[YB2] 7月8号作业 by lossingzone

lossingzoneUID: 2519545

5、"A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer."
全部学生，学习同样的课程，直到上大学为止
共性与个性，少数与多数，天才与普通人
1、为什么要开设相同的课程？
对国家教育部门来说，统一的课程便于管理，便于制定统一的考核标准；从某种角度，对保护绝大多数学生的利益是有利的：避免一些学校单纯追求某些方面的利益而牺牲学生综合素质的发展，比如一些艺术院校，体育院校，等等；避免各地教育水平差距过大。因此，有必要制定统一的教学大纲，要求各个学校的学生学习一些基本课程，比如自然科学，文学，外语，艺术，体育等

2、开设相同的课程带来的负面后果
但是要注意到不同地区教育水平是不同的，对同样的课程，有些地区的人可能觉得很容易，而其他地区的可能觉得很难。例如，贫民窟的学校学生的整体水平是不如某些大学城里的学校的。同时，对于同样的学校，学生的差异性可能也比较大。有些人天分非常高，可以轻松搞定常规课程。对于这些学生我们还要求他们学习同样的课程，不是对天分的浪费吗？众所周知，很多天才在学校教育都不满，其中很多人都觉得学校教育没挑战性。

3、那么我们又该如何做？
首先必需保证学生能够全面协调发展，因此应该制定统一的教学大纲，要求每个学校的学生修读一些统一的课程，包括自然科学，文学，艺术，外语，体育等；同时，又需要给学校一定的自由度，让它根据本校实际情况作一些调整，例如适当增加课程难度；更重要的是，让学校自由开设一些选修课程，培养和发掘学生的天赋。

Some people complain the rigid curriculum that they are forced to take, as they think it inflexible and detrimental to the development of those talented students. While others think it reasonable since it can promote the general quality of the majority of these kids. In my viewpoint, just as a coin has two sides, both opinions have its rationality and limitation. A nation of course should ask its students to take some given course, however, schools should be endowed with more freedom to carry out personalize education.

Undoubtedly, a uniform curriculum is quite beneficial in some sense. For the national education department, first, it is easier to administrate and hence reduce expense; second, it facilitates to establish a uniform assess system; thirdly, it is favorable for the grow up of most students, because the curriculum the education department makes usually contains basic knowledge a student should be equipped with for further studying or daily life. If schools are authorized with too much power to give courses as they wish, there is the possibility that some schools refuse to offer enough subjects to their students for some purpose. For example, some art schools would not prefer to give subjects other than arts, such as courses in nature science. The consequence is that students can not develop into comprehensive person. Hence, it is necessary to set up a unified curriculum which includes disciplines of nature science, social science, art, sports, foreign language, etc.

However, as what many people impugn, a uniform curriculum may hinder the development of students perform much better or much worse than average. It's impossible that educational level keeps the same from district to district. For example, students in poor villages generally perform worse than students in highly developed cities. Moreover, even in the same class, students can behave quite distinct. Some students have high talent and they can master the school course easily. If we still demand they study the same subjects as any other students, without giving them some special teaching to dig out their talent, they will be bored with studying in school. Actually, autobiographies of many famous people pointed out that they didn't like study in school, since the courses were lack of challenge. This is also why many geniuses performed badly at school, since they didn't like it at all. It is well known that the most eminent physicist, two Noble Prizes winner, Albert Einstein, didn't attract much attention when he was a high school student. He ever told that he didn't like the mode how school educates. It was boring, he said. The similar case happened to the greatest inventor, Edison, who also holds the point that school teaching can't attract much of his interest. In a word, it seems that a unified curriculum serves the average students other than the talented ones, or the contrary.

Therefore, some changes should be made to both satisfy the majority and the minority. It's no doubt that education system should take the benefit of majority into consideration, thus a unified curriculum which conducts what students should learn is needed. Nevertheless, the execution of it can be more flexible to meet the demand of those students who require more special education. For example, national education department can formulate a more flexible curriculum which lists some fundamental subjects that schools should offer, as well as encourage schools open more other interesting courses. The fundamental knowledge is crucial to furnish students with common sense, while the advanced courses attract students' interest and unearth their talent in one or more fields.


