狗子的作文贴。。还有10天考G求狠拍……11-1更新

竹林中人

it, however, 我总觉得在句中这么加个however读起来很难受，毕竟前面你已经有了although
No matter how plausible Murphy’s Law or Maya’s prediction of the 2012 disaster, no one is able to predict what will happen until it has happened. There are myriads of chemical researches which are primarily in line with the call of “chemistry for better life” end up with exacerbating the already delicate plant. Consider the atomic energy which is simply considered an alternative energy enhancing our efficiency and yield in industry is employed mainly in war to kill hundreds of millions of innocent human beings.不宜堆叠例子，一个足以，重在你的reasoning。

竹林中人

又超时了……

People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.
20:53-21:49

The speaker contends that risky actions should not be taken unless their potential outcomes have been examined and considered carefully. Although this argument seems to be plausible and can eliminate some possible disastrous results, it, however, is not in line with common sense we hold in everyday life for that it distorts the nature of “risk”.

Admittedly, pre-consideration has a lot of merits as it allows people to plan and consider all the possible consequences, including good ones and bad ones, and thus a conclusion can be drawn upon which actions whose results are not likely to be beneficial may be undermined before they are actually carried out. Consider an example of a father in poverty who is not able to feed his five-year-old daughter. He may attempt to employ illegal means, such as robbery, fraud and forgery, to obtain some money when his daughter really needs some money for her primary education. By considering the possible consequences of that illegal risky action, the father may not take such a huge risk-even if he gets rid of the police and may be able to support her daughter financially; he can never be a father as great and clean as before. By considering those potential outcomes thoroughly, the father may quit considering this idea. In fact, many of us have some unrealistic or even harmful ideas, it is considering the possible results of those risky actions, no matter consciously or not, impedes, or promotes our actions.

However, the speaker begs the nature of the problem in that he seems to assume most of the time possible results can be estimated even before those actions are taken, which is counter to our everyday common sense. No matter how plausible Murphy’s Law or Maya’s prediction of the 2012 disaster, no one is able to predict what will happen until it has happened. There are myriads of chemical researches which are primarily in line with the call of “chemistry for better life” end up with exacerbating the already delicate plant. Consider the atomic energy which is simply considered an alternative energy enhancing our efficiency and yield in industry is employed mainly in war to kill hundreds of millions of innocent human beings. Who can say the scientists have not considered the possible outcomes? They have, of course; yet it is still not possible to draw an accurate conclusion of what will happen in the future—for our conclusion is based on the current experience and observation which may not be accurate at all for circumstances in the future.

Furthermore, if we examine the word “risky”, we may find it slippery and difficult to define. For me, everything whose results can not be determined can be regarded as risky, including scientific research mentioned above, the apply of new policies and laws, revolution, career choosing, or even everyday activities like driving, working or even drinking. No one can really predict what will happen, and thus everything happening around us can be defined as “risky actions”. Then should we consider whether to eat an apple or not before eating it? Should we versus the possibility of chocking or a worm appearing to all the nutrition and great pleasure an apple can bring? The case of the revolution is similar. If Abraham Lincoln had kept considering all the people that would be involved and get injured in the Civil War and missed the perfect moment to start the war, people of color in the United States may not have gained their equal rights.
To sum up, considering beforehand for risky actions can be beneficial. However, it is not necessary to consider each and every risky action, as most of the time it is not only difficult to define “risk”, or to predict it.

-- by 会员 d0gzi (2012/10/26 1:58:16)

你的第一点和第三点很好，值得学习。

d0gzi

谢谢您每天帮我改作文！！！！！T-T
虽然到现在ISSUE还是乱七八糟ARGUMENT还没准备……T-T

d0gzi

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
22:52-35
I agree with the speaker that most of the times the politicians should be committed to common and reasonable consensus as that is the primary mission and one of the most essential standard to evaluate a politician-whether he has helped the people to come nearer, or even fulfill their basic demands. Nevertheless, there may be some exceptional circumstances under which the politician should choose to fight for the ideals rather than common ideas.

