【辉太郎杀G大队】7/10作业by Aliciasun

AliciaSunUID: 2660743

Issue 31:
Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial.

提纲：
1, money spent on research is good for social advancement。
2, the research is controversial or not is impossible to get to know before money spending.
3, but, the investment should be estimated and planned, even the research direction is good.
4, wrong direction of research should not be invested at all.
5, summary

I fundamentally agree that research is generally a well money-invested direction. However, it seems to go to extreme to argue that spending money on research is always good because it failed to retrospect the reasons that the “controversial” results emerged. While it is acceptable that positive researches supposed to contribute to scientific and technical advancement frequently approach uncertainty, various inefficient and unjustifiable researches with certain critical compelling reasons should be considered circumspectly about the necessity to invest.

Admittedly, research, in general sense, has enormously benefited the advancement and progress of human history. After all, research is the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable desire for knowledge, and solve our enduring problems. In addition, research is also the exploration of the future world and open vast vistas in diversities of directions we can move forward. On the contrary, without research, relativism could never have been deduced; philosophy theories could be brought out; to be more pragmatic, vaccine could never be invented to save millions of livings and push forward the medical field. Therefore, for positive researches dedicated to the direction that avails social advancement, they deserve efforts even failures leading to controversial judgements.

Furthermore, normally, it’s impossible to determine the results of research before it is launched with the investment support. Nobody can affirm that his/her research is certain to succeed. However, with the significant research topic and direction, most of research can lead to beneficial result for future, in which the failures can also be instructive. Actually, to a great extent, it is just because of further research based on these premier failed results that technology, science and society stride forward. Not only the society as a whole but also a competitive firm, primarily thrives on the breakthrough in these meaningful controversies. Undoubtedly, whether the results of research are controversial does not affect its becoming the most profitable and provident area deserving long-term investment at all.

Even though, the investment on researches in contributive direction should also be carefully carried out, with detailed and cautious plans and estimation of the research. One apt illustration of this point involve the so-called "Star Wars" defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; Another example is the famous Iridium satellite plan designed by Motorola, which cost more than 5000 million dollars and eventually proved to be a useless communication system. Though the starting points of both the researches are sound, it is the truth that the investment on them would be more rational if better estimation and design were completed. In another word, if the value of researches can be investigated before money investment, the possibility to get controversial results will decrease.

What’s worse, as mentioned above, if the direction of the research is harmful and meant the retrogressive for human history, which typically is controversial, no money investment should be considered at all. To be pacifistic, any nuclear weapons research eventually guiding to the self-destroy is expected to be restricted. To be humanitarian, why had armies spent resources to research on bacteric attack? People and countries, dazzled by the greed and the lust to conquer others, squander money to conduct so-called researches to destroy themselves, which is not worthy at all in my view of point.

To sum up, I agree that money spending on research is a good investment if it is for the human advancement and social development, on the basis of rational estimation and plan. Nevertheless, for the research with negative direction towards harming human being itself or its living environment, any research should be disagreed and none of the money investment should be provided. (588 words)


TOPIC: ARGUMENT162 - A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.



The study asserts a health analysis and gives advice on the chronic fatigue and depression problem based on the comparison of the soy intake situation of people living in North America and in Asian areas. It is tempting to agree with this reasoning in the argument, but after inspection, I find there are several flaws reside in the logic representations.

First of all, no matter the data in which people in North America suffer 9 times more fatigue and 31 times depression, or the data 20gramsof soy intake of Asia people, is lack of evidence for its validity. We are not sure if these datas have been summarized by an authority investigation organization. In addition, how many samples have been selected respectively from the people of North America or Asia, and whether these samples survey are credible or not,
is questionable as well. It is highly possible that only 1 person who coincidently have fatigue and depression problems in North America has been chosen for this study, which obviously cannot work as a representative for the whole group, which is same for the Asia side.

Furthermore, given the samples selection and study result is valid, the relationship between the fatigue/depression problem and the effect of isoflavones contained by soy is not mentioned at all. Disease-preventing property is a widely apt saying, with which we can imagine maybe the anemia, dizzy or heart hurt problems can be cured to some extent by the isoflavoues, rather than the fatigue and depression issues. Hence, the fatigue and depression problems can come from other phytochemicals contained by other food which have this effection, but not the soy. And even more, the fatigue and depression problems might stem from other reasons rather than food, likely, water quality or air pollution situation and so forth.

At last, the regional properties of people body situation are apparently different, which also result in different health risks. On one hand, people in North American are possible not easy to absorb the nutrition which can help them reduce fatigue/depression issue, thus the way to eat soy might doesn’t work as expected. And on the other hand, since the two regions are apart from each other far away, the ways to be effective for Asians and Americans might be totally different.

To summarize, this argument is not with sufficient reasoning points to arrive such a conclusion. To better convince people, the samples validity, the effect of the isoflavones, and the proof that the soy can work for people in North America are necessary to be supplied.
(425 words)

AliciaSunUID: 2660743

改字体不成功啊不成功。

hdsf2003UID: 2351462

Issue 31:
Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial.


I fundamentally agree that research is generally a well money-invested direction. However, it seems to go to extreme to argue that spending money on research is always good because it failed to retrospect the reasons that the “controversial” results emerged. While it is acceptable that positive researches supposed to contribute to scientific and technical advancement frequently approach uncertainty, various inefficient and unjustifiable researches with certain critical compelling reasons should be considered circumspectly about the necessity to invest.

