on. Fortunately, the knowledge of a specific discipline would correct such a prejudiced idea. For example, every child is born with a belief of selfish or egoism. By learning the sociology, we realize that every single person is just one single component of the society, which lead to more rational standpoints: collectivism and nationalism. Also, the study of science discipline could redefine some concepts which we once misunderstand, like "what the universe really is", or "where is human originate on earth?"

On the other hand, the knowledge in the books summarized by our ancestors will deepen our comprehension about the outside world, so it offers another way to see the world. Since learning a discipline is just like construction--from the base to the superstructure, which is a continuous and developing process, we could keep on absorbing in advanced views about how the world works. For instance, an undergraduate of physics will get a profound cognition about the essence of the substance after he/she learn the quantum mechanics which provides a method combining macroscopic and microcosmic theories, no longer insisting on the classic Newton mechanics. Also, a student of art would learn to appreciate the painting works from more angles: besides the content and the pigment, what kind of emotion is the painter plan to reveal? And what is the historical background which may give readers a glimpse of the temporal social condition?

However, the study of a discipline also alters the way we reconstruct the outside world（which is based on the adequate understanding of the world）, since it is the direct reason why we engage in learning. The study of technology would provide us with some new methods to create tools and equipment which enhance our force to rebuild the nature. Also the study of humanities encourage us to try new ways to improve the civilization: for example the discipline of laws will introduce people with democratic ideas thus lead to the reform of some illogical policies. Conversely, the experience we gain from the practice will remarkably counteract on our comprehension thus further promote it.

In conclusion, the study of an academic discipline offers different ways we understand and alter the world.

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 3D101#pid1768013460
The goal of education is to improve the students' morals and faculties--including skepticism. In my opinion, it is true that students should question what they are taught instead of accepting them passively, however, not all kinds of knowledge should be questioned and the degree of emphasis differs due to the period of study.

Admittedly, skepticism helps students to better understand the outside world. First, skepticism is the prerequisite for human to create new ideas and techniques. In the field of science, nearly all advanced theories are born on the basis of the old ones by those courageous and skeptical scientists. For example, 德布罗意 ,who disagreed with the former theory on the essence of substance, developed a new theory named "substantial waves" which is now the basis of modern physics. In the field of arts, musicians and artists have created new forms of arts by their aesthetic skepticism. Therefore, as the preliminary stage of human's lifetime, the students ought to learn to engender their own special ideas: Is the world works just as teachers have told us? Second, skepticism on the books would help students to solid their comprehension of their acquired knowledge thus enlarge their own database of information. When they come up with a question, they will spend time on analysis and discussion which is in fact a process of re-assimilate.

Nevertheless, it is impossible and unwise for students to focus on questioning all their studies. Their doubts about some basic knowledge and traditions which human society is deeply built on are nothing but stupidity. Any ideas which disobey the proved, unchallengeable foundation of the world--like the attempt to produce the “eternal machinery”(永动机？) or the disagreement with the geometrical axiom is only a waste of time. So students should understand to choose the right kinds of objects to disbelieve, not to simply deny all.

Furthermore, the essentiality of suspicion varies in different stages of study. The ideas of skepticism are based on an adequate accumulation of knowledge. Students in a preliminary school always finds it hard to point out a mistake among what their teachers have told them, since they lack the ability of critical thinking and synthesis. The chief task for them is to accept all the basic knowledge for the preparation of the future skepticism. On the contrary, college students have accumulated enough information and experience to develop their own values and opinions against the authorities, thus they are able to spend large amount of energy to question the outside world.

In conclusion, we can not put too much emphasis on the importance of skepticism, but in the same time we should remember that not all studies and all students need it urgently.

:kiss:

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-24 18:20 编辑 ]

micro_sandalUID：2177381

哈哈太好玩拉

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

In order to from you, you won't know how much effects I had pay ....numous try, endless struggle, we hide those, because we want to be impressed by our smarts or sth... in fact, we work hard, and hard working is the answer to everying...... I have to admit that I, as well as many guys, do enjoy those hard work. In working and thinking, we find the meaning of life....

