【精品】高频题及其范文

【精品】高频题及其范文 Issue11All nationsshould helpsupport thedevelopment of a global university designedto engagestudents in the processof solving the worlds mostpersistent social problems.I agree that itwould servethe interestsof allnations toestablish a global universityfor the purpose ofsolvingthe worlds mostpersistent social problems.Nevertheless,such a university poses certain riskswhich allparticipating nations must becareful to minimize-or riskdefeating the universitys purpose.One pellingargument infavor of a global university has to dowith thefact that its facultyand studentswould bringdiverse culturaland educationalperspectives to the problemsthey seekto solve.It seemsto methat nationscan onlybenefit from a global university wherestudents learnways in which other nations addresscertain social problems-suessfully ornot.It might be temptingto thinkthat anoverly diversifiedacademic munitywould impedemunication amongstudents andfaculty.However,in myview anysuch concernsare unwarranted,especially consideringthe growingawareness ofother peoplesand cultures,which themass media,and especiallythe Inter,have created.Moreover,many basicprinciples usedto solveenduring socialproblems knowno nationalboundaries;thus auseful insightor discoverycan efrom aresearcher orstudent from any nation.Another pellingargument for a global university involves the increasingly global natureof certainproblems.Consider,for instance,the depletionof atmosphericozone,which haswarned theEarth to the pointthat itthreatens thevery survivalof thehuman species.Also,we arenow learningthat clear-cutting the worlds rainforestscan setinto motion a chainof animalextinction thatthreatens thedelicate balanceupon which all animals-including humans-depend.Also consider that afinancial crisis-ora political crisisor naturaldisaster inone countrycan spelltrouble for foreign panies,many ofwhich arenow multinationalin that they relyon thelabor forces,equipment,and rawmaterials ofothernations.Environmental,economic,and politicalproblems such as theseall carrygrave socialconsequences-increased crime,unemployment,insurrection,hunger,and soforth.Solving these problems requiresglobal cooperation-whicha globaluniversity can facilitate.Notwithstanding theforegoing reasonswhy a globaluniversitywould helpsolve manyof ourmost pressing socialproblems,the establishment of suchauniversityposescertainproblems of its own,which mustbe addressedin orderthat the universitycanachieve itsobjectives.First,participant nations would need to overea myriadof administrativeand politicalimpediments.All nationswould needto agreeon whichproblems demand the universitys attention and resources,which areasof academicresearch areworthwhile,as wellas agreeingon policiesand proceduresfor making,enforcing,and amendingthese decisions.Query whether a functionalglobaluniversity is politicallyfeasible,given thatsovereign nationsnaturally wishto advancetheir ownagendas.A secondproblem inherentin establishinga globaluniversity involvesthe riskthat certainintellectual andresearch avenueswould beeofficially sanctionedwhile othersof equalor greaterpotential valuewould bediscouraged,or perhapseven proscribed.A tellingexample of the inherentdanger ofsetting andenforcing officialresearch prioritiesinvolvestheSoviet governments attemptsduring the1920stonot onlycontrol thedirection andthe goalsof itsscientistsresearch butalso todistort theoute of that research-ostensibly for the greatestgood of the greatestnumber of people.Not surprisingly,during thistime periodno significantscientific advancesourred underthe auspicesof theSoviet government.The Sovietlesson provides an importantcaveat to administrators of a globaluniversity:Significant progressin solvingpressingsocialproblems requiresan openmind to all soundideas,approaches,and theories-irrespective of the ideologiesof theirproponents.A finalproblem withaglobaluniversityis that the worlds preeminentintellectual talentmight bedrawn to the sortsof problemsto whichtheuniversityis chargedwith solving,while parochialsocialproblemgo unsolved.While thisis notreason enoughnot toestablish aglobaluniversity,it neverthelessis aconcern thatuniversity administratorsand participantnationsmustbe aware of in allocating resourcesand intellectualtalent.To sumup,given theincreasinglyglobalnature or theworlds socialproblems,andtheescalating costsof addressingtheseproblems,aglobaluniversity makesgood sense.And,since allnationswouldhave amon interestin seeingthis