Issue31 / Argument187【0806G-Sunbird小组】第一次作业

zxxx2972UID: 2367399

issue31: "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."

字数：570  时间：未限时
I fundamentally agree that our society should spend money on research, especially in this era with rapid scientific and technological change, but when it comes to the research of controversial, we should be cautions to make investment depending on the goal of the research.

To begin with, it is widely known that research has fully contributed to the national development and social progress. Research is the chief means by which we human beings attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Without research, human being will be cumbered in the exploration of the unknown for the answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our troublesome problems. It is Watt who makes our dreams of flying in the sky come true. It is Edison who invent bulb that bring our brightness. It is Newton who makes us clear about the motion rule. Only under numberless night and day researching work could all of these inventions come out.

In addition, the scientific research plays a crucial role in solving a series of society problems and medical problems, thus improve the level of life and people’s health. For example, the technology of transgene and crossbreed bring human beings more foods, thus solves most people’s fundamental survival problem; The technology of organ transplant survives the life of people who have threatened by death due to a certain organ’s problem; the invention of nuclear power station provides us with sufficient power.
      
Admittedly, not all researches are beneficial and useful to our human beings, and even some of them exert negative effects on the development of society. Before making our decision on whether the research is deserving investment, we should think thrice and carefully measure the advantages it would be to us and that of the disadvantages. If the research can make drastic contribution to our society, though wildly controversial, should be invested on. Some critics rebuke the scientists who engage themselves in controversial researches such as clone and nuclear studies that it is immoral, and even inhuman for them to invent such kind of technology that would endanger the moral standard, even the whole society; while supporters insist that the decoding of DNA series should be a blessing to human’s health and the exploitation of nuclear energy would unavoidably make tremendous contribution to our society. But those technologies which once had negative effects are now applied in all aspects of our life and have obtained drastic progress. In this case, we should invest our money on these controversial but beneficial researches.
However, though we support the research that is controversial, it does not mean that we agree   someone or certain country to apply it for evil purpose. For example, the invention of nuclear weapon is seen as one of the greatest threat to the whole word while the nuclear power station, which is also the application of nuclear technology, benefit human beings. So we should be cautions to make investment depending on the goal of the research.
  
In conclusion, before making decision on whether we should put our money on those controversial things, we should appeal to the comparison between the research's advantages that would contribute to the society and its disadvantages that would do detrimental impact on the society. To those controversial researches that tend to greatly improve the society's development, we should also invest our money on them without hesitation.

argument 187
"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies—such as those in Japan and Taiwan—that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."
字数：418        时间：1小时



In this argument, the author recommends that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish for preventing depression. To support his recommendation, the author refers to some evidence. However, the argument suffers from a variety of critical fallacies, thus leads to an unconvincing conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that it is the omega -3 fatty acids that lead to ancestors’ less possibility of suffering depression comparing to people in the modern society, and neglect the other possible factors. In fact, people in modern society live within a very different world from the American today, where maybe means less pollution, less pressure, less competition, less war, and the like. For example, common sense tells us that more pressure an individual has, the larger possibility he would suffer from depression with. Without ruling out such difference, the evidence cited is meaningless.
Secondly, the author bases the conclusion on the evidence that modern societies such as Japan and Taiwan that consume more fish report less depression than the American. It is mentioned that omega -3 fatty acids were found in some fish and fish oils, however, it is likely that the fish that people in Japan eat does not contain such substance. If so, this evidence would provide limited support to the conclusion. Moreover, even if we neglect such possibility, the author fails to rule out the other difference between them such as cultural, environment and lifestyle. It is likely that people in Japan and Taiwan suffering from depression are more afraid of being looked down upon, thus leads to the lower report rate of depression in contrast to people in American society.
Thirdly, even though omega -3 fatty acids do play a key role in preventing depression, the author could not conclude that American should make a drastic change in the diets to eat more fish. It is likely that a large many people have taken sufficient such substance, so it will be dispensable for all the people to increase their fish consume. Or perhaps other foods also contain such substances, digesting such foods can also contribute to preventing depression.

