±±¾©Ê¯ÓÍ»¯¹¤Ñ§Ôº2026ÄêÑо¿ÉúÕÐÉú½ÓÊÕµ÷¼Á¹«¸æ
²é¿´: 1214  |  »Ø¸´: 19
µ±Ç°Ö÷ÌâÒѾ­´æµµ¡£

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

[½»Á÷] A Collection of GRE Sample Essays

Issue

"The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."


Sample Essay

The intensity of today's media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. Intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject has turned even minor media events into so-called "media frenzies". Reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pry ever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. With this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected to it will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. Technology has also made it easier to dig further than ever before into a person's past, increasing the possibility that the subject's reputation may be harmed.

The above statement is much too broad, however. "Anyone" covers all people all over the world. There are people whose reputations have only been enhanced by media scrutiny. There are also people whose reputations were already so poor that media scrutiny could not possibly diminish it any further. There may very well be people that have done nothing wrong in the past, at least that can be discovered by the media, whose reputations could not be diminished by media scrutiny. To broadly state that "anyone" subjected to media coverage will have his or her status sullied implies that everyone's reputation worldwide is susceptible to damage under any type of media scrutiny. What about children, particularly newborn children? What about those people whose past is entirely unknown?

Another problem with such a broad statement is that it does not define the particular level of media scrutiny. Certainly there are different levels of media coverage. Does merely the mention of one's name in a newspaper constitute media scrutiny? What about the coverage of a single event in someone's life, for example a wedding or the birth of a baby? Is the media coverage of the heroic death of a firefighter or police officer in the line of duty ever going to diminish that person's reputation? It seems highly unlikely that in these examples, although these people may have been subjected to media scrutiny, these individual's reputations are undamaged and potentially enhanced by such exposure.

Without a doubt, there are many examples of individual's whose reputations have been diminished by media scrutiny. The media's uncovering of former U.S. President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky will most likely overshadow the entire eight years of his administration. Basketball superstar Michael Jordan's sterling reputation has been tarnished more than once by the media; first by media coverage of his gambling habits, then most recently (and in a much more harmful manner) by news reports of his marital infidelities and the divorce from his wife of thirteen years. Fame and fortune can turn an ordinary individual into a media target where reporters will stop at almost nothing to "dig up dirt" that will sell more newspapers or entice more viewers to watch a television program. It could even be argued that media scrutiny killed Princess Diana as her car sped away from the privacy-invading cameras of reporters in Paris. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people who have been hurt in one way or another by particularly intense media scrutiny.

In summary, it seems impossible that for every person that is subjected to media scrutiny, his or her reputation will eventually be diminished. Millions of people are mentioned in the media every day yet still manage to go about their lives unhurt by the media. Normal individuals that are subjected to media scrutiny can have their reputation either enhanced or damaged depending on the circumstances surrounding the media coverage. The likelihood of a diminished reputation from the media rises proportionally with the level of notoriety that an individual possesses and the outrageousness of that person's behavior. The length of time in the spotlight can also be a determining factor, as the longer the person is examined in the media, the greater the possibility that damaging information will be discovered or that the individual will do something to disparage his or her reputation. But to broadly state that media scrutiny will diminish anyone's reputation is to overstate the distinct possibility that, given a long enough time and a certain level of intensity of coverage, the media may damage a person's reputation.
(766words)

¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ/[ÌâÄ¿]

"±»ÖÃÓÚýÌåÉóÊÓϵÄÈκÎÈË£¬ÆäÃûÓþÖÕ½«ÊÜ»ÙËð¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

µ±½ñýÌ屨µÀµÄÁ¦¶È£¬ÓÉÓÚµ±½ñʱ´úËùÄÜ»ñµÃµÄýÌåÇþµÀÄÇǰËùδÓеÄÊýÁ¿ºÍÖÖÀ࣬´Ó¶ø±»¼«´óµØÔöÇ¿¡£Î§ÈÆ×ŶÔ×î¾ß±©Â¶ÐÔµÄͼƬ¼°¶ÔijһÌâ²Ä×îÐÂÐÅÏ¢ËùÕ¹¿ªµÄ¾ºÕù£¬Ê¹ÄÄÅÂÊÇ´ÎÒªµÄýÌåʼþҲת±äΪËùνµÄ"ýÌå·è¿ñ"¡£ÓÉÓÚ¾ºÕùµÄ±¾ÖÊ£¬¼ÇÕßÃDZ»ÆÈ¾ÍijһÏµÀ×÷Éî¶È²É·Ã£¬ÒÔÆä¿ú̽µ½Ò»¸öÈÎºÎÆäËûÈ˶¼ÎÞ·¨½ÒʾµÄÊӽǡ£Ëæ×ÅÕâÀàýÌ屨µÀµÄ³öÏÖ£¬Èκα»ÖÃÓÚýÌ屨µÀ֮ϵÄÈË£¬ÆäÃûÓþÔ½À´Ô½ÓпÉÄܱ»çèÎÛ£¬ÒòΪ"½ðÎÞ³à½ð£¬ÈËÎÞÍêÈË"¡£Ã¿¸öÈ˶¼ÓпÉÄÜ·¸´íÎó¡£¼¼Êõ½ø²½Ê¹´óÁ¿µÄÐÅÏ¢ÔÚµÚһ˲¼ä±ã±»ÇáÒ×»ñÈ¡¡£¼¼ÊõҲʹýÌåµÃÒÔ±ÈÒÔÍùÈκÎʱºò¸üÉîÈëµØÈ¥ÍÚ¾òÒ»¸öÈ˵ĹýÈ¥£¬´Ó¶ø¸üÔö¼ÓÁ˵±ÊÂÈËÃûÓþÊÜËðµÄ¿ÉÄÜÐÔ¡£

È»Ôò£¬ÉÏÊö³ÂÊöº­¸ÇÃæ¹ýÓÚ¿í·º¡£"ÈκÎÈË"º­¸ÇÁËÊÀ½çÉÏËùÓеÄÈË¡£ÓÐЩÈ˵ÄÃûÓþ·´¶ø»áÒòΪýÌåµÄ¾Û½¹¶ø¶¸È»ÏÔºÕÆðÀ´¡£Ò²ÓÐЩÈË£¬ÆäÃûÉùÔç¾ÍÈç´ËÖ®Ôã¸â£¬ÒÔÖÂÓÚýÌåµÄ¾Û½¹ÔÙÒ²ÎÞ·¨ÈÃËüÊܵ½¸ü»µµÄ»ÙËð¡£ÁýͳµØ³ÂÊöÊÜýÌ屨µÀµÄ"ÈκÎÈË"¾ù»áʹÆäµØÎ»±»çèÎÛ£¬Õⰵʾ×ÅÈ«Çòÿ¸öÈ˵ÄÃûÉùÔÚÈκÎÖÖÀàµÄýÌå¾Û½¹Ï¾ùÒ×ÓÚÔâÚ¸²¡¡£ÄÇô£¬¶ÔÓÚÌìÕæÎÞ¹¼µÄº¢×ÓÃÇ£¬ÓÈÆäÐÂÉúÓ¤¶ù£¬Çé¿ö»áÈçºÎ£¿¶ÔÓÚÄÇЩÆä¹ýÈ¥¸ù±¾ÎÞÈËÖªÏþµÄÈËÀ´Ëµ£¬Çé¿öÓÖ»áÊÇʲôÑùÄØ£¿

