【辉太郎杀G大队】7/10作业by sindytt (Issue31;Argument162)

sindyttUID: 2661721

TOPIC: ISSUE31 - "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
WORDS: 524


Investment on research, so complicated as it is, has been regarded as a subject of great moment. I fundamentally agree with the suggestion the author provides, since research, from my perspective, deserves long-term investment. However we can't go to the extreme, ignoring self-economic aspect.

In general, money spent on research is a good option. The main goal of the development of human society is to create a more comfortable and convenient life for human beings, so that we can live a happy life to have more time to do whatever we want. Exploring the human history, science and technology always cater to the need. The Industry revolution was driven by discoveries of stream engine and electricity, which brings us cars, planes and so on. The invention of computer leads the world into information era-today information is spread far more quickly than ever. All these inventions have become the necessities for our daily life, and I can't imagine what my life would be without them. Furthermore, the study in basic subject such as mathematics, physics and sociology help us to know better about the nature and ourselves. The author gets the point to this extent.

In addition, it is almost impossible to predict the result of a research before we start it, which is the nature of research. It is unwise and ridiculous to undo a research because of the concerning that it might bring about controversial result. On the other hand, whether the result does harm to our society, in my point of view, depends on how we apply it. The technology of cloning can solve problem of organ transplantation lack, while, in the mean time, it raise moral and ethic controversy. Atomic technology can greatly benefit us in the application in electricity generation. Yet we are worried about the spread of atomic weapon, which could have a destructive impact on the world, which can be a disaster for human beings. Science development is a two edged sword. Concerning this, we should carefully invest on research, especially noticing its bad effects.

Nevertheless, the suggestion the author advises is a little implicit and biased. Can we request our government to allocate all the budge to research? It is crazy and irrational. There is a mass of fields what can also be a good option, for instance, helping the young establishing a business. The government also should take other things into consideration, helping the poor, improving civil health care system as well as posing economic development. Whether a research deserves investing is also a problem facing to us. If I want to study ET now, should the government provide financial support for me? In summary, research is a good choice, but not the only option. Furthermore, the quantity we invest in research should match our economic condition and current level of science.

To sum up, for all the discussions above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's suggestion is reasonable and feasible generally. However, his ruling out other alternatives to spend money is unwarranted and biased. At the same time, we should pay much attention for the destructive effects from the results of a research.


A162:

In this argument, the author concludes that North Americans should take more soy to prevent fatigue and depression. To strengthen this conclusion, the author provides a compare of the number of sufferers and the consumption of soy in North America and Asia. The author also cites supporting evidence that soy contains disease-preventing properties. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is there fore unpersuasive.

First of all, I doubt the statistics that there are 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression sufferers in North America than in Asia. How does the author get to know the result? Is it authoritative and reliable? What if they conduct the survey in the flourishing city in America such as New York and a relatively-lagged city in Asia? What if the people tested live a unique life of their own traditional custom? In addition, unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus making it doubtful whether the people constitute a sufficiently large sample to be representative of the overall population of nation. All these events would make the test unconvincing, unreliable and unrepresentative.

Second, even if we the statistics the author cited, the author unfairly assumes that isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties, specifically help prevent fatigue and depression. However, this is not necessarily the case. If the soy can prevent diarrhea, it would be ridiculous to say that it can also exert impacts on chronic fatigue and depression.

Finally, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between Asians’ consumption of soy per day and a lower percentage of people suffering chronic fatigue and depression. In addition the author unwarrantedly assumes that the difference in soy consumption is the only possible explanation for the disparity in the occurrence of fatigue and depression. As we all know, there are more developed countries in North America. The pressure from aggressive working places, the strong desire for a higher position and the heavy burden for feeding a family are all greatly different in North America and in Asia. The author draws an arbitrary decision that soy plays the predominant role in preventing chronic fatigue and depression, by ruling out all the other alternatives.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported as it stands. The statistics he provides, the underlying logic error in his reasoning, the failing to illustrate the relation between soy and the disease are all egregious flaws in the argument. To bolster it, the author must provide more detail about the survey, such as the number selected. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know whether the soy can prevent chronic fatigue and depression and whether the per day consumption matters.

ApplemangoUID: 2661244

用语比第一次简洁很多，但是从整个文章来看，层次不够分明。最好能让改卷老爷爷一看就知道你的几个分论点是什么。
其次，有的用语太chinese-english了，建议你写的时候，如果遇到没有把握的句子，可以在google上搜索看看有没有类似的，看看人家是怎么写的。
如果对于从句的使用不熟，尽量避免使用太多。
用词方面，GRE作文对于用词没有太大要求，有的词可能比较高深，用不好的话反而会起反作用。


TOPIC: ISSUE31 - "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
WORDS: 524


Investment on research, so complicated as it is, has been regarded as a subject of great moment. I fundamentally agree with the suggestion the author provides, since research, from my perspective, deserves long-term investment. However we can't go to the extreme to ignore self-economic aspect.(什么是self-economic aspect?)


