ISSUE3 [5f小组] 球拍～积极响应回拍政策

fuq_flyUID: 2422554

第一篇ISSUE好难写，边写边吐。真诚求各位指点
3、"It is more important to allocate money for immediate, existing social problems than to spend it on long-term research that might help future generations."

The speaker asserts that allocating money for immediate and existing social problems is more important than spending it on long-term research. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker especially when it comes to the urgently problems, such as starvation, unemployment, crime, etc. However, as I see it, the speaker neglects certain benefits and future development that accrue when we allocate the money for long-term research.

To begin with, I concede that it is entirely appropriate to assign a higher priority of allocating money to the immediate social problems than to the long-term research. After all, many immediate problems are related to the stability and development of society. Typical example that aptly illustrates this point is SARS. We can hardly forget SARS, which widely spread in China and mercilessly deprived many people’s lives. At that time, government put mass of money against the epidemic and slowed down the other work. Any long-term research investment made no sense in this case because the immediate problem threatened the people's survival and social stability.

On the other hand are two compelling argument that long-term research play a significant role in a society. One such argument is that by allocating money to the long-term research we actually help to solve the tomorrow's immediate problem. Consider the nuclear technology's progress and application which is heavily supported by many countries regardless their motives, and which become the new energy serving to people's daily life and also provide countless jobs as a result. If the government did not invest the nuclear' research, it is possible that we were suffering from the energy crisis and even involving into the energy contesting war. Nuclear's example is proof that in order to reduce predictive problem we should allocate money for long-term research.

A second argument against the speaker's position has to do with the definition of long-term. The long-term is only a conception which is vague and do not have a evidence bourn. So it is hard to say which research is long-term and which one is short-term. Too often, that human beings predict the future and recognize the world is based on our constant research and explore. And only the research whether or not it is "long-term" or "short-term" can lead us to a predictive future, thus we will avoid to involve into so-called immediate problems, which is attributed to the lack of today's research. Therefore, we should finance not only existed problem but also research whatever the research is long planning or short planning.

To sum up, the social finance allocated to immediate and existed problems help the society develop fast and stably, while allocated to long-term research help the society develop sustainablely and predictively. Generally saying, the two sides are equivalent vital to a health society.

[ 本帖最后由 fuq_fly 于 2007-11-8 15:19 编辑 ]

lestouUID: 2260126

优点:词语方面还是有闪光的地方,, 比如accrue    aptly 这几个词的用法是很值得学习的,不过还是少了点,建议多用,我也可以从中学习,呵呵.楼主的非限定性定语从句用的比较多,也还可以,建议也多使用一些其他句型,比如非限定主格,等等,也就是句子多样化的问题.
例子方面SARS,NUCLEAR的例子也都还行

问题:On the other hand are two compelling argument that这句有点问题吧,似乎应该是
On the other hand, there are two compelling arguments prove that ...,不过还是觉得这句话有画蛇添足的感觉.有什么观点FIRST,SECOND摆出来就可以了,感觉好象把ISSUE搞成了ARGUEMENT,(个人观点)
And only the research whether or not it is "long-term" or "short-term" can lead us to a predictive future, thus we will avoid to involve into so-called immediate problems, which is attributed to the lack of today's research这句也是有点读不通

fuq_flyUID: 2422554

感谢纠正～:loveliness: