GRE互改工程之nannan作业

nannan6474UID: 2612196

我3.5号就考了，特紧张，所以希望大家多多帮忙，这是第一篇
69"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

Should governments place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development, as the speaker asserts? In a sense, I agree that in many cases governments should place few restrictions on scientific research. However, the speaker begs questions by overlooking giving loose to scientific research may lead human beings to their doom. And an all-sided consideration is needed when deciding the precedence.

Admittedly, scientific researches re creative and they may be out of step with our time and our society. It is difficult for government to estimate whether the researches will benefit our society. Thus, the government should give adhesion to scientific researches in many cases. Consider the great invention such as Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity that could not receive contemporary appreciation and comprehension. Epoch-making as his theory is which revolutionized modern thought on the nature of space and time and formed a theoretical base for the exploitation of atomic energy. An even more remarkable example is the Wright brother who raised a curtain on the age of mechanical flight. The society may laugh at their fancy from the very first moment. If the government quells these innovations, inventions and discovery, it may bring about irretrievable losses to the society.

However, the scientific research is a two-edged sword. Some unscrupulous persons to destroy the stabilization of the society or carry out law-breaking criminal activities may utilize some researches, which are at application stage. If government places not restriction on these scientific researches, it will bring on a disaster. For example, the nuclear reactor produces electricity at high efficiency. But when it is used to build nuclear weapons, it will invoke disaster. Moreover, cloning brings blessing to organ transplant recipients, but criminal also can use it to illegal organ trafficking. Therefore, governments need to place restrictions to some researches.

A balance between the two kinds of problem is needed for governments need for government officials to make the right decision. Let us still use cloning as an example. The idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. Many people think that it is not reasonable to believe that human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning. On the other hands, the patients who are organ failure and need to transplant organ support the human cloning, because they believe that the human cloning can improve their quality of life and decrease the medical cost. It is hard for government to make a decision. Government should give scientific research a huge development space and liberty. At the same time, government should give guidance and restriction to scientific research that may bring out a disaster.


To summarize there is no fixed standard for the judgment of advantageous scientific researches. Government should give adequate development space and liberty to scientists. But government can’t lose sight of the consequence of giving loose to scientific researches.

NEU公孙轩辕UID: 2697609

Should governments place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development, as the speaker asserts? In a sense/To some extent, I agree that in many cases governments should place few restrictions on scientific research. However, the speaker begs questions by overlooking giving loose to scientific research may lead human beings to their doom. And an all-sided consideration is needed when deciding the precedence（这里的优先的双方是谁？从全文看也没有讨论优先这个问题）.

Admittedly, scientific researches are creative and they may be out of step with（这个的意思还可以表示落后吧...我不确定) our time and our society（可以因为科学研究有创造性与前瞻性，因此其研究成果很可能不能被人所理解，应用前景可能也不明朗，所以才使得政府难以评估......这样上下衔接更自然，也为后面的例子做铺垫）. It is difficult for government to estimate whether the researches will benefit our society. Thus, the government should give adhesion to scientific researches in many cases. Consider the great invention such as Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity that could not receive contemporary appreciation and comprehension. Epoch-making as his theory is which revolutionized modern thought on the nature of space and time and formed a theoretical base for the exploitation of atomic energy. An even more remarkable example is the Wright brother who raised a curtain on the age of mechanical flight. The society may laugh at their fancy from the very first moment. If the government quells these innovations, inventions and discovery/discoveries, it may bring about irretrievable losses to the society.

However, the scientific research is/actually serves as a two-edged sword. Some unscrupulous persons/people, who are inclined to destroy the stabilization of the society or carry out law-breaking criminal activities, may utilize the results of (利用研究结果，不是利用研究）some researches, which are at application stage/still under exploration. If government places not/no restriction on these scientific researches, it will bring on a disaster. For example, the nuclear reactor produces electricity at high efficiency. But when it is used to build/develop nuclear weapons, it will high likely (发展核武器不一定就得引发战争，找你这么说，核武器技术发展到现在，早就打N回核战争了....)invoke disaster. (Howeverr, this technology will high likely to invoke disaster when it's used to develop unuclear weapons). Moreover/Another typical example is that(你举的例子之间没有递进关系，不要用moreover) cloning brings blessing to organ transplant recipients, but criminal also(放在can 后面） can use it to illegal organ trafficking/get illegal benefits by trading organs illegally. Therefore, governments need to place restrictions to/on some researches.

