Issue51 & argument18【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

longstUID: 2433232

Issue51 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业
51"Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."
Educational efficiency has long been a staple problem in many cultures. There have been some controversies recently about this topic. Some educational experts hold the position that the truly educational effectives should meet every student’s specific interest. Lots of facts make me cannot follow that point of view. This hand script would provide more detail to illustrate my opinion basing on two typical facts, first side is time costing and the other one is economics.
Firstly, as matter of fact, if education was specifically designed for everyone’s specific interesting it would cost education official much time. For example, more books would be need for variety of requirement, and more teachers would be need for different kinds of students as well. At present education official can publish just one kind of math exercise book for a group of students, perhaps some of them want to be engineers in the future and some of them want to be a math teacher when they graduate. If education official held that impossible goal that want to fulfill individual specific requirement official would waste more time for publishing two kinds of books for students who want to be engineer and others who want to be economics at least. This useless job not only waste time that should be used for perfecting our educational plan originally, but waste much recourse for publishing book. As matter of fact, variety of experts who aim for the research of effect said that truly effective can be defined as that more requirements are met by less time costing. At present, the plan of education official is designed for variety of people who want to improve their knowledge. It means that, just one kind of math book is designed a large group of student who have widely careers that connect with match. For instance, both computer programmers and engineers need mathematical knowledge in their future career which is different exactly, but both of them use the same math book in secondary education even in the secondary high education. Moreover, some educational experts said that. Although different students have different interests, in fast same exercise book, same plan syllabus could meet the majority of the requirement of students. Despite there are still tiny gaps between the requirements of minority students and educational official’s syllabuses, it could be solved by those students themselves. So that, according the experts’ argument above, we have been meet the effective education, that is use less time to meet much more students requirements.
Moreover, economic is another point. Truly effect can be defined as using less money for more services by majority of economist. Obviously everyone has been chasing for that goal all along, so does every student and his or her parent. It means both parents and students themselves want to use less money for more education service. But special services for different requirements need more devotion, students’ money for example. So that a contradiction has emerged, that is the custom of education, students themselves, chasing for the truly effect which is defined as using less money to have more service cannot meet the individual needs and interests of each student. Clearly, that contradiction is most hardly to solve. So that according the economic point of view the point that effective education should be specifically designed to meet the every student needs and interests is an impossible goal for both educational customs and educational providers.
Obviously, both the time resources and economic have been the base factors for judging majority of facts in our daily life. The hand script above cannot use these base factors judging the fact that meeting the individual needs and interests of each student in educational field is a wise way. So that is why I cannot follow that argument.

[ 本帖最后由 liyue24 于 2008-2-28 16:44 编辑 ]

longstUID: 2433232

18The following appeared in an editorial in a Prunty County newspaper.

"In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the new speed limit and the accident rate throughout Prunty County has decreased only slightly. If we want to improve the safety of our roads, we should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths and resurfacing rough roads. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago."

The article in a Prunty Country newspaper is trying to pass the information that the new restriction for improving highway safety has lost it usage, moreover it also passes the information that if Prunty County wanted to have a safe atmosphere for highway traffic, official should follow the Butler Country, means widely the road and restored the speed limit to 55 mph. Despite the argument provide variety of evidences however, the evidence of the argument above really have lots of confusions. Basically those confusions could be categorized as three kinds, firstly, mistaken deduction; secondly, confusing percentage information; lastly uncertain analogy. Following hand script would pass more detail about the confusion above.

The most uncertain information is caused by mistaken deduction. For example, the arguer said that most drivers were exceeding the new speed limit and Prunty County had decreased slightly. But the arguer should admit that there still had some drive follow the new restriction. So that, it is perhaps that the decrease of accident rate is caused by that small rate of drivers who still follow the new limit restriction. Moreover, there had no evidences could lead us to deduct remove the new speed restriction would lead decrease of traffic accident.

At the same time, confusing percentage information should be considered as another mistake. The arguer just provided the information that another country called Bulter had had 25 percent fewer reported accidents but the arguer had not provided the specific number of the reported accident. So that the according the information we cannot exclude that the county called Bulter still has more traffic accident than Prunty County.

In addition, the arguer had made several uncertain analogies in the news. For instance, according the information in the news, the arguer tried to tell us just following the project which Bulter County had been taken, widening the road and restricting 55 mph at speed limit,  Prunty Country would have a safe highway traffic atmosphere. However, perhaps Bulter Counter still has other restrictions which have not been published yet.

Despite the news still has some confusion, such as some of accident could not be published yet; two counties must have much gap in the length of highway; or they must have much gap in the number of cars driving on the road, the main confusion could be defined as those three kinds: mistaken deduction, confusing percentage information, and uncertain analogy.

[ 本帖最后由 longst 于 2008-2-28 16:03 编辑 ]