B2. Although most people wish to live long lives, attempting to significantly extend the average human life span would be a mistake. If achieved, this would place an enormous burden on resources, lowering the quality of life for everyone.
观点：不同意。作者认为延长人类的寿命会很显著的增加人口数量，给资源造成很大的负担。
忽视了两方面的问题，对人口的影响和对生活质量的直接关系。
1随着科学的进步，社会的发展，人们越来越不愿生育更多的孩子，从而可能不会对资源利用造成非常严重的影响。忽视了人口的其他因素。
2，延长人类寿命的措施也将会对人类的健康有好处。
事实证明，人类很大程度都是由于疾病而死亡的，延长人类的寿命也将意味着人们能更健康的生活，这也许对提高人们的生活质量更直接，更可信。
3虽然能源是个很严重的问题，
先进的科技正在使更多人利用更少的资源成为可能。并且，正在努力获得其他形式的新资源。是一种非常悲观的态度，面对资源短缺问题，我们不应该消极的减少人口，而是应该积极的保护能源，减少不必要的浪费，开发新能源。
总结。
In this issue, the author claims that it will be a mistake to try to extend the average human life span because the increased human life span would place an enormous burden on resources, lowering the quality of life for everyone. In my view, the effort to extend human life span is quite important not only because it will actualize people’s dream of living longer, but also because it will improve our quality of life as well.
In the first place, it is doubtful whether increased human life span will result in a significant increase in the number of the overall population. Actually, along with the increased pressure from competition and emerging social benefits, more and more people are unlikely to raise as many children as before. The examples of the current population in many developed countries such as Japan and many European countries illustrate this trend. As a result of this trend, the number of population will decrease. Because the above factor and some other factors will also affect the number of population, we can not safely assess the impact of increased lifetime span on the number of population. Such as accidents, crime rate worldwide
In the second place, the attempts to extend human lifetime span will significantly contribute to the improvement of quality of life. Researches show that the current human lifetime span is far less than the expected human lifetime span, and that a majority of death result from diseases, not from natural death. Therefore, the effort to extend human lifetime span to large extent equals to the effort to fight diseases. In this way, such attempts have much more positive impact than negative impact on our quality of life.
Admittedly, extended human lifetime span may put some pressure on the limited resources. However, the author’s suggestion of restricting the extending of human lifetime span is unfairly and unreasonable for everyone. In fact, we should turn to other more practicable solutions, such as decreasing the unnecessary waste of resources, making full use of the available resources, and exploiting new and reusable resources.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the author’s opinion. In my view, attempting to extend human lifetime span is very necessary and important for not only our longevity but also our quality of life.
B4. Each generation's culture achievements--such as those in music, art ，or literature--represent improvements on the cultural achievements of previous generations.
In this issue, the author claims that each generation’s culture achievements represent improvements on the cultural achievements of previous generations. In my view, this issue is more complex than the author states. Although this opinion has some merits since it emphasizes the important impact that previous achievements have on latter generation’s achievements, it is one-side because it overlooks the efforts of each generation’s people themselves.
Admittedly, people of each generation have made their own well-known culture achievements on the basis of the cultural achievements of previous generations. All the achievements in our history are inherently consistent rather than isolated from one another. Without the knowledge and experience from former generations, it is impossible for Beethoven to write the Fifth Symphony, or for Picasso to invent cubism in the history of 20th-century, or for Shakespeare to write the famous play Hamlet. Even in the most innovative eras, the Renaissance, those great achievements were still acquired not from complete imagination of achievers but evolved from the accumulated knowledge.
However, the author’s opinion is somewhat one side because the author overlooks the greatness and genius of people who made those achievements and overemphasizes the importance of the past achievements in acquiring each generation’s achievements. In many cases, the achievements far exceed the range of past achievements and bring about a renewed and completely different perspective of the world. In such cases, these achievements are better to be named as innovation than as improvement. For example, it is unfair to say that Beethoven’s the Fifth Symphony, Picasso’s cubism and Shakespeare’s Hamlet are improvements on past achievements.
