【喜洋洋杀G大队】wu-intrepid,7.3号作业

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

汗..第一次写完整的作文，着实辛苦，居然晚交了，勿怪...欢迎拍死我！

argument38        

In this argument, the author conclude that daily using of Ichthaid is good to reducing absenteeism and preventing colds. To support this argument, the author provide the evidence that high fish consumption lead to the lower treatment of colds in East Meria and colds are the most common reason for absenteeism. This argument is invalid for several logical problems.

First of all, the author commits a logical mistake of oversimplication assuming that eating less fish is the only reason leding to colds. However, it is obvious that other factors such as doing some sports or having a wonderful environment are surely influence people’s health. If eating fish will solve all the colds, why human beings still take medicine? So the author fail to provide the stable relation between eating fish and colds as long as the former is not the sufficient condition to the later.

Secondly, once or twice treatment per year can not indicate that people get cold just once or twice per year. Colds is not a big deal for many people. Having more rest and taking medicine can easily release pain and therefor people always wait to back to health instead of visiting the doctor. So the study do not consider other alternative when people get cold what they will do and it may mask the real data that people get colds in East Meria. If it is the case, the statistics in East Meria is not deserved to reserch.

Thirdly, colds is always not the real reason but people’s excuse for avoiding work. Without invesgating how many absences are truly caused by colds, the author arbitrarily claim that colds most frequently reason. The consequenceis that people may neglect the real reason for example the salary is too low for those absentee to live, so they have to do other high-return job or earn extre gains. If so, we should not care about colds problem, on the contrary, the welfare of absentee will be a big problem.

From the mentioned analysis, we can safely conclude that this argument is unperswasive. To better this argument, the more evidences to support that eating more fish is good to prevent colds are needed. Besides, if the author can provide a more convicing investgation to illustrate that colds is the real reason for absences in East Meria, or consider and exclude those possibilities I supposed, I will render the his argument reasonable.


issue 17

In our time, law has became the foundation of a society and the ultimate standard of individual’s action. Common sence tells us that we should obey laws. Yet, some people believe that we should disobey and reject unjust law. I agree with the speaker that we need to obey laws, however, I do not agree the classify of just an unjust and the attitude to the unjust law mentioned by the speaker.

First of all, before we take another step to decide our position,we first need to answer the question what is law? Acorrding to Rousseau, laws express the general will. That means laws are convention which drawed up by all the people. If so, it is obvious that one may not agree with all laws, because convenion can not represent all the participators’ will but their consensus. Yet, stand the pratical position, we will accept laws to make sure that our most important personal interests such as democracy, freedom to come true. That is to say, to balance our competing inerests and maximize the society’s welfare, we have to obey laws.

On the other hand, some people try to resist laws which they regard as unjust. However, is there any clear standards to help us to identify which laws are just and the other are not? Even laws represent the general will, they are still the production of human beings so that laws are subjective. For example, is a law protect enthanasia just or not? Different people has different answers. Some people will think that the law is unjust because nobody has the right to kill another person, and everybody deserve to live. However, another people will think the law is just for we end the pain to that poor man. Suffering from endless pain is a huge punishment for everybody and they do not deserve it. Another congent example is that most people agree with the law of enviroment portection, yet the company’s owner may do not like it for portecting enviroment means more cost and less profit. Thus, we can not easily tell which laws is just, since subjective evaluation to laws goes hand in hand with our personal interests.

The fundamental problem with the so-called unjust is our unstand and attitude to the laws. We are, and always will, meet the laws can not fit the demand of society’s progress. For instance, with the development of economics, our low start-point of personal taxes aggravate poralize. The law of tax must be reformed. Before the reformation finished, we still have to obey it. Otherwise if all the citizens resist to pay taxes, then the society will be surely involved to chaos. So the aftermath of obeying laws is beyond our imagination. Now the problem is what can we do when laws can not fit the society. The best way, in my view, is discussing by all the citizens coequally and democratically so that we can find a peacefully way to reform laws and avoid the catastrophic shake to the society.

In sum, we should obey the law for the society can keepl working normally. When we meet the law need to be reformed, all citizens should discuss and make the decision how to better the law. In fact, what we can evaluate as just are some basic ideas or priciples that how to dicuss. The core value such as freedom, democracy, equal and so on sustain our society and all individuals, and laws is a way to practice this value. So laws should be obeyed, and also be perfected.

jahsonUID: 2628322

argument38        

In this argument, the author conclude that daily using of Ichthaid is good to reducing absenteeism and preventing colds. To support this argument, the author provide the evidence that high fish consumption lead to the lower treatment of colds in East Meria and colds are the most common reason for absenteeism. This argument is invalid for several logical problems.