其实中间的意思递进，否定之否定的让步技巧。推理逻辑的思路很多的优点，因为时间关系，没有办法一一用语言注明，因为自己的意思连贯度一直不好，所以我在分析的同时重点是将连词标注出来。其实很多的东西要细细看过才有体会，这里的标注主要是给自己理解用的，外人看来难免粗糙。很多看法也是仁者见仁的东西。
斜体字是短语，固定用法；下划线是意思的转折；粗体字是中心句。附了翻译。

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-2-2 09:57 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 1
"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker claims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.

Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.

Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power should control all economic activity.

Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.

At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers' concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.

In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-28 02:24 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 4
"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural anthropology and astronomy.

Consider how a cultural anthropologist's knowledge about an ancient civilization is enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist--who unearths the evidence--but ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic scientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of death of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structures--thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about the civilization's economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples--since ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.

An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists. These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computer engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role--insofar as major space projects require international cooperative efforts among the world's scientists and governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to what we learn about our universe.

In sum, no area of intellectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scientists who make possible the science, and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-28 02:22 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 5
"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."

The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the same time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom to augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long term.

A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive members of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all schoolchildren are taught core values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive--values such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.

However, a common curriculum that is also an exclusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. （这样的大段转折结构注意）

First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision-maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children--notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence--peddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.

Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish to suppress--as some sort of threat to its authority and power. Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level.

Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose citizenship they share.

Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to undermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent than uniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their children receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well justified, for the reasons mentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at the community level, parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions left exclusively to federal regulators.

In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount to a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a future populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state--or better yet, to each community.

5. "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."
一个国家应该要求所有的学生在进入大学之前都学习由国家统一制定的课程，而不是允许由国家不同地区的学校去决定课程的安排。
国家统一和地区单独安排课

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 7
"The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
According to the speaker, the video recording is a more important means of document hag contemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate and convincing. Although I agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of an event's spatial aspects, there is far more to document a life than what we see and hear. Thus the speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.

For the purpose of documenting temporal, spatial events and experiences, I agree that a video record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It is impossible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount ha complete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, a Ballanchine ballet, the Tournament of Roses Parade, or the scene at the intersection of Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Yet these are important events in contemporary life the sort of events we might put ha a time capsule for the purpose of capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium. The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those described above. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories. Thus they can play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings--such as those involving robbery, drug trafficking, police misconduct, motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospital operating room. Indeed, whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera is superior to the written word. A written description of a hurricane, tornado, or volcanic eruption cannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record. A diary entry cannot "replay" that wedding reception, dance recital, or surprise birthday party as accurately or objectively as a video record. And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting, spaciousness, or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.

Nonetheless, for certain other purposes, written records are advantageous to and more appropriate than video records. For example, certain legal matters are best left to written documentation: video is of no practical use ha documenting the terms of a complex contractual agreement, incorporation, or the establishment of a trust. And video is of little use when it comes to documenting a person's subjective state of mind, impressions, or reflections of an event or experience. Indeed, to the extent that personal interpretation adds dimension and richness to the record, written documentation is actually more important than video. Finally, a video record is of no use in documenting statistical or other quantitative information. Returning to the riot example mentioned earlier, imagine relying on a video to document the financial loss to store owners, the number of police and firefighters involved, and so forth. Complete and accurate video documentation of such information would require video cameras at every street corner and in every aisle of every store.

In sum, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of video records, at least to some extent. When it comes to capturing, storing, and recalling temporal, spatial events, video records are inherently more objective, accurate, and complete. However, what we view through a camera lens provides only one dimension of our life and times; written documentation will always be needed to quantify, demystify, and provide meaning to the world around us.

7. "The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
摄像机可以通过如此精确而有力的记录手段来再现当代生活，因此它已经代替书面记录成为了一种更重要的记录手段。
记录手段：现代摄像机和印刷术

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 8
"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivety about the inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultimate interests. Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to withhold information, otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.

