超强GRE备考资料 一童游mm好文.doc

因果型：Q+The sperker claim so, for the reason that.I concede that.Otherwise, in my view(大正小负)比较型：The speaker would prefer.instead of.I agree insofar as.At the same time, however,.According to the speaker, A is a more important means to.than B. Although I agree.the speaker overstates the comparative significance of A.结论型和现象型I agree with the speaker that A would serve the interest of.Nevertheless, A would pose certain risks which.The speaker claims that., and that.I then to disagree with both aspects of this claimIt would be tempting to support the speakers claim that.It is true that.In my view, however, the potential harm they can inflict on far outweiths their benefits.Issue1The speaker claims that we can learn more frem people who disagree wiht us than from those agree with us, for the reason that.I concede that disagreement may.under some circumstances. However, we can learn from each other through debates if.Issue 31 money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial. According to this statement, the speaker claims that government should invest on all researches regardless what the results of them would be. I fundamentally agree with the speaker insofar as research is the path to development of technology and accumulation of knowledge. Yet, strictly followed, in some cases, investing on researches would pose certain risks to the society.One compelling argument in favor of investment on researches has to do with the fact that the results of most researches are unclear at the beginning. Admittedly, for inadequate resources, government has no choice but to pick some researches with clear results, which serve to address the pressing social problems. However, in my observation, it is always the researches without certain results-so called cutting edge, that contribute most to meet the social needs in a few years later. Consider, for instance, the research of gene does not have any guaranteed result or even any certain aim at the beginning, but when as it carried on, marvelous achievements appears. The fruition of genetics research will allow for treatment on gene defects in the foreseeable future. If refuse to invest on researches with controversial results, the government would be bogged down into the Sargasso Sea of endless contention about which research have definitive outcome. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether to invest on a research regarding to its seemingly dim result.Another compelling argument for how it is needed for government to invest on research comes into my mind when I consider the nature of research- learning. Indeed, research is the path to intelligence adventure, an adventure leading people to seek the truth lying behind the uncharted and unexplainable phenomena. Even if some researches turn out to be fruitless after years of study and depleting huge amount of money, it does not indicate that these researches have nothing to do with the development of society. At least, they are sure signs of a free environment of scientific study, which encourage people to pursue their curiosity for the eternal laws and orders of the outside world.Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons why it is necessary to invest most of the researches, the government must be consciously aware that certain research avenues would become potential time bombs that threaten the very safety of humans. Apt examples involve biochemistry weapons and unclear bombs, which would bring catastrophes to the world if we do not control the relevant researches of them. On balance, I agree with the speakers broad assertion that investment on research is always beneficial, no matter how ambiguous their results seem to be. Yet for certain ill-conceived researches, government should never hesitate to inhibit.17There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.The speaker claims that it is every individuals duty to obey just laws and, at the same time, disobey unjust laws. I tend to disagree with this statement, in two respects. First, how does every individual discriminate from just laws and unjust ones? Second, what consequences would it bring to the society if each one in a society disobey and resist laws he regards as unjust?Admittedly, in some circumstances, peoples will to disobey unjust laws carries impetus to the sociopolitical reforms and transformations. Consider, for instance, the French Revolution was instigated by groups of individuals who resisted the control of aristocrats. Few would argue that the brilliant revolution opened the door to a more democratic law system in France and endow the French populace with the belief in equal rights. Thus, the speakers claim has some merit in this respect.Now that the success of sociopolitical reforms are often based on citizens opposed to the laws, does it mean it is the responsibility of populace to resist the laws they regard as “unjust”? No. A threshold reason is that it is impossible to define a criterion to judge the justness of laws. Our judgment on whether a specific law is just or unjust depends on our values and outlooks, which are as distinct as our fingerprints. For example, when Benjamin Franklin carried out the , he became a hero in the eyes of workers with low salaries and heavy onerous workload. While for the owners of manufactories the law was completely unjust and unwelcome. For the reason the fairness of a law is closely related with our social roles and interests in that law, if we are to disobey unjust laws, we will be bogged down in the Sargasso Sea of endless debate about which laws should be resisted and which ones should be obeyed.Further more, consider what consequences will it bring when individuals choose to obey some of the laws while disobey the rest that they do not appreciate. Extreme examples involve that people who think the law forbidding drug merchandising unjust are encouraged to sell drug in public place; people who commit crimes and regard the punishment as unjust will be allowed to refuse to be imprisoned. It is without doubt that we are in the risk of sanctioning to all evil behaviors everyone has the rights to resist the laws he/she dislikes. An anarchic society is far from an indication of democracy, but the well sign of degeneration of civilization and the calamity of human beings. To sum up, I concede that there inevitably exist unjust laws in every society, yet strictly followed, I disagree that it is the responsibility for individuals to resist the laws they do not like. 一童游 21:52:3111. All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the worlds most persistent social problems. Should all nations participate in establishing a global university to engage students who help solve the worlds most persistent social problems, as the speaker recommends? I agree that such a global university would have bring desirable consequences in the process of addressing common issues among nations and give impetus on closer cooperation between different nations. Yet, strictly followed, I believe the feasibility of this proposal also deserves careful consideration.To begin with, one compelling argument in favor of a global university has to do with the fact that the worlds greatest risk lies in the trends of globalization. Modern society is like a seamless net that closely connects all nations in the world together. There are increasingly international companies depending their raw material, employees and consuming market on other nations. These companies doubtlessly set into motion a significant growth of wealth world-widely, at the same time, however, the risk of global financial crisis that would spread the troubles in one country to all the other countries related with it in business has been more prominent and thus might lead to further social problems such as unemployment, hunger and even wars. Preventing the explosion of such potential time bomb requires experts with global perspectives. And a global university can meet this demand- by teaching student with the economic and political condition of every nation. Consider the next compelling argument in how a global university is needed, by which I mean many persistent social problems require better cooperation among nations. Apt examples involve the horrible epidemic AIDS which spell troubles for almost every nation in the world, and lately happened avian flu, which