<dies in flame>issue 119 by archaeology

archaeologyUID: 2598252

今天终于生出第一个issue，这个过程真痛苦，2天才把处子篇给憋出来了，难产对于孕妇的痛苦我也着实体验了一把，这个孩子可能有点畸形，大家有时间给看看吧。不甚感激！我好能吸取经验，继续孕育第二胎！
Issue119
When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: how many people’s lives will be improved if the results are successful.





The author asserts that the most important factor to consider is that how many people will benefit from the successful result when research priorities are being set for science education or any other areas. Undoubtedly, the ultimate objective of researches is to make people’s lives improved, researchers and rulers consider that how many people’s lives will be improved as one of the factors when deciding research priorities in fact. And is it should be the most vital question to consider? It seems not completely.

At first, how do people judge whether a research is successful? A prevailing attitude of what kind of research means a success is if it can benefit our society in a short time, years or even months commonly, because the result of research is evaluated by contemporaries first of all. It suggests if the research benefits contemporaries, people deem it successful. Therefore, the factor that how many people will benefit from the results is just reflecting short-time profits of a research, the research which improve lives in short period may be harmful to the society in the future. For instance, when Freon emerges initially, it brings us amounts of benefits no matter in industries or our normal lives, so people deem the research about Freon is a success, and its positive effects continue until our scientists find it can destroy our ozone layer after decades, which can lead to a disastrous consequence to human beings.

At the same time, the fundamental researches that differ from applied researches which aim to improve people’s lives often couldn’t bring people visual benefits instantly, and even scientists don’t know if they will benefit people, so we shouldn’t set fundamental researches as priorities at any time basing on author’s view, they wouldn’t improve people’s lives after succeeds. However, it is unreasonable obviously. As we know, x-ray has changed people’s lives on many areas in our modern society, but at the beginning x-ray research is regarded as a research which costs amounts of money and couldn’t give people any benefit. So we still shouldn’t ignore the fundamental research that seems to bootless to society.

Therefore, it is unsuitable to decide research priorities by seeing if people’s lives will be improved through the research result. Researchers and rules should regard the long-term influence of a research as the most important factor sometimes, while not the short-time profits. As all of us know, the cloning sleep Dolly gives us reams of surprise, which makes us realize that people can clone themselves one day. Many people could live longer by removing their dysfunctional organ and transplanting a new one, so if human cloning research be successful, many people’s lives could be improved certainly. But if people think the research from a long-term prospective, they could find that cloning human technology will cause disorder of society, its disastrous effects are deserved to consider than its positive ones which appear in a short time.

In conclusion, it is a question to consider that how many people’s lives will be improved through the successful results of researches, but actually it is not the most important question when research priorities being set at most time. We should think over the effects of researches from long-term ones, then decide which research should be set priority.

archaeologyUID: 2598252

继续顶起来！

winning1030UID: 2538401

The author asserts that the most important factor to consider is that how many people will benefit from the successful result when research priorities are being set for science education or any other areas. Undoubtedly, the ultimate objective of researches is to make people’s lives improved, researchers and rulers consider that how many people’s lives will be improved as one of the factors when deciding research priorities in fact. And is it should be the most vital question to consider? It seems not completely.

At first, how do people judge whether a research is successful? A prevailing attitude of what kind of research means a success is if it can benefit our society in a short time, years or even months commonly, because the result of research is evaluated by contemporaries first of all. It suggests if the research benefits contemporaries, people deem it successful. Therefore, the factor that how many people will benefit from the results is just reflecting short-time profits of a research,(理由不够。你的意思是，人们判断研究价值的标准是它能否在短期内造福人类。那么，大多数人生活获益实际上是反映了短期利益的。觉得理由不够，显得有些牵强。而且，how many。。。（题目）那一句并没有指明生活改善的具体时间，它认为的是只要是改善大多数人生活得就是这一重要的，没有暗示这个的作用是在短期内的。不过，也许是我思路还不够开阔，你的想法其实很新，就是可以把这个归结到长远利益上，而不是其他人认为的，该题是忽略了长远利益。（这么说明白吗？感觉有点绕。。。） the research which improve lives in short period may be harmful to the society in the future. For instance, when Freon emerges initially, it brings us amounts of benefits no matter in industries or our normal lives, so people deem the research about Freon is a success, and its positive effects continue until our scientists find it can destroy our ozone layer after decades, which can lead to a disastrous consequence to human beings.