One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivety, neither of which earns a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foible, character flaw, and detail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a political career; thus I think this view is realistic.

Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example, if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail, and the public's health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K-related malfunction. This fact was withheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.

Having recognized that withholding information from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda. History informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery--that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Any democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, which operates against the democratic principle of government by the people. Consider also less egregious examples, such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up. His behavior demonstrated a concern for self-interest above the broader interests of the democratic system that granted his political authority in the first place.

In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty. And such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership. Nevertheless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a private agenda, or to conceal selfish motives, betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the political game.

8. "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
对于政治领导者来说，向人大众隐瞒信息通常是必要的，甚至有益的。
少数和多数的关系之true lies, the truth is out there.

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-28 05:12 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 10
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."

The speaker's claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government; (2) government support is needed for our large cities and cultural traditions to survive and thrive; and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims. 可以这样数字表达吗？

First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a proper role of government. Admittedly, certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are so essential to the survival of large cities and of nations that government has a duty to ensure that they are met. However, these objectives should not extend tenuously to preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy to a few legislators, whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.

Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture--by which I chiefly mean the fine arts--has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And tomorrow cultural support will come from our new technology and media moguls----including the likes of Ted Turner and Bill Gates. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that our cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker unfairly suggests that large cities serve as the primary breeding ground and sanctuaries for a nation's cultural traditions. Today a nation's distinct cultural traditions--its folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies--burgeon instead in small towns and rural regions. Admittedly, our cities do serve as our centers for "high art"; big cities are where we deposit, display, and boast the world's preeminent art, architecture, and music. But big-city culture has little to do anymore with one nation's distinct cultural traditions. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots; accordingly, by assisting large cities a government is actually helping to create a global culture as well to subsidize the traditions of other nations' cultures.

In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically justify assisting large cities for the purpose of either promoting or preserving the nation's cultural traditions; nor is government assistance necessary toward these ends. Moreover, assisting large cities would have little bearing on our distinct cultural traditions, which abide elsewhere.

10. "Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
政府必须要确保主要城市发展所需的财政支持，因为一个国家的文化传统主要是在城市中得以保存和发展。
城市和国家的关系之文化传统

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-28 05:12 编辑 ]

谁UID：207829

7楼的有点狠

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 13
"Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct."

The speaker asserts that governments of countries where lesser-known languages are spoken should intervene to prevent these languages from becoming extinct. I agree insofar as a country's indigenous and distinct languages should not be abandoned and forgotten altogether. At some point, however, I think cultural identity should yield to the more practical considerations of day-to-day life in a global society.

On the one hand, the indigenous language of any geographical region is part-and-parcel of the cultural heritage of the region's natives. In my observation we humans have a basic psychological need for individual identity, which we define by way of our membership in distinct cultural groups. A culture defines itself in various ways--by its unique traditions, rituals, mores, attitudes and beliefs, but especially language. Therefore, when a people's language becomes extinct the result is a diminished sense of pride, dignity, and self-worth. One need look no further than continental Europe to observe how people cling tenaciously to their distinct languages, despite the fact that there is no practical need for them anymore. And on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the French Canadians stubbornly insist on French as their official language, for the sole purpose of preserving their distinct cultural heritage. Even where no distinct language exists, people will invent one to gain a sense of cultural identity, as the emergence of the distinct Ebonic cant among today's African Americans aptly illustrates. In short, people resist language assimilation because of a basic human need to be part of a distinct cultural group. Another important reason to prevent the extinction of a language is to preserve the distinct ideas that only that particular language can convey. Certain Native American and Oriental languages, for instance, contain words symbolizing spiritual and other abstract concepts that only these cultures embrace. Thus, in some cases to lose a language would be to abandon cherished beliefs and ideas that can be conveyed only through language.

