ISSUE 36 无力的科技问题，求狠拍

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-2 21:47:10

【观点】反对政府只投资那些consequences are clear的项目

【首段】科技进步已经改变了人们的生活，促进了社会福利。由政府资助资助的科学研究在科技进步中扮演了极其重要的角色。The speaker claims .... While I concede ... Merits, I find it problematic.

【主体论证】
1.让步：Admittedly, 科学研究is highly demanding 并且要求大量的钱，包括了人员的工资、采购研究设备的费用等。如果要求政府给本国domestic所有的经费提供经费，无疑会给政府带来巨大的财政压力。政府可能没有足够的资金来处理其他重要的社会问题，比如ameliorate 公共交通，促进基础教育的质量。Even if 政府资助了所有的科学研究，也并不是每个科学研究都会pay off and带来beneficent outcomes甚至可能be detrimental ，such cloning human. The investment in these research is merely a waste. 资助有确定前景的项目可以decrease the possibility of squandering money on worthless research，有利于提高研究的效率，并且节省经费。
（5-6句）

2.反驳标准的valid：有些研究木有办法知道其可能的结果。如果我们仅仅因为不确定的结果就放弃一项研究的话，我们可能会miss 一个potentially重要的机会to make contributions to human-being。举例：在pharmacy领域，几乎每个研究者发明一种新药的时候，他们并不知道是否这个药effective and safe。如果我们听从the speaker 的建议的话，没有任何一个药能够成功研制出来。Without 药，人们对于疾病将没有还手之力。因此，the certainty of outcomes 并不是一个有效的标准去judge whether 一个研究值得obtain financial aid.
（6-7句）
abandon solely because of its ambiguous results, we are likely to
the interplay of massive objectives is so marvelous and mysterious，which make it impossible for human to assure the consequences

3.合：在探索未知世界的旅程中，科技研究的风险是不可以避免的。甚至不资助有着consequence unclear的研究本身就是一个很冒险的举动，which可能jeopardize the general welfare of human civilization。政府似乎is trapped in a predicament。Confronting a research with 潜在的危险，如果一个负责的政府应该face the challenge concentrate on how to 降低其风险， instead of 不去做。Confront a research,whose价值并不是很明朗，一个成熟的政府应该建立一个完善的评价一个研究的重要性。

【结论】评估一个研究的重要性是一个非常复杂的问题。尽管Clear consequences的确是我们应该考虑的一个因素，但我们应该prudent去衡量一个项目是否值得资助。只有在这种情况下，我们才能maximize the benefits of scientific research and 促进人类文明的进步。

= =感觉写的最烂的一篇

In the past centuries, the development of technology has changed the mode of living dramatically and enhanced the general welfare of human society remarkably. The scientific researches supported by the government play a relatively crucial role in this developmental process. The speaker claims that governments are solely supposed to provide financial aid to scientific researches whose outcomes are clear. While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with several merits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

Admittedly, scientific projects are highly demanding, which require a vast amount of money, including the salaries of all staffs, the expenses of procuring equipments. If governments are compelled to afford all the expenses of domestic scientific researches, it is doomed to result in enormous financial pressure. Consequently, governments will not possess adequate fundings to cope with other essential social issues, such as ameliorating the public transportation system, improving the quality of primary education. Even if governments patronage all the scientific programs, no every research will pay off and bring about beneficent consequences, which could even be detrimental under particular circumstances, such as cloning human. The investments in these researches are merely a waste. Therefore, supporting scientific programs with certain consequences will decrease the possibility of squandering money on worthless researches, which is conducive to the utility of scientific exploring and relieve the potential overload of budget.

However, the interplay of massive objectives is so marvelous and mysterious, which makes it impossible for human-being to assure the consequences. If governments abandon a research just due to the uncertainty of outcomes, we are likely to miss essential opportunities to make contributions to human civilization. For instance, in medical field, while developing a new medicine, no researcher can guarantee that the new medicine, which they engage in, will be absolutely safe and effective. If we apply the speaker's suggestion not to subsidize these researches, no medicament will be able to manufacture successfully. Without medicines, human race is bound to have limited approaches to counteract lethal diseases. Thus, the certainty of research consequences is not a valid criterion to judge whether a research deserves to obtain sufficient fundings.

Indeed, during the journey of exploring unknown world, the risk of scientific researches is inevitable. Even determining not to patronize a research, whose results are unpredictable, itself is rather adventurous, which is possible to jeopardize the well-being of society. Governments seem to be trapped in a predicament that either supporting or not is inappropriate. The only solution is to face the dilemma. Confronting a research with potential hazards, a responsible government should encounter challenges and endeavor to decline the risk instead of being frightened to make determination. Confronting a research, whose significance is not evident, a matured government should establish a comprehensive evaluating system to gauge whether a research is worthwhile.