A balance between the two kinds of problems is needed for governments need for government officials(什么意思？） to make the right decision. Let us still use cloning as an example/Consider the cloning example discussed above, the idea of human cloning has fueled(什么意思？） debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. Many people think that it is not reasonable to believe that （太多了，要一个就行）human cloning is morally and ethically correct, due to the killing of human embryos and(连起来，两个本来就短的原因分句） the unsafe process of cloning. On the other hands/By contrast(前面没有说一方面，这里就不要用另一方面,这里应该是两种观点对立的人群，普通人和需要科龙器官的人）, the patients who are organ failure/whose organs fail to work normally and need to transplant organs may highly prefer to (话通常不要说死，给自己留点儿余地）support the human cloning, because they believe that the human cloning can improve their quality of life and decrease the medical cost.Considering these two quite contrary opinons,(为什么政府会感到难决定？是因为有两种截然相反的意见，不要直接就来结论，中间要有自然的逻辑连接）  it will be hard for government to make a proper（适当的修饰是语言看起来饱满，准确） decision. Hence(少逻辑连接词）, government should give/provide scientific research with a huge development space and liberty/freedom(那个自由应该是相对与被压迫来说的，感情色彩太重）（还有这句总结和前面的联系不紧密啊，前面说问题有不同意见，政府难决定，怎么后面来了一个要给科学发展空间和自由？这对解决相反的意见有什么作用？）. At the same time/Meanwhile, government should give guidance and restriction to/on scientific research that may bring out a disaster.(有逻辑问题，有问题的研究不应定非得带来灾难，这里不适合把问题研究的结果具体化，否则就谈不完了...,可以直接用bad or unpleasant results)


To summarize, there is no fixed standard for the judgment of advantageous scientific researches. Government should give adequate development space and liberty to scientists. But/However,(but 表强烈的转折）government can’t lose sight of the consequence of giving loose to scientific researches.


绿色推荐替换词；红色为逻辑问题或单词错误或语法； 蓝色为句子改写；橙色为删

逻辑：1整体构架不错，具体论证时的语言间出现逻辑跳跃，应注意；
         2 注意使用逻辑连接词，和过渡词，是句子之间更加流畅
         3 对例子的总结一定要紧扣例子内容，不要出现未经讨论和证实的观点
语言    没有大的问题，细节还需注意

        个人意见，有问题一起讨论~
         祝福楼主，加油!!!!

nannan6474UID: 2612196

out of step只是表示与时代的步伐不一致而已，不能说先进或落后
serve as是作为的意思？科学研究实际上作为一个双刃剑，
科学研究实际上是一把双刃剑 好像通顺一点点
之前有g友说过克隆和非法贩卖器官联系不好，看来还是改成moral and ethical 的问题好了
现在才知道最后一段写得这么恶心，最后两句干脆直接改成Hence, government should balance every aspect and make a decision that can maximum the benefit and minimize the harm to the society.

你的意见给了我很大的帮助，非常非常感谢

nannan6474UID: 2612196

不好意思啊各位，这是我写的第一篇，写得很乱啊，所以改了很久，就晚了

Issue130
该发言人称，儿童的社会化决定了社会的命运，我们还没有学会如何提高孩子谁可以帮助实现一个更美好的社会。我倾向于同意这一声明在三个方面。第一，什么是社会化的定义，“我们”的声明？二，儿童的社会化是一个因素影响社会的命运。三是我们还没有学会如何提高孩子谁可以帮助实现一个更美好的社会声明，缺乏证据。

首先，关于社会的命运取决于儿童如何社会化是一个复杂的问题之一是与社会问题的界定困难重重。基本上，社会化是一个不同的方式和程序，其中儿童来也能发挥作用作为其社会社区成员的总称。这部分是学习和部分的正在学习的过程，但现代社会的意见还强调，在使他们的社会世界意义上的儿童的积极作用，建设被他们的社会群体的一部分以自己的方式。因此，儿童以及谁是社会造福社会，反之亦然，孩子没有良好的社会有可能成为反社会。另一个方面，我们要密切注意的是，什么是“定义我们”的发言。 “我们”也可以参选父母，教师或社区。如果“我们”的家长代表，绝对是不利的，只有父母的教育是让孩子们与其他孩子缺乏沟通。儿童应上学，走在世界的学会与人沟通。因此，说话是很模糊。