First of all, the author commits a logical mistake of oversimplication assuming that eating less fish is the only reason leding to colds（作者是想证明更多鱼有益防止感冒而不是这个吧。。）. However, it is obvious that other factors such as doing some sports or having a wonderful environment are surely influence people’s health. If eating fish will solve all the colds（solve用的不合适）, why human beings still take （do human beings still take）medicine? So the author fail to provide the stable relation between eating fish and colds as long as the former is not the sufficient condition to the later.

Secondly, once or twice treatment per year can not indicate that people get cold just once or twice per year. Colds is not a big deal for many people. Having more rest and taking medicine can easily release pain and therefor people always wait to back to health instead of visiting the doctor. So the study do not consider other alternative when people get cold what they will do and it may mask the real data that people get colds（不太明白） in East Meria. If it（this） is the case, the statistics in East Meria is not deserved to reserch.

Thirdly, colds is always not the real reason but people’s excuse for avoiding work. Without invesgating how many absences are truly caused by colds, the author arbitrarily claim that colds most frequently reason. The consequenceis that people may neglect the real reason for example the salary is too low for those absentee to live, so they have to do other high-return job or earn extre gains. If so, we should not care about colds problem, on the contrary, the welfare of absentee will be a big problem.

From the mentioned analysis, we can safely conclude that this argument is unperswasive. To better（不合适 建议strengthen） this argument, the（去掉） more evidences to support that eating more fish is good to prevent colds are needed. Besides, if the author can provide a more convicing investgation to illustrate that colds is the real reason for absences in East Meria, or consider and exclude those possibilities I supposed, I will render the his argument reasonable.


issue 17

In our time, law has became the foundation of a society and the ultimate standard of individual’s action. Common sence tells us that we should obey laws. Yet, some people believe that we should disobey and reject unjust law. I agree with the speaker that we need to obey laws, however, I do not agree the classify of just an unjust and the attitude to the unjust law mentioned by the speaker.

First of all, before we take another step to decide our position,we first need to answer the question what is law? Acorrding to Rousseau, laws express the general will. That means laws are convention which drawed up by all the people. If so, it is obvious that one may not agree with all laws, because convenion can not represent all the participators’ will but their consensus. Yet, stand the pratical position, we will accept laws to make sure that our most important personal interests such as democracy, freedom to come true. That is to say, to balance our competing inerests and maximize the society’s welfare, we have to obey laws.

On the other hand, some people try to resist laws which they regard as unjust. However, is there any clear standards to help us to identify which laws are just and the other are not? Even laws represent the general will, they are still the production of human beings so that laws are subjective. For example, is a law protect enthanasia just or not? Different people has different answers.（好例子） Some people will think that the law is unjust because nobody has the right to kill another person, and everybody deserve to live. However, another people will think the law is just for we end the pain to that poor man. Suffering from endless pain is a huge punishment for everybody and they do not deserve it. Another congent example is that most people agree with the law of enviroment portection, yet the company’s owner may do not like it for portecting enviroment means more cost and less profit. Thus, we can not easily tell which laws is just, since subjective evaluation to laws goes hand in hand with our personal interests.

The fundamental problem with the so-called unjust is our unstand and attitude to the laws. We are, and always will, meet the laws can not fit the demand of society’s progress. For instance, with the development of economics, our low start-point of personal taxes aggravate poralize. The law of tax must be reformed（建议modified). Before the reformation finished, we still have to obey it. Otherwise if all the citizens resist to pay taxes, then the society will be surely involved to chaos. So the aftermath of obeying laws is beyond our imagination.(你是不是想说不遵守法律的后果难以设想？） Now the problem is what can we do when laws can not fit the society. The best way, in my view, is discussing by all the citizens coequally and democratically so that we can find a peacefully way to reform laws and avoid the catastrophic shake to the society.

In sum, we should obey the law for the society can keepl working normally. When we meet the law need to be reformed, all citizens should discuss and make the decision how to better the law. In fact, what we can evaluate as just are some basic ideas or priciples that how to dicuss. The core value such as freedom, democracy, equal and so on sustain our society and all individuals, and laws is a way to practice this value. So laws should be obeyed, and also be perfected.

思路正确 建议熟悉动词的搭配 避免一些语法错误 少用better这种普通词
1# wu-intrepid

pinokuUID: 2435028

argument38        

In this argument, the author concludes that daily using of Ichthaid is good to(好像都是be good for）reducing absenteeism and preventing colds. To support this argument, the author provides the evidence that high fish consumption leads to the lower treatment of colds in East Meria and colds are the most common reason for absenteeism. This argument is invalid for several logical problems.