Conclusively, estimating a research whether deserves investment or not is so complicated that we can not state slapdash. Although certainty of research consequences should be taken into consideration, we should be prudent to determine. On under deliberation, we can maximize the benefits of science.

普渡哥 · 发表于 2012-11-3 09:45:44

结构和逻辑都很好。

While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with several merits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

这句话两个I 重复了。

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-3 11:02:52

结构和逻辑都很好。

While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with several merits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

这句话两个I 重复了。

-- by 会员普渡哥 (2012/11/3 9:45:44)

两个I重复了？没看懂额。。。是说主句和从句两个I重复了？

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-3 14:00:31

In the past centuries, the developmentof technology has changed the mode of living dramaticallyand enhanced the general welfare of human society remarkably.（好） The scientificresearches supported by the government play a relatively crucial role in thisdevelopmental process. The speaker claims that governments are solely supposedto provide financial aid to scientific researches whose outcomes are clear.While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with severalmerits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

Admittedly, scientific projects are highlydemanding, which require a vast amount of money, including the salaries of allstaffs, the expenses of procuring equipments. If governments are compelled toafford all the expenses of domestic scientific researches, it is doomed toresult in enormous financial pressure. Consequently, governments will notpossess adequate funding（不可数）to cope with other essential social issues,such as ameliorating the public transportation system, improving the quality ofprimary education. Even if governments patronage all the scientific programs,no every research will pay off and bring about beneficent consequences, whichcould even be detrimental under particular circumstances, such as cloninghuman. The investments in these researches are merely a waste. Therefore, supporting scientific programs with certain consequences will decreasethe possibility of squandering money on worthless researches, which isconducive to the utility of scientific exploring and relieve the potentialoverload of budget.
However, the interplay of massive objectives is so marvelous and mysterious, which makes it impossible for human-being to assure the consequences. If governments abandon a research just due to the uncertainty of outcomes, we are likely to miss essential opportunities to make contributions to human civilization. For instance, in medical field, while developing a new medicine, no researcher can guarantee that the new medicine, which they engage in, will be absolutely safe and effective. If we apply the speaker's suggestion not to subsidize these researches, no medicament will be able to manufacture successfully. Without medicines, human race is bound to have limited approaches to counteract lethal diseases. Thus, the certainty of research consequences is not a valid criterion to judge whether a research deserves to obtain sufficient funding.

Indeed, during the journey of exploring unknown world, the risk of scientific researches is inevitable. Even determining not to patronize a research, whose results are unpredictable, itself is rather adventurous, which is possible to jeopardize the well-being of society. Governments seem to be trapped in a predicament that either supporting or not is inappropriate. The only solution is to face the dilemma. Confronting a research with potential hazards, a responsible government should encounter challenges and endeavor to decline the risk instead of being frightened to make determination. Confronting a research, whose significance is not evident, a matured government should establish a comprehensive evaluating system to gauge whether a research is worthwhile.

Conclusively, estimating a research whether deserves investment or not is so complicated that we can not state slapdash. Although certainty of research consequences should be taken into consideration, we should be prudent to determine. On under deliberation, we can maximize the benefits of science.
条理清晰，分析到位，很好

zyq645 · 发表于 2012-11-3 16:18:03

In the past centuries, the developmentof technology has changed the mode of living dramaticallyand enhanced the general welfare of human society remarkably.（好） The scientificresearches supported by the government play a relatively crucial role in thisdevelopmental process. The speaker claims that governments are solely supposedto provide financial aid to scientific researches whose outcomes are clear.While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with severalmerits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

Admittedly, scientific projects are highlydemanding, which require a vast amount of money, including the salaries of allstaffs, the expenses of procuring equipments. If governments are compelled toafford all the expenses of domestic scientific researches, it is doomed toresult in enormous financial pressure. Consequently, governments will notpossess adequate funding（不可数）to cope with other essential social issues,such as ameliorating the public transportation system, improving the quality ofprimary education. Even if governments patronage all the scientific programs,no every research will pay off and bring about beneficent consequences, whichcould even be detrimental under particular circumstances, such as cloninghuman. The investments in these researches are merely a waste. Therefore, supporting scientific programs with certain consequences will decreasethe possibility of squandering money on worthless researches, which isconducive to the utility of scientific exploring and relieve the potentialoverload of budget.
However, the interplay of massive objectives is so marvelous and mysterious, which makes it impossible for human-being to assure the consequences. If governments abandon a research just due to the uncertainty of outcomes, we are likely to miss essential opportunities to make contributions to human civilization. For instance, in medical field, while developing a new medicine, no researcher can guarantee that the new medicine, which they engage in, will be absolutely safe and effective. If we apply the speaker's suggestion not to subsidize these researches, no medicament will be able to manufacture successfully. Without medicines, human race is bound to have limited approaches to counteract lethal diseases. Thus, the certainty of research consequences is not a valid criterion to judge whether a research deserves to obtain sufficient funding.