Admittedly, research, in general sense, has enormously benefited the advancement and progress of human history. After all, research is the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable desire for knowledge, and solve our enduring problems. In addition, research is also the exploration of the future world and open vast vistas in diversities of directions we can move forward. On the contrary, without research, relativism could never have been deduced; philosophy theories could be brought out; to be more pragmatic, vaccine could never be invented to save millions of livings and push forward the medical field.（赞扬，这里的反证使用的很好，让人觉得不进行研究是不行的） Therefore, for positive researches dedicated to the direction that avails social advancement, they deserve efforts even failures leading to controversial judgments.

Furthermore, normally, it’s impossible to determine the results of research before it is launched with the investment support. Nobody can affirm that his/her research is certain to succeed. However, with the significant research topic and direction, most of research can lead to beneficial result for future, in which the failures can also be instructive. Actually, to a great extent, it is just because of further research based on these premier failed results that technology, science and society stride forward. Not only the society as a whole but also a competitive firm, primarily thrives on the breakthrough in these meaningful controversies. Undoubtedly, whether the results of research are controversial does not affect its becoming the most profitable and provident area deserving long-term investment at all.

Even though, the investment on researches in contributive direction should also be carefully carried out, with detailed and cautious plans and estimation of the research. One apt illustration of this point involve (involve加s) the so-called "Star Wars" defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; Another example is the famous Iridium satellite plan designed by Motorola, which cost more than 5000 million dollars and eventually proved to be a useless communication system. Though the starting points of both the researches are sound, it is the truth (改成the truth is 更加简练顺畅，个人观点) that the investment on them would be more rational if better estimation and design were completed. In another word, if the value of researches can be investigated before money investment, the possibility to get controversial results will decrease.

What’s worse, as mentioned above, if the direction of the research is harmful and meant the retrogressive for human history, which typically is controversial, no money investment should be considered at all. To be pacifistic, any nuclear weapons research eventually guiding to the self-destroy is expected to be restricted. To be humanitarian, why had armies spent resources to research on bacteric attack? People and countries, dazzled by the greed and the lust to conquer others, squander money to conduct so-called researches to destroy themselves, which is not worthy at all in my view of point.

To sum up, I agree that money spending on research is a good investment if it is for the human advancement and social development, on the basis of rational estimation and plan. Nevertheless, for the research with negative direction towards harming human being itself or its living environment, any research should be disagreed and none of the money investment should be provided.

写的非常好，本人水平有限，都改不动了，感觉像是看范文
1，结构层次明晰
2，观点转换，连接性好，段内的长短句变换顺畅，关键是例证都很有说服力，我怎么就写不出呢，哈哈
3，你的词汇非常丰富，这一点你在改我的作文中提到过，我做的很烂

顺便问一下，文中几处例子，象星球大战、铱星计划的使用，都是自己事先准备好的吗？  换句话，你之前写过作文吗？或上过辅导班吗？ 真的羡慕你的分析能力，逻辑能力
TOPIC: ARGUMENT162 - A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.



The study asserts a health analysis and gives advice on the chronic fatigue and depression problem based on the comparison of the soy intake situation of people living in North America and in Asian areas. It is tempting to agree with this reasoning in the argument, but after inspection, I find there are several flaws reside (residing ?) in the logic representations.（开头直接，不错）

First of all, no matter the data in which people in North America suffer 9 times more fatigue and 31 times depression, or the data 20 grams of soy intake of Asia (Asian?) people, is lack of evidence for its validity. We are not sure if these datas (data单复数同形，都是data) have been summarized by an authority investigation organization. In addition, how many samples have been selected respectively from the people of North America or Asia, and whether these samples survey are credible or not,
is questionable as well. It is highly possible that only 1 person who coincidently have fatigue and depression problems in North America has been chosen for this study （这里分析有点过，可以适当放大人数，说只有1个多少勉强了点）, which obviously cannot work as a representative for the whole group, which is same for the Asia （Asian?） side.

Furthermore, given the samples (s 可以去掉) selection and study result is （is –are,个人观点）valid, the relationship between the fatigue/depression problem and the effect of isoflavones contained by soy is not mentioned at all. Disease-preventing property is a widely apt saying, with which we can imagine maybe the anemia, dizzy or heart hurt problems can be cured to some extent by the isoflavoues, rather than the fatigue and depression issues. Hence, the fatigue and depression problems can come from other phytochemicals (这里不对，意思是疾病可以由其他的phytochemicals防治，这里你表达出了疾病由phytochemicals导致) contained by other food which have this effection, （effect） but not the soy. And even more, the fatigue and depression problems might stem from other reasons rather than food, likely, water quality or air pollution situation and so forth.（这里的和上面一样，不合理）

At last, the regional properties of people body situation are apparently different, which also result in different health risks. On one hand, people in North American are possible not easy to absorb the nutrition which can help them reduce fatigue/depression issue, thus the way to eat soy might doesn’t work as expected. And on the other hand, since the two regions are apart from each other far away, the ways to be effective
（换成 to prevent chronic diseases? ） for Asians and Americans might be totally different.

To summarize, this argument is not with sufficient reasoning points to arrive such a conclusion. To better convince people, the samples validity, the effect of the isoflavones, and the proof that the soy can work for people in North America are necessary to be supplied.

评语

观点明确，在每段开头都有明显的切入点，但是有一点不合理，已经在文中提出