It is reasonable for politicians to take measures according to the general benefit of the general public, considering both our empirical and normative experiences. That is why politicians are being selected-not to govern people, but to lead, help, or even serve them to live a better life. Politicians who fail this mission will always be criticized by the people and may even experience a fall-down. History is replete with such examples. Qinshi Huangdi, the first emperor in China, commanded to burn books of Hundreds of Schools and bury scholars to achieve his ultimate dream- a society without any dispute. That emperor only lasted for few decades and Qinshi Huangdi is always refered to by historians as a despotic tyrant.

Another compelling example demonstrating the drawbacks of commitment to extreme idealism involves the Great Leaps Forward in China. During that period, Chairman Mao, the most influential politician in China at that time, urged people to melt their own pans and pots to produce more metal and thus improve the national GDP. Every and each person was then given a job and asked to eat together in a communal canteen. This action, though embodied the ultimate goal of economical development and absolute equality, failed at last, for that it was merely a dream without considering a common consensus.

However, sometimes elusive ideals can also be beneficial; it serves as a goal for the whole society to strike towards. If were not for a dream and desire for pure equality, peace, happiness, love and care between neighbors and citizens, why should the politicians struggle to find and try out different policies which enhances the stability and prosperity of the whole society? Moreover, the speaker may indicate politicians should follow opinions of most people in opinions by using words like “common” and “consensus”. However, under some special circumstances, it should be the politician who have been selected and voted by the public for his/her insight and sagacity to make decisions based on the ideals and ultimate goals of the whole society. Consider the example of China’s economic reform. Deng Xiaoping, the governor who was in office at that time, insisted the shift from planed economy to socialist market economy though it touched interests of many people and were fiercely opposed to. The main reason for his stubborn commitment lies in his thoroughly understanding of the ultimate goal for that period- to drug the people out of the mire of poverty. Time has proven the insight of his decision as China has ranked among one of the most rapidly developing countries ever since then.

To sum up, the speaker is reasonable when emphasizing the importance of common ground and reasonable consensus, as that is the very foundation why the politician is elected. Yet sometimes it is necessary for a politician to suspense those consensus for a while, or find an alternative yet more beneficial way.

竹林中人

mark，上课回来再改。前天没看到，抱歉

d0gzi

第一篇ARGUMENT....后天考G真是想死= =
Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent success with call-in advice programming, and citing a nationwide survey indicating that many radio listeners are quite interested in such programs, the station manager of KICK in Medway recommends that KICK include more call-in advice programs in an attempt to gain a larger audience share in its listening area.
21:01-41

The author recommends that KICK should include more call-in advice programs to attract a larger number of audiences in Medway. S/he cites the sharply increase of audiences of WCQP radio station who enhances a similar call-in advice as well as a survey which implies many listeners are in favor of such programs. Though seems to be plausible at the first sight, the argument is logically unconvincing in several aspects.

First, the author assumes attributes the success of WCQP absolutely to a measure to enhance advice programs, which was taken two years ago. Yet the author fails to consider other possibilities which may lead to the increasing number of audiences. Perhaps during those two years, WCQP also employed better broadcasters, more amusing other program, better ways to manage the radio station, which are the real factors leading to its success. Without considering and ruling out all these possibilities, the author can not convince me that advice program itself can make the radio station more popular.

Second, the argument also fails to provide statistics about how significant the number of audiences have increased and is. It is entirely possible that the number of audiences of WCQP is still not as great as KICK even after their enhancing of advice programming. If this is the case, then it may not be wise to follow WCQP’s step. Even if WCQP has more audiences than KICK , it still not necessarily indicates such a change will be similarly beneficial, as taste of audiences in Rockville may differ from audiences in Medway.


Third, the argument unfairly assumes that the nation-wide survey of radio listeners’ interests towards call-in services necessarily indicate the preferences of people in this region. However, the author does not provide enough evidence to support his/her idea. It is entirely possible that people in Medway have a preference different from nation-wide taste. Additionally, the credibility of the survey is also a problem. What is the percentage of people who are in favor of call-in programming? Whether there are any other programs that are more popular than call-in ones?  Were participants given enough options to choose or did the questions on the survey misleading? Therefore, it is very likely that there are better alternatives other than call-in programs.


