【辉太郎杀G大队】7/16作业by Aliciasun

AliciaSunUID: 2660743

TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 815
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-7-16 17:55:10

Different with ever before, our society progressed to a time with the most flourish and blooming advancement. Either the vitality of developing countries or the abundance in developed countries can provide its people with beautiful hope towards tomorrow and pride of their nations. General welfare as a token of indicating the greatness of a nation as the assertion claims can be undoubtedly agreeable in my point of view.
However, the achievements of its rulers, artists and scientists, as well as the policy, potential and spirit weigh same in regard to this target when evaluating the values of all these perspectives, resulting the saying of this assertion about "surest" unreasonable.

Admittedly, general welfare much indicates the wealth situation of a nation or country which directly related to the living conditions of its people. Firstly, sufficient welfare diminishes the fear for future of people, because nobody lives in the non-consuming world. Secondly, welfare can maintain the confidence of people about life and increase the satisfaction towards the nation, leading to the stability and meanwhile reduce the crimes rate inside the nation, which is an indispensible standard to judge the great or not of a nation. To be further, welfare to a great extent represents the cultivation level of a nation. As an old Chinese saying said, cultivation comes from the abundance of food. Imagine, comparing the countries with great general welfare in European countries and the ones with serious famine issues in Africa, which nations do you think have better cultivation? People who are starving cannot have the premise to act nicely and compose a cultivated nation. This example, though extreme, can at least help us conclude that the living conditions and stability of a nation or country can be clearly substantiated by its welfare.

Nonetheless, besides general welfare, the achievements of the nation's rulers, artists or scientists can also represent the advancement level of itself. Nations and countries are supposed to have their own culture, which help them to identify themselves in this roaring world. A country without culture is a tradegy. Achievements, but not only with this, fairly play such a role to enrich the culture of a nation and thus help people maintain the sense of belonging and identify who they are. In the Tang dynasty of Chinese history, besides the wealthy living conditions, people also be proud of this country for those famous poets who recorded and described this splendid nation. This is the example that illustrates welfare and achievements of this nation both important. Then next, is it a great nation if its people live without cultural endeavor but only welfare? To be extreme, imagine thousands of people immigrated to an island but they are provided sufficient food and accommodations, with the vapid history and achievements, do they feel happy? Is this nation a great nation?

Moreover, besides welfare and achievements of the nations literal and scientific realm, there are also other indicators as for the greatness of a nation. Policies, no doubt, indicates that if a nation promise its people with freedom, liberty and democracy. Vitality, giving the potential developing space, is also of great value to tell if a nation is great or not in the sense of future trend. In China, though not all the people are enjoying the sufficient welfare, but with the great economic capability in this downturn period and potential markets, I believe no people in the current world would neglect China is a great country. More important, how about the spirit and striving passion of a nation? Can we identify a nation in which people don’t work at all and hate their national seek as a great nation?

Bias on every indicator mentioned above will cause an unfair conclusion about the values of a nation, no mention those other factors which I didn't illustrate. A well-ground country has to pay equally attentions to every perspective to better nurture its people. And on the other hand, neither the overlook towards some of them nor the partially emphasis on another point doesn't contribute to get a comprehensive evaluation. To be further, with similar GDP or developed situation, actually different people with different concern will vote different countries as the best in their hearts. People who enjoy leisure time are probably thinking the countries with greatest welfare are the best, while others who are seeking the developing spaces in their own careers will care more about the future market of a country. Therefore, the claim about "surest" is proved to be a incorrect and extreme judgment.

To sum up, there are many significant indicators including both achievements of the nation and the general welfare to reflect the nation in the sense of great. Governments or managements should strive a balance between so many factors to satisfy the requirements of its people, either for the living conditions, or psychological satisfaction, and thus establish a reputation as a great nation.




TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.

"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
WORDS: 518
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 7/16/2009 21:33:24

This letter is well presented but not well reasoned. The arguer cites two studies about amphibians Yosemite National Park in California which described the decline of amphibians, and then reaches a conclusion that though trout has been introduced into this park, it should not be regarded to be the reason concerning the reduction of the amphibians’ numbers due to the worldwide decline. Plausible at the first glance, I cannot be convinced towards the reasoning in this argument, and will represent the doubts in detailed in the following.

