AI_exercise_01

jaze

Since science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.

disagree
(1) science and technology are used by human, if do not use well, then it will be a disaster
(2) arts and humanities can help people to develop science and technology
(3) arts and humanities can roost science and technology

agree
(1) science and technology can help people create arts
(2) science and technology can give more formal to arts

Since science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.

What is the correct way handle the relation between teaching science and technology and teaching the arts and humanities? The author thinks that because science and technology are becoming more essential to modern society, teaching science and technology weigh out teaching the arts and humanities. In my passage, i will present some reasoning on this topic and in the end elicit my view.

In the first place, as we know, technology are used by human. If advanced technology are controlled by an people with evil intention, it will be less than a good news. For example, when the nuclear bomb was created, the creator was dismayed because he thought that the awful weapon is too heavy to human and that he should have not created it. We can not stop the science and technology to move on and to develop weapons that more effective in killing people, but we can pure human's heart. We can teach human what's is love and how to love. Those tasks can be met though arts and humanities. From this point, the arts and humanities should never be underestimated and the school should never put them less important than science and technology.

In the second place, arts and humanities can help people to develop science and technology. To develop science and technology is a boring job and need much patience. Few men or women can bear the hard task, and people doing research job are always under great pressure. However, if people are always in those physical context, inspiration will never visit them. People need to relax, and arts can help them. For example, Einstein is a good violinist. Playing violin can help a person relax his nervous brain, and, after relax, people feel recharged. So arts can help people to develop science and technology. They should be more import than science and technology.

In the third place, arts and humanities can boost science and technology. It sounds like a paradox. But if you think more deeply, you will take this point seriously.  At first, we should acknowledge that human's requirement boost science and technology. For example, human want to save time in traveling, then plane, train, car and relative transport technology are developed. Human want to know the out space, then Harbor telescope, International Space Station, satellite and relative navigation technology are developed. The transport technology is an expansion of human's leg. The navigation technology is an expansion of human's eye. All technology are some expansion of human's defects relative to  the vast space.
(写到这里写 不下去了)

However,  science and technology also have many feats.  In the one hand, they can help people create arts. For example, internet can disseminate many arts forms such as song, dance, story, and so on. Internet help people to maintain a full-of-art life. People can have stimulation and then help them to create new arts. In the other hand, science and technology can give people many supports to create arts. For example, movie the transformers, people can get high visual impact from watching it. However, if digital technology were no in support, people could not have saw so excited movie.

All in all, the art and science support each other so much. We can not put one over the other. The most sensible way is to give them equal importance.

sdcar2010

Since science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.

disagree
(1) science and technology are used by human, if do not use well, then it will be a disaster
(2) arts and humanities can help people to develop science and technology
(3) arts and humanities can boost science and technology

agree
(1) science and technology can help people create arts
(2) science and technology can give more formal(?) to arts

Since science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.

What is the correct way to handle the relationship between teaching science and technology and teaching the arts and humanities? The author thinks that because science and technology are becoming more essential to modern society, teaching science and technology can outweigh teaching the arts and humanities. In the following, i will present some reasonings on this topic and provide my viewpoint in the end.

In the first place, as we know, technologies are used by human. If advanced technology are controlled by an people with evil intentions, it would become more a convenient vehicle to commit crimes than an enabling tool to accomplish deeds.  For example, when the nuclear bomb was created, the creator was dismayed because he thought that the awful weapon is too detrimental to the human and that he should have not created it. We can not stop the science and technology from moving on and from developing weapons that are more effective in killing people, but we can purify a human's heart. We can teach human what's is love and how to love. Those tasks can be met though arts and humanities. From this point, the arts and humanities should never be underestimated and the school should never treat them as less important than science and technology.

In the second place, arts and humanities can help people to develop science and technology. To develop science and technology is a boring job and need much patience. Few men or women can bear the hard task, and people doing research job are always under great pressure. However, if people are always in those physical context, they will miss the inspiration which is the key to discoveries in science and technology. People need to relax, and arts can help them. For example, Einstein is a good violinist. Playing violin can help a person relax his nervous brain, and, once relaxed, people feel recharged. So arts can help people to develop science and technology. They are necessary to explore and expand science and technology.