此外，社会化是一个方面影响的领域，以确定社会的命运。在处理这一问题是有帮助的依次考虑两个不同的因素：环境和个性。考虑环境影响的社会。的环境，这是不利于人类发展，可以毁灭一个国家。楼兰，例如，这是繁荣的丝绸之路到国家，由于逐渐下降的不利情况。此外，社会化是不是最重要的因素影响的领域，以一个个人将最终有助于一个更美好的社会。考虑到某些谁深刻的贡献更美好的社会显着的数字。阿尔伯特爱因斯坦的贡献主要来源于勤奋，曾更多地与父母比社会影响力。亚伯拉罕林肯，他失去了8次，在企业中失败的两次选举，一次得到了精神分裂症，并当选美国总统，最后，他的贡献主要是他的内心信念坚持的结果。

考虑下一个发言者的说法，我们还没有学会如何提高孩子谁能够更好的社会。如果我们定义一个“更好的”社会的方式是社会对待妇女，少数民族，少数民族，动物和环境的不断发展和社会的态度，对艺术表现形式，文学，科学和知识的调查是一种持续的状态也进化的，那么最近的一半的儿童世纪是创造一个更美好的社会。最近25年开始注意确保提供健康保险和制定最低工资低收入人民的生活。我们正变得更加敏感，以及妇女，同性恋者，青少年，各民族和种族群体的权利的尊重，在精神上和体力挑战的人。我们深刻认识到了环境损害我们的行为引起的问题。总体上，发言者的第二次申请苍蝇在我看来，在面对经验证据。
但总的来说，我讲者的广泛的说法，即儿童如何社会不同意，决定社会的命运。相同的，我们的社会正在逐步演变成一个更加文明，尊重和宽容的。总之，我不同意这两个方面的发言。

nannan6474UID: 2612196

Issue130
The speaker claims that children’s socialization determines the destiny of society and we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society. I tend to disagree with this statement in three respects. First, what is the definition of the socialization and “we” in the statement? Second, children’s socialization is one factor influence the destiny of society. Three, the statement that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society lacks of evidence.

Turning first to society’s destiny depends on how children are socialized which is a complex issue one that is fraught with the problem of defining socialization. Basically, socialization is a general term for the many different ways and processes by which children come to be able to function as members of their social community. It is in part a process of learning and in part a process of being taught, but modern views of socialization also stress the active role of children in making sense of their social world, and constructing their own ways of being part of their social group. Therefore, children who are well socialized benefit the society; vice versa, the children without well socialization may become an anti-society. Another aspect we should pay close attention to is that what is the definition of “we” in the statement. The “we” may stand for parents, teachers or community. If the “we” stands for parents, it is detrimental to educate children only by parents which make the children lack of communicating with other. Children should go to school, go out in the world to learn to communicate with others. Therefore, the statement is very vague.

Moreover, socialization is only one aspect influencing the realm to determine the destiny of society. In addressing this issue it is helpful to consider in turn two distinct factors: environment and individual character. Consider the environmental influences to the society. The environment, which is not conducive to human development, can destruct a country. Loulan, for instance, which was prosperous country on account of the Silk Road, declined gradually due to the adverse circumstance. Moreover, socialization is not the most significant factors influencing the realm to which an individual will ultimately contribute to a better society. Consider certain remarkable figures who have contributed profoundly to a better society. Einstein Albert’s contribution sprang primarily from diligence, which had more to do with parental influence than with socialization. Abraham Lincoln, whose lost the election eight times, failed in business two times, once got the schizophrenia, and had been elected President of the United States at last, his contribution was primarily the result of the persistence of his inner convictions.

