写这篇文章的时候非常狼狈，以至于写到第三段结束的时候，只剩下5分钟。没办法，只好直接写结尾。这么写会不会有什么大问题？谢谢。BTW，第三段的写作好痛苦，有种欲哭无泪的感觉，眼看着时间一点一点的蹦，心里急，脑子也呆了。。。唉
“The nations of the world must increase spending on the building of space stations and on the exploration of other planets, even if doing so means spending less on other government programs.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Should government increase the expenditure on the building of space stations and on the exploration of other planets, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that take account of long run, it is necessary for government to invest money into outer space research, the speak fails to consider that, on balance, spending more budget on other government programs is much more essential than on the building of space stations and such expenditure is even critical to the survival of a society.
The main reason why the speaker's opinion that budget of outer space research should take precedence over any other government programs is unacceptable is that the spending on space stations is so tremendous that the benefit from it is unmatched the expenditure at all. Perhaps the most obvious example is that in 1970's the Soviet Unions and the United States spend millions of billions dollars into the building of space stations and the exploration of other planets, and while twenty years have passed, few valuable discovery that can solve societal or individual problems has been found from those exploration. Moreover, the discovery has mere benefit that improves people everyday-life quality.
The second reason why I reject the speaker's view is that, in my assessment, there are much more other government programs which need budget eagerly and have more realistic values than that of the spending on building of space stations For example, too many people need to be education while other people are still fight for food everyday. Clearly, the government programs that aim to increase citizen education level and reduce poverty population are more important to the stabilization and survival of a society.
In sum, the speaker's opinion that it is essential that the nations of the world increase spending on the building of space stations and on the exploration of other planets, even if that means spending less on other government programs runs counter to the common sense about the inefficiency of outer space research, and in any case provides feeble rationale to the preference of spending on space stations against other government programs.
102. “The automobile has caused more problems than it has solved. Most societies would probably be much better off if the automobile had never been invented.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
If the automobile had never been invented, would most societies be much better off, as the speaker asserts here? While I agree that the automobile industry causes some environment and energy problem to a society, the speaker fails to consider that the tremendous contribution that the invention of automobile bring to us.
First of all, the appearance of automobile does indeed benefit our society. The merit it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. Perhaps the most common example is that the transport industry has made great development duo to the invention of automobile. Without automobile we maybe still have to wait two weeks for a mail from a place 200 kilometers away, whereas one day is enough to get the mail today with the help from automobiles.
In the second place, the automobile makes individual life better than the life was before the invention of it. People can drive cars to the relative distance place in shorter time, and cars make it possible to get entertainment without high time cost. All of this provides people much more choices about how to arrange time, therefore increasing both the work efficiency and quality of amusement. Clearly, were there no invention of automobile, people would never enjoy a flexible life.
Those who advocate environment protection might point out that the invention of automobile brings us lots of air pollution and consume too much energy, and both outcomes, in turn, harm our society. Even so, the harm is not the most important effect automobile produces. And in my view, on balance, the invention of automobile gives us more merits than flaws
In sum, the speaker's opinion that the most societies would be much better off if the automobile had never been invented runs a counter to the common sense, and in any case provides a feeble rationale for the preference of the imagination about no automobile over the realization.
多谢大家，再帮我看看这一篇。bowing...
这么多天，还是没人理吗？
伤心。。。。
Sebastian兄，抱歉，那段时候比较忙，疏忽了。
我自己比较喜欢的段落结构是: 提出理由 -> 展开说理论证 -> for example例证. 如果没有例子可举, 就正话反说, 来个正反论证.
以上两篇, 我觉得论证部分稍微薄弱了一些, 建议可以参考一些同题材的范文, 扩展思路.
Issue痛苦的地方就是没有思路，或者有思路表达不出来。建议在同一片文章上不断修改，提高会比较快一些.
谢谢斑竹，我按照你的指导又来了一篇，再帮我指导一下吧。这次是讲道理＋举例子，但没时间写让步转折了。。。
A1. “Whether in politics or in business, leaders of any group need to understand that learning to compromise is ultimately more important than winning.”
Whether leaders of any group need to understand that learning to compromise is ultimately more important than winning involves a conflict between the benefit that can be realized in the long term and the goal which can be attained in the short term. In my view, the long-term interest of group by emphasizing compromise takes precedence over the winning in the short term.
First of all, I believe that the benefits compromise produces in the long term are greater than the interest that is brought by winning shortsightedly. Although we may not have scientific conclusive evidence about cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence established significant correlations between winning in the short term and greater lost in the long run. Moreover, both our experience and common sense with career inform us that compromise in important affairs tends to bring an interest exchange that usually is more important to the compromiser.
In the second place, compromise sometimes is the only channel toward winning. From my experience, compromise is so crucial in the business negotiation that the party that makes compromise first will be the biggest winner usually. For example, I work for a venture capital and my career content is meeting and negotiating with lots of developing enterprises for assets evaluation and deciding the proportion of share. Recalling the process of meeting, we all find that if both sides cannot meet together in the opinions mentioned above eventually, none of us will get benefit and the break negotiation always makes enterprises depression, especially when the hurt of failure to the enterprises exceeds the possible compromise. Therefore, some wiser enterprises decided to make compromise and their strategy ultimately are proved to be sensible, outcomes that benefit both sides.
In sum, both in politics and in business, leaders of any group need to understand that learning to compromise is ultimately more important than winning, and the strategy of compromise provide a strong rationale about group interests over the winning in shortsightedness.
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |