issue56【today is the day小组】第二次作业 by baby12036

baby12036UID: 2522977

Should government decide its focusing of problem, as the speaker asserts, based on whether it is immediate or anticipated, While, i think, the boundary of these two are still vague? Or government should pay much more attention on the importance of the problem it facing with? Analysis of how critical the problems are is always the very first thing to do. Government should put a priority on the "life and death" problem; no matter it is a problem of today or one in the future, instead of distributing too much more unnecessary resources on some less critical thing only because it is supposed to be a immediate one.
To support my opinion, one should take a look at the problem of unemployment, which is generally supposed to be immediate. Government should put much of its energy on solving the high rate of unemployment; otherwise can threaten the stability of the society. Once most of people is out of job, they will not be able to feed their family. What worse is the possibility of a terrible circulation: the companies will fire more workers because of their lower profits caused by the decreasing ability of the unemployed man to consume. That is why our government should do their best to create more jobs and opportunities in order to reduce the unemployment rate.
When talking about the problems in the future, one should look no further than the troubles of environment. In fact, the environmental problems are complex in the concept of "time" the speaker mentioned: some of these problems have already brought us tremendous impact, whereas the others are very likely to affect this planet some day if there are still no prevention taken by the government or public. The documentary "A Inconvenient Truth" shows the terrible outcome "Global Warming" may cause in the coming future: a great amount of the iceberg may melt down; the city of New York will probably be immerged result from the higher sea level, etc. How awful it will be! There is no doubt that it is government's duty to take effective actions on these anticipated environmental problems at once. Clearly, government must allocate much more resources on it than some problems of today like the economical benefit in the short term.
To sum up, it is not wise for government to decide their distribution of public resources on problems by a vague standard to differentiate them as "immediate" or "anticipated". The critical problems may have horrible aftermaths without public attention; the less important ones are not the kind of "life and death" have to deal with, that may be where the differences are when considering  which problem we should pay more attention about.

kangaroo323UID: 2448233

Should government decide its focusing of problem（所关注的问题可以说成matter of concern）, as the speaker asserts, based onwhether it is immediate or anticipated. While, I think, the boundary of these two are(is) still vague?（插入语使用固然可以让文章看起来更地道，但是这头两句话却看起来有些琐碎） Or government should pay muchmore attention on the importance of the problem it facing with(face with 的意思是“涂上，覆盖”)? Analysis of how critical theproblems are is always the very first thing to do. Government should puta priority on the "life and death" problem; no matter it is a problemof today or one in the future, instead of distributing too much moreunnecessary resources on some less critical thing only because it is supposedto be an immediate one.建议：表明自己观点立场的句子一定要清晰明了。

To support my opinion, one should take a look at the problem of unemployment,which is generally supposed to be immediate. Government should put much of its energy on solving the high rate of unemployment; otherwise can threaten thestability of the society. Once most of people is(are)out of job（失业可是说成out of work）, they will not be able to feed their family(养家可以说成support the family). What worse is the possibilityof a terrible circulation: the companies will fire more workers(改为employees更合适一些) because of their lower profits caused by the decreasing ability of theunemployed man to consume. That is why our government should do their best tocreate more jobs and opportunities in order to reduce the unemployment rate. (Your段首句就是例子——建议先在首句表明本段的观点，然后再举例子来支撑自己的观点。因为全文围绕的主题应该是“政府对当下问题以及预期性问题的态度”，如果你这段要写政府对immediate problems的态度,那在段首句或尾句，应该提出你的观点。此外，要注意全文段与段之间，以及段落内部的过度和衔接，以及内容上的递进或者让步或是however。这样会让文章整体感增强，BTW很多高分文章的逻辑性都很强^_^)

When talking about the problems in the future, oneshould look no further than the troubles of environment.（同样的问题，一上来就是例子，小建议一下，这里可不可以换成“当讨论到未来可能会发生的问题，政府部门应该如何如何”，因为文章始终应该是围绕着三个关键词：government, immediateproblems, anticipates problems） In fact, the environmental problems are complex in the concept of"time" the speaker mentioned: some of these problems have alreadybrought us tremendous impact, whereas the others are very likely to affect thisplanet some day if there are still no prevention taken by the government orpublic. The documentary "A Inconvenient Truth" shows the terribleoutcome "Global Warming" may cause in the coming future: a greatamount of the iceberg may melt down; the city of New York will probably be immerged( 加which may )result from the higher sea level, etc. Howawful it will be! There is no doubt that it is government's duty to takeeffective actions on these anticipated environmental problems at once. Clearly,government must allocate much more resources on it than some problems of todaylike the economical benefit in the short term.

To sum up, it is not wise for government（s） to decide their distribution of public resources on problems bya vague standard to differentiate them as "immediate" or"anticipated". The critical problems may have horrible aftermathswithout public attention; the less important ones arenot the kind of "life and death" （加which） have to dealwith（deal with的主语应该是人而不是物，在这里是不是可以考虑用“被动”）（此外，要注意可以用从句或者是分词的形式避免一个句子里出现两个谓语动词）, that may be where thedifferences are when considering which problem we should pay moreattention about.

有说的不当的地方，或者是我理解错误的地方请baby12036指出:)

加油！

[ 本帖最后由 kangaroo323 于 2008-8-4 12:42 编辑 ]