endeavorsueed,my intuitionis thatparticipating nationswould be able toovere whateverprocedural andpolitical obstaclesthat mightstand in the wayof suess.As long as eachnation iscareful not to neglectits ownunique socialproblems,and aslongas theuniversitys administratorsare carefulto remainopen-minded about the legitimacyand potentialvalue ofvarious avenuesof intellectualinquiry andresearch,aglobaluniversity mightgo alongway towardsolving manyof theworlds pressingsocialproblems.Issue7The videocamera providessuch anaurate andconvincing record of contemporary life thatit hasbee a more importantform of documentation thanwritten records.Aording to the speaker,the video recording isa more important meansofdocumenthag contemporarylife thana writtenrecord becausevideo recordingsare more aurate andconvincing.Although I agree that a videoprovidesamore objectiveand auraterecordof an events spatialaspects,there isfar moreto documentha lifethan what we seeand hear.Thus the speaker overstates the parativesignificance of video as a documentarytool.For thepurpose ofdocumenting temporal,spatial events and experiences,Iagreethat a video record is usuallymoreaurateand moreconvincing thana writtenrecord.It isimpossible for anyone,no matterhow keenan observerand skilleda journalist,to recountha pleteand objectivedetail suchevents as the winningtouchdown at the SuperBowl,a Ballanchineballet,the Tournamentof RosesParade,orthescene at the intersectionof Florenceand Normandystreets during the1992Los Angelesriots.Yet theseare importantevents incontemporarylifethe sort of eventswe mightput haa timecapsule for thepurposeof capturingour lifeand timesat theturn ofthis millennium.The growingdocumentary roleofvideo is notlimited toseminal eventslike thosedescribed above.Video surveillancecameras areobjective witnesseswith perfectmemories.Thus theycan playa vitalevidentiary rolein legalproceedings-such asthose involvingrobbery,drug trafficking,police misconduct,motor vehicleviolations,and evenmalpractice in a hospitaloperating room.Indeed,whenever movingimages arecentral to an eventthe videocamera issuperior to the writtenword.A writtendescription of a hurricane,tornado,or volcaniceruption cannotconvey itsimmediate powerand awesomenature likea videorecord.A diaryentry cannotreplaythat weddingreception,dance recital,or surprisebirthday partyas auratelyor objectivelyas avideorecord.And areal estatebrochure cannotinform about the lighting,spaciousness,or generalambiance of a featuredproperty nearlyas effectivelyas avideo.Noheless,for certain other purposes,written recordsare advantageous to andmore appropriatethan video records.For example,certain legalmatters arebest leftto written documentation:videois of nopractical useha documentingthe termsofa plex contractualagreement,incorporation,ortheestablishmentofa trust.And videoisoflittle usewhen ites to documenting a persons subjectivestate ofmind,impressions,or reflectionsofanevent orexperience.Indeed,to the extent thatpersonal interpretationadds dimensionand richnessto therecord,written documentationis actuallymore importantthan video.Finally,avideorecordisof nouse indocumenting statisticalor otherquantitative information.Returning tothe riotexample mentionedearlier,imagine relyingonavideo to document thefinancial lossto storeowners,the numberof policeand firefightersinvolved,and soforth.Complete and aurate videodocumentation ofsuch informationwould requirevideo camerasat everystreet cornerand inevery aisleof everystore.In sum,the speakers claimoverstatestheimportance ofvideo records,at leastto someextent.When ites tocapturing,storing,and recallingtemporal,spatial events,videorecordsare inherentlymore objective,aurate,and plete.However,whatweview througha cameralens providesonly onedimension of our lifeand times;writtendocumentationwill alwaysbe neededto quantify,demystify,and providemeaning totheworldaround us.Issue17There aretwo types of laws:just andunjust.Every individualina society has a responsibilityto obey just lawsand,even moreimportantly,to disobeyand resistunjust laws.Aording tothis statement,each personhasa duty tonot onlyobeyjustlaws butalso disobeyunjust ones.In myview thisstatement is too extreme,in tworespects.First,it wronglycategorizes anylaw aseither just or unjust;and secondly,it remendsan ineffectiveand potentiallyharmful meansof legalreform.First,whethera law isjustorunjust israrely astraightforward issue.The fairness of anylaw depends on ones personalvalue system.This