At the same time, the fundamental researches that differ from applied researches which aim to improve people’s lives often couldn’t bring people visual benefits instantly, and even scientists don’t know if they will benefit people, so we shouldn’t set fundamental researches as priorities at any time basing on author’s view, (for)they wouldn’t improve people’s lives after succeeds. However, it is unreasonable obviously. As we know, x-ray has changed people’s lives on many areas in our modern society, but at the beginning x-ray research is regard（regarded） as a research which costs amounts of money and couldn’t give people any benefit. So we still shouldn’t ignore the fundamental research that seems to bootless to society.(这一段的建议，我懒了，你看我给cjlu的那一段的点评吧，一样的意见，今天你们俩改作文就花了有2小时了。。。。另外，该段主题句不应该是第一句，理论研究和应用研究是例子，你的主题句是有些看不见短期利益但有长远利益的研究是有研究必要的) Therefore, it is unsuitable to decide research priorities by seeing if people’s lives will be improved through the research result. Researchers and rules should regard the long-term influence of a research as the most important factor sometimes, while not the short-time profits. As all of us know, the cloning sleep Dolly gives us reams of surprise, which makes us realize that people can clone themselves one day. Many people could live longer by removing their dysfunctional organ and transplanting a new one, so if human cloning research be successful, many people’s lives could(be) improve (improved)certainly. But if people think the research from a long-term prospective(perspective), they could find that cloning human technology will cause disorder of society, its disastrous effects are deserved to consider than its positive ones which appear in a short time.(这个例子的长期和远期利益找得不太好。伴随着克隆的诞生，争议就开始了吧，那个争议不是从远期看到的
In conclusion, it is a question to consider that how many people’s lives will be improved through the successful results of researches, but actually it is not the most important question when research priorities（are） being set at most time. We should think over the effects of researches from long-term ones (in the long run), then decide which research should be set priority.

楼主（如果认同你的第二段）的逻辑没有问题（如果你第二段被ETS否了，你很危险。不过也许是我没有转过弯来，话说我脑袋比较笨哈~~~恩，可以和我解释下吗？或者你和别人讨论下，看有没有问题，再告诉我结论~~~记得哦，pm我~~~一定哈，因为我觉如果那个归结正确的话，还蛮新的）语言流畅，有些词用得不错~~~

archaeologyUID: 2598252

谢谢你的辛苦批阅！关于我的第二段，我是这么想的：
successful这个词比较重要，究竟怎么判定一个研究结果是成功的很关键。我觉得研究达到预期目的就是成功的（查了字典才做出这个论断），比如氟利昂的研究，当时科学家的研究是为了找到一种制冷剂，最后发现了氟利昂有这个效果，所以氟利昂的研究结果达到了科学家的目的，在科学家看来是成功的。同时造福了人类社会，所以在大众看来也是成功的，。这说明一个研究结果最初出来，成功还是不成功 这个问题是被当代人判断的。因此反映的只是这个研究的短期利益。
关于克隆得例子我是这么想的，人类克隆的研究短期内的确可以造福人类，比如可以延长很多人的生命；但从长远来看会造成一系列的伦理问题，后果很严重。我们正是从长远的利益考虑，才将这项研究一直搁置着。想说明的问题是长远利益有时候比短期利益重要。
不知道这么解释严密不严密，用你犀利的眼光看看吧，呵呵！

winning1030UID: 2538401

4# archaeology
你第二段的解释还蛮好的，也许是我没有在你原文中理解吧。或者，你再解释清楚点，就按你给我解释的写。思路挺好的。
克隆那个，我的想法是，在克隆提出了之后，人类就已经看到了克隆的争议性，所以克隆的发展方向不一定会往人类克隆那发展，那么就不存在远期的灾难。这么说吧，我觉得近期和远期的矛盾是，你做了XX之后，短期有好处，所以你继续XX，然后很长时间后你就发现你错了。这个事情XX是没有变化的。而你所说的克隆，我分为了克隆组织和克隆人类2种，你短期克隆组织有好处，但你从长期看克隆人是有害的。矛盾来了，你短期和长期做的不是一件事！懂我的意思吧。找那个氟利昂类似的例子就行了。
如果有啥不对，也请指正。
本人新手，有些意见请问下别人哈~

