〓DIES IN FLAMS〓 Issue119

zzz.321UID: 2600329

119."When research priorities are being set for science, education,or any other area, the most important question to consider is: Howmany people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"


The issuesays that the government should concentrate on the fields that canbenefit the most people. I agree insofar that we should take the most people’s lives into account, but the vital factor shouldn’t be this because some other crucial factors exist. I will discuss thisin the passage.

At thebeginning, sometime it’s unavoidably that the most people’s lives would be taken into account. Generally, the research directionis lead by the national government and a substantial portion of research funds is derived from the vast taxpayers. It is the people’s vigor and hardworking that creates the taxation. Therefore, it’s certainly that the government should think over most people’s lives. Moreover, every taxpayer has the right to know the government has used their money to do something that could benefit themselves.Furthermore, our society is made up of citizens. We should considertheir livelihood, or they might do something fiery just like strike which would do harm to our society which can lead to the retrogression of living standard of people, even cause the social unrest. So we require considering people’s lives to some extent to meet their needs.

Nonetheless,other crucial factors need to be considered more seriously at the same time, such as whether it would promote the progress of society,the revolution of science technology and so on. For example, when acountry entered a state of war, the prime task is to attain success so as to keep the country’s interest and people’s living condition would be a very minor question. Even if the country is at the state of peace, people’s living standard is still not a vital factor, since some more significant factors are exist. If oneresearch field would promote the progress of whole society or cause a revolution of science technology, but don’t do much good to most people’s lives, how do we make choice? Obviously, this research field should be done. Besides, some research seems useless for people’s lives now may benefit a deluge of people in the future for any research has its limitations of time. We know it’s Alexander Fleming who discover the penicillin, while, people don’t know the function of it originally. Until several years later,scientists find penicillin is a great antiseptic chemical substanceand and begin to apply it to an avalanche of people, helping them avoid suffering from the ailment. Thus, we shouldn’t only pay attention to the people’s lives, other crucial factors are worthy considering more seriously not only in the short term, but also in the long-term, since they may have potential advantages for people.

Hence, the best solution is to do our efforts to make people’s living standard harmonious with the other crucial factors, however, if couldn’t, the level of people’s living standard should belower than the other significant element such as the national defense. Actually, under many circumstances, improving living standard of people and promoting the progress of society won’t be contradictory and they sometimes are the supplement to each other.Many research for civil use can benefit people a lot. For example,the research on household appliance can make people’s lives more convenient, more efficient and more comfortable. However,people’s living standard and other factors’ needs won’t always be unanimous, Such as the research field of national defense.The research on this won’t bring any immediate sweetener topeople’s lives and even possibly lower the level of people’s living standard, for the national defense would consume a largequantity of resource including money, people’s vigor and time and it is always a long-range project. But this is a vital field and our country can’t do this research on no account. In this case,people’s lives should give place to the national defense. There are also some fields similar to this like the space industry, the atom bomb and some high-tech fields. Accordingly, if people’s lives conflict with other vital factors, they should yield to these factors.

In sum,the direction of research should be determined by the most significant factors, not necessarily the people’s lives although sometimes they are unavoidably taken into account.

俺憋了一晚上，不过貌似感觉比刚开始的时候轻松一些了，欢迎大家指正～～

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

people's lives和improve people's live不一样，感觉第二段有点偏
第三段和第四段结构安排不合理，挤成一团
段内很多词连在一起，看不下去。
自己写完了最好改几遍

zzz.321UID: 2600329

2# sakuraanne

昂，谢谢，本来在word里挺正常的，谁知道粘过来就成了这个样子，俄。。。

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

我总觉得第一段有点偏题，这个切入点就不够efficient，如果非要这么写的话也要快速引入主题，用一句话联系起来，比如说人们的生活好坏和这个如何相关。每段首句应该点名段意同时紧扣题目。像现在这样是不行的。

