Gter四月''无名''小组作业贴 (第43次作业)----后天考试了~~

丫丫学语UID: 2181189

TOPIC: ISSUE83 - "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
WORDS: 526          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-4-3

The wilderness areas are also invaluable resources of human beings to some extent, which are certainly deserved preserved by the government, just as the speaker's claim. And as far as I am concerned, I agree with the speaker. The wilderness areas are not renewing resources; therefore they have significant benefit to our human beings.

First of all, the conservation of the wilderness is necessary for human beings. In the earth there are not only human beings, but also all kinds of other livings. If we think from another angle, if the world only left mankind, how terrible it would be. How could people to feed themselves, what they eat? For example, because of the atmosphere pollution, the temperature of our globe is becoming higher and higher, which is called green house in modern society, which makes many icebergs begin to molt. And under this effect, the level of the sea has been higher and higher step by step. Today larger lands have been flooded by the sea; many of them have endangered the survival of human beings. Another good case in this point is the appearing of the forest and over-hunting, which make the many land become deserts and extinction of the animals. All of these will be detrimental to humans.

To take the idea further, to preserve publicly owned wilderness is also an urgent issue for modern society. With the development of the economy and technology, just as an old saying goes," Every coin has two sides", the environment for us living has been more or less polluted, which is even more serious and should not be ignored by the human beings any more. We cannot only pay attention to the economic profits at the cost of all mankinds’ health and offspring’s resource. Furthermore, we cannot wait until the situation is too bad to save. If in that case one day, we would be sure to regret for what we have done and assume the bad sequence.

In addition, considering these are areas which publicly owned, they must be paid less attention to and therefore maybe need more governmental regulation than other issues. If one thing cannot be regulated by people themselves, in this case, the function of the government should be put into since the government not only has the power but also the sufficient finance, both of which are indispensable in action.

Finally, referring to those remote areas of a few people, it is showed that the convenience for us to preserve, rather than difficulty. We can easily imagine that if one place that a great number of people live there, it would be hard for us to preserve the wilderness, because the human beings' action is unavoidable to have great effect on the round environment.

To sum up, as a conscious and responsible man, any one should preserve the publicly owned wilderness as possible as he/she can, which is also a problem of one's personal moral. And regard of the limitation of personal ability and finance, the function of the government should be taken into account in order to well and powerfully preserve the sources of publicly owned wilderness.  

TOPIC: ARGUMENT180 - The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.

"Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One graduate of the course was able to read a five-hundred-page report in only two hours; another graduate rose from an assistant manager to vice president of the company in under a year. Obviously, the faster you can read, the more information you can absorb in a single workday. Moreover, Easy Read costs only $500 per employee-a small price to pay when you consider the benefits to Acme. Included in this fee is a three-week seminar in Spruce City and a lifelong subscription to the Easy Read newsletter. Clearly, Acme would benefit greatly by requiring all of our employees to take the Easy Read course."
WORDS: 437          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-4-3

In this argument, the arguer recommended that they should also send all their employees to the Easy Read Speed-reading Course. And in this way their company will be benefit greatly. To support this recommendation, the arguer pointed out two persons who took this course are both benefit for themselves. At the first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be appealing, while further examining it, we may find it unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are obviously questionable, which are listed by following discussion.

First of all, that two persons who took this course are both benefit for themselves cited by the arguer is unwarranted to support the conclusion. It is entirely possible that other crucial factors have the significant contribution to their personal successes, rather than taking the Easy Read Speed-reading Course. This course may be just a happening for their successes, but not the cause. For example, their own hard working for a long time, an opportunity for success and they catch it and some else. Unless the arguer could consider and rule out all these possibilities, we would not be convinced.

In addition, the more fast you read does not necessarily mean that the more information you get. On the contrary, maybe the little knowledge you will obtain to some extent since you read too fast to remember what you have seen. If in this situation, after your quick reading, you would get little, even nothing, which is worse than that a bit lower reading but really acquire some information. As an old saying goes," More hasty, less speed".

Furthermore, the arguer's recommendation of all their employees should be sent to this course is ungrounded and unrealistic. Considering the finance and necessity of the company and according the different jobs of different people, it must be a waste for them to send all employees to train. For example, an old man who is the door-keeper of their company, do we have the necessary to send him to this Speed-Reading Course? Of course not, you will say. So we should analyze the thing by a case to case, rather than a hasty generalization, which will make the conclusion more reasonable.

To sum up, the recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should offer more reliable evidence that it is indeed the effect of the Easy Read Speed-reading Course that has significantly contributed to the personal improvement rather than other irrelevant likelihoods. Finally, to better assess the argument, we need more clear information about which employees in their company would be worthy of sending to the course after all, instead of sending all blindly.