|
TOPIC: ISSUE38 - "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."
WORDS: 360 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2007-4-10
I disagree with the argument. Even we have been with television for such a long time, we are still in classes for new knowledge. Sure, the television can give us some general information, for example, what happens outside our own country. But books are much more important in giving instructions in academic area.
We do have teaching programs on TV: English teaching, Science Observation and so on. But TV Company is aimed in（at） getting high receiving rate. He will pay more attention on the general class who wants to find pleasure in watching TV after a day of tedious work. Those people have no interest in how to prove the theorem in maths book or what we should do to improve one of the machines he will never care. The most popular TV programs are always TV series or some funny shows with no serious information for a student or anyone who decides to seek some useful messages.
But a society needs technical information not some leisurely program to train a new generation to move on. TV can not give serious instruction which we can also learn from books. To those who are doing research work or willing to do some research in a specific area, watching TV for learning is absurd.
We have read many reports which state that watching TV too much will obstruct communications with other people and make people feel lonely. But reading books will not. Good books are the shining thoughts of great people. We talk with the great minds and get many instructions through them. Children are in a state of studying to learn. Leaving them with the TV will not only obstruct his learning but also impede his willingness to get in touch with other people which (who) is important in getting information.
What's more, books are more concentrated in one topic which we are interested in while watching TV you have to wait for the non-stop advertisements. Disruptions will waste our time for catching on and attract our attention from the most important parts. (我觉得这一段有一点离题。不应该把讨论转移到电视浪费时间上，应该主要关注电视无法让人得到足够的知识)
In conclusion, TV will be better to be treated as an entertainment. If we really want to acquire some knowledge, books will always be a good choice.
有一些语法问题，我暂时发现了这些。
TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.
"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 365 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-4-10
In this argument, the arguer recommends the Walnut Grove's town council to continue using EZ even it recently raised its monthly fee from $2000 to $2500 a month. To support his argument, the arguer stated that although ABC waste didn't raise its fee, ABC collects trash twice a week while ABC only once（这句话有一点问题）, and that EZ has ordered additional trucks. The arguer also showed that 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied ' with EZ's performance. However, this argument is based on some unsubstantiated assumptions.
First, the arguer assumes that the frequency of collecting trash per week is necessarily a criterion to decide which one to choose. But no evidence shows that twice a week is necessary. How many trashes do the residents need to be collected? Given that the amount of trashes only need being collected once a week, EZ's second time of collecting trashes will be wasted. Then the arguer's statement will be undermined.
Second, the arguer takes for granted that the additional trucks which EZ has ordered are a good sign that EZ is better than ABC. Yet, it is equally possible that the 20 trucks which EZ now has are in terrible conditions while all the trucks ABC owns are new and larger than EZ's. Given that possibility and assume that EZ's ordered trucks are less than 20, the argument will be dubious.
Third, the survey which the arguer shows only tells us 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied ' with EZ's performance while how many people respond the survey and what about their respondent about ABC's performance are not given out. Given the possibility that only several residents answered the survey or that more than 80 percent of respondents were also satisfied with ABC's performance, this argument will be unconvincing.
In conclusion, the argument is not well substantiated. To better support the recommendation, the arguer needs to show us the necessary of collecting trash twice a week. To convince us that EZ is better than ABC, the arguer should give specific information about the two companies and compare them in details. More information about the survey's credibility will bolster the argument, too.
你找的问题和我找的差不多，我觉得你的arguement 写得比我好多了，说的很有条理。但是提一个建议：每一段之间空一行，这样考官可以看得清楚了。
[ 本帖最后由 菲子 于 2007-4-15 00:14 编辑 ] | 
发表于 2007-4-10 11:18:22
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
