- UID
- 729527
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-29
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
十分感谢！
Issue：国家要求所有大学一下学生学习同样的课程
From my point of view, it is not reallynecessary for a nation to require all of its students to study the samenational curriculum until they enter college. Not only because it is not easyto realize, but also it may have some absurd or even unexpected results whichmeans we should really think twice before the nation decides to do this policy.And there are some convicing reasons for that.
First of all, this suggestion may not be pragmatic for all the nations,even some really wealthy and advanced nations. Since some nations aresignificantly big in area and population, it is not practical for them to dothis policy. For example, India and China, these two countries are famous fortheir huge populations. And it is difficult to make sure all of the childrenwill get education, let along they can make sure all of the students study thesame national curriculum. Another big defect of this policy is it will spend alot of money to make the same satisfied national curriculum and whenever thereis a mistake, we should correct every copy in this nation.
What's more, some big-area countries are not capable to do this rule.For example, as we all know, there are so many provinces in China just like somany states in the US, and it is not pragmatic for both countries to let theirstudents to study the same national curriculum since the diversity is reallysignificant. Imagine some children in a certain state are unfamiliar withanother state's history, but they still have to learn it since it is in thecurriculum. It is more difficult for them to get the evidence than those localchildren and it also means little even if they learn the knowledge well.
Even if all the problems above are solved perfectly, there still will besome absurd results. The most likely possibility is that all of our studentslearn the same curriculum and have the same thoughts, so we lose the diversityof thoughts from those young people and this perhaps means we may not have agreat future of our state. We all know that in order to let a country improve,there must be some new and different ideas to stimulate the nerves of a countryand have some fresh blood into our nation. However, if all of the studentslearn the same thing, it is kind of difficult for them to make original andvarious imaginative ideas. That is a huge loss, so we may not want this policyto act.
However, this policy may have some benefits to some small country. Theycan make sure their colorful histories can pass down to every generation, andit is helpful to let their children proud of the nation. Of course, thosebenefits can not balance those big disadvantages of this policy.
As we all know,students who are under the college-age are full of imagination and creativity,and it is really important for a nation to make sure that all of theiroriginalities are being protected not limited. Perhaps we should encourage ourstudents to travel around the country to learn more knowledge of the nation andhave many shows or exhibitions to give them opportunities to get to know theirhomeland or even we can have many contests and big awards to stimulate them tobe interested in. However, this policy which requires all of the nation'sstudents to study the same national curriculum until they enter college justgoes against our goal and perhaps gives ourselves a lot of troubles.
Argument： 应该把新闻改为原来的weather 和local news，这样可以吸引更多人，而且减少广告商的丢失。
This argument isreasonable and convincing from the first glance. However as I read more deeply,I find some defects of this argument which can make this memorandum absurd andnonsense. In order to fix these problems, some extra evidences are necessary toadd into the passages. These evidences are showed below.
First of all, some evidences are needed inorder to prove that the number of viewers to the late-night news program isdecreasing since the change. Because the goal of the program is to attract moreviewers, and it is paradoxical to know that after the change the number ofviewers has increased for a big part. Since having more complaints from viewerswho were concerned with weather and local news does not represent the number ofviewers is decreasing.  erhaps only asmall part of viewers who are really adherent really miss the old pattern orthey really need those informations complained about it. Others are happily tohave new pattern of the late-night news program and even more people are attractedto it.
Second, we also need evidence that localbusinesses that used to advertise during the late-night news program havecanceled their contracts with the program just because the change. Since thesetwo things happened one before another does not really mean there are cause andeffect relationship between each other. Perhaps local businesses are notsatisfied with the time of program just because most of its clients are notlistening to the program in this time. Another possibility is that lately allthe businesses are having a bad time, and they can not afford to theadvertisements in the program. What's more, they canceled the contrast justbecause they think the program is overcharging of the advertisements. So inorder to make this memorandam more convincing, we should add those specificevidences.
Third, there are really fewer localbusinesses advertisement contrasts, however there can be more Internationalbusinesses who want to cooperate with the program.
And this doesnot mean the program is not attracting, and it means the change was right!
What's more, restoring the time devoted toweather and local news to its former level does not mean the program canattract more viewers and avoid losing any further advertising revenues. Perhapsit will reduce the number of complaints of concerning about weather and localnews, but who can guarantee that there will not be more complaints about thenew change. We should also put some evidence about the reasons why the programchanged for the first time. The possible reason is there are so many complaintsabout the weather and local news, and if it is true, what the program planningto do are just counteractive.
And there are also some small problems ofthis argument that need specific evidence to anounce. For example, there are noother changes make the viewers and businesses not happy about the program suchas change of host style or change of music and so on. With those specificevidences, the argument will be more convincing and reasonable. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-17 20:32:08
收藏
收藏