zzz.321UID: 2600329

4# sakuraanne

昂，谢谢，最近忙考试，我尽快改过来～

tracywlzUID: 2522388

119."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 issue says that the government should concentrate on the fields that can benefit the most people. I agree insofar that we should take the most people’s lives into account, but the vital factor shouldn’t be this because some other crucial factors exist. I will discuss this in the passage.（可以换句话讲）
At the beginning, sometime it’s unavoidably that the most people’s lives would be taken into account. Generally, the research direction is lead by the national government and a substantial portion of research funds is derived from the vast taxpayers. It is the people’s vigor and hardworking that creates the taxation. Therefore, it’s certainly that the government should think over most people’s lives. Moreover, every taxpayer has the right to know the government has used their money to do something that could benefit themselves. Furthermore, our society is made up of citizens. （例子很不错，但是逻辑上好像没有成递进关系，有待商榷~）We should consider their livelihood, or they might do something fiery just like strike which would do harm to our society which can lead to the retrogression of living standard of people, even cause the social unrest. So we require considering people’s lives to some extent to meet their needs.
Nonetheless, other crucial factors need to be considered more seriously at the same time, such as whether it would promote the progress of society, the revolution of science technology and so on. For example, when a country entered a state of war, the prime task is to attain success so as to keep the country’s interest and people’s living condition would be a very minor question. Even if the country is at the state of peace, people’s living standard is still not a vital factor, since some more significant factors are exist. If one research field would promote the progress of whole society or cause a revolution of science technology, but don’t do much good to most people’s lives, how do we make choice? （建议以此举个例子，这样可以增强说服力）Obviously, this research field should be done. Besides, some research seems useless for people’s lives now may benefit a deluge of people in the future for any research has its limitations of time. We know it’s Alexander Fleming who discover the penicillin, while, people don’t know the function of it originally. Until several years later, scientists find penicillin is a great antiseptic chemical substance and begin to apply it to an avalanche of people, helping them avoid suffering from the ailment. Thus, we shouldn’t only pay attention to the people’s lives, other crucial factors are worthy considering more seriously not only in the short term, but also in the long-term, since they may have potential advantages for people.
支持其他因素更重要的理由有点偏少~建议再加1-2段.
Hence, the best solution is to do our efforts to make people’s living standard harmonious with the other crucial factors, however, if couldn’t, the level of people’s living standard should be lower than the other significant element such as the national defense. Actually, under many circumstances, improving living standard of people and promoting the progress of society won’t be contradictory and they sometimes are the supplement to each other. Many research for civil use can benefit people a lot. For example, the research on household appliance can make people’s lives more convenient, more efficient and more comfortable. However, people’s living standard and other factors’ needs won’t always be unanimous, Such as the research field of national defense. The research on this won’t bring any immediate sweetener to people’s lives and even possibly lower the level of people’s living standard, for the national defense would consume a large quantity of resource including money, people’s vigor and time and it is always a long-range project. But this is a vital field and our country can’t do this research on no account. In this case, people’s lives should give place to the national defense. There are also some fields similar to this like the space industry, the atom bomb and some high-tech fields. Accordingly, if people’s lives conflict with other vital factors, they should yield to these factors.
支持其他因素更重要的理由有点欠说服力和偏少~建议再加1段
In sum, the direction of research should be determined by the most significant factors, not necessarily the people’s lives although sometimes they are unavoidably taken into account.

希望楼主在发上来后可以根据版面不同即使调整格式啊。和2楼的观点一样，结构有些混乱。建议先看下小宝的书，理清楚每个段落，再整理下~
楼主的词汇和句型还是很不错的，功底还是很高的~，就是结构和aw的要求还是有点偏差，建议多多看下官方范文和小宝的书，了解下I的惯用结构。
总之，继续加油~~

jessicaluluUID: 2471730

粉色－好词好句
蓝色－思路及我的建议
紫色－对文章的整体感受
红色－我觉得有问题和不确定的地方


119."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 issue says that the government should concentrate on the fields that can benefit the most people.（这句改写得挺好的，不过says可以换个高级点的哇，比如claims）I agree insofar that we should take the most people’s lives into account（take sth. into account~）, but the vital factor shouldn’t be this because some other crucial factors exist. I will discuss this in the passage.换个说法吧。。。这个貌似太不GRE了呵呵～

At the beginning, sometime it’s unavoidably that the most people’s lives would be taken into account(又见该短语，注意变化啊). Generally, the research direction is lead by the national government and a substantial portion of research funds  (which) is derived from the vast taxpayers. It is the people’s vigor and hardworking that creates the taxation. Therefore, it’s certainly that the government should think over most people’s lives. Moreover, every taxpayer has the right to know the government has used their money to do something that could benefit themselves. Furthermore, our society is made up of citizens. We should consider their livelihood, or they might do something fiery just like strike which would do harm to our society which can lead to the retrogression of living standard of people, even cause the social unrest. So we require considering people’s lives to some extent to meet their needs.（这段的出发点挺好，说明了为什么考虑多数人生活质量的提高很重要，主要是从考虑社会安定和公民纳税这个角度。但是貌似更多的把priority的决定权框在了政府手中，其实研究机构甚至研究者本身都具有这个priority的选择权，甚至人民大众的意见，建议你再考虑一下。）