7The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
结论：下次市长选举选民应该选Ann Green, 而不该选Frank Braun
理由：前者在一个保护环境的组织里，后者现在在市委员会里面，而现任委员会致使环境污染加重。若选前者所有的环境问题都可以得到解决。

1.
不能断言Frank Braun不是环境保护主义者。也许他也是Good Earth Coalition的成员，但他只是市委员会的一员，尽管他想采取各种对环境有利的措施，但是在投票时多数人投了多建工厂的票。所以他不是他不想阻止这些对环境不利的行动，而是无能为力。
2.
即使他不是环境保护主义者，但文中所列事实不足以说明Clearveiw的环境问题加重。首先，工厂增加不意味着环境变差：也许这些工厂只是一些手工作坊，根本不污染环境；其次，当地空气污染程度加重未必是当地造成的，也许附近有重工业区，排放出大量废气，导致Clearview空气变差；再次，呼吸道病人增加就一定说明环境变坏吗？流行性感冒也可以造成大量的呼吸道疾病。
3.
即使当地环境真的变差，但是Ann Green当上市长就一定能解决这些问题吗？这样的想法太单纯了，将问题想得过于简单。首先我们不了解Ann Green的个人能力如何，其次，环境污染问题不是靠个人能够解决的，而是需要全社会协同解决。即使Clearview所有的工厂都关闭，人人都爱护环境，但是附近有个排放大量废气的重工业区，那是Clearview能够单独解决的吗？
4.
即使Green真的能解决这些环境问题，也没有任何证据表明她是最好的一个，我们不知道其他选举人的情况

The arguer concluded voters to vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun, for he/she asserted that Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council who is responsible for the exacerbation of the town's environment, while Ann Green is an environmentalist, she can solve all environment problems if elected. Obviously, there are several fatal flaws which make the conclusion unconvincing.

First, we don't know whether Frank Braun is not an environmentalist; actually, there is the possibility that he is a member of Good Earth Goalition as well. Although he is a member of the town's council, he can't determine decisions by himself. He is just a member of the council, even he opposed not to establish more factories strongly, yet he couldn't change anything if the majority of the council votes for setting up more factories. As a result, he is not necessarily responsible for the deterioration of the town's environment.

Secondly, we even can't make sure whether environment of the town gets worse than before. We should be reminded that more factories don’t equal more pollution. If these factories are manual workshops which have little affect on environment, how can the arguer assert that local environment is deteriorated? Even the assertion is right, however, can the arguer determine that this deterioration is due to more pollutions being created by the town? The air pollution may be caused by waste airs from other towns. Suppose that Clearview town has no industry and there is a town nearby with many factories discharge much waste air everyday and the waste air pass through Clearview Town. In this situation, can the arguer claim that the local government is responsible for the air pollution?

Thirdly, even local environment is getting worse; can Ann Green solve these problems if she is elected as the mayor? It fails to realize the complexity of the problem. First we have no knowledge of Ann Green's ability of solving environment problems. She is an environmentalist, yet this not means that she is able to deal with environment problems. This is similar to the fact that a person who encourages his son to study mathematics is not necessarily capable in solving mathematical problems. Even Ann is a person with strong personal ability, however, environment problem would never be resolved by an individual, and instead, it requires the efforts of the whole society. Even Ann is able to persuade people stop all behaviors that might pollute environment in Clearview town, yet if districts encompass the town are all terrible polluted, how can Ann lead the town get rid of pollution?

Moreover, even we concede that Ann is capable in resolving these problems; there is no testimony to show that she is the most suitable one. We don't know any informations of other candidates. Perhaps, there is someone who fits this position more than Ann.


In sum, the arguer should provide the more information as follows. First, what’s Frank Braun’s responsibility for the pollution? Second, Is the town's environment really getting worse and what’s the cause of it? Third, can Ann can solve these problems. Fourth, is there any candidate more suitable for the position than Ann? Unless the arguer answers these, his/her conclusion will be unsubstantial.

weenbopperUID: 2423595

Some people complain the rigid curriculum that they are forced to take, as they think it is inflexible and detrimental to the development of those talented students. While others think it reasonable since it can promote the general quality of the majority of these kids. In my viewpoint, just as a coin has two sides, both opinions have its rationality and limitation. A nation of course should ask its students to take some given course, however on the other hand不表示转折,不应该用however, schools should be endowed with more freedom to carry out personalize education.