isespecially truewhen ites topersonal freedoms.Consider,for example,the controversialissue ofabortion.Individuals withparticular religiousbeliefs tend to viewlaws allowingmothers anabortion choiceas unjust,while individualswith othervalue systemsmight viewsuch lawsas just.The fairnessofalaw alsodependson ones personalinterest,or stake,in thelegal issueat hand.After all,inademocratic societythe chieffunction of laws isto strike a balanceamong peting interests.Consider,for example,alawthat regulatesthe toxiceffluents a certain factorycan emitinto anearby river.Such lawsare designedchiefly to protect publichealth.But plyingwith theregulation might be costlyfor thepany;the factorymightbeforced tolay offemployees orshut downaltogether,or increasethe priceof itsproducts topensate for the costof pliance.At stakeare therespective interestsof thepanys owners,employees,and customers,as wellastheopposing interestsof theregions residentswhose healthand safetyare impacted.In short,the fairnessof thelaw is subjective,depending largelyon howones personal interests areaffected byit.The secondfundamental problemwith the statement isthat disobeyingunjust lawsoften hasthe oppositeaffect of what wasintended orhoped for.Most anyonewould argue,for instance,that ourfederal systemof iaxation isunfair inone respector another.Yet theend result of widespreaddisobedience,in thiscase taxevasion,istoperpetuate thesystem.Free-riders onlypel thegovernment tomaintain taxrates athigh levelsin orderto ensureadequate revenuefor thevarious programsin itsbudget.Yet anotherfundamental problemwith the statement isthat byjustifying aviolation ofone sortoflawwe findourselves ona slipperyslope towardsanctioning alltypesofillegal behavior,including egregiouscriminal conduct.Returning tothe abortionexample mentionedabove,apersonstrongly opposedtothefreedom-of-choice positionmight maintainthat theillegal blockingof aessto anabortion clinicamounts tojustifiable disobedience.However,it isa precariouslyshort leapfrom thissortofcivil disobedienceto physicalconfrontations withclinic workers,then tothe inflictionof propertydamage,then tothe bombingof theclinic andpotential murder.In sum,because theinherent functionofourlaws isto balancepetinginterests,reasonable peoplewith differentpriorities willalways disagreeabout thefairnessofspecific laws.Aordingly,radical actionsuch asresistance ordisobedience israrely justifiedmerely byonessubjectiveviewpoint orpersonalinterests.And in any event,disobedience isnever justifiablewhen thelegal rightsor safetyof innocentpeople arejeopardized asa result.IssueUnfortunately,the mediatend to highlight what is sensationalatthemoment.Society would be betterserved ifthe mediareported orfocused more fully onevents and trends thatwill ultimatelyhave the most long-term significance.The speakerasserts thatrather thanmerely highlightingcertain sensationalevents the media shouldprovide pletecoverage ofmoreimportantevents.While the speakers assertionhas meritfromanormative standpoint,in thefinal analysisI findthis assertionindefensible.Upon firstimpression the speakers claimseems quitepelling,for tworeasons.First,without thebenefit ofa plete,unfiltered,and balancedaount ofcurrent events,it isimpossible todevelop aninformed and intelligent opinionabout importantsocial andpolitical issuesand,in turn,to contributemeaningfully to our democraticsociety,which relieson broadparticipation inan ongoingdebate aboutsuch issuesto steera propercourse.The endresult ofour beinga largelyuninformed peopleisthatwe relegatethe mostimportant decisionstoahandful oflegislators,jurists,and executiveswho mayor maynot knowwhatisbest forus.Second,by focusingon thesensational-by whichI takethespeakerto meanparatively shocking,entertaining,and titillatingevents whicheasily catchones attention-the mediaappeal to our emotionsand baserinstincts,rather thanto ourintellect andreason.Any observantperson couldlist manyexamples aptlyillustrating thetrend inthis direction-from trashytalk showsand localnews broadcaststo TheNational Enquirerand PeopleMagazine.This trenddearly servesto underminea societys collectivesensibilities andrenders a societys membersmore vulnerableto demagoguery;thus weshould allabhor andresist thetrend.However,for severalreasons I find the medias currenttrend towardhighlights andthe sensationalto bejustifiable.First,theworldis being an increasinglyeventful place;thus witheach passingyear itbees amore oneroustask for the mediato attemptfull