¶ÔÓÚÕâÑùÒ»ÏîÁýͳµÄ³ÂÊö¶øÑÔ£¬ËüµÄÁíÒ»¸öÎÊÌâÊÇûÄÜÃ÷Îú½ç¶¨Ã½Ìå¾Û½¹µÄ¾ßÌå³Ì¶È¡£Ã½ÌåµÄ±¨µÀºÁÎÞÒÉÎÊ´æÔڳ̶ÈÉϵIJî±ð¡£Ö»ÔÚ±¨Ö½ÉÏÌá¼°Ò»¸öÈ˵ÄÃû×Ö£¬ÊÇ·ñËã×÷ýÌå¾Û½¹£¿¶ÔijÈËÒ»ÉúÖе¥¶ÀÒ»´Îʼþ£¨Èç»éÀñ»òº¢×Ó³öÉú£©µÄ±¨µÀÕâÒ²Ëãý½é¾Û½¹Âð£¿Ã½Ìå¶ÔÏû·À¶ÓÔ±»ò¾¯¹ÙÒò¹«¶øËÀµÄÓ¢ÐÛ׳¾Ù½øÐб¨µÀ£¬ÄѵÀÒ²»á»ÙËð¸ÃÈ˵ÄÃûÉùÂð£¿ÔÚÕâЩʵÀýÖУ¬ÆäÃûÉùÊÜËðµÄÊÂÇ鼫²»¿ÉÄÜ·¢Éú¡£ËäÈ»ÕâЩÈË¿ÉÄܱ»ÖÃÓÚýÌåÉóÊÓ֮ϣ¬µ«ÆäÃûÉùÈ´»áÍêºÃÎÞËð£¬ÇÒDZÔڵؿÉÒòÕâЩÅû¶¶øµÃÒÔÌá¸ß¡£ ºÁÎÞÒÉÎÊ£¬Ò²ÓÐÐí¶àÀý×ÓÄÜÖ¤Ã÷Ò»¸öÈ˵ÄÃûÉù»á±»Ã½ÌåÉóÊÓËù»ÙËð¡£Ã½Ìå¶ÔÃÀ¹úǰ×ÜͳBill ClintonÓëMonica LewinskyµÄ·çÁ÷ÔÏʵĽÒ¶¼«ÓпÉÄܻὫÆä°ËÄêµÄÖ´ÕþÉúÑÄÖÃÓÚÒõÓ°Ö®ÖС£³¬¼¶ÀºÇòÃ÷ÐÇMichael JordanÒ»ÊÀÓ¢ÃûÒ²±»Ã½Ìå²»Ö¹Ò»´ÎµØçèÎÛ£¬Ê×ÏÈÊDZ»ÓÐ¹ØÆä¶ÄϰµÄýÌ屨µÀ£¬Æä´ÎÊÇ×î½ü--ÇÒÒÔÒ»ÖÖ¸ü¾ßÖÂÃüÐÔÉ˺¦µÄ·½Ê½--±»ÓйØËû»éÒö²»ÖÒÒÔ¼°ÓëÆä½á»é13ÄêµÄÆÞ×Ó·ÖµÀÑïïðµÄ±¨µÀ¡£µ±Ã½Ìå¼ÇÕß²»ÔñÊÖ¶ÎÈ¥ÍÚ¾òijЩ¿É´ÙʹÆä±¨Ö½ÏúÁ¿´óÔöµÄ"ÃÍÁÏ"ʱ£¬»òÈ¥ÓÕ»ó¸ü¶àµÄ¹ÛÖÚ¹Û¿´Ä³Ò»µçÊÓ½ÚĿʱ£¬ÃûºÍÀû¾Í»á½«Ò»¸öÆÕͨÈËת±äΪýÌå×·×ÙµÄÄ¿±ê¡£ÎÒÃÇÉõÖÁ¿ÉÒÔÌá³öÕâÑùÒ»ÖÖÂ۵㣬¼´ÕýÊÇýÌåµÄÉóÊÓ½«DianaÍõåúÖÃÓÚËÀµØ£¬Ëæ×ÅËýµÄÆû³µÈ¥½ßÁ¦ÌÓÍѰÍÀè½ÖÍ·µÄ¼ÇÕßÃÇÄÇÇÖ·¸Òþ˽µÄÏà»ú¾µÍ·¡£ºÁÎÞÒÉÎÊ£¬¿Ï¶¨ÓÐÐí¶àÈ˱»¼«ÆäÇ¿ÁÒµÄýÌå¾Û½¹ÒÔÒ»ÖÖ·½Ê½»òÁíÒ»ÖÖ·½Ê½ËùÉ˺¦¡£

¹éÄɶøÑÔ£¬¶ÔÓÚÿ¸ö±»ÖÃÓÚýÌåÉóÊÓµÄÈËÀ´Ëµ£¬ÆäÃûÉù½«×îÖÕÊܵ½»ÙËðËÆºõ²¢²»¿ÉÄÜ¡£Ã¿Ì죬ÓÐÊý°ÙÍòÈ˱»Ã½ÌåÌáµ½£¬µ«ËûÃÇÈÔÉè·¨ÎÒÐÐÎÒËØ£¬²»ÎªÃ½ÌåËùÉ˺¦¡£±»ÖÃÓÚýÌåÉóÊÓÖ®ÏÂµÄÆÕͨÈË£¬ÆäÃûÉù»ò¿ÉµÃµ½Ìá¸ß£¬»ò¿ÉÃÉÊÜ»ÙËð£¬È¡¾öÓÚÎ§ÈÆ×ÅýÌ屨µÀµÄ¾ßÌåÇé¿ö¡£Ò»¸öÈ˵ÄÃûÉùÊÜýÌå»ÙËðµÄ¿ÉÄÜÐÔ£¬ÓëËùÆäÓµÓеijôÃûÕÑÖøµÄ³Ì¶È£¬¼°ÆäÐÐΪµÄÁîÈËÑá¶ñ³Ì¶È³ÉÕý±È¡£ÊÜýÌ幨עµÄʱ¼ä³¤¶ÌͬÑùÒ²ÊÇÒ»¸ö¾ö¶¨ÐÔÒòËØ£¬ÒòΪһ¸öÈ˱»Ã½ÌåÉóÊÓµÄʱ¼äÔ½³¤£¬ÓÚËûÃûÉù²»ÀûµÄÐÅÏ¢Ô½ÓпÉÄܱ»¶¶Âä³öÀ´£¬»òÕ߸ÃÈËÔ½ÓпÉÄÜÈ¥×ö³öijЩÓÚÆäÃûÉù²»ÀûµÄÊÂÇé¡£µ«Ö»ÊÇÁýͳµØ³ÂÊöýÌåµÄÉóÊÓÖÕ½«»ÙµôÒ»¸öÈ˵ÄÃûÉù£¬¼´Êǹý·Ö¿ä´óÕâÑùÒ»ÖÖÏÔÖøµÄ¿ÉÄÜÐÔ£¬¼´ÔÚ×ã¹»³¤µÄʱ¼äºÍÒ»¶È³Ì¶ÈµÄ±¨µÀÁ¦¶ÈÕâÁ½¸öÌõ¼þÏ£¬Ã½ÌåÊÇÓпÉÄܻٵôÒ»¸öÈ˵ÄÃûÉùµÄ¡£
»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥

» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶

ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Issue

"The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives."