Undoubtedly, a uniform curriculum is quite beneficial in some sense. For the national education department, firstly, it is easier to administrate and hence reduce expense; second, it facilitates to establish a uniform assess system; thirdly, it is favorable for the grow up of most students, because the curriculum the education department makes usually contains basic knowledge a student should be equipped with for further studying or daily life. ((这里没有一个例子或者论述性的话来支持你的观点,这样是不足以让人信服的)If schools are authorized with too much power to give courses as they wish, there is the possibility that some schools refuse to offer enough subjects to their students for some purpose. For example, some art schools would not prefer to give subjects other than arts, such as courses in nature science. The consequence is that students can not develop into comprehensive person. Hence, it is necessary to set up a unified curriculum which includes disciplines of nature science, social science, art, sports, foreign language, etc.

However, as what many people impugn, a uniform curriculum may hinder the development of students perform much better or much worse than average. It's impossible that educational level keeps the same from district to district. For example, students in poor villages generally perform worse than students in highly developed cities. Moreover, even in the same class, students can behave quite distinctly. Some students have high talent and they can master the school course easily. If we still demand they study the same subjects as any other students, without giving them some special teaching to dig out their talent, they will be bored with studying in school. Actually, autobiographies of many famous people pointed out that they didn't like study in school, since the courses were lack of challenge. This is also why many geniuses performed badly at school, since they didn't like it at all. It is well known that the most eminent physicist, two Noble Prizes winner, Albert Einstein, didn't attract much attention when he was a high school student. He ever told that he didn't like the mode how school educates. It was boring, he said. The similar case happened to the greatest inventor, Edison, who also holds the point that school teaching can't attract much of his interest. In a word, it seems that a unified curriculum serves the average students other than the talented ones, or the contrary.

Therefore, some changes should be made to both satisfy the majority and the minority. It's no doubt that education system should take the benefit of majority into consideration, thus a unified curriculum which conducts what students should learn is needed. Nevertheless, the execution of it can be more flexible to meet the demand of those students who require more special education. For example, national education department can formulate a more flexible curriculum which lists some fundamental subjects that schools should offer, as well as encourage schools open more other interesting courses. The fundamental knowledge is crucial to furnish students with common sense, while the advanced courses attract students' interest and unearth their talent in one or more fields.

文章写的不错,句式和词汇方面都有一定的功底
不过建议考虑例子和论述方面的加强

weenbopperUID: 2423595

The arguer concluded voters to vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun, for he/she asserted that Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council who is responsible for the exacerbation of the town's environment, while Ann Green is an environmentalist, she can solve all environment problems if elected. Obviously, there are several fatal flaws which make the conclusion unconvincing.

First, we don't know whether Frank Braun is not an environmentalist; actually, there is the possibility that he is a member of Good Earth Goalition as well. Although he is a member of the town's council, he can't determine decisions by himself. He is just a member of the council, even he opposed not to establish more factories strongly, yet he couldn't change anything if the majority of the council votes for setting up more factories. As a result, he is not necessarily responsible for the deterioration of the town's environment.

Secondly, we even can't make sure whether environment of the town gets worse than before. We should be reminded that more factories don’t equal more pollution. If these factories are manual workshops which have little affect on environment, how can the arguer assert that local environment is deteriorated? Even the assertion is right, however, can the arguer determine that this deterioration is due to more pollutions being created by the town? The air pollution may be caused by waste airs from other towns. Suppose that Clearview town has no industry and there is a town nearby with many factories discharge much waste air everyday and the waste air pass through Clearview Town. In this situation, can the arguer claim that the local government is responsible for the air pollution?

Thirdly, even local environment is getting worse; can Ann Green solve these problems if she is elected as the mayor? It fails to realize the complexity of the problem. First we have no knowledge of Ann Green's ability of solving environment problems. She is an environmentalist, yet this not means that she is able to deal with environment problems. This is similar to the fact that a person who encourages his son to study mathematics is not necessarily capable in solving mathematical problems. Even Ann is a person with strong personal ability, however, environment problem would never be resolved by an individual, and instead, it requires the efforts of the whole society. Even Ann is able to persuade people stop all behaviors that might pollute environment in Clearview town, yet if districts encompass the town are all terrible polluted, how can Ann lead the town get rid of pollution?

Moreover, even we concede that Ann is capable in resolving these problems; there is no testimony to show that she is the most suitable one. We don't know any informations of other candidates. Perhaps, there is someone who fits this position more than Ann.


In sum, the arguer should provide the more information as follows. First, what’s Frank Braun’s responsibility for the pollution? Second, Is the town's environment really getting worse and what’s the cause of it? Third, can Ann solve these problems. Fourth, is there any candidate more suitable for the position than Ann? Unless the arguer answers these, his/her conclusion will be unsubstantial.

写的不错,没什么好改的