第一次作业 只写了Issue119

autumnshangUID: 2596023

Issue 119
“When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is : How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful? ”
提纲：首段.我基本上同意speaker 的观点，但由于研究的质我有几点不同意（让步语气+表明立场）
CS1.给多数人带来好处的研究推动着社会的进步（例：对H1N1 的研究）
CS2.为了保证研究对社会有利，让那些符合大众利益的研究占有优先地位，而不是为满足个人私欲或侵略野心的研究。（例：Hitler 的 Space
Colonization Project）
CS3.然而，受视野的限制，决定研究的优先地位的人自认为发现了最有潜能的领域，可能实际上他们忽略了真正重要的研究。（例：生物工程早期的发展）
CS4.由研究的本质决定我们无法预测研究可能带来的影响。
尾段：我们应该重视那些对人们非常有利的研究，但是就研究的结果是否可以预测的问题，我不同意speaker的观点。
I fundamentally agree with the speaker's assertion that research which brings greatest benefits to the greatest number of people should be a priority. Unfortunately, the speaker ignores what are the compelling elements which determine whether the research is worthwhile. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
Admittedly, the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research bringing great benefits to numerous people plays an indispensable role in the engine which can largely promote the development of society. One apt current illustration of this point involves the research in H1N1 virus which brings benefits not only to a certain country, but also to the human beings as a whole. That this research is worth the priority is undisputed. After all, what is more important than the research aimed at ensuring human race to survive?
To guarantee the research benefits the society most, it is essential to set priority for the area to line with the interests of the majority, but not for selfish desires or appetites for aggression. For instance, from 1937, Adolf Hitler devoted a lot in the Space Colonization Project aimed at conquering all the other nations in the earth by setting a satellite base. He arrogantly attempted to achieve his brutal conspiracy which is so-called the ethnic purification. This project brings extinction disaster rather benefits. Hence Pandora's Box will open when the purpose of research goes out of control.
Nevertheless, because of the limitation of view, the people who distribute research priorities conceitedly believe that they focus on the most potential area, in fact, they may overlook the genuine beneficial fields for the lack of long-term strategic perspective. For example, no much emphasis placed on the biological engineering until Watson and Crick found the DNA's double helix structure in 1953. There is no doubt the biological engineering could bring considerable benefits to the society, but we have to say it is a pity that decision-makers did not recognize the significance of it, which results in its now preliminary stage.
In the very notion of research lies my second point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know what the research would have effects on society. Research is to explore the unknown in order to discover new facts or test new ideas. We factually cannot predict the results of research, in this sense, here remains the question that whether research whose benefits are predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all.
To sum up, we should place much emphasis on the research which is for greatest good for the greatest number of people. However, when it comes to the term of whether the results of research are predictable, I am on the opposite side of the speaker's opinion because of the inherent character of research.
WORDS COUNT：480
TIME：6H

autumnshangUID: 2596023

补交7.1的argument 65

autumnshangUID: 2596023

提纲 ：1。去年销售高的是国产奶酪不代表今年国产奶酪销售也好
2．只是这个新店国产奶酪销售量高不代表其它所有的连锁店国产奶酪销售好
3．杂志调查的只是它的订阅者，人数有限， 而且不能代表这个连锁店的顾客
4．有没有其它方法可以增加公司的盈利
In this memo the president of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States recommends to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses in all of their stores. To support this recommendation the president cites the following facts :(1) the five best-selling cheeses at their newest store were all domestic cheeses in last year; (2) Cheeses of the World magazine's survey indicates that an increasing number of its subscribers prefer domestic cheeses; and (3) they can improve profits by limiting inventory. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.
First, the recommendation unfairly infers from the best-selling record in the past year that sales of domestic cheeses will be at all-time highs in the future. Absent evidence to support this inference, it is just as likely that sales of domestic cheeses decline to some extent or imported cheeses achieve strong sales. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the recommendation that they should decline the inventory of imported cheeses and set priority for domestic cheeses.
Secondly, the argument assumes that sales situation in the newest store reflects the general sales situation upon which the argument relies. Yet, the president fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Perhaps in the region where the newest store operates people prefer domestic cheeses to imported cheeses, while in all other regions the demographic trend is in the opposite direction. If this is the case , then the recommendation would amount to especially poor advice.
Thirdly, the validity of the survey of Cheeses of the World magazine might be problematic. How could the fact that an increasing number of its subscribers prefer domestic cheeses  mean that more and more customers prefer them? After all, subscribers of Cheese of the World magazine account for a very small part of customers. Because the argument offers no evidence that would rule out these interpretations, the results of the survey are insufficient to support the conclusion.
Finally, the conclusion that limiting inventory is the best way to improve profits depends on the assumption that no alternative means of improving profits are available. Yet no evidence is offered to substantiate this assumption.¡¡It is entirely possible that means other than this ,such as ,expanding the scope of advertising, would also achieve the desired result. Without considering and ruling out other alternative means, the speaker cannot confidently conclude that it is justifiable to limit inventory to improve profits.
To sum up, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the president must provide clear evidence-all the other stores do have the same sales trend in the newest store, and the trend stays at the same in the future. I would need to know no better methods which benefit the company most.
Word count:475
time: 3h