To begin with, there is no evidence to prove the credibility of the two studies the letter cited. Firstly, are these studies from authority organizations? There is no indication mentioned in the letter. It is entirely possible these studies only came from research homework of a student or a small study group. Secondly, how did they observe the amphibians? There is no persuading research measures introduced towards the clarification of this topic. Probably the researchers who did this study only sat down on the bench of the park for 1 hour in an dawn and then only four amphibians were found which resulted their reports. Hence, we are lack of the related information about how much extent we can believe these studies followed the unreasonable points leading to the arguer's conclusion.

Moreover, granted that these studies are reliable, it is specious for the studies to reach a judgment that the trout, who can eat amphibian eggs are not the reason for the declining number of the amphibians. Since it is a common sense that the tout can eat amphibian eggs, there is a high possibility that just due to the increasing number of touts, the balance between the animals in this park has been diminished. But as the arguer asserts, because there is also a worldwide decline for amphibians, then the touts are not the murders of them. Though worldwide decline has its own causal factors, it doesn't fairly mean the decline of it in this park would share the same reasons.

Finally, even we agree with that touts are not the real reasons for the decline and there are other authentic causes for the diminishing species of amphibians, how can the arguer be sure that the reasons is the global pollution of water and air? As we know, every 1000 years, there are normally 5 to 6 species disappeared normally without any external reasons. As a nature discipline of the world, the reason can be this kind of regular trend to explain the decline of amphibians. And also, there might be other factors which can have the same effect, such as the change in the animal body structure, the nurturing trees or plants have been declined as well, and so forth.

To sum up, without the information that if these studies from which the arguer concluded this letter are with authority and credulity, and the information to indicate the touts are not the real murders, and also the further research on the reasons for the decline, this argument cannot give us a clear picture and explanations towards this issue.