On the other hand, in today's high-tech world of satellite communications, global mobility, and especially the Internet, language barriers serve primarily to impede cross-cultural communication, which in turn impedes international commerce and trade. Moreover, language barriers naturally breed misunderstanding, a certain distrust and, as a result, discord and even war among nations. Moreover, in my view the extinction of all but a few major languages is inexorable--as supported by the fact that the Internet has adopted English as its official language. Thus by intervening to preserve a dying language a government might be deploying its resources to fight a losing battle, rather than to combat more pressing social problems--such as hunger, homelessness, disease and ignorance--that plague nearly every society today.

In sum, preserving indigenous languages is, admittedly, a worthy goal; maintaining its own distinct language affords a people a sense of pride, dignity and self-worth. Moreover, by preserving languages we honor a people's heritage, enhance our understanding of history, and preserve certain ideas that only some languages properly convey. Nevertheless, the economic and political drawbacks of language barriers outweigh the benefits of preserving a dying language. In the final analysis, government should devote its time and resources elsewhere, and leave it to the people themselves to take whatever steps are needed to preserve their own distinct languages.

13. "Many of the world's lesser-known languages are being lost as fewer and fewer people speak them. The governments of countries in which these languages are spoken should act to prevent such languages from becoming extinct."
世界上很多的小语种都快要消失了，因为越来越少的人在使用这些语言。使用这些小语种的国家应该采取行动以防止这样的语言逐渐销声匿迹。
反全球化问题之小语种与政府保护

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-30 18:19 编辑 ]

zhangheng1020UID：2130513

Issue 16
"Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, they in fact, prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."

Do modern luxuries serve to undermine our true strength and independence as individuals? The speaker believes so, and I tend to agree.

Consider the automobile, for example. Most people consider the automobile a necessity rather than a luxury; yet it is for this very reason that the automobile so aptly supports the speaker's point. To the extent that we depend on cars as crutches, they prevent us from becoming truly independent and strong in character as individuals. Consider first  the effect of the automobile on our independence as individuals. In some respects the automobile serves to enhance such independence. For example, cars make it possible for people in isolated and depressed areas without public transportation to become more independent by pursing gainful employment outside their communities. And teenagers discover that owning a car, or even borrowing one on occasion, affords them a needed sense of independence from their parents.

However, cars have diminished our independence in a number of more significant respects. We've grown dependent on our cars for commuting to work. We rely on them like crutches for short trips to the corner store, and for carting our children to and from school. Moreover, the car has become a means not only to our assorted physical destinations but also to the attainment of our socioeconomic goals, insofar as the automobile has become a symbol of status. In fact, in my observation many, if not most, working professionals willingly undermine their financial security for the sake of being seen driving this year's new SUV or luxury sedan. In short, we've become slaves to the automobile.

Consider next the overall impact of the automobile on our strength as individuals, by which I mean strength of character, or mettle. I would be hard-pressed to list one way in which the automobile enhances one's strength of character. Driving a powerful SUV might afford a person a feeling and appearance of strength, or machismo. But this feeling has nothing to do with a person's true character. In contrast, there is a certain strength of character that comes with eschewing modern conveniences such as cars, and with the knowledge that one is contributing to a cleaner and quieter environment, a safer neighborhood, and arguably a more genteel society. Also, alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking are forms of exercise which require and promote the virtue of self-discipline. Finally, in my observation people who have forsaken the automobile spend more time at home, where they are more inclined to prepare and even grow their own food, and to spend more time with their families. The former enhances one's independence; the latter enhances the integrity of one's values and the strength of one's family.

To sum up, the automobile helps illustrate that when a luxury becomes a necessity it can sap our independence and strength as individuals. Perhaps our society is better off, on balance, with such "luxuries"; after all, the automobile industry has created countless jobs, raised our standard of living, and made the world more interesting. However, by becoming slaves to the automobile we trade off a certain independence and inner strength.

16. "Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, in fact, they actually prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."
尽管许多人认为现代生活的奢华和便利是丝毫没有坏处的，但是这实际上让人们无法成为真正强大和独立的个体。
社会和个人之发展问题

[ 本帖最后由 zhangheng1020 于 2006-1-30 19:06 编辑 ]

tiger_moonUID：2143214

没看，不晓得其他人如何？