In sum, the argument fails to be cogent due to its reasoning flaws. To better support its conclusion, the author should provide more evidence strengthen the causal relationship between the omega-3 fatting acids and the mental health, and to prove that fish is the best source for all American to take in enough the omega-3 fatting acids to keep from depression.

强夫UID: 2156262

In this argument, the author recommends that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish for preventing depression. To support his recommendation, the author refers to some evidence. However, the argument suffers from a variety of critical fallacies, thus leads to an unconvincing conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that it is the omega -3 fatty acids that lead to ancestors’ less possibility of suffering depression comparing to people in the modern society, and neglect the other possible factors. In fact, people in modern society live within a very different world from the American today, where maybe means less pollution, less pressure, less competition, less war, and the like. For example, common sense tells us that more pressure an individual has, the larger possibility he would suffer from depression with. Without ruling out such difference, the evidence cited is meaningless.

Secondly, the author bases the conclusion on the evidence that modern societies such as Japan and Taiwan that consume more fish report less depression than the American. It is mentioned that omega -3 fatty acids were found in some fish and fish oils, however, it is likely that the fish that people in Japan eat does not contain such substance. If so, this evidence would provide limited support to the conclusion. Moreover, even if we neglect such possibility（even given that 这样避免与后面的句型重复，而且一个句子里面就有两个such读着不顺）, the author fails to rule out the other difference between them such as cultural, environment and lifestyle. It is likely that people in Japan and Taiwan suffering from depression are more afraid of being looked down upon, thus leads to the lower report rate of depression in contrast to people in American society.（这点我觉得你写的观点都比较好）

Thirdly, even though omega -3 fatty acids do play a key role in preventing depression, the author could not conclude that American should make a drastic change in the diets to eat more fish. It is likely that a large many people have taken sufficient such substance, so it will be dispensable for all the people to increase their fish consume. Or perhaps other foods also contain such substances, digesting such foods can also contribute to preventing depression.

In sum, the argument fails to be cogent due to its reasoning flaws. To better support its conclusion, the author should provide more evidence strengthen the causal relationship between the omega-3 fatting acids and the mental health, and to prove that fish is the best source for all American to take in enough the omega-3 fatting acids to keep from depression.

以后一定要分段哈！觉得你的内容很多，基本上把各个方面都写到了
还有通篇such太多，举例有时候不一定用such，你也肯定知道些别的，所以要注意变换，不然读着读起来会觉得满眼一个单词。还有都是长句给人阅读负担比较大，适当的尝试短句效果或许更好。

[ 本帖最后由 强夫 于 2007-11-3 13:55 编辑 ]

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

Issue31 / Argument187【0806G-Sunbird小组】第一次作业

issue31: "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
你的结构很漂亮呀，感觉很新东方，呵呵 。向你学习阿，学习
另外，你的某几个句子太长读起来有点累 而对于that is 你好像很喜欢用，可以考虑一下用which is ,个人觉得that is , which is用在同一个句子里的时候，会让句子的结构比较清楚，读的人不会费力

我的破网速阿 argue晚一点传 实在传不上去


[ 本帖最后由 edith_sleeping 于 2007-11-3 16:54 编辑 ]

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

Issue31 / Argument187【0806G-Sunbird小组】第一次作业

issue31: "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."

字数：570  时间：未限时
I fundamentally agree that our society should spend money on research, especially in this era with rapid scientific and technological change, but when it comes to the research of controversial, we should be cautions to make investment depending on the goal of the research.

To begin with, it is widely known that research has fully contributed to the national development and social progress. Research is the chief means by which we human beings attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us.// Without research, human being will be cumbered in the exploration of the unknown for the answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our troublesome problems. //It is Watt who makes our dreams of flying in the sky come true. (用分号好像比较好) It is Edison who invent（这个地方是否应该用过去时） bulb that bring our brightness. It is Newton who makes us clear about the motion rule. Only under numberless night and day researching work could all of these inventions come out.（这句话的作用是什么，感叹吗？）In addition, the scientific research plays（researches play） a crucial role in solving a series of society problems and medical problems, thus improve the level of life and people’s health.// For example, the technology of transgene and crossbreed bring human beings more foods, thus solves most people’s fundamental survival problem; The technology of organ transplant survives the life of people who have threatened by death due to a certain organ’s problem; the invention of nuclear power station provides us with sufficient power.
      
Admittedly, not all researches are beneficial and useful to our human beings, and even some of them exert negative effects on the development of society. Before making our decision on whether the research is deserving investment, we should thinkthriceand carefully measure the advantages it would be to us and that of the disadvantages. If the research can make drastic contribution to our society, though wildly controversial, should be invested on. //Some critics rebuke the scientists who engage themselves in controversial researches such as clone and nuclear studies that it is （which are） immoral, and even inhuman for them to invent such kind of technology that would endanger the moral standard, even the whole society(这句感觉太长了有点费力); while(大写) supporters insist that the decoding of DNA series should be a blessing to human’s health and the exploitation of nuclear energy would unavoidably make tremendous contribution to our society. But those technologies which once had negative effects are now applied in all aspects of our life and have obtained drastic progress. In this case, we should invest our money on these controversial but beneficial researches.
However, though we support the research that is controversial, it does not mean that we agree   someone or certain country to apply it for evil purpose. For example, the invention of nuclear weapon is seen as one of the greatest threat to the whole word while the nuclear power station, which is also the application of nuclear technology, benefit human beings. So we should be cautions to make investment depending on the goal of the research.
  
In conclusion, before making decision on (the question) whether we should put our money on those controversial things (or not), we should appeal to the comparison between the research's advantages that would contribute to the society and its disadvantages that would do detrimental impact on the society. To those controversial researches that tend to greatly improve the society's development, we should also invest our money on them without hesitation.

[ 本帖最后由 edith_sleeping 于 2007-11-3 16:38 编辑 ]

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

In this argument, the author recommends that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish for preventing depression. To support his recommendation, the author refers to some evidence. However, the argument suffers from a variety of critical fallacies, thus leads to an unconvincing conclusion.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that it is the omega -3 fatty acids that lead to ancestors’ less possibility of suffering depression comparing to people in the modern society, and neglect the other possible factors. In fact, people in （other）modern society live within a very different world from the American today, where maybe means less pollution, less pressure, less competition, less war, and the like. For example, common sense tells us that （the）more pressure an individual has, the larger possibility he would suffer from depression with. Without ruling out such difference, the evidence cited is meaningless.
Secondly, the author bases the conclusion on the evidence that modern societies such as Japan and Taiwan that consume more fish report less depression than the American. It is mentioned that omega -3 fatty acids were found in some fish and fish oils, however, it is likely that the fish that people in Japan eat does not contain such substance. If so, this evidence would provide limited support to the conclusion. Moreover, even if we neglect such possibility, the author fails to rule out the other difference（s） between them such as cultural, environment and lifestyle. It is likely that people in Japan and Taiwan suffering from depression are more afraid of being looked down upon, thus leads to the lower report rate of depression in contrast to people in American society.
Thirdly, even though omega -3 fatty acids do play a key role in preventing depression, the author could not conclude that American should make a drastic change in the diets to eat more fish. It is likely that a large many people have taken sufficient such substance, so it will be dispensable for all the people to increase their fish consume. Or perhaps other foods also contain such substances, digesting such foods（people） can also contribute to preventing depression.

In sum, the argument fails to be cogent due to its reasoning flaws. To better support its conclusion, the author should provide more evidence(s) strengthen the causal relationship between the omega-3 fatting acids and the mental health, and（不要and） to prove that fish is the best source for all American to take in enough the omega-3 fatting acids to keep from depression.

zxxx2972UID: 2367399

谢谢EDITH_SLLEEPING 和强夫的建议
:handshake