Sample Essay

To state that the study of history is only valuable if it is relevant to our daily lives is to ignore the value that history has beyond the day-to-day activities of human beings. It would seem to be a rather shallow statement that implies that humans only live just to survive rather than planning for the futures of their children and the environment.

First of all, to study history is to look at a road map of human behavior that has led us to where we are today in the world. For example, the lessons learned during all of the past wars can make for more effective wartime leadership by avoiding mistakes made by past commanders. From the ancient Chinese author Sun Tzu's book "The Art of War", today's military commanders and even business leaders gather valuable information that allows them to operate more efficiently and effectively. The study of this type of history has a value beyond the daily lives of people. It can lead to a military victory or the success of a business that directly affects what happens in the future, including the futures of those that are possibly not even born yet.

Another example is that by studying history, parents can help to improve the lives of their children in the future. Lessons learned by generations of their ancestors before them could help show them the way to properly raise a child. What worked for others can give guidance to the parents of today and tomorrow to make sure that children are prepared for their own futures beyond their daily lives.

Additionally, the study of medical advances made throughout history can be the foundation to build upon to make the medical advances of today and tomorrow to make people live longer and healthier lives. A researcher's daily life may not be enhanced by the study of the history of the AIDS pathogen, but it could certainly bring about a profound effect on the lives of others in the future if ways to control and cure the disease are found. The study of previous research over history has led to many amazing medical discoveries. To study history only to enrich one's daily life would here again seem to be incongruous with the truth.

A further example of the value of the study of history beyond its effect on daily life is the treatment of the environment and the earth as a whole. Looking back to the past to see the various effects of various human behaviors on the environment can show valuable lessons on what can happen if proper precautions are not taken. The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have been studied to ensure that they do not happen again. Certainly the study of the effects of nuclear materials on humans and the environment provides value beyond that of the day-to-day life of people. The study of oil spills and their effects on the environment gives similar guidance on how to avoid or at least minimize the damage of an oil spill on the environment. The study of the disintegration of the ozone layer over the poles of the earth has given birth to new laws and regulations on certain chemicals that help to preserve this valuable part of our atmosphere. All of these examples of studying history provide value far beyond its impact on the daily lives of people.

To be certain, there are people out there that believe that only what affects them right here and right now is important. For them, the study of history might seem to be a waste of time if it does not affect their day-to-day lives. But for countless other individuals and groups, the study of history leads to improvements in activities that have an effect reaching far into the future, beyond their daily lives. The futures of mankind and the environment depend on these types of people who have enough foresight to study history to make for a better future for everyone.
(690 words)

¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ

[ÌâÄ¿]

"¶ÔÀúÊ·µÄÑо¿Ö»ÓÐÓëÎÒÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îÏà¹Ø²ÅÓÐÆä¼ÛÖµ"¡£


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

"ʷѧÑо¿Ö»ÓÐÓëÎÒÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îÏà¹Ø²ÅÓмÛÖµ"ÕâÒ»³ÂÊöºöÂÔÁËÀúÊ·ÔÚÈËÀàÈÕ³£»î¶¯Ö®ÍâµÄ¼ÛÖµ¡£ÕâËÆºõÊÇÒ»ÖÖÉõΪdz±¡µÄÂ۵㣬ÆäÑÔÏÂÖ®ÒâÊÇ£¬ÈËÀàÉú»îÔÚÕâ¸öÊÀ½çÉÏÖ»ÊÇΪÁ˵ÃÒÔÉú´æÏÂÈ¥£¬¶ø²»ÊÇΪ×ÅÆäº¢×Ӻͻ·¾³µÄδÀ´×÷¹æ»®¡£

Ê×ÏÈ£¬Ñо¿ÀúÊ·¼´ÊÇÈ¥ÉóÊÓÒ»Ö¡ÈËÀàÐÐΪµÄ"ָ·ͼ"£¬ÈÃÎÒÃÇÃ÷°×ÎÒÃǺÎÒԻᴦÓÚĿǰµÄ״̬¡£ÀýÈ磬´Ó¹ýÈ¥Õ½ÕùÖÐËùÎüÈ¡µÄÈ«²¿½ÌѵÄܹ»Í¨¹ý°ïÖúÈËÃDZÜÃâÎôÈÕÖ¸»Ó¹ÙÃÇËù·¸µÄ´íÎó¶ø´Ù½ø¸üΪÓÐЧµÄսʱÁìµ¼ÒÕÊõ¡£´ÓÖйú¹Å´úµÄ¡¶Ëï×Ó±ø·¨¡·Ò»ÊéÖУ¬½ñÌìµÄ¾üÊÂÖ¸»Ó¹ÙÃÇÉõÖÁÊÇÉ̽çÁìÐäÃǵÃÒÔ»ñÈ¡¼«ÓмÛÖµµÄÐÅÏ¢£¬Ê¹ËûÃÇÄܸüÓÐЧµØ½øÐÐÕ½Õù»òÉÌÒµ²Ù¿Ø¡£ÕâÖÖÀúÊ·Ñо¿Ëù¾ß±¸µÄ¼ÛÖµÒѳ¬Ô½ÁËÈËÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îÕâÒ»·¶³ë¡£ËüËùÄܵ¼ÖµľüÊÂʤÀû»òÉÌÒµ³É¹¦¿ÉÖ±½ÓÓ°Ï쵽δÀ´ËùÒª·¢ÉúµÄÒ»ÇУ¬°üÀ¨ÉÐδ³öÉúµÄÈ˵ÄδÀ´¡£

ÁíÒ»¸öÀý×ÓÊÇͨ¹ýÑо¿ÀúÊ·£¬¸¸Ä¸ÃÇ¿ÉÒÔ¸ÄÉÆËûÃǺ¢×ÓÔÚδÀ´µÄÉú»î¡£¸¸±²Ö®Ç°µÄÊý´ú׿ÏÈÃÇËùѧµ½µÄ½Ìѵ¿ÉÒÔÏò¸¸±²ÃDZíÃ÷ʲô²ÅÊǸ§Ñøº¢×ÓµÄÇ¡µ±·½·¨¡£ÓÚËûÈËÓÐЧµÄ¶«Î÷¿ÉÒÔΪµ±½ñºÍδÀ´µÄ¸¸Ä¸ÃÇÌṩÓÐÒæµÄÖ¸µ¼£¬ÒÔÈ·±£º¢×ÓÃÇ¿ÉΪÆäδÀ´×÷ºÃ×¼±¸¡£