newscoverage.Second,we arebeinganincreasingly busysociety.The averageU.S.worker spendsnearly60hours perweek atwork now;and inmost familiesboth spouseswork.Compare thisstartlingly busypace tothe pacea generationago,when onebread-winner workedjust over40hours perweek.We havefar lesstime todayfor news,so highlightsmust suffice.Third,themediadoes infact providefull coverageof importantevents;anyone canfind suchcoverage beyondtheir newspapers frontpage,on dailyPBS newsprograms,and on the Inter.I wouldwholeheartedly agree with thespeaker ifthe sensationalhighlights wereall themedia werewilling orpermitted to provide;this scenariowouldbetantamount tothought controlonamass scaleand wouldserve toundermine ourfree society.However,I amawareofno evidenceof anytrend inthis direction.To thecontrary,in myobservation themedia areinforming usmorefullythan everbefore;we justneedtoseek outthat information.On balance,then,thespeakers claimis notdefensible.In thefinal analysisthemediaserves itsproper functionby merelyproviding whatwe ina freesociety demand.Thus anyargument abouthow themedia shouldor shouldnot behave-regardless of its meritsfromanormative standpoint-begs thequestion(避开了问题之所在).Issue48The studyof historyplaces toomuch emphasison individuals.The mostsignificant eventsandtrendsin historywere made possible not by the famous few,but by groups of people whoseidentities havelong beenforgotten.The speakerclaims thatsignificant historicaleventsandtrends aremadepossiblebygroups of peoplerather thanindividuals,and that the studyof historyshould emphasizethe formerinstead of the latter.I tend to disagreewith bothaspects ofthis claim.To beginwith,learning aboutkey historicalfigures inspiresustoachieve greatthings ourselves-far moreso thanlearning aboutthe contributions of groupsof people.Moreover,history informsus thatit isalmost alwaysa keyindividual whoprovide thenecessary impetusfor whatotherwise mightbeagroup effort,as discussedbelow.Admittedly,at timesdistinct groupsof peoplehave playedamorepivotal rolethan key individuals inimportant historicaldevelopments.For example,history and art appreciationcourses thatstudy theMiddle Agestend tofocus on the artisticachievements ofparticular artistssuch asFra Angelico,a Benedictinemonk of that period.However,Western civilizationowes itsvery existencenot toa fewfamous paintersbut rathertoagroup ofBenedictine nunsofthatperiod.Just prior to andduringthedecline of the Roman Empire,many womenfled tojoin Benedictinemonasteries,bringing with them substantialdowries which they usedto acquireartifacts,art works,and manuscripts.As aresult,their monasteriesbecame centersforthepreservation ofWestern cultureand knowledgewhich wouldotherwise havebeen lostforever with the falloftheRomanEmpire.However,equally influentialwas JohannesGutenberg,whose inventionoftheprinting pressseveral centurieslater renderedWestern knowledge and cultureaessible toevery classof peoplethroughout theknown world.Admittedly,Gutenberg wasnot single-handedly responsible fortheoutes ofhis invention.Without thesupport ofpaper manufacturers,publishers,and distributors,and withouta sufficientdemand forprinted books,Gutenberg wouldnever havebee oneofthe famousfew.However,I thinkany historianwould agreethat studyingthe groupsof people who rodethe waveof Gutenbergs inventionis secondaryin understandinghistory tolearning aboutthe roothistorical causeofthatwave.Generally speaking,then,undue attentiontothe efforts andcontributionsofvarious groupstends toobscure thecause-and-effect relationshipswith whichthe studyof history is chieflyconcerned.Gutenberg isjust oneexample ofan historicalpattern in which it is individualswho havebeen ultimatelyresponsibleforthemostsignificant developmentsin humanhistory.Profound scientificinventions anddiscoveries ofthe pastare nearlyall attributablenottoforgettable groupsofpeoplebut tocertain key individuals-for example,Copernicus,Newton,Edison,Einstein,Curie,and of course Gutenberg.Moreover,when ites toseminal sociopoliticalevents,thespeakers claimfinds evenless supportfrom thehistorical record.Admittedly,sweeping socialchanges andpolitical reformsrequire theparticipation of large groupsofpeople.However,I wouldbe hard-pressed toidentify anywatershed sociopoliticalevent attributabletoaleaderless group.History informsus thatgroups rallyonly when incited andinspired bykey individuals.The speakermight claimthat importantlong-term sociologicaltrends are often instigatednot bykeyindividualsbut rather