In conclusion, I disagree with the author’s opinion to some extent. In my view of point, each generation’s cultural achievements come from both the efforts of those achievers and from the past achievements.
B5. Public figures should avoid expressing opinions about things that they have not personally experienced or been directly affected by.
In this issue, by asserting that public figures should avoid expressing opinions about things that they have not personally experienced or been directly affected by, the author means that such opinions of pubic figures will produce negative impact on the society. In my view, the author’s assertion is unfair since it violates the constitutional right of free expression, and partial since it neglects the positive impact on the public of pubic figures.
In the first place, the public figures such as politicians, celebrities and business leaders are the focus of intense public interest. When the public figures advocate such programs as the aid in the poor, the preservation of natural environment, or the fight against AIDS, the public are more likely to pay attention to those programs and therefore participate in those programs. Also, businesses often imply the strategy of including public figures in the advertisement to attract more consumers and promote demand for those products. In the above cases, even if those public figures do not involve in such programs, it is unnecessary for public figures to experience those products or be affected by those programs.
In the second place, public figures are also common people whose lives are also confined in one aspect of our society. If they only express opinions about things that they have personally experience or been directly affected by, their right of free expression are largely constrained. In other words, it is unfair to ask the public figures to make such sacrifice. Moreover, the fact that people do not experience or be directly affected by many things does not mean that their opinion about those things is false or partial. Likewise, even if people have experienced or been directly affected by some things, it is still possible that people could have false opinion about those things.
In the third place, admittedly, in some cases when public figures make some superficial comments about certain social phenomenon, some of their admirers may act accordingly. However, the better way is to educate the public to receive information with caution. In fact, today’s popular press is making careful and strict scrutiny on public figures’ opinions.
In conclusion, the author’s opinion is not worth following. Pubic figures have the constitutional right of free expression just like ordinary people. The responsibility to avoid people to be misled by those public figures’ opinions lies in education to teach people take suggestions more carefully.
B10. Portrayals of violence have proven commercially successful in television programs, movies, songs, and other forms of popular entertainment. Therefore, those who create popular entertainment should continue to incorporate violence into their products.
In this issue, by advocating that those who create popular entertainment should continue to incorporate violence into their products, the author assumes that businesses should not care about the public’s interests in pursuing maximum profits and that the unethical action will promote those businesses’ profits. However, on the basis of the fact that violence materials in entertainment will harm the interest of society and the likelihood that increased violence materials in products will harm companies’ gain in a long run, those entertainment companies should decrease the violence materials in their product and switch to other kind of products to gain profits.
In the first place, the violence in television programs, movies, songs, and other forms of popular entertainment is absolutely harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, quite significant. On the one hand, people, especially children, tend to mimic the language and behavior they are exposed to. As a result, those violence materials may contribute to increased violence in our society. On the other hand, it will produce impact on human relationship. Too much violence in media tends to make people turn to violence in resolving problems. Therefore, concerning the harm violence materials produce, companies should decrease the products containing violence even if companies must give up some benefits in doing so.
In the second place, while the products containing violence may produce profits for the companies in a short run, it will harm the companies’ profits in a long run. Too much violence in products will definitely decrease those companies’ reputation and lose public’s support, especially from parents. Therefore, in a long term, their sales will decrease and result in decreased profits. Moreover, along with people’s increased interest in confining violence in media, government may censer media for violence and other offensive materials. If so, the author’s suggestion will decrease those entertainment companies.
In conclusion, I totally disagree with the author’s opinion that entertainment companies should continue to incorporate violence into their products. The author’s suggestion is more likely to harm the entertainment companies’ profits in a long run. Furthermore, even if decreasing violence products may harm the companies’ profits in the short time, those companies should put the public’s interest over their own short-term economic benefits.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-4-26 19:31:00
发表于 2007-4-26 20:04:00
楼主