Nonetheless, other crucial factors need to be considered more seriously at the same time, such as whether it would promote the progress of society, the revolution of science technology and so on. For example, when a country entered a state of war, the prime task is to attain success so as to keep the country’s interest and people’s living condition would be a very minor question. Even if the country is at the state of peace, people’s living standard is still not a vital factor, since some more significant factors are exist. If one research field would promote the progress of whole society or cause a revolution of science technology, but don’t do much good to most people’s lives, how do we make choice? Obviously, this research field should be done.(可否举个例子支撑此观点？不太明白。我觉得一个能推动社会进步的研究或是可被称作科学技术革命的研究大多都对人们的生活影响巨大，你可以举例子反驳我这个说法么？) Besides, some research seems useless for people’s lives now may benefit a deluge of people in the future for any research has its limitations of time. We know it’s Alexander Fleming who discover the penicillin, while, people don’t know the function of it originally. Until several years later, scientists find penicillin is a great antiseptic chemical substance and and(删) begin to apply it to an avalanche (？) of people, helping them avoid suffering from the ailment. Thus, we shouldn’t only pay attention to the people’s lives, other crucial factors are worthy considering more seriously not only in the short term, but also in the long-term, since they may have potential advantages for people.这个例子举得很好，在说研究还有一些潜在的优点可能没有在当下被发现，青霉素这个挺好。结尾这个总结也挺好的。

Hence, the best solution is to do our efforts to make people’s living standard harmonious with the other crucial factors, however, if couldn’t, the level of people’s living standard should belower than the other significant element such as the national defense.（其实这句蛮好写得） Actually, under many circumstances, improving living standard of people and promoting the progress of society won’t be contradictory and they sometimes are the supplement to each other. Many research(用复数) for civil use can benefit people a lot. For example, the research on household appliance can make people’s lives more convenient, more efficient and more comfortable. However, people’s living standard and other factors’ needs won’t always be unanimous, Such(格式，格式！) as the research field of national defense. The research on this won’t bring any immediate sweetener to people’s lives and even possibly lower the level of people’s living standard, for the national defense would consume a large quantity of resource including money, people’s vigor and time and it is always a long-range project. But this is a vital field and our country can’t do this research on no account. In this case, people’s lives should give place to the national defense. There are also some fields similar to this like the space industry, the atom bomb and some high-tech fields. Accordingly, if people’s lives conflict with other vital factors, they should yield to these factors.

In sum, the direction of research should be determined by the most significant factors, not necessarily the people’s lives although sometimes they are unavoidably taken into account.

还是大概来整理下你的思路哈，因为这个格式确实看得我很崩溃，边看边帮你改，下回可要注意啊。放上来先检查一下，格式有问题的话你先改了再好让大家看噢。
观点：priority，应考虑人们生活水平的提高，但是还有其它重要的因素需要很考虑
1、priority主要有政府和公民的纳税钱决定，所以当然应该考虑研究要使人民生活水平提高这个问题。
2、呃，这一段有点混乱哈，TS和结尾的总结不是一个意思，说了两件事。开始说除了人民生活水平的提高要考虑其它重要的因素，比如战争时应首先考虑战争要赢，和平年代要考虑其它因素，然后这里的观点我不甚同意，文中已经标出了。之后说了眼前收益和长远收益的问题。但是这个眼前收益和长远收益距离你的总观点偏到一边去了哈，你主要是想说还有哪些因素胜过人们生活水平的提高需要考虑，这二者有关系不？
3、你是想说个人利益与社会利益、国家利益、集体利益？

总体说来，ZZZ的这篇文章语言还是蛮流畅，只是离ETS的要求还有一定距离哇。关于观点，我觉得第2点的论述距离你的主要观点有点偏离了，详见上述，第三点还好，主要想体现为啥整体利益国家利益就胜过人民生活水平的提高这一点。
总得来说，我觉得各段的论证强度还有待加强，第三点论证与上面两段的承接不太自然。其它还是蛮好的。我们可以下来单独BS哈，关于我的那些建议。加油！