liusisi644644UID: 2573256

Issue 119
“When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is : How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful? ”
提纲：首段.我基本上同意speaker 的观点，但由于研究的质我有几点不同意（让步语气+表明立场）
CS1.给多数人带来好处的研究推动着社会的进步（例：对H1N1 的研究）
CS2.为了保证研究对社会有利，让那些符合大众利益的研究占有优先地位，而不是为满足个人私欲或侵略野心的研究。（例：Hitler 的 Space
Colonization Project）
CS3.然而，受视野的限制，决定研究的优先地位的人自认为发现了最有潜能的领域，可能实际上他们忽略了真正重要的研究。（例：生物工程早期的发展）
CS4.由研究的本质决定我们无法预测研究可能带来的影响。
尾段：我们应该重视那些对人们非常有利的研究，但是就研究的结果是否可以预测的问题，我不同意speaker的观点。
I fundamentally agree with the speaker's assertion that research which brings greatest benefits to the greatest number of people should be a priority. Unfortunately, the speaker ignores what are the compelling elements which determine whether the research is worthwhile. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
Admittedly, the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research bringing great benefits to numerous people plays an indispensable role in the engine which can largely promote the development of society. One apt current illustration of this point involves the research in H1N1 virus which brings benefits not only to a certain country, but also to the human beings as a whole. That this(这个地方是不是重复了？) research is worth the priority is undisputed. After all（毕竟？究竟？还是用“然而”我觉得关联词换一个比较好要不然讲不通）, what is more important than the research aimed at ensuring human race to survive?
To guarantee the research benefits the society most, it is essential to set priority for the area to line with the interests of the majority, but not for selfish desires or appetites for aggression. For instance, from 1937, Adolf Hitler devoted a lot in the Space Colonization Project aimed at conquering all the other nations in the earth by setting a satellite base. He arrogantly attempted to achieve his brutal conspiracy which is so-called the ethnic purification. This project brings extinction disaster rather benefits. Hence Pandora's Box will open when the purpose of research goes out of control.
Nevertheless, because of the limitation of view, the people who distribute research priorities conceitedly believe that they focus on the most potential area, in fact, they may overlook the genuine beneficial fields for the lack of long-term strategic perspective.（in fact的作用是？如果是做插入语，前后两句连接有语法错误；如果是做连接词，应该要……,and they may overlook the genuine beneficial fields for the lack of long-term strategic perspective actually） For example, no much emphasis placed on the biological engineering until Watson and Crick found the DNA's double helix structure in 1953. There is no doubt the biological engineering could bring considerable benefits to the society, but we have to say it is a pity that decision-makers did not recognize the significance of it, which results in its now preliminary stage.
In the very notion of research lies my second point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know what the research would have effects on society. Research is to explore the unknown in order to discover new facts or test new ideas. We factually cannot predict the results of research, in this sense, here remains the question that whether research whose benefits are predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all.
To sum up, we should place much emphasis on the research which is for greatest good for the greatest number of people. However, when it comes to the term of whether the results of research are predictable, I am on the opposite side of the speaker's opinion because of the inherent character of research.
WORDS COUNT：480
TIME：6H

autumnshangUID: 2596023

谢谢 4# liusisi644644