In the third place, arts and humanities can boost science and technology. It sounds like a paradox. But if you think more deeply, you will take this point seriously.  At first, we should acknowledge that human needs boost science and technology. For example, human want to save time in travel. Therefore, the plane, the train, the car and other transportation technologies are developed to satisfy human's craving for fast travel. Human want to know the outer space. Thus, Harbor telescope, International Space Station, satellite, spaceship and related navigation technologies are developed. The transportation technology is an extension of human's legs. The navigation technology is an expansion of human's eyes and minds. All technology are some sort of expansion of human's capacities to explore the world.
(写到这里写 不下去了)

However,  science and technology also have many merits. On the one hand, they can help people create arts. For example, internet can disseminate many arts forms such as songs, dances, stories, and so on to remote places and different cultures. Internet helps people to maintain a full-of-art life. People can have stimulation and then help them to create new arts. On the other hand, science and technology can give people many supports to create arts. For example, when watching the movie The Transformers, people can get high visual impact from watching it. However, if digital technology were not available, people could not have seen such an exciting movie.

All in all, the art and science support each other so much. We can not put one over the other. The most sensible way is to give them equal importance.

sdcar2010

Use the article (a, an and the) correctly.

Time yourself when writing essays. Your post seems a bit too long to complete within 30-40 minutes. To save time, you only needs one or two sentences to back up each of your claims.

I prefer to choose the side of the debate in the very beginning and build my argument thereafter. However, it is a personal choice.

Use the connecting words: thus, therefore, because, since, given that, having said that, although, in spite of, moreover, furthermore, in addition, additionally, on top of that, nonetheless, etc.

jaze

This time i write under time limit, and i find i can not write down the words i needed. Many times i had to stop, because i do not how to continue it. So, this composition is not completed. Sign

“Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.

 disagree:
   (1)  individual do not do it voluntory
   (2)  ability is low
   (4)  do not how,

 agree:
   (1)  every one involve
   (2)  save cost

  10:14  -- 10:52
Who should shoulder the responsibility for preserving the natural environment? The auhtor thinks that the heavy task ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government. But i do not agree with him. Relying on individual person has several flaws that the author should take into consider when he draw his conclusion. However, if we rely on government, then we make a similar mistake as the author did since that individual person plays a import role in preserving the natural environment.

The fist flaw in the author's conclusion is that in most cases, individual person do not know how to presering the natural enviroment although many people concern the preservation. But just concern is not enough in preserving the natural enviroment, what they should do is how to do. In this point, government can play a leading role, and direct individual person to do the right thing.

The second flaw is that individual's ability to preserve the natural enviroment is somehow weak. For example, when a company releases pollution, individual can not stop it. They need government as their strong backbone.

The third flaw is that individual is always selfish. They do not do something betray their lifestyle. For example, littering is not good for us to preserve natural environment. But some people are accutomed to do that, and the they do not want to change their little hobbies. Others who concern may not force those people to do the right thing. Government can do. Afterall government has much more resources than individual does. For example, government can use law to achive those relative purposes.

However, indivual dose play a great role in the preservation of natural enviroment. Although government can use law, police and many other resources to force the preservaton, it costs heavily. And there is also the case that people

sdcar2010

This time i write under time limit, and i find i can not write down the words i needed. Many times i had to stop, because i do not how to continue it. So, this composition is not completed. Sign

“Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.

 disagree:
   (1)  individual do not do it voluntorily
   (2)  ability is low
   (4)  do not know how,

 agree:
   (1)  every one involves
   (2)  save cost

  10:14  -- 10:52
Who should shoulder the responsibility for preservingto preserve the natural environment? The auhtor thinks that the heavy task ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government. But i do not agree with him. Relying on individual person has several flaws that the author should take into consideration when he draws his conclusion. However, if we rely on government, then we make a similar mistake as the author did since that individual person plays an import role in preserving the natural environment.

The fist flaw in the author's conclusion is that in most cases, individual person do not know how to presering preserve the natural enviroment although many people concern about the preservation. But just showing concerns is not enough in preserving to preserve the natural enviroment. What they should do is how to do to get into action. In At this point, the government can play a leading role, and direct individual person to do the right thing.

The second flaw is that an individual's ability to preserve the natural enviroment is somehow rather weak. For example, when a company releasespollution a harmful pollutants is released into the environment, an individual can not stop it is unable to prevent this from happening. They need government as their strong backbone to stimulus research geared toward removing the pollutants or to install prevention technogies.

The third flaw is that an individual is always selfish. They do not do something to betray their lifestyle. For example, littering is not good for usis against our wishes to preserve natural environment. But some people are accutomed to doing that, and the they do not want to change their little hobbies personal preferences. Others who concern want to interven may not be able to force those people to do the right thing. But a government can use the executive power and legislations to force its citizen to obey the environmental laws. Afterall the government has much more resources than individual does is supposed to act in the best interests of its people. For example, government can use law to achive those relative purposes.

However, indivual dose play a great role in the preservation of natural enviroment. Although government can use law, police and many other resources to force the preservaton, it costs heavily. And there is also the case that people

sdcar2010

Keep writing short essays within 30 min every other day. You will be surprised in the end by your own progress.