´ËÍ⣬Ñо¿ÀúÊ·ÉÏËùÈ¡µÃµÄҽѧ½ø²½¿ÉÒԵ춨һ¸ö»ù´¡£¬Îªµ±½ñºÍδÀ´È¡µÃҽѧ½ø²½´´ÔìÌõ¼þ£¬Ê¹ÈËÃǵÃÒÔ¹ýÉÏÊÙÃü¸ü³¤ÇÒ¸üΪ½¡¿µµÄÉú»î¡£Ñо¿°®×̲¡²¡Ô´ÌåµÄÀúÊ·£¬»òÐí²¢²»ÄܸÄÉÆÑо¿ÈËÔ±µÄÈÕ³£Éú»î£¬µ«ËüÈ´¿Ï¶¨ÄÜ¶ÔÆäËûÈËÔÚδÀ´µÄÉú»î²úÉúÉîÔ¶µÄÓ°Ï죬Èç¹û¿ØÖƺÍÖÎÁÆÕâÒ»¼²²¡µÄ·½·¨Äܱ»ÕÒµ½¡£¶ÔÀúÊ·ÉÏÎôÈÕµÄÑо¿½øÐзÖÎö£¬Òѵ¼ÖÂÁËÐí¶àÁîÈ˾ªÏ²µÄҽѧ·¢ÏÖ¡£Ö»ÎªÁ˷ḻһ¸öÈËÈÕ³£Éú»î¶øÈ¥Ñо¿ÀúÊ·£¬ÔÚÕâÀォÔÙÒ»´ÎÓëÊÂÊµÕæÏ಻·û¡£

ÀúÊ·Ñо¿µÄ¼ÛÖµÄܳ¬Ô½Æä¶ÔÈÕ³£Éú»îµÄÖ±½ÓÓ°Ï죬Õâ·½ÃæµÄÁíÒ»¸ö°¸ÀýÊÇÈËÀàÊÇÈçºÎ¶Ô»·¾³¼°Õû¸öµØÇòµÄ¡£»Ø¹ËÀúÊ·£¬¿´Çå¸÷ÖÖÈËÀàÐÐΪ¶Ô»·¾³ËùÔì³ÉµÄ¸÷ÖÖÓ°Ï죬ÕâÑù×ö¿ÉÒÔÏòÈËÃÇÕÑʾ£¬Èç¹û²»²Éȡǡµ±µÄ·À·¶´ëÊ©£¬Ôòºó»¼ÎÞÇî¡£·¢ÉúÔÚÈýÓ¢ÀﵺºÍÇжûŵ±´µÄºËʹʱ»Ñо¿£¬ÒÔ±ãÈ·±£´ËÀàʹʲ»ÔÙ·¢Éú¡£¾ÍºËÎïÖʶÔÈËÀ༰»·¾³µÄÓ°ÏìÕ¹¿ªÑо¿£¬ÕâÎÞÒÉ»áÌṩ³¬Ô½ÈËÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îµÄ¼ÛÖµ¡£¶ÔÔ­ÓÍй©¼°¶Ô»·¾³Ó°Ïì½øÐÐÑо¿£¬¿ÉÒÔÌṩÀàËÆµÄÖ¸µ¼£¬ÈÃÈËÃǶ®µÃÈçºÎÈ¥±ÜÃâ»òÖÁÉÙÊǼõÇáÔ­ÓÍй©¶Ô»·¾³²úÉúµÄºó¹û¡£¶ÔµØÇòÄϱ±Á½¼«³ôÑõ²ãÔâÆÆ»µ½øÐÐÑо¿£¬´ÙʹÈËÀà¾ÍijЩ»¯Ñ§Æ·Öƶ¨³öÐµķ¨¹æ£¬´Ó¶øÓÐÖúÓÚ±£»¤ÎÒÃÇ´óÆø²ãÖеÄÓмÛÖµµÄÕâÒ»²¿·Ö¡£ËùÓÐÕâЩÑо¿ÀúÊ·µÄʵÀýËùÌṩµÄ¼ÛÖµÎÞÒÉÒѳ¬Ô½Á˶ÔÈËÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îËù²úÉúµÄÓ°Ïì¡£

µ±È»ÁË£¬Éç»áÉÏÓÐЩÈËÏàÐÅ£¬Ö»ÓÐÄÇЩ´Ëʱ´ËµØÓ°Ïì×ÅËûÃǵÄÊÂÇé²ÅÊÇÖØÒªµÄ¡£¶ÔËûÃǶøÑÔ£¬¶ÔÀúÊ·µÄÑо¿Èç¹û²»Äܹ»Ó°Ïìµ½ËûÃÇÈÕ³£Éú»îµÄ»°£¬¾Í´¿´âÊÇÔÚÀË·Ñʱ¼ä¡£µ«¶ÔÓÚÎÞÊýÆäËû¸öÈ˺ÍȺÌåÀ´Ëµ£¬Ñо¿ÀúÊ·¿Éµ¼ÖÂÆäËù´ÓʵĻµÄ¸ÄÉÆ£¬ÕâЩ»î¶¯Ëù²úÉúµÄÓ°Ïì»áÉîÈ뵽δÀ´£¬Ô¶Ô¶³¬Ô½ÆäÈÕ³£Éú»î¡£ÈËÀàºÍ»·¾³µÄδÀ´¾ÍÓÐÀµÓÚÕâÑùһЩÀàÐ͵ÄÈË£¬ËûÃǸßÕ°Ô¶Öõ£¬´ÓÀúÊ·ÖлñÈ¡ÓÐÒæµÄ½Ìѵ£¬ÒÔıÇóΪËùÓеÄÈË´´ÔìÒ»¸ö¸üΪÃÀºÃµÄδÀ´¡£
2Â¥2006-04-06 15:59:33
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Issue

"People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."

Sample Essay

Teamwork as a whole can naturally produce an overall greater productivity through the concept of "synergy", where the total of the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. But the idea that people work more productively in teams rather than as individuals is going to vary greatly between the types of teams that are organized, the end reward or motivation for both the team and the individuals, as well as the individuals themselves.

Regarding individuals, some people are born with the desire to succeed, no matter what the situation or task that they are facing. These people may evolve into the classic "Type A" personalities that work ferociously because they are driven by an internal fire that says they must always be doing something, whether individually or as part of a team. Other people may desire to be less socially involved or are very highly competitive with other people. For these people, their work is most productive as individuals, because the very idea of cooperating with other people limits their effectiveness and efficiency because they simply do not want to be a part of the team. Whether this mindset is innate or developed over time does not matter, it is merely the state of their being and neither motivation nor rewards can generate inside them the desire to work collectively as a team.

Some people are highly motivated by social interaction and the desire to work with others towards a collective effort. Obviously these individuals are at their most productive when working as part of a team. Organizational behavioral studies have shown that Asian cultures are much more likely to develop this type of collective behavior as opposed to the more individualistic behavior associated with Western cultures. It could naturally be assumed then that there may be cultural values that can determine whether people are at their most productive individually or as part of a team.