First of all, the author commits a logical mistake of oversimplication （这里是不是缺一个for）assuming that eating less fish is the only reason leding to colds. However, it is obvious that other factors such as doing some sports or having a wonderful environment are surely influence（have influence on 或者做动词） people’s health. If eating fish will solve all the colds, why human beings still take medicine? So the author fails to provide the stable relation between eating fish and colds as long as the former is not the sufficient condition to the later.这句不错

Secondly, once or twice treatment per year can not indicate that people get cold just once or twice per year. Colds is not a big deal for many people. Having more rest and taking medicine can easily release pain and therefore people always wait to back to health instead of visiting the doctor. So the study does not consider other alternatives 用复数会不会好点？when people get cold what they will do and it may mask the real data that people get colds in East Meria这一句没有看懂. If it is the case, the statistics in East Meria is not deserved to be reserched.

Thirdly, colds is always not the real reason but people’s excuse for avoiding work. Without invesgating how many absences are truly caused by colds, the author arbitrarily claims that colds is the most frequently reason. The consequenceis拼写错误 that people may neglect the real reason. for example the salary is too low for those absentee to live, so they have to do other high-return job or earn extre extra gains. If so, we should not care about colds problem, on the contrary, the welfare of absentee will be a big problem.

From the mentioned analysis, we can safely conclude that this argument is unperswasive. To better this argument, the (the 似乎没必要）more evidences to support that eating more fish is good to prevent colds are needed. Besides, if the author can provide a more convicing investgation to illustrate that colds is the real reason for absences in East Meria, or consider and exclude those possibilities I supposed, I will render the his argument reasonable.


issue 17

In our time, law has became the foundation of a society and the ultimate standard of an individual’s action. Common sence tells us that we should obey laws. Yet, some people believe that we should disobey and reject unjust laws. I agree with the speaker that we need to obey laws, however, I do not agree the classify of just and
unjust laws and the attitude to the unjust law mentioned by the speaker.

First of all, before we take another step to decide our position,we first need to answer the question what is law? Acorrding to Rousseau, laws express the general will. That means laws are convention which drawed(drew) up by all the people. If so, it is obvious that one may not agree with all laws, because convenion can not represent all the participators’ will but their consensus. Yet, stand the pratical position, we will accept laws to make sure that (that 去掉吧？后面不是句子）our most important personal interests such as democracy, freedom to come true. That is to say, to balance our competing inerests and maximize the society’s welfare, we have to obey laws.

On the other hand, some people try to resist laws which they regard as unjust. However, is there any clear standards to help us to identify which laws are just and the other are not? Even （这句话你想表达什么，这个词估计用错了）laws represent the general will, they are still the production of human beings so that laws are subjective. For example, is（does） a law protect enthanasia just or not? Different people has different answers. Some people will think that the law is unjust because nobody has the right to kill another person, and everybody deserves to the right 会不会好一点of live. However, another people will think the law is just for we to end the pain to of去掉to that poor man. Suffering from endless pain is a huge punishment for everybody and they（前面是everybody，是单数） do not deserve it. Another congent example is that most people agree with the law of enviroment portection, yet the company’s owner may do not like it for portecting enviroment means more cost and less profit. Thus, we can not easily tell which laws is just, since subjective evaluation to laws goes hand in hand with our personal interests.

The fundamental problem with the so-called unjust is our unstand and attitude to the laws. We are, and always will, meet the laws can not fit the demand of society’s progress（are 后面加meet语法感觉很混乱）. For instance, with the development of economics, our low start-point of personal taxes aggravate poralize. The law of tax must be reformed. Before the reformation finished, we still have to obey it. Otherwise if all the citizens resist to pay taxes, then the society will be surely involved to 错，in chaos. So the aftermath of obeying laws is beyond our imagination. Now the problem is what can we do when laws can not fit the society. The best way, in my view, is discussing by all the citizens coequally and democratically so that we can find a peacefully way to reform laws and avoid the catastrophic shake to the society.

In sum, we should obey the law for the society can keepl working normally. When we meet the law need to be reformed, all citizens should discuss and make the decision how to better the law. In fact, what we can evaluate as just are some basic ideas or priciples that how to dicuss. The core value such as freedom, democracy, equal and so on sustain our society and all individuals, and laws is a way to practice this value. So laws should be obeyed, and also be perfected.

wu最大的问题恐怕是语法，很多不该犯的小错误。以后加强就是很大的进步。不过这篇文章因为比较抽象，读起来觉得说服力不是很强，每一点的中心意思不够明确。我觉得其实issue就是每段说差不多的意思，正着说反着说，但一定要在每一段里头把意思说明白。

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

受教受教，其实我对issue的把握还很不到位，恩，中心明确，语言注意，谢谢！我会改正滴~！