warned the world to the point that it might threaten the safety of human species. If there is a global university where students and faculty can give valuable advices on how to cooperate and how to communicate with respect to participating nations, then there would be closer global cooperation on technology, medical care education, and global aid, which reduce the detriment brought by these global prevailing diseases.Notwithstanding the foregoing benefits a global university would bring us, I would be hard-pressed to consider the feasibility of such a university. Admittedly, most nations share similar persistent social problems, every nation nevertheless naturally concerns more on their own interests. Since different nation lays different emphasis on each social problem, they would have to overcome a myriad of administrational and political impediments. They have to agree on complex issues like which problem gains the priority for setting, and which area of research deserves most investment. To this extent, a global university might arouse more contention among participating nations. In sum, the world needs a global university to aggregate the intelligence of all nations on settling persistent common social problems, on the other hand, we should be aware that inappropriate contention on every nations own interest would counteract with the well-intentioned purpose. 190Does government has the responsibility to priority allocate public resources to support the arts regardless how serious the other social problems such as unemployment or underdevelopment are? Some people agree with it as they believe art, which lifts human spirit and riches the culture, stands for the well being of general public, and thus deserves generous support from its government. From my point of view, however, government neither has the liability to support arts nor is able spur its blossom through art funding due to the special social function of each side.First, subsidizing arts is not a necessary role of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, art, the main function of which is providing pleasure for public, has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, but not on the government. The Medicis, a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th century, the main sources of art support were private foundation established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, and so forth. And tomorrow art support will come from our new technology and media moguls-including Bill Gates and Ted Turner. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government needs not intervene to ensure that our art are under its supporting and, in some extent, supervision. Moreover, government funding requires tax dollars from our pockets- leaving us less money with which to support arts more directly and efficiently than the bureaucrats could. Secondly, a curious contradiction is that those who demand for the support of government Under this circumstance, artists are likely to clamor to attract the notice of potential patron, setting themselves apart as individual creators. Consider western history before 19th century, when the nature of art was determined primarily by leaders of societys most powerful institutions- the church, the government, and the aristocracy. Artists were craftsmen at the service of leaders, and much of the work of them only created for the reflecting the value of rulers but have nothing to do with the feeling and life general populace. However, helping the prosperous of art and relieving the poor are not mutually exclusive in some cases. Government can provide more job opportunities by stimulating the development of art industry. An apt illustration of this point involves Canadas film industry, which is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government and provides countless jobs for film industry workers as a result. The Canadian government also provides a lot of incentives for American film producers to procedure and film their movies in Canada. These incentives have sparked a boon for the Canadian economy and thereby stimulated the public wealth that can be applied toward education, job training and other social programs. The Canadian example is a proof that well-considered public support can both help solving the pressing social problems and developing art.In sum, I agree that government have duty on some objectives such as public health and employment, which is essential to the survival of social members, while art should primarily be supported by private individuals and businesses. And I also concede that it would be better if government tries to accomplish its duty by developing art at the same time. According to this statement, education should focus on the diverse needs and interests on individuals; otherwise, it would result in low effects. I agree that education designed on individual level is helpful in developing every students nature, and thus cultivate all kinds of persons to meet the demands of society. Yet on the other hand, merely meeting the needs and interests of individuals is far from being effective education.Before discussing this problem, it is necessary to rethink what education really is and how does it relate to the society. In my view, the duty of education consists of two aspects: that enlightening students learning inspiration; and that providing various types of workers for the society. For the purpose of inspiring the students desire to learn, it is the essential job for educators to provide different courses and curriculums for students with different talents and interests. As we know, interest is the foundation upon which one student relies to learn the knowledge and skills about certain field most effectively. Although some students may learn very well in the subjects that they do not like; for most students, the subjects accordant with their interests are more likely to stimulate their desire to learn, a desire that best prepares them for the career and future life. For the purpose of providing persons who can produce greatest values to society, our schools and colleges should try to set more flexible curriculums allow for eliciting the greatest potential of individuals. Different individuals will create different values in art, business, or scientific areas. No one expects a student with as much music talent as Mozart to study profound math knowledge, because he can bring more value to the society as a musician. However, if he is required to engage in general designed courses filled with science subjects, he might have no time, and is not encouraged to develop his talent in art, and the final result would be that we lose a great musician in our age. Nevertheless, establishing individual-centered education system is by no means the security of an effective education. To make our education accomplish its mission on satisfying both individual and the society, schools and colleges should not deny the importance of basic knowledge that every students should possess. In a modern society, no longer can a person who is steeped with knowledge in one field but know nothing about other fields, meet the demand of society. For example, a student specialized in history should be required to learn some mathematic knowledge, so that he can be equipped with logical thinking skills, which helps him to relate, analysis and evaluate historical events. Similarly, a students interested in computer science should not abandon the study of liberal art such as history and music. Without basic knowledge of these subjects, he may get into problem of poor communication skills, or even worse, fails to formulate a healthy value system based on the misunderstanding of human being.To sum up, it is essential to lay emphasis on specifically designed education, since the nature of education is to bring people with their own thoughts and ideas. At the same time, schools and colleges should acknowledge the basic common knowledge is also important to the development of individuals as part of the society. TOPIC: ARGUMENT153 - The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper. Ever since the 1950s, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television-programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.-should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time.WORDS: 456 TIME: 12:30:00 DATE: 2006-3-29