Another variable is the end reward that is involved with the task at hand. Will the rewards be greater if the team works together towards a common goal, or are the rewards more geared toward individual performance? To the extent that the individual is motivated by the end reward, obviously his or her performance inside of a team may be more or less productive with respect to the entire team, depending on how the performance is rewarded. Individual goals may interfere with the group performance. Synergies may not be achieved because the individuals are not working towards a whole "sum" but rather towards an individual reward. Productivity thus will vary for each person as a team member or as an individual depending on the degree to which that person is motivated by an individual or overall team reward.

Finally, the degree of productivity of a person will depend upon the type of team that is organized. Is the group composed of equally contributing individuals? Does the group have an outstanding leader that can motivate both the individuals and the team as a whole? From a pure productivity standpoint, the presence or absence of a charismatic and exceptional leader can make all the difference whether a person would be more productive as a part of a team or as an individual. Personality types that work well together can prove to be much more productive as part of a team than as individuals, and vice versa.

Fundamentally, measures of productivity depend greatly on the individuals themselves. The dilemma facing leaders in all areas of life is how to best assess these individuals to determine how to best harness their capabilities to reach their ultimate productive capabilities. Whether a person is more productive alone or while working in concert with others is one of the great challenges that leaders and managers must face to accomplish tasks effectively and efficiently.

¡¡



¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ/[ÌâÄ¿]

"µ±ÈËÃÇÒÔÍŶӵÄÐÎʽ¹¤×÷ʱ£¬Òª±ÈÒԹ¾ü·ÜÕ½µÄÐÎʽÀ´µÃ¸ü¼Ó¸»ÓгÉЧ¡£ÍŶӵÄЭͬ¹¤×÷ÐèÒªÏ໥ºÏ×÷£¬Ëü±È¸öÈ˾ºÕù¸üÄܼ¤ÀøÈËÃÇ¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

×ÜÌå¶øÑÔ£¬ÍŶӵÄЭͬ¹¤×÷×ÔÈ»ÄÜͨ¹ý"ÔöЧ×÷ÓÃ"£¨Synergy£©ÕâÒ»ÀíÄî¶ø´øÀ´¸ü¸ß³Ì¶ÈµÄÕûÌåÉú²úЧÂÊ£¬ÒòΪÔÚÕâÀÕûÌå´óÓÚ¸öÌåÏà¼ÓÖ®×ܺ͡£È»Ôò£¬"µ±ÈËÃÇÒÔÍŶӵÄÐÎʽ¹¤×÷ʱ£¬Òª±ÈÒԹ¾ü·ÜÕ½µÄÐÎʽÀ´µÃ¸ü¼Ó¸»ÓгÉЧ"ÕâÒ»¹ÛÄî×¢¶¨»á²úÉú¾Þ´ó²îÒ죬ȡ¾öÓÚËù×éÖ¯ÆðÀ´µÄÍŶӵÄÀà±ð£¬ÍŶÓÓë¸öÈËËùÄÜ»ñµÃµÄÖÕ¼«»Ø±¨»ò¼¤Àø£¬ÒÔ¼°¸öÈ˱¾Éí¡£

¹ØÓÚ¸öÈË£¬ÓÐЩÈËÌìÉú¾Í¾ßÓлñÈ¡³É¹¦µÄÓûÍû£¬ÎÞÂÛËûÃÇËùÃæÁÙµÄÇéÐλòÈÎÎñÊÇʲô¡£ÕâЩÈË»áÑݱäΪ¹¤×÷¿ñÕâÒ»¾­µäµÄ"AÀà"È˸ñ£¬ÒòΪÊܵ½Ò»¹ÉÄÚÐĵÄÈÈ»ðËùÇýʹ£¬Õâ¹ÉÈÈ»ðʱ¿Ì¸æËßËûÃDZØÐ벻ͣµØ"ÓÐËùÊÂÊÂ"£¬ÎÞÂÛÊÇ×÷Ϊ¸öÈËÒÖ»òÊÇ×÷ΪÍŶӵÄÒ»·Ö×Ó¡£ÁíһЩÈËÔò¿ÉÄÜÏ£Íû²»±ØÄÇô¶àµØ½éÈëÉç»á£¬»òÕßËûÃÇÇãÏòÓÚÓëÆäËûÈ˼¤ÁÒ¾ºÕù¡£¶ÔÕâЩÈ˶øÑÔ£¬×÷Ϊ¸öÈË£¬ËûÃǹ¤×÷ÆðÀ´»á×ÓгÉЧ£¬ÒòΪÓÉÓÚËûÃǸù±¾¾Í²»Ïë³ÉΪÈκÎÍŶӵÄÒ»²¿·Ö£¬ÓëËûÈ˺Ï×÷±ã»áÏÞÖÆËûÃǵÄЧÂÊ¡£Õâһ˼ÏëÇãÏòÊÇ·ñÓëÉú¾ãÓУ¬»¹ÊÇËæ×Åʱ¼äµÄÍÆÒÆ¶øÐγɣ¬Õâ¶¼Î޹ؽôÒª¡£Õâ½ö½öÖ»ÊÇËûÃǵÄÒ»ÖÖÉú´æ×´Ì¬£¬ÎÞÂÛÊǶ¯»ú»¹Êǻر¨£¬¶¼ÎÞ·¨ÔÚÆäÄÚÐÄÉî´¦¼¤·¢Æð×÷Ϊһ¸öÍŶӼ¯Ì幤×÷µÄÓûÍû¡£

ÓÐЩÈË£¬ÓÉÓÚÉç»á»¥¶¯ÒÔ¼°ÓëËûÈËЭ×÷ȥʵÏÖijÖÖ¼¯ÌåŬÁ¦µÄÓûÍû£¬¶ø¾ßÓм«Ç¿µÄ¶¯»ú¡£ÏÔÈ»£¬ÕâЩ¸öÈËÔÚ×÷ΪÍŶӵÄÒ»²¿·Ö½øÐй¤×÷ʱ£¬ËûÃDZã»á´¦ÔÚÆä×ÓгÉЧµÄ״̬¡£×éÖ¯ÐÐΪѧÑо¿±íÃ÷£¬ÑÇÖÞÎÄ»¯¸üÓпÉÄÜÐγɴËÀ༯ÌåÐÔÐÐΪ£¬ÓëÄÇÖÖ³£ºÍÎ÷·½ÎÄ»¯ÁªÏµÔÚÒ»ÆðµÄ½ÏΪ¸öÈËÖ÷ÒåµÄÐÐΪ¹¹³É¶Ô±È¡£ÕâÑù£¬ÈËÃÇ×ÔÈ»»áÈÏΪ£¬Ä³Ð©ÎÄ»¯¼ÛÖµ¹Û¿ÉÒÔ¾ö¶¨ÈËÃÇÊÇ·ñ×÷Ϊ¸öÈË»¹ÊÇ×÷ΪÍŶӵÄÒ»²¿·Ö¹¤×÷ÆðÀ´×ÓгÉЧ¡£
3Â¥2006-04-06 16:00:16
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine

"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."


Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.

Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.

Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.

In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.