从影响深远的属性来说，研究值得投资
In general, money spent
Spending money on research is a good option. The main goal
aim of the development of human society
social development is to create a more comfortable and convenient life for human beings, so that which enables us to live a happy life and have more time to do whatever we want. Exploring
Tracing the human history, science and technology always cater to the human needs. The Industry revolution, was driven by discoveries of stream engine and electricity, which brings us cars, planes and so on. The invention of computer leads the world into information era the era of information-today information is spread far more quickly than ever. All these inventions have become the indispensable components of
necessities for our daily life, and I can't imagine what my life would be like without them. Furthermore, the study in basic subject
of foundation disciplines such as mathematics, physics and sociology help us to know better about the nature and ourselves. The author gets the point to this extent.


同时，研究结果不可预测，不能因为不好的研究结果而止步，但也要制止威胁社会的研究。
In addition, it is almost impossible to predict the result of a research before we start it, which is the nature of research. It is unwise and ridiculous to undo
(大姐，换个词)a research because of the concerning that it might bring about controversial result. On the other hand, whether the result does harm to our society or not, in my point of view, depends on how we apply it. The technology of cloning can solve problem of lacking organ transplantation lack, while, it in the mean time raise moral and ethic controversy. Atomic technology can greatly benefit us in the application in electricity generation new ways of power generation. Yet we are worried about threatened by the possibility of the spread of atomic weapon, which could have a destructive impact on the world and cause a disaster for human beings. Science development The development of science is a two edged sword. Concerning this, we should carefully invest on research, especially noticing considering its hidden bad effects.

Nevertheless, the suggestion the author advises is a little
bit implicit and biased. Can we request our government to allocate all the budge to research? (这个论点貌似不太能够支持你的主观点，作者也没有说要把所有钱都花在研究上，最好不要用太多个人的经验，比较没有说服力。这一段的论点结果不清晰呢，可以加一些firstly, secondly之类的)
It is crazy and irrational. There is a mass of fields what can also be a good option to invest in, for instance, helping the young establishing a business. The government also should take other things into consideration, helping the poor, improving civil health care system as well as posing economic development. Whether a research deserves investing is also a problem facing to us. If I want to study ET now, should the government provide financial support for me? In summary, research is a good choice of investment, but it is not the only option(再次提醒，作者没有说把所有钱都花在研究上). Furthermore, the quantity we invest in research should match our economic condition and current level of science.

To sum up, for all the discussions above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's suggestion is reasonable and feasible in general. However, his suggestion of investing in research regardless of other alternatives to spend money is unwarranted and biased. At the same time, we should also pay much attention for the destructive effects from the results of a research.


A162:

In this argument, the author concludes that North Americans should take more soy to prevent fatigue and depression. To strengthen this conclusion, the author provides a comparison
of the number of sufferers and the consumption of soy in North America and Asia. The author also cites supporting evidence that soy contains disease-preventing properties. At first glance, the argument might be somehow reasonable, but close scrutiny reveals that it contains several unconvincing assumptions and is there fore unpersuasive.

First of all, I doubt the statistics that there are 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression sufferers in North America than in Asia(可以再简化，不要重复题目).
How does the author get to know the result? Is it authoritative and reliable? What if they conduct the survey in the flourishing city in America such as New York and a relatively-lagged city in Asia? What if the people tested live a unique life of their own traditional custom? (个人认为写作的口吻更书面化一点，不要口语化) In addition, unfortunately, we find little sign of such procedures for sampling, thus making it doubtful whether the people constitute a sufficiently large sample is large enough to represent of the overall population of nation. All these events would make the test unconvincing, unreliable and unrepresentative.

Second, even if we the statistics are as reliable as the author cited, the author unfairly assumes that isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties, specifically help prevent fatigue and depression. However, this is not necessarily the case. If the soy can prevent diarrhea, it would be ridiculous to say that it can also exert impacts on chronic fatigue and depression.

Finally, the author fails to establish a casual relationship between Asians’ consumption of soy per day and a lower percentage of people suffering chronic fatigue and depression. In addition the author unwarrantedly assumes that the difference in soy consumption is the only possible explanation for the disparity in the occurrence of fatigue and depression. As we all know, there are more developed countries in North America. The pressure from aggressive working places, the strong desire for a higher position and the heavy burden for feeding a family
The pressures from work, family responsibility and desire are all greatly different in North America and in Asia. The author draws an arbitrary decision that soy plays the predominant role in preventing chronic fatigue and depression, by ruling out all the other alternatives.

To sum up, the author’s conclusion is not well supported as it stands. The statistics he provides, the underlying logic error in his reasoning, the failing to illustrate the relation between soy and the disease are all egregious flaws in the argument. To bolster it, the author must provide more detail about the survey, such as the number selected. To better assess the problem, I would also need to know whether the soy can prevent chronic fatigue and depression and whether the per day consumption matters.