In conclusion, the argument is not well-supported. To convince me that an increased call-in program is a good choice to attract more audiences, the author should not only rule out other possibilities of the success of WCQP, give out statistical evidence to support audiences in Medway share the interests and tastes of those in Rockville, but prove the adaptability of the nation-wide survey to Medway.

d0gzi

谢谢版主！！！！111T-T
ORZ!!!!

竹林中人

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
22:52-35
I agree with the speaker that most of the times the politicians should be committed to common and reasonable consensus as that is the primary mission and one of the most essential standard to evaluate a politician-whether he has helped the people to come nearer, or even fulfill their basic demands. Nevertheless, there may be some exceptional circumstances under which the politician should choose to fight for the ideals rather than common ideas.

It is reasonable for politicians to take measures according to the general benefit of the general public, considering both our empirical and normative experiences. That is why politicians are being selected-not to govern people, but to lead, help, or even serve them to live a better life. Politicians who fail this mission will always be criticized by the people and may even experience a fall-down. History is replete with such examples. Qinshi Huangdi, the first emperor in China, commanded to burn books of Hundreds of Schools and bury scholars to achieve his ultimate dream- a society without any dispute. That emperor only lasted for few decades and Qinshi Huangdi is always refered to by historians as a despotic tyrant.

Another compelling example demonstrating the drawbacks of commitment to extreme idealism involves the Great Leaps Forward in China. During that period, Chairman Mao, the most influential politician in China at that time, urged people to melt their own pans and pots to produce more metal and thus improve the national GDP. Every and each person was then given a job and asked to eat together in a communal canteen. This action, though embodied the ultimate goal of economical development and absolute equality, failed at last, for that it was merely a dream without considering a common consensus.

However, sometimes elusive ideals can also be beneficial; it serves as a goal for the whole society to strike towards. If were not for a dream and desire for pure equality, peace, happiness, love and care between neighbors and citizens, why should the politicians struggle to find and try out different policies which enhances the stability and prosperity of the whole society? Moreover, the speaker may indicate politicians should follow opinions of most people in opinions by using words like “common” and “consensus”. However, under some special circumstances, it should be the politician who have been selected and voted by the public for his/her insight and sagacity to make decisions based on the ideals and ultimate goals of the whole society. Consider the example of China’s economic reform. Deng Xiaoping, the governor who was in office at that time, insisted the shift from planed economy to socialist market economy though it touched interests of many people and were fiercely opposed to. The main reason for his stubborn commitment lies in his thoroughly understanding of the ultimate goal for that period- to drug the people out of the mire of poverty. Time has proven the insight of his decision as China has ranked among one of the most rapidly developing countries ever since then.

To sum up, the speaker is reasonable when emphasizing the importance of common ground and reasonable consensus, as that is the very foundation why the politician is elected. Yet sometimes it is necessary for a politician to suspense those consensus for a while, or find an alternative yet more beneficial way.

-- by 会员 d0gzi (2012/10/29 23:41:47)

我觉得LZ这篇写的不够好，这个题目可能本身不太好写。政治家们是寻求共识还是寻求政治理想，其实任何政治家都有一个自己的政治理想，然后才聚集到一起形成政党，而并非只是为了寻求和其他的政治家或者民众意见一致。寻求共识只是为了减少实现自己理想的障碍，而并非政治家的目的。当然这是我的理解。另外在写法上，我建议像第三段这样的内容安排以后不要出现，Issue的例子不是主要的，也不是说从例子中归纳观点，而只是对自己观点和分析的一个具体说明。

竹林中人

S/he ？
Though seems to be ？
the author assumes attributes the？
the argument also fails to provide statistics about how significant the number of audiences have increased and is像这种结论写出来之前，你肯定有个分析，题目的结论需要什么样的依据或者信息什么的，才可以得到，然后再出来，否则就显得很突兀，每段里面不急于说出自己的结论，重在自己的那个分析推理过程。

竹林中人

其他两点类似，另外这篇作文ＬＺ写的可能有些匆忙，一些小语法错误没改过来，考试加油，尽力就好