跪求拍~！！issue69 有拍必回

robinlijiaqiUID: 2684379

Issue 69
Should government restrict the scientific research an development? In my view it is absolutely essential. It is nowhere more ridiculous than on the claim that technology acts as a tool which is harmless.
The fact is that the lost we suffer in recent century is more tremendous than in any era in history. The advancement in technology strengthens the influence we are able to exert on the environment and human being as a whole. Take, for example, the Second World War which was the most dreadful tragedy ever happen to our species. Some may claim that it is not the technology that cause the war but the hatred and desire for power which already exist when the human had self-awareness. However, advancement in technology should not be blamed for the cause of the war but the ever cruelty the war presented. Any sensible man would ask why the only two world war ever happened took place in last century? It is because the industry revolution and the boost in technology equipped human with great ability to transfer military goods, troops, weapons and the ability to damage. If one needs more evidence to prove the technology's evil sides, consider the atomic bomb, which cause tremendous mass casualty at the end of the Second World War.
While those who would defend the speaker's assertion may point out that controversial technology also improved human living quality.
But the fact is that the harm they inflict on society far outweighs the benefits. Take the nuclear technology for example. Despite the contribution, nuclear technology's outgrowth- nuclear weapon resulted in tragedy in Japan and the threat of this precarious weapon still exists. Let alone the serious influence on environment and masses caused by the exposure of the nuclear power plant "Chernobyl".
Some may also claim that it is difficult to perceive what result a technology lead to and it should be better to control the application of the particular piece of technology rather than the research. While one need not to delve into the history to find the counterexample to this naive assertion; every government today lives in fear of the possibility that terrorists possess the weapon of mass destruction. This is a typical example for the fact that it is extremely difficult to prevent the employment of a piece of technology. The best way to prevent human being from destroying itself is to restrict the potentially harmful scientific research at the first place.
In addition, in some circumstances the scientists may be so devoted to the research that they overlook the potential hazard the research may inflict on participants. Take, for example, Alfred Nobel who invented a powerful powerponder-nitrogencerine. In this case, the process of inventing was highly precarious but the government had no intention to place any restriction on the research. Eventually, this carelessness result in the death of Nobel’s brother. In some cases, scientists neglect the potential danger of a research or experiment and it is the government’s duty to be vigilant of the hazard.
In sum, numerous facts of how some scientific researches inflicted harm on people and environment have already give us enough lessens. Government should be vigilant of how the scientific researches are conducted and more importantly, where they lead to. It is the government’s obligation to place some restrictions to the scientific research to prevent the tragedy from happening.

xinxincaoUID: 2542084

我觉得开头应该换一下，问句形式已经不是啥新颖方式了，也问得有些生硬。中间例子举的还是挺好的~~加油！

robinlijiaqiUID: 2684379

谢谢！！！

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

Should government restrict the scientific research an development? In my view it is absolutely essential. It is nowhere more ridiculous than on the claim that technology acts as a tool which is harmless.
The fact is that the lost we suffer in recent century is more tremendous than in any era in history. The advancement in technology strengthens the influence we are able to exert on the environment and human being as a whole. Take, for example, the Second World War（一般都是take ……for example） which was the most dreadful tragedy ever happen to our species. Some may claim that it is not the technology that cause the war but the hatred and desire for power which already exist when the human had self-awareness. However, advancement in technology should not be blamed for the cause of the war but the ever cruelty the war presented. Any sensible man would ask why the only two world war ever happened took place in last century? It is because the industry revolution and the boost in technology equipped human with great ability to transfer military goods, troops, weapons and the ability to damage. If one needs more evidence to prove the technology's evil sides, consider the atomic bomb, which cause tremendous mass casualty at the end of the Second World War.(第一段太长了，中心就不好把握了)
While those who would defend the speaker's assertion may point out that controversial technology also improved human living quality.
（这个逻辑有问题吧，反对了后面还加also,这样不是在肯定的基础上吗）
But the fact is that the harm they inflict on society far outweighs the benefits. (此句和上句是什么关系，转折？？好像缺点什么，)Take the nuclear technology for example. Despite the contribution, nuclear technology's outgrowth- nuclear weapon resulted in tragedy in Japan and the threat of this precarious weapon still exists. Let alone the serious influence on environment and masses caused by the exposure of the nuclear power plant "Chernobyl".
Some may also claim that it is difficult to perceive what result a technology lead to and it should be better to control the application of the particular piece of technology rather than the research. While one need not to delve into the history to find the counterexample to this naive assertion; every government today lives in fear of the possibility that terrorists possess the weapon of mass destruction. This is a typical example for the fact that it is extremely difficult to prevent the employment of a piece of technology. The best way to prevent human being from destroying itself is to restrict the potentially harmful scientific research at the first place.
In addition, in some circumstances the scientists may be so devoted to the research that they overlook the potential hazard the research may inflict on participants. （why devote them?）Take, for example, Alfred Nobel who invented a powerful powerponder-nitrogencerine. In this case, the process of inventing was highly precarious but the government had no intention to place any restriction on the research. (does this example support your point?)Eventually, this carelessness result in the death of Nobel’s brother. In some cases, scientists neglect the potential danger of a research or experiment and it is the government’s duty to be vigilant of the hazard.
In sum, numerous facts of how some scientific researches inflicted harm on people and environment have already give us enough lessens. Government should be vigilant of how the scientific researches are conducted and more importantly, where they lead to. It is the government’s obligation to place some restrictions to the scientific research to prevent the tragedy from happening.

楼主分段很乱 模式很单调，全部都是 主题句 然后跟个例子。

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

我写的ISSUE https://bbs.gter.net/thread-998763-1-1.html 狠拍吧
谢谢

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

楼主没有回拍啊
不厚道