(599 words)

¡¡


²Î¿¼ÒëÎÄ


[ÌâÄ¿]

ÏÂÊöÎÄ×ÖÕª×ÔÒ»·âÖÂij»·±£ÔÓÖ¾±à¼­µÄÐź¯£º

"È«ÇòÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿µÄ¼õÉÙÃ÷ÏÔ±êÖ¾×ÅÈ«ÇòÐÔË®Óë´óÆøµÄÎÛȾ¡£¶Ô¼ÓÀû¸£ÄáÑÇÖÝÔ¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹ú¼Ò¹«Ô°ÄÚÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïËù×÷µÄÁ½ÏîÑо¿¿É֤ʵÎÒµÄÕâÒ»½áÂÛ¡£1915Ä깫԰ÄÚÓÐÆß¸öÎïÖÖµÄÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎÿһÎïÖÖ¶¼ÓµÓзḻµÄÖÖȺÊýÁ¿¡£È»¶ø£¬1992Ä꣬ÔÚ¹«Ô°ÄÚËùÄܹ۲쵽µÄÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÎïÖÖ½öΪËÄÀ࣬ÇÒÿһÎïÖÖµÄÖÖȺÊýÁ¿ÒÑÖèȻϽµ¡£Ô¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙ±»¹é¾ÌÓÚʼÓÚ1920ÄêµÄ½«öÙÓãÒýÈ빫԰ˮÓòµÄ×ö·¨(ÖÚËùÖÜÖª£¬öÙÓãϲʳÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïËù²úµÄÂÑ)¡£µ«öÙÓãµÄÒýÈë²»¿ÉÄܳÉΪԼÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙµÄÕæÕýÔ­Òò£¬ÒòΪËüÎÞ·¨À´½âÊÍÈ«Çò·¶Î§Äڵ͝ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙ¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

ÔÚ±¾ÏîÂÛÊöÖУ¬Ðź¯×÷ÕߵĽáÂÛÊÇ£¬È«ÇòÐÔË®Óë´óÆøÎÛȾÒÑÖÂʹÊÀ½ç·¶Î§ÄÚÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïµÄÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙ¡£ÎªÁËÖ§³ÖÆäÂ۵㣬×÷ÕßÔ®ÒýÁËÁ½·Ýʱ¸ô75ÄêÖ®¾ÃµÄÑо¿½á¹û£¬ÕâÁ½·Ý½á¹û¾Ý³Æ¿ÉÖ¤Ã÷¼ÓÀû¸£ÄáÑÇÖÝijһ¹«Ô°¨D¨D¼´Ô¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹ú¼Ò¹«Ô°¨D¨DÄÚÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïµÄÊýÁ¿Èñ¼õ¡£´ËÍ⣬¸Ã×÷Õ߯²¿ªÁ˶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙµÄÒ»¸öÒÑÖªÔ­Òò£¬³ÂÊöµÀ£¬½«öÙÓãÒýÈ빫԰(¾Ý³Æ£¬öÙÓãϲʳÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïËù²úµÄÂÑ)ÕâÒ»×ö·¨²»×ãÒÔ½âÊÍÊÀ½ç·¶Î§ÄÚÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿ÉϵļõÉÙ¡£ÕâÒ»ÂÛµãÓÐã£ÓÚ¼òµ¥µÄÂß¼­£¬·¸ÓÐһϵÁйؼüÐÔµÄÂß¼­ÃýÎó¡£

Ê×ÏÈ£¬¸ÃÂÛµãËùÒÀ¾ÝµÄ½ö½öÊÇÊÀ½çÉÏÄ³Ò»ÌØ¶¨µØµã¨D¨D¼´¼ÓÀû¸£ÄáÑÇÖÝÔ¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹ú¼Ò¹«Ô°¨D¨DÄÚµÄÁ½·ÝÑо¿¡£Î§ÈÆ×ÅÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÕâÒ»ÎÊÌ⣬Èç¹û½öÒÔÊÀ½çÉÏÒ»¸öÌØ¶¨µÄµØµãΪÑùÆ·£¬ÔÙ¶àÊýÁ¿µÄÑо¿Ò²ÎÞ·¨µÃ³öÒ»ÖÖ¾«È·µÄ¡¢ÊÊÓÃÓÚÈ«ÊÀ½çµÄÀíÂÛ¡£Á½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïµÄ¾ßÌåÖÖÀà¡¢µØÀí×´¿öÒÔ¼°ÆäËûÒòµØµã¶øÌØÒìµÄ±äÊý¾ù²»ÔÊÐíÎÒÃÇ×÷³öÈç´ËÒ»¸Å¶øÂÛµÄ×ÜÀ¨¡£Ò»¸ö·Ç³£¾ßÌåµÄµØµã²»ÄÜÓÃ×÷Ò»¸ö´ú±íËùÓÐÆäËûµØµãµÄÄ£ÐÍ£¬¼´Ê¹ÔÚÒ»¸öÌØ¶¨µÄ¹ú¼ÒÄÚÒ²²»ÐУ¬¸ü²»ÓÃ˵ÔÚÕû¸öÊÀ½ç·¶Î§ÄÚÁË¡£Ðź¯×÷ÕßûÓÐÌṩÈκÎÖ¤¾Ý½«Ô¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°µÄÑо¿ÓëÈ«Çò»·¾³ÖÐÈÎºÎÆäËûÒ»´¦µØ·½µÄÈκÎËùÐû³ÆµÄЧ¹ûÁªÏµÆðÀ´¡£ Æä´Î£¬ËùÌá¼°µÄÄÇÁ½ÏΪ¶ÀÁ¢µÄÑо¿Ê±¸ô75ÄêÖ®¾Ã¡£Ã»ÓÐÖ¤¾Ý¿ÉÖ¤Ã÷ÕâÁ½ÏîÑо¿ÊÇÔÚÏàͬµÄʱ¼ä¿ç¶ÈÄÚÒÔÏàËÆµÄ·½Ê½½øÐе쬻òÊÇÔÚÔ¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°ÍêÈ«ÏàͬµÄµØµã½øÐе쬻òËùʹÓõÄÑо¿·½·¨¾øÈ»Ïàͬ¡£ÀýÈ磬µÚÒ»ÏîÑо¿¿ÉÄܳÖÐøÁËÕûÕûÒ»ÄêÖ®¾Ã£¬ÇÒÊÇÓÉÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÉúÎïѧÁìÓòµÄ¶þÊ®Îåλר¼Ò¹²Í¬½øÐеġ£½á¹ûÊÇ·¢ÏÖÁËÆß´óÖÖÀàÊýÄ¿ÖÚ¶àµÄÁ½ÆÜ¶¯Îï¡£Ïà·´£¬µÚ¶þÏîÑо¿¿ÉÄÜÊÇһλ¸ßÖÐÉú¹ÂÉíÒ»ÈËËù×öµÄѧУµÄÒ»¸ö¿ÆÑ§¿ÎÌ⣬½öΪÆÚÒ»¸öÐÇÆÚ¡£Ðź¯×÷ÕßûÓÐÌṩ½«´ËÁ½ÏîÑо¿½øÐбȽϵĻù´¡£¬´Ó¶øÊ¹Á½ÏîÑо¿ÔÚÆä¹ã¶È¡¢·¶Î§ÒÔ¼°×¨ÒµË®×¼·½ÃæµÄ¿É±ÈÐÔ²»µÃ¶øÖª¡£ ×îºó£¬Ðź¯×÷ÕßÖ¸³ö£¬Á½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÖÖȺÊýÁ¿µÄ¼õÉÙ£¬Òѱ»È˹é¾ÌÓÚ1920Ä꽫öÙÓãÒýÈ빫԰ˮÓòÕâÒ»×ö·¨£¬µ«½ô½Ó×ÅÓÖÒÔ¸ÃÂÛ¾ÝÎÞ·¨½âÊÍÊÀ½ç·¶Î§ÄÚ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÕâÒ»ËÆÊǶø·ÇµÄÒÀ¾Ý½«¸ÃÂÛ¾ÝÓèÒÔ·ñÈÏ¡£Ðź¯×÷ÕßÂÛÊöÖеÄÕâÒ»²¿·ÖÂþ²»¾­Ðĵؽ«Ò»¸ö¼«ÎªÏà¹ØµÄÊÂʵÆúÖò»¹Ë£¬¼´ÖÚËùÖÜÖª£¬öÙÓãϲʳÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïËù²úµÄÂÑ¡£ÕâÖÖ"prove a negative "µÄ³¢ÊÔÍùÍùÊÇÕâÑùÒ»ÀàÈËËù¹ßÓõÄ×îºó¼¿Á©£¬ËûÃǽßÁ¦Ñ°ÕÒijÖÖͽÀ͵ij¢ÊÔ£¬Á¦Í¼È¥Ö¤Ã÷ËûÃÇËùÐû³ÆµÄÊÂÎïµÄÕæÀí¡£´Ó¸ù±¾ÉϽ²£¬"prove a negative"ÊDz»¿ÉÄܵġ£ÕâÑùÒ»ÖÖ×ö·¨ÊÇÊÔͼ½«ÂÛÖ¤µÄ¸ºµ£ÖØÐÂת¼Þ¸ø²»ÏàПÃÂ۾ݵÄÈË¡£È«ÇòµÄ»·¾³ÇéÐÎÓëÔ¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°µÄÇéÐβ¢²»¾øÈ»¶ÔÓ¦¡£öÙÓ㼫ÓпÉÄÜÔì³ÉÁËÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÕâÒ»ÊÂʵÔÚȱ·¦½øÒ»²½Ö¤¾ÝµÄÇé¿öÏÂÊǶϲ»ÄÜÇáÒ×ÓèÒÔ·ñÈϵġ£

¸ÅÀ¨¶øÑÔ£¬Ðź¯×÷ÕßûÄÜÔÚÈ«Çò¿ÕÆøºÍË®ÎÛȾÓëÊÀ½ç·¶Î§ÄÚÁ½ÆÜÉúÃüÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÖ®¼ä½¨Á¢ÆðÈκÎÒò¹û¹ØÏµ¡£¸Ã×÷ÕßËùÄóöµÄÖ¤¾Ý³äÆäÁ¿Ò²ÊǼ«Îª²Ô°×ÎÞÁ¦µÄ£¬ÏÁ°¯µØ½«½¹µã¼¯ÖÐÔÚÊÀ½çµÄһƬ¼«Ð¡µÄÇøÓòÉÏ£¬×÷Ϊ֤¾Ý¶øÔ®ÒýµÄÁ½ÏîÑо¿¼¸ºõ²»ÄÜ˵Ã÷ÈκÎÎÊÌâ¡£ÓûʹÆäÂÛµã¸ü¾ßÁ¦¶È£¬Ðź¯×÷ÕßÉÐÐè°Ú³öÖ±½ÓµÄÖ¤¾Ý£¬½«Ë®ºÍ¿ÕÆøÎÛȾ²»½ö½öÓëÔ¼ÈûÃ×µÙ¹«Ô°µÄÁ½ÆÜ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÁªÏµÆðÀ´£¬¶øÇÒÒ²ÓëÊÀ½çÆäËûµØ·½µÄ¶¯ÎïÊýÁ¿¼õÉÙÁªÏµÆðÀ´¡£
4Â¥2006-04-06 16:00:53
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Issue
"Colleges and universities should offer more courses on popular music, film, advertising and television because contemporary culture has much greater relevance for students than do arts and literature of the past."

Sample Essay

To the extent that contemporary culture is, by definition, current, it does have a much more immediate impact on students and people in general than do the arts and literature of the past. Contemporaneous events directly affect everyone alive at the time because they are occurring at precisely the same time as the individual's existence. But to paraphrase a famous philosopher: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." To a great extent, past arts and literature shape who we are as people at least as much as, if not more than, contemporary culture does.

Everyone alive today is affected in one way or another by the events of the past. Past events have directly led to the way that the world is shaped today. The arts and literature are one of the most well-preserved and documented resources that can give us a direct link into what actually happened in the past. Consider the religious writings of the Bible, the Koran and those of Confucius, as well as those related to Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. These writings directly relate to, and in some cases to a great extent control, the behavior of human beings today even though most were written hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Artworks relating to these religions also have a profound effect. Consider Michelangelo's work in the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican, or the vast myriad of historic Buddhist statues throughout Asia, or the ancient Muslim mosques throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. It would be difficult to argue that contemporary culture has more relevance to today's students when compared with the relevance of these examples of past arts and literature.

At times it is difficult to determine what exactly is the difference between contemporary culture and the arts and literature of the past. Shakespeare's classic writings are continuously being adapted into current movies that are often big hits with students and the general population as a whole. Millions of people every year view classic works of art in museums all over the world. Readings of religious texts have never gone out of with a large part of the world's population. Clashes between centuries-old cultures and religions, such as that of Western countries and Islamic extremists and that of Hindus and Muslims in India, demonstrate that the religious artifacts that could be called arts and literature of the past are very much a part of contemporary culture.

While the past can certainly not be ignored, a large part of what students must learn at university is based on contemporary culture. Most religious learning, at least of one's own religion, occurs either at home or early on in a student's education. At the university level, studies of politics, business and the computer sciences must deal in great detail with the latest advances in contemporary culture in order to remain up to date and relevant. Other subjects, such as mathematics, agriculture, and the arts and literature themselves look largely to the past for the core knowledge that is taught in these courses. The application of these lessons from the past are entirely appropriate to help put contemporary culture into some type of historical context that can help students to understand and comprehend the rapidly changing world that they are living in.

It would seem self-evident that a properly educated university student must find a balance between studying contemporary culture without neglecting the study of arts and literature of the past. The study of one is not mutually exclusive of the study of the other. The benefits of a well-rounded education come from not only knowing the state of the world as it exists today but also in knowing how the world arrived at this stage of development in the first place.


¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ/[ÌâÄ¿]

"ѧԺºÍ´óѧӦ¸Ã¿ªÉè¸ü¶àͨË×ÒôÀÖ¡¢µçÓ°¡¢¹ã¸æºÍµçÊÓ·½ÃæµÄ¿Î³Ì£¬ÒòΪµ±´úÎÄ»¯Òª±ÈÎôÈÕµÄÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧ¶ÔÓÚѧÉú¾ßÓÐԶΪÃÜÇеÄÁªÏµ¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

Ö»Òªµ±´úÎÄ»¯--ÒÀÕկ䶍Òå--¾ßÓе±´úÐÔ£¬ËüÎÞÒɱÈÎôÈÕµÄÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧ¶ÔѧÉúÄËÖÁÆÕͨ´óÖÚ¾ßÓÐÒ»ÖÖԶΪֱ½ÓµÄÓ°Ï졣ͬʱ´úµÄʼþ»áÖ±½ÓÓ°Ïìµ½Éú»îÔÚÄÇһʱ´úµÄÿһ¸öÈË£¬ÒòΪËüÃǵķ¢ÉúÓëÕâ¸öÈ˵ÄÉú´æÕýֵͬʱ¡£µ«ÕâÀïÎÒÃÇ¿ÉÒÔ¸´ÊöÒ»Î»ÖøÃûÕÜѧ¼ÒµÄ»°£¬"ÄÇЩÎÞ·¨´ÓÀúÊ·Öм³È¡½ÌѵÕß×¢¶¨»áÖØµ¸¸²ÕÞ"¡£ÔÚÏ൱´óµÄ³Ì¶ÈÉÏ£¬ÎôÈÕµÄÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧÔì¾ÍÁËÎÒÃÇÏÖÈç½ñµÄÇé×´£¬Æä×÷Óü´Ê¹²¢²»ÉõÓÚµ±´úÎÄ»¯£¬ÖÁÉÙÓëµ±´úÎÄ»¯Ïàͬ¡£ Éú»îÓÚµ±½ñʱ´úµÄÿ¸öÈËÒÔÒ»ÖÖ»òÁíÒ»ÖÖ·½Ê½ÉîÊܹýȥʼþµÄÓ°Ïì¡£ÎôÈÕµÄʼþÖ±½Óµ¼ÖÂÁËÊÀ½çĿǰµÄÔËת·½Ê½¡£ÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧÊDZ£´æºÍ¼ÇÔØµÃ×îΪÍêÉÆµÄÒ»ÖÖ×ÊÔ´£¬ËüÃÇÄÜʹÎÒÃÇÓë¹ýȥʵ¼Ê·¢Éú¹ýµÄÊÂÇéÖ±½ÓÁªÏµÆðÀ´¡£ ²»·Á¿¼ÂÇһϡ¶Ê¥¾­¡·£¬¡¶¿ÉÀ¼¾­¡·Ò»ÀàµÄ×Ú½ÌÖø×÷£¬¿××ÓµÄÖøÊö£¬ÒÔ¼°ÄÇЩÓë·ð½Ì¡¢Ó¡¶È½ÌºÍËùÓÐÆäËû×Ú½ÌÏà¹ØµÄÖø×÷¡£ÕâЩֱ½ÓµØÓëµ±½ñʱ´úÈËÃǵÄÐÐΪÏà¹Ø£¬²¢ÔÚijЩÇéÐÎÖÐÔÚÏ൱´óµÄ³Ì¶ÈÉÏ¿ØÖÆ×ŵ±½ñʱ´úÈËÃǵÄÐÐΪ£¬ËäÈ»ËüÃÇ´ó¶àÊý´´×÷ÓÚÊý°ÙÄê¡¢ÉõÖÁÊýǧÄê֮ǰ¡£ÓëÕâЩ×Ú½ÌÏà¹ØµÄÒÕÊõƷͬÑùÒ²²úÉúÁËÉîÔ¶µÄÓ°Ïì¡£ÎÒÃDz»·Á¿¼ÂÇÒ»ÏÂèóµÙ¸ÔÎ÷˹͢½ÌÌÃÄÚÃ׿ªÀÊç÷ÂÞµÄ×÷Æ·£¬»ò±é²¼ÑÇÖÞµÄÎÞÊý¾ßÓÐÀúÊ·ÐÔÒâÒåµÄ·ð½ÌÏñ£¬»òÕßÉ¢²¼ÔÚÕû¸öÖж«ºÍÖÐÑǵØÇøµÄ¹Å´úÄÂ˹ÁÖÇåÕæË¡£ÓëÕâЩ¹ýÈ¥µÄÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧʵÀýµÄÏà¹ØÐÔÏà±È£¬µ±´úÎÄ»¯±»Ëµ³ÉÓëµ±½ñѧÉú¸üÃÜÇÐÏà¹Ø£¬ÕâÒ»ÂÛµãÊÇÄÑÒÔ³ÉÁ¢µÄ¡£

ÓÐЩʱºò£¬ÈËÃÇÄÑÒÔÈ·¶¨µ±´úÎÄ»¯Óë¹ýÈ¥µÄÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧµÄ²îÒ쾿¾¹ºÎÔÚ¡£É¯Ê¿±ÈÑǵľ­µäÖ®×÷²»¶ÏµØ±»¸Ä±à³Éµ±´úµçÓ°£¬³£³£ÄܳÉΪѧÉúºÍÆÕͨ´óÖڵĴóÈÈÃÅ¡£Ã¿Ä꣬ȫÊÀ½çÊý°ÙÍòÈËÔÚ²©Îï¹Ý¹ÛÉ͹ŵäÒÕÊõ×÷Æ·¡£×Ú½ÌÎı¾µÄÔĶÁ¶ÔÓÚÊÀ½çÏ൱´óµÄÒ»²¿·ÖÈ˿ڶøÑÔ´ÓÀ´¾Í²»Ê§ÎªÒ»ÖÖ·çÉС£Êý¸öÊÀ¼Í¹ÅÀϵÄÎÄ»¯Óë×Ú½ÌÖ®¼äµÄ³åÍ»£¬ÈçÎ÷·½¹ú¼ÒÓëÒÁ˹À¼¼«¶ËÖ÷ÒåÕßÖ®¼äµÄ³åÍ»£¬ÒÔ¼°Ó¡¶È¹úÄÚÓ¡¶È½ÌͽÓëÄÂ˹ÁÖ½Ìͽ֮¼äµÄ³åÍ»£¬ÀýÖ¤×ÅÄÇЩ¿É±»³ÆÎªÎôÈÕÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧµÄ×Ú½ÌÊÂÎïÔںܴó³Ì¶ÈÉÏʵÄ˵±´úÎÄ»¯µÄÒ»²¿·Ö¡£

ËäÈ»¹ýÈ¥ÎÞÒɲ»Äܱ»µ­Íü£¬µ«Ñ§ÉúÔÚ´óѧÖÐËùѧÄÚÈÝ£¬ºÜ´óÒ»²¿·ÖÊÇ»ùÓÚµ±´úÎÄ»¯µÄ¡£´ó¶àÊý×Ú½Ìѧϰ£¬ÖÁÉÙÒ»¸öÈË×ÔÉíµÄ×ڽ̵Äѧϰ£¬»òʼÓÚ¼ÒÍ¥£¬»òʼÓÚѧÉúÊܽÌÓýµÄÔçÆÚ¡£ÔÚ´óѧÕâÒ»²ã´ÎÉÏ£¬¶ÔÕþÖΡ¢ÉÌ¿