【超越自我小组】8月18日作业issue40

sccdcdUID: 2289393

TOPIC: ISSUE40 - "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
WORDS: 528          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-8-18 21:31:25

There is always a contention that scholars and researchers should be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the society as a whole or pursue their individual interests only. In some parts of the academia, I disagree with the speakers broad assertion that scientists should preoccupied on their interests only, but not cater to what the society need, like science and society science. However, in the field of arts, scholars and researchers focus on their concerning is a sagacious choice.

To begin with, I have three compelling reason why in some parts of the academic scholars and researchers should go forward to contributions to the larger society. Firstly, those who have a opposite idea implicitly acknowledge an opinion that whether a scientist improve the society or not, he should be awarded. Yet, in the reality, Nobel Prices are always awarding the scientists who make a great progress to the larger society, even human-being as whole. Second, if a scientist does little to change the society, even he does no harm to the society; the taxpayers will regret to allocate money on this research. And next time people, who are the mainly taxpayers, will be discreet to invest on a research whose result probably is controversial. Thirdly, people have many strange interests which probably could lead to serious consequences. Even the scientist who is very careful about his research, he had a great possibility to do harm to the society rather than they do not concern with their results. Take Madam Curie for example, that the discovery of radium has drive the wheel of science history; however, the atom bomb is consider as a curse of human-being, especially the citizens of Japanese.

Also, there is another angle of contribution, which attributes to the scholars and researchers of arts. Common sense informs me that any limitation or standard to arts is a hamper to its development. As we all known, Charlie Chaplin, who is the one of the most famous actors and directors in the history, whose film style can not be accepted at first, is considered as a symbol of creative humorous. Thus, people should not have restraints, if there is any, to the field of arts, in order to encourage more innovations in it.

Finally, there is a logic fallacy in the speaker's assertion whether there is a standard to decide which interests are unusual or idiosyncratic. Some of the researches can not be understood by common people. Take the research of dinosaur for instance, why should a lot of scholars unearth such a horrible skeleton, why every year taxpayers should pay a lot of money on archeology. People who are not curious about where are we come from might ask so. Therefore, it is necessary to have a standard to decide their interests.

So, whether it should be measured by a contribution to a society depends on which endeavors they are. If it is math, physic, chemistry, and society science, it should concern with the contribution to society. If it is arts, people should not lay any limitation in their innovation. And we need a great standard to decide which whimsy is and which is not.

hermituforestUID: 2354296

There is always a contention that（which） scholars and researchers should be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the society as a whole or pursue their individual interests only. In some parts of the academia, I disagree with the speakers broad assertion that（不要写成argument） scientists should preoccupied on their interests only, but not cater to what the society need, like science and society science. However, in the field of arts, scholars and researchers focus on their concerning is a sagacious choice.
（总体来说第一段不错，就是注意不要像argument一样写issue。不过有一点要说明，不要主观的把题目范围认为缩小，像你只考虑Arts和science，那其他方面怎么办？）
To begin with, I have three compelling reason why in some parts of the academic scholars and researchers should go forward to contributions to the larger society. Firstly, those who have a opposite idea implicitly acknowledge（这里有一点感觉像是chinglish） an opinion that whether a scientist improve the society or not, he should be awarded.（放在whether前面） Yet, in the reality, Nobel Prices are always awarding the（去掉） scientists who make a great progress to the larger society, even human-being as whole.（没懂） Second, if a scientist does little to change the society, even he does no harm to the society;（是逗号，不要轻信word纠错） the taxpayers will regret to allocate money on this research. And next time people, who are the mainly taxpayers, will be discreet to invest on a research whose result probably is controversial. Thirdly, people have many strange interests which probably could lead to serious consequences. Even the scientist who is very careful about his research, he had a great possibility to do harm to the society rather than they do not concern with their results. Take Madam Curie for example, that the discovery of radium has drive the wheel of science history; however, the atom bomb is consider as a curse of human-being, especially the citizens of Japanese. （这一点貌似和主题关系不大）

（这段写法不错。。学习了。。不过我觉得应该每一点略写，详细写后面的更好）

Also, there is another angle of contribution, which attributes to the scholars and researchers of arts. Common sense informs me that（argument） any limitation or standard to arts is a hamper to its development. As we all known, Charlie Chaplin, who is the one of the most famous actors and directors in the history, whose film style can not be accepted at first, is considered as a symbol of creative humorous. （不错的句子）Thus, people should not have restraints, if there is any, to the field of arts, in order to encourage more innovations in it.（感觉这一段应该论证更充分一点）

Finally, there is a logic fallacy in the speaker's assertion whether there is a standard to decide which interests are unusual or idiosyncratic. Some of the researches can not be understood by common people. Take the research of dinosaur for instance, why should a lot of scholars unearth such a horrible skeleton, why every year taxpayers should pay a lot of money on archeology. People who are not curious about where are we come from might ask so. Therefore, it is necessary to have a standard to decide their interests.（这一段整个就是argument的写法，最好不要出现，你必须学会区分issue和argument，不要将二者混为一谈。而且即便是argument，也要有一个主题，不要单纯为了攻击题目而攻击题目）

So, whether it should be measured by a contribution to a society depends on which endeavors they are.（interests哪里去了？） If it is math, physic, chemistry, and society science, it should concern with the contribution to society. If it is arts, people should not lay any limitation in their innovation. And we need a great standard to decide which whimsy is and which is not.

几点意见
1、开头不错~~不过后面从连接词上没能体现出开头的平衡观点来，要把第二段的Also换成however。而且平衡观点不是很好写，以后最好写成大正小负或者大负小正。像你的文，应该偏向后者更好一点。
2、不要把issue写成argument，在issue中，你不需要考虑作者是什么观点，你只需要根据题目自己确立观点，并且把它阐述清楚。
3、在注意下语言的训练

sccdcdUID: 2289393

:) 谢谢鼠老大。我不仅有把issue写成argument 的趋势还有把argument写成issue的趋势。都被你看穿了。一定改正。