Indeed, during the journey of exploring unknown world, the risk of scientific researches is inevitable. Even determining not to patronize a research, whose results are unpredictable, itself is rather adventurous, which is possible to jeopardize the well-being of society. Governments seem to be trapped in a predicament that either supporting or not is inappropriate. The only solution is to face the dilemma. Confronting a research with potential hazards, a responsible government should encounter challenges and endeavor to decline the risk instead of being frightened to make determination. Confronting a research, whose significance is not evident, a matured government should establish a comprehensive evaluating system to gauge whether a research is worthwhile.

Conclusively, estimating a research whether deserves investment or not is so complicated that we can not state slapdash. Although certainty of research consequences should be taken into consideration, we should be prudent to determine. On under deliberation, we can maximize the benefits of science.
条理清晰，分析到位，很好

-- by 会员竹林中人 (2012/11/3 14:00:31)

版大，加了蓝色的supporting是有什么问题需要改吗？~

竹林中人 · 发表于 2012-11-3 20:33:56

In the past centuries, the developmentof technology has changed the mode of living dramaticallyand enhanced the general welfare of human society remarkably.（好） The scientificresearches supported by the government play a relatively crucial role in thisdevelopmental process. The speaker claims that governments are solely supposedto provide financial aid to scientific researches whose outcomes are clear.While I concede that the speaker's recommendation is blessed with severalmerits, I find it problematic in neglecting the potential negative influence.

Admittedly, scientific projects are highlydemanding, which require a vast amount of money, including the salaries of allstaffs, the expenses of procuring equipments. If governments are compelled toafford all the expenses of domestic scientific researches, it is doomed toresult in enormous financial pressure. Consequently, governments will notpossess adequate funding（不可数）to cope with other essential social issues,such as ameliorating the public transportation system, improving the quality ofprimary education. Even if governments patronage all the scientific programs,no every research will pay off and bring about beneficent consequences, whichcould even be detrimental under particular circumstances, such as cloninghuman. The investments in these researches are merely a waste. Therefore, supporting scientific programs with certain consequences will decreasethe possibility of squandering money on worthless researches, which isconducive to the utility of scientific exploring and relieve the potentialoverload of budget.
However, the interplay of massive objectives is so marvelous and mysterious, which makes it impossible for human-being to assure the consequences. If governments abandon a research just due to the uncertainty of outcomes, we are likely to miss essential opportunities to make contributions to human civilization. For instance, in medical field, while developing a new medicine, no researcher can guarantee that the new medicine, which they engage in, will be absolutely safe and effective. If we apply the speaker's suggestion not to subsidize these researches, no medicament will be able to manufacture successfully. Without medicines, human race is bound to have limited approaches to counteract lethal diseases. Thus, the certainty of research consequences is not a valid criterion to judge whether a research deserves to obtain sufficient funding.

Indeed, during the journey of exploring unknown world, the risk of scientific researches is inevitable. Even determining not to patronize a research, whose results are unpredictable, itself is rather adventurous, which is possible to jeopardize the well-being of society. Governments seem to be trapped in a predicament that either supporting or not is inappropriate. The only solution is to face the dilemma. Confronting a research with potential hazards, a responsible government should encounter challenges and endeavor to decline the risk instead of being frightened to make determination. Confronting a research, whose significance is not evident, a matured government should establish a comprehensive evaluating system to gauge whether a research is worthwhile.

Conclusively, estimating a research whether deserves investment or not is so complicated that we can not state slapdash. Although certainty of research consequences should be taken into consideration, we should be prudent to determine. On under deliberation, we can maximize the benefits of science.
条理清晰，分析到位，很好

-- by 会员竹林中人 (2012/11/3 14:00:31)

版大，加了蓝色的supporting是有什么问题需要改吗？~

-- by 会员 zyq645 (2012/11/3 16:18:03)

我觉得用词和表述很好，没问题

[作文互改] ISSUE 36 无力的科技问题，求狠拍

所属分类: GRE考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()