Consider next the speaker’s claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society. If we define a “better” society that the way in which societies have treated women, ethnic, minorities, animals, and the environment have continually evolved and society’s attitudes toward artistic expression, literature, and scientific and intellectual inquiry are also in a continual state of evolution, then the children of the most recent half-century are creating a better society. The most recent quarter-century has paid more attention to assure the lives of the low-income people by providing health insurance and enact minimum wage. We are becoming more sensitive to, and respectful of the right of women, homosexuals, teenagers, various ethnical and racial groups, and mentally- and physically- challenged people. We are aware profoundly of the problem of environmental harm our behavior cause. On the whole, the speaker’s second claim flies in the face of empirical evidence as I see it.
On balance, I disagree with the speaker’s broad assertion that how children are socialized determines the society’s destiny. Identically, our society is steadily evolving into a more civilized, respectful and tolerant one. In sum, I disagree with both aspects of the speaker.

gorbyUID: 2730851

5# nannan6474
The speaker claims that children’s socialization determines the destiny of society and we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society. I tend to disagree with this statement in three respects. First, what is the definition of the socialization and “we” in the statement? （你前面说disagree，结果第一个就是疑问句，不妥）Second, children’s socialization is one factor influences the destiny of society. Three(似乎不能这样用的吧，具体我记不清了), the statement that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society lacks of evidence.

Turning first to society’s destiny depends on how children are socialized which is a complex issue one that is fraught with the problem of defining socialization. Basically, socialization is a general term for the many different ways and processes by which children come to be able to function as members of their social community. It is in part a process of learning and in part a process of being taught, but modern views of socialization also stress the active role of children in making sense of their social world, and constructing their own ways of being part of their social group. Therefore, children who are well socialized benefit the society; vice versa, the children without well socialization may become an anti-society. Another aspect we should pay close attention to is that what is the definition of “we” in the statement. The “we” may stand for parents, teachers or community. If the “we” stands for parents, it is detrimental to educate children only by parents which make the children lack of communicating with other. Children should go to school, go out in the world to learn to communicate with others. Therefore, the statement is very vague.

Moreover, socialization is only one aspect influencing the realm to determine the destiny of society. In addressing this issue it is helpful to consider in turn two distinct factors: environment and individual character. Consider the environmental influences to the society过于口语化了. The environment, which is not conducive to human development, can destruct a country. Loulan, for instance, which was prosperous country on account of the Silk Road, declined gradually due to the adverse circumstance. Moreover, socialization is not the most significant factors influencing the realm to which an individual will ultimately contribute to a better society. Consider certain remarkable figures who have contributed profoundly to a better society. Einstein Albert’s contribution sprang primarily from diligence, which had more to do with parental influence than with socialization. Abraham Lincoln, whose lost the election eight times, failed in business two times, once got the schizophrenia, and had been elected President of the United States at last, his contribution was primarily the result of the persistence of his inner convictions.（individual character和socialization是不是有重复啊？比较建议把这个character具体化一些）

Consider next the speaker’s claim that we have not yet learned how to raise children who can better society？. If we define a “better” society that the way in which societies have treated women, ethnic, minorities, animals, and the environment have continually evolved and society’s attitudes toward artistic expression, literature, and scientific and intellectual inquiry are also in a continual state of evolution, then the children of the most recent half-century are creating a better society. The most recent quarter-century has paid more attention to assure the lives of the low-income people by providing health insurance and enact minimum wage. We are becoming more sensitive to, and respectful of the right of women, homosexuals, teenagers, various ethnical and racial groups, and mentally- and physically- challenged people. We are aware profoundly of the problem of environmental harm our behavior cause. On the whole, the speaker’s second claim flies in the face of empirical evidence as I see it.
On balance, I disagree with the speaker’s broad assertion that how children are socialized determines the society’s destiny. Identically, our society is steadily evolving into a more civilized, respectful and tolerant one. In sum, I disagree with both aspects of the speaker.

1.有些句子的语言细节还是要注意下
2.你这篇文章很不同一点就是结构和现在市面上的有一个地方有很大不同，就是第一点别人说的都是小孩为什么影响社会发展，而你对于定义展开了讨论。这个很有新意。但是个人认为这个定义的讨论并没有体现出你对于作者的支持与反对，更多的是一个解释的工作。尚需斟酌。

这些是我个人意见，供参考，如有想法，一起讨论~

nannan6474UID: 2612196

谢啦，其实第二段我也想了很久