issue38 smile-B[第三次作业]

dychangfengUID: 2216148

这篇是issue, 觉得没写深入。。。
"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."

Television, the most pervasive and persuasive of modern technologies, marked by rapid change and growth, is changing our ways of lives from many aspects. There is no denying that people benefit a lot from television. While this does not mean that people can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books, as what have been claimed by the issue.. In fact, books is still playing an as important role in modern life as it in the past, if not less.

Thinking what we use television for, we can know that television is more than an electronic appliance; it is a means of relaxation, as well as a vehicle of communication, and little a tool of learning knowledge. After a whole-day work or study in stressful circumstance, watching television is one of the best means to enjoy oneself. Imagining that laying in a sofa watching television, you do not necessitate to concentrate on it, or you even do not need to think about it. The only thing you need to do is watching, and when it come to something funny, laugh loudly, regardless how impolite it maybe in your office or public. And as a vehicle a communication, television conveys a lot of information to us, including the new policies of government, new development in science and technology, education, and nearly every aspect of our society. Of course, it is recreation news that absorbs a large number of the youngsters. Does this mean we learn a lot from televisions? I do not think so.

For one reason, concerning learning, we imply that we concentrate our thoughts and energy to what we are engaging in now. It is difficult for us to deduce from common sense that we regard television as something funny, and we do not treat it seriously, then it is almost impossible for us to learn something very important to us. What we have gained from television is pieces of information which enter our head today and will be erased tomorrow, but it can prevent us from out of date to our society. There are so many distractions on television that it is hard for us to limit ourselves to watch we intend to do, which may be something dull and uninteresting. So many people indulging themselves in TV all day long lend strong evidence to this.

Another reason we cannot learn a lot from TV is that it's programs change so rapidly and few of them can repeat as one want. That's to say, hardly can we review this knowledge(if it can be called knowledge)when we desire to do. That's a rather big problem for learning. Few people have the ability of remember what they have seen for ever. One of my English teachers in secondary school once tell me that(and I paraphrase): the only way to leaning English well is repeating all the time. I think even it is not true in other subjects. We still need to go over what we have learned before in order not to forget it. To some extent, to learn is to repeat. How can we repeat by televisions since it is not us who control the TV programs? Certainly we have no difficulty in this by learning with books.

Finally, from what we have discussed above, I strongly believe that television indeed can bring us some knowledge, which can not substitute the knowledge in books. We learn something new to make us keep the same pace with our society, but this knowledge does not play key roles in the development of individual. So, to those who want to adopt a more meaningful life-style, he has to read more books which are masteries of great men in human history. Just like an old saying goes, reading does good to our minds.

[ 本帖最后由 dychangfeng 于 2006-7-27 02:39 编辑 ]

dychangfengUID: 2216148

my argu, welcome any proposal

Outline:
1the bones and the pots may have no relationship.
2the author does not eliminate other scenarios about the high levels of certain metallic.
3these bones can be spread by other means.
The arguer concludes that the pots, which are scattered over a wide area at various prehistoric sites, were spread by migration, not by trade. The recommendation, depending on the analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons, seems logical at first glance. While, it suffered from several fallacies.

Undoubtedly, the assertion/contention is based on the groundless assumption that these bones, which was found near the pots at a few sites, belong to those people who have produced those ceramic pots. The author oversimplizes the relationship between the bones and the pots. What we know from the mere facts mentioned in the article is that the bones and the pots were discovered at places not far from each other. We even do not know whether they belong to the same era. It is probable that the bones belong to the offspring or ancestors of the pot-makers, and it just a coincidence for their bones appear nearby those pots. Or maybe those bones have nothing to do with those pots. They were buried at places nearby by some natural reasons, such as dilution, earthquakes. Having not eliminated these scenarios, the author can not justify its contention.

Even that the assumption discussed above is tenable, we still con not reach the author's conclusion. The analysis just say that bones contain high levels of a certain metallic elements contained in various food, and we can not deduce that owners of these bones are brought up at the same place, let alone to deduce that they migrate to other places after grown up. One the one hand, the article has no information about the food in different sits in that special era. So we can imagine that, in that particular time, people in all this sites were feed on the same foods. If so, the analysis will be strange if it was not what it is now. On the other hand, the author do not rule out the possibility that this pot is popular in that time and people in different sites all can make this pot.

Finally, even we concede the legitimacy of the assumption; the author still cannot persuade us to admit his or her recommendation that these bones were spread by migration. Lacking sufficient evidence to substantiate his conclusion, we can give varieties of possibilities the owners of the pots and bones appear at places nearby in addition to migration. There may be a war or other disasters at those places and people living there had to escape from it, and they died on the way of escape.

From what have been discussed above, we can safely get to the conclusion that, unless the author provide us sufficient evidence about the relationship between the bones and the pots, the natural and social environments of these sites in that special era, we can not accept his gratuitous assertion.

vitaminxixiUID: 2159890

The arguer concludes that the pots, which are scattered over a wide area at various prehistoric sites, were spread by migration, not by trade. The recommendation, depending on the analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons, seems logical at first glance. While, it suffered from several fallacies.[开头很好，两句话把题目概括性简述，很清晰。第三句表明立场]

Undoubtedly, the assertion/contention is based on the groundless assumption that these bones, which was found near the pots at a few sites, belong to those people who have produced those ceramic pots. The author oversimplizes[oversimplified] the relationship between the bones and the pots. What we know from the mere facts mentioned in the article is that the bones and the pots were discovered at places not far from each other. We even do not know whether they belong to the same era. It is probable that the bones belong to the offspring or ancestors of the pot-makers, and it just a coincidence for their bones appear nearby those pots. Or maybe those bones have nothing to do with those pots. They were buried at places nearby by some natural reasons, such as dilution, earthquakes. Having not eliminated these scenarios, the author can not justify its contention.

Even that the assumption discussed above is tenable, we still con not reach the author's conclusion. The analysis just say that bones contain high levels of a certain metallic elements contained in various food, and we can not deduce that owners of these bones are brought up at the same place, let alone to deduce that they migrate to other places after grown up. One the one hand, the article has no information about the food in different sits in that special era. So we can imagine that, in that particular time, people in all this sites were feed on the same foods. If so, the analysis will be strange if it was not what it is now. On the other hand, the author do not rule out the possibility that this pot is popular in that time and people in different sites all can make this pot. [前两个假设分析得挺有力，不过第三个，题目中说一种风格奇特的壶出现在各种地方不可思议，也就是说因为壶的特殊，它本应出现在少有的几个地方，而实际上却不是这样，所以才有疑问]

Finally, even we concede the legitimacy of the assumption; the author still cannot persuade us to admit his or her recommendation that these bones were spread by migration. Lacking sufficient evidence to substantiate his conclusion, we can give varieties of possibilities the owners of the pots and bones appear at places nearby in addition to migration. There may be a war or other disasters at those places and people living there had to escape from it, and they died on the way of escape.

From what have been discussed above, we can safely get to the conclusion that, unless the author provide us sufficient evidence about the relationship between the bones and the pots, the natural and social environments of these sites in that special era, we can not accept his gratuitous assertion.
[整篇文章我觉得最大的优点就是对于自己所找出的每个攻击点到能有力地展开！而且意思表达得很清晰。只是有一点，我觉得在最后一段中用自然和社会环境来概括缺少的信息有点模糊，可以稍微具体一点，不然看到这有点突兀的感觉。
这篇文章给我很大启示，谢谢]

vitaminxixiUID: 2159890

"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."

Television, the most pervasive and persuasive of modern technologies, marked by rapid change and growth, is changing our ways of lives from many aspects. There is no denying that people benefit a lot from television. While this does not mean that people can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books, as what have been claimed by the issue.. In fact, books is still playing an as important role in modern life as it in the past, if not less.

Thinking what we use television for, we can know that television is more than an electronic appliance; it is a means of relaxation, as well as a vehicle of communication, and little a tool of learning knowledge. After a whole-day work or study in stressful circumstance, watching television is one of the best means to enjoy oneself. Imagining that laying in a sofa watching television, you do not necessitate to concentrate on it, or you even do not need to think about it. The only thing you need to do is watching, and when it come to something funny, laugh loudly, regardless how impolite it maybe in your office or public. And as a vehicle a communication, television conveys a lot of information to us, including the new policies of government, new development in science and technology, education, and nearly every aspect of our society. Of course, it is recreation news that absorbs a large number of the youngsters. Does this mean we learn a lot from televisions? I do not think so.
[正如lz所说，这段不够深入，换句话说没点到点上。我想了下，题目中比较的是数和电视在我们学习中的作用，但不能因为电视在其他地方的作用我们就说他在我们学习中作用不如书，你说是吗]
For one reason, concerning learning, we imply that we concentrate our thoughts and energy to what we are engaging in now. It is difficult for us to deduce from common sense that we regard television as something funny, and we do not treat it seriously, then it is almost impossible for us to learn something very important to us. What we have gained from television is pieces of information which enter our head today and will be erased tomorrow, but it can prevent us from out of date to our society. There are so many distractions on television that it is hard for us to limit ourselves to watch we intend to do, which may be something dull and uninteresting. So many people indulging themselves in TV all day long lend strong evidence to this.

Another reason we cannot learn a lot from TV is that it's programs change so rapidly and few of them can repeat as one want. That's to say, hardly can we review this knowledge(if it can be called knowledge)when we desire to do. That's a rather big problem for learning. Few people have the ability of remember what they have seen for ever. One of my English teachers in secondary school once tell me that(and I paraphrase): the only way to leaning English well is repeating all the time. I think even it is not true in other subjects. We still need to go over what we have learned before in order not to forget it. To some extent, to learn is to repeat. How can we repeat by televisions since it is not us who control the TV programs? Certainly we have no difficulty in this by learning with books.[这段论证得挺充分，只是和上端中有一些观点是交叉的]

Finally, from what we have discussed above, I strongly believe that television indeed can bring us some knowledge, which can not substitute the knowledge in books. We learn something new to make us keep the same pace with our society, but this knowledge does not play key roles in the development of individual. So, to those who want to adopt a more meaningful life-style, he has to read more books which are masteries of great men in human history. Just like an old saying goes, reading does good to our minds.[ a more meaningful life-style这点提得好，要是在上面论证中再展开谈谈可能会更好]

[谢谢对我那篇文章的批改，你的看法我也发现了，可在写时不经意间就偏了，呵呵，要加强了]