Issue38 [Mettle 7.25] by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."

Nowadays, with the rapid development of mass media, televisions are taking a more and more crucial role in the daily life, thus many people would argue that reading books will become obsolete by watching TV sooner or later. However, are books indeed dispensable and can be totally replaced by televisions? In my point of view, books maintain many advantages which TV do not have, therefore, in the predictable future, books and television will co-exist except for their many competitions.

To begin with, no one at present can deny or even demean the influence and effects of TV. Admittedly, TVs have their own unique features and certain charismas. First of all, TVs are glorious for their vivid scenes. For example, the landscapes of many tremendous spots such as the Great Fall, the Alps Mountain and the Great Walls may not be fully described by written words, in such cases, only video cameras have the ability to catch and save their true magnificence and essence. Therefore it is no wonder that many people would prefer watching National Geography than just reading some tourism articles or just looking at the albums. What's more, TVs take more important roles in recording blasting events, it is common acknowledged that watching live soccer matches are far more fascinating than just reading newspapers afterwards. Second, TVs also have the advantage of broadcasting simultaneously. Nowadays many events occur everyday and everywhere around the world, the journalists are hardly able to write them all down in time and in detail, thus TVs provide us a perfect platform to be informed and to catch up with the trend.

However, still no one can obliterate the importance of books. In the first place, the books have a much longer history than TV and thus have a more gigantic storage of information. Concerning the historical data, it is almost impossible to check them out on TV; in contrast, the library must be a good choice to look up for. Moreover, TV programs change instantly while books can be viewed constantly. For example, if you missed some news it would be better to find them out on newspapers and relating books. There is also much information that will never appear on TV. Scientific essays are such materials that will only be printed on paper; hence scientists are more reliable to some certain indices. Still, there are differences between watching and reading to some extent. When sitting in the sofa and putting your attention on the little screen, you are more likely to receive information passively, but while holding a book and gazing at its contents, you are grasping data actively. Comparing these two situations above, one can easily come to the conclusion that reading books is more efficient a way to learn knowledge. Besides, the verves of the masterpieces can seldom be reconstructed on TV. As the old saying goes like that: There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. It is nothing but real that some articles have the magic within them and can not be replicated.

To summarize, I must concede that the TVs are becoming more and more popular and this trend is seemingly unstoppable. The advantages and convenience of TV programs are publicly confirmed. However, books also have some features such as their massive volumes of data and their specific charismas. At final judge, I would hold the point of view that watching TV and reading books are complementary to each other in many respects, therefore they would conciliate and yet compete with each other at the same time.

macawUID: 2291086

Issue38 [Mettle 7.25] by werecat
"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."

Nowadays, with the rapid development of mass media, televisions are taking a more and more crucial role in the daily life, thus many people would argue that reading books will become obsolete by watching TV sooner or later. However, are books indeed dispensable and can be totally replaced by televisions? In my point of view, books maintain many advantages which TV do not have, therefore, in the predictable future, books and television will co-exist except for their many competitions.

To begin with, no one at present can deny or even demean the influence and effects of TV. Admittedly, TVs have their own unique features and certain charismas. First of all, TVs are glorious for their vivid scenes. For example, the landscapes of many tremendous spots such as the Great Fall, the Alps Mountain and the Great Walls may not be fully described by written words, in such cases, only video cameras have the ability to catch and save their true magnificence and essence. Therefore it is no wonder that many people would prefer watching National Geography than just reading some tourism articles or just looking at the albums. What's more, TVs take more important roles in recording blasting events, it is common acknowledged that watching live soccer matches are far more fascinating than just reading newspapers afterwards. Second, TVs also have the advantage of broadcasting simultaneously. Nowadays many events occur【不及物】 everyday and everywhere around the world, the journalists are hardly able to write them all down in time and in detail, thus TVs provide us a perfect platform to be informed and to catch up with the trend.

However, still no one can obliterate the importance of books. In the first place, the books have a much longer history than TV and thus have a more gigantic storage of information. Concerning the historical data, it is almost impossible to check them out on TV【这个，almost 和nearly没有感情色彩变化，那个impossible就显得很绝对了，还是很多数据资料存在的】; in contrast, the library must be a good choice to look up for. Moreover, TV programs change instantly while books can be viewed constantly. For example, if you missed some news it would be better to find them out on newspapers and relating books. There is also much information that will never appear on TV. Scientific essays are such materials that will only be printed on paper; hence scientists are more reliable【这个词是可信，还是信任。】 to some certain indices. Still, there are differences between watching and reading to some extent. When sitting in the sofa and putting your attention on the little screen, you are more likely to receive information passively, but while holding a book and gazing at its contents, you are grasping data actively. Comparing these two situations above, one can easily come to the conclusion 【根据上面2个就推出……有点像argument里的草率推广，可以换种说法吧，字面上有些明显】that reading books is more efficient a way to learn knowledge. Besides, the verves of the masterpieces can seldom be reconstructed on TV. As the old saying goes like that: There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. It is nothing but real that some articles have the magic within them and can not be replicated.【这段论证是不是应该分层，开始说书好，然后比较两者，然后又说书好】

To summarize, I must concede that the TVs are becoming more and more popular and this trend is seemingly unstoppable. The advantages and convenience of TV programs are publicly confirmed. However, books also have some features such as their massive volumes of data and their specific charismas. At final judge, I would hold the point of view that watching TV and reading books are complementary to each other in many respects, therefore they would conciliate and yet compete with each other at the same time.

CAT几乎每一片都是平衡观点，这种最难写的立意。。。