sindyttUID: 2661721

TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 815
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2009-7-16 17:55:10
Different with ever before, our society progressed to a time with the most flourish and blooming advancement. Either the vitality of developing countries or the abundance in developed countries can provide its people with beautiful hope towards tomorrow and pride of their nations. （这两句话写的不错。可是我觉得开头太长了，这两句话可以缩减一下，或者干脆不要了。）General welfare as a token of indicating the greatness of a nation on as the assertion claims can be undoubtedly agreeable in my point of view.
However, the achievements of its rulers, artists and scientists, as well as the policy, potential and spirit weigh same in regard to this target when evaluating the values of all these perspectives, resulting the saying of this assertion about "surest" unreasonable.
Admittedly, general welfare much indicates the wealth situation of a nation or country which directly related to the living conditions of its people. Firstly, sufficient welfare diminishes the fear for future of people, because nobody lives in the non-consuming world. Secondly, welfare can maintain the confidence of people about life and increase the satisfaction towards the nation, leading to the stability and meanwhile reduce the crimes rate inside the nation, which is an indispensible standard to judge the great or not of a nation. To be further, welfare to a great extent represents the cultivation level of a nation. As an old Chinese saying said, cultivation comes from the abundance of food. Imagine, comparing the countries with great general welfare in European countries and the ones with serious famine issues in Africa, which nations do you think have better cultivation? People who are starving cannot have the premise to act nicely and compose a cultivated nation. This example, though extreme, can at least help us conclude that the living conditions and stability of a nation or country can be clearly substantiated by its welfare（可以跟伟大搭一下）
Nonetheless, besides general welfare, the achievements of the nation's rulers, artists or scientists can also represent the advancement level of itself.
(先进=伟大吗？扣题应该更紧一些)
Nations and countries are supposed to have their own culture, which help them to identify themselves in this roaring world. A country without culture is a tradegy (tragedy). Achievements, but not only with this, fairly play such a role to enrich the culture of a nation and thus help people maintain the sense of belonging and identify who they are. In the Tang dynasty of Chinese history, besides the wealthy living conditions, people also be (were) proud of this country for those famous poets who recorded and described this splendid nation. This is the example that illustrates welfare and achievements of this nation both important. Then next, is it a great nation if its people live without cultural endeavor but only welfare? To be extreme, imagine thousands of people immigrated to an island but they are provided sufficient food and accommodations, with the vapid history and achievements, do they feel happy? Is this nation a great nation?
Moreover, besides welfare and achievements of the nations literal and scientific realm, there are also other indicators as for the greatness of a nation. Policies, no doubt, indicates that if a nation promise its people with freedom, liberty and democracy. Vitality, giving the potential developing space, is also of great value to tell if a nation is great or not in the sense of future trend. In China, though not all the people are enjoying the sufficient welfare, but with the great economic capability in this downturn period and potential markets, I believe no people in the current world would neglect (ignore) China is a great country. More important, how about the spirit and striving passion of a nation? Can we identify a nation in which people don’t work at all and hate their national seek as a great nation? (这句话改成正面说法比较好,更贴合论点。Can we deny a nation in which people work hard and sincerely love their national seek as a great nation?)
Bias on every indicator mentioned above will cause an unfair conclusion about the values of a nation, no mention (not to mention) those other factors which I didn't illustrate. A well-ground country has to pay equally attentions to every perspective to better nurture its people. And on the other hand, neither the overlook towards some of them nor the partially emphasis on another point doesn't contribute to get a comprehensive evaluation. To be further, with similar GDP or developed situation, actually different people with different concern will vote different countries as the best in their hearts. People who enjoy leisure time are probably thinking the countries with greatest welfare are the best, while others who are seeking the developing spaces in their own careers will care more about the future market of a country. Therefore, the claim about "surest" is proved to be a incorrect and extreme judgment.
To sum up, there are many significant indicators including both achievements of the nation and the general welfare to reflect the nation in the sense of great. Governments or managements should strive (seek) a balance between so many factors to satisfy the requirements of its people, either for the living conditions, or psychological satisfaction, and thus establish a reputation as a great nation.
评语：语言太强大了。。。例子论述都很到位，膜拜一下~~~
TOPIC: ARGUMENT150 - The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine.
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
WORDS: 518
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 7/16/2009 21:33:24
This letter is well presented but not well reasoned. The arguer cites two studies about amphibians Yosemite National Park in California which described the decline of amphibians, and then reaches a conclusion that though trout has been introduced into this park, it should not be regarded to be the reason concerning the reduction of the amphibians’ numbers due to the worldwide decline. Plausible at the first glance, I cannot be convinced towards the reasoning in this argument, and will represent the doubts in detailed in the following.
To begin with, there is no evidence to prove the credibility of the two studies the letter cited. Firstly, are these studies from authority organizations? There is no indication mentioned in the letter. It is entirely possible these studies only came from research homework of a student or a small study group. Secondly, how did they observe the amphibians? There is no persuading research measures introduced towards the clarification of this topic. Probably the researchers who did this study only sat down on the bench of the park for 1 hour in an dawn and then only four amphibians were found which resulted their reports. Hence, we are lack (lacking) of the related information about how much extent we can believe these studies followed the unreasonable points leading to the arguer's conclusion.(缺少我们可以多大程度上我们可以相信这个study的information，总感觉句子有点怪) Hence, the lack of the related information makes the study doubtful and unconvincing, which is followed the unreasonable points leading to the arguer’s conclusion.
Moreover, granted that these studies are reliable, it is specious for the studies to reach a judgment that the trout, who (which) can eat amphibian eggs are not the reason for the declining number of the amphibians. Since it is a common sense that the tout can eat amphibian eggs, （重复了，删掉一个吧）
there is a high possibility that just due to the increasing number of touts, the balance between the animals in this park has been diminished. But as the arguer asserts, because there is also a worldwide decline for amphibians, then the touts are not the murders of them. Though worldwide decline has its own causal factors, it doesn't fairly mean the decline of it in this park would share the same reasons.
Finally, even we agree with that touts are not the real reasons for the decline and there are other authentic causes for the diminishing species of amphibians, how can the arguer be sure that the reasons is the global pollution of water and air?（even好像不是连词） As we know, every 1000 years, there are normally 5 to 6 species disappeared normally without any external reasons. As a nature discipline of the world, the reason can be this kind of regular trend to explain the decline of amphibians. And also, there might be other factors which can have the same effect, such as the change in the animal body structure, the nurturing trees or plants have been declined as well, and so forth.（例子很好，可是觉得有点牵强诶。。。1000年有5-6个种，在不到100年的时间里就有4个名额都落到了两栖动物身上？在我的文中，这段我写了也许是由于温室效应，或者游客增多导致了数量减少）
To sum up, without the information that if these studies from which the arguer concluded this letter are with authority and credulity, and the information to indicate the touts are not the real murders, and also the further research on the reasons for the decline, this argument cannot give us a clear picture and explanations towards this issue.（也可以写成建议式的，就是作者需要提供这些数据，才能说明他的结论。只是一个小建议而已）

评语：语言功底真是不错，限时写的还能有这样的句式变化~~~厉害！