winning1030UID: 2538401

5# winning1030
回复鸟，再PM哈~

cjluUID: 2448066

文章写得好舒服~~呵呵 写的蛮好的 超级多的单词不认识TT
等下背单词去~~ 句式也很舒服

论证很不错 例子配的也很好（除了最后一个不明白 等下说）Freon 和X-rays说的都很好 例子很不错
说点问题吧~~ 主要是逻辑上有点断 主题出现在最后一个论述段 不是特别好吧 觉得前面虽然没有肯定的句子 不过还是铺垫下好 并列两个推最后 不错的结构 只是最后一段不是特别好 主要是一个很囧的例子~~ 感觉很奇怪 或者我没看懂^^ 不过结尾有点美中不足了 小有遗憾~~ 结尾段也想开头段一样有点小可爱 不过一篇文章还是不要出现两次的好 强调下就好了~~ ^^
文章让人好舒服 真的 要是一口气写完可能就不会有结尾的问题了~~ 可能是我理解不到 呵呵 那你要跟我说哦^^ 向你学习~~ 背单词去了O(∩_∩)O~


具体见附件^^

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

红色：建议修改的地方
蓝色：不错的
紫色：个人建议  

The author asserts that the most important factor to consider is that how many people will benefit from the successful result when research priorities are being set for science education or any other areas. Undoubtedly, the ultimate objective of researches is to make people’s lives improved, researchers and rulers consider that how many people’s lives will be improved as one of the factors when deciding research priorities in fact. And is it should be the most vital question to consider? It seems not completely.(这个结尾不错)

At first, how do people judge whether a research is successful? A prevailing attitude of what kind of research means a success is if it can benefit our society in a short time, years or even months commonly, because the result of research is evaluated by contemporaries first of all. It suggests if the research benefits contemporaries, people deem it successful. Therefore, the factor that how many people will benefit from the results is just reflecting short-time profits of a research, the research which improve lives in short period may be harmful to the society in the future. For instance, when Freon emerges initially, it brings us amounts of benefits no matter in industries or our normal lives, so people deem the research about Freon is a success, and its positive effects continue until our scientists find it can destroy our ozone layer after decades, which can lead to a disastrous consequence to human beings. （缺少一个收尾的句子）

At the same time, the fundamental researches that differ from applied researches which aim to improve people’s lives often couldn’t bring people visual benefits instantly, and even scientists don’t know if they will benefit people, so we shouldn’t set fundamental researches as priorities at any time basing on author’s view, they wouldn’t improve people’s lives after succeeds. （这个TS有点长了吧，精简一下）However, it is unreasonable obviously. As we know, x-ray has changed people’s lives on many areas in our modern society, but at the beginning x-ray research is regarded as a research which costs amounts of money and couldn’t give people any benefit. So we still shouldn’t ignore the fundamental research that seems to (少了个be) bootless to society.（这里收尾了呼应了TS）

Therefore, it is unsuitable to decide research priorities by seeing if people’s lives will be improved through the research result. Researchers and rules should regard the long-term influence of a research as the most important factor sometimes, while not the short-time profits. As all of us know, the cloning sleep Dolly gives us reams of surprise, which makes us realize that people can clone themselves one day. Many people could live longer by removing their dysfunctional organ and transplanting a new one, so if human cloning research be successful, many people’s lives could be improved certainly. But if people think the research from a long-term prospective, they could find that cloning human technology will cause disorder of society, its disastrous effects are deserved to consider than its positive ones which appear in a short time

In conclusion, it is a question to consider that how many people’s lives will be improved through the successful results of researches, but actually it is not the most important question when research priorities being set at most time. We should think over the effects of researches from long-term ones, then decide which research should be set priority.

文章的关键点把握的貌似有点偏了，successful貌似应该是默认的吧，个人看法，文章主张考虑long-term的benefit是对的，但是只写这个貌似显得不够深，建议在挖掘挖掘。

最关键的就是priority该怎么set没有说，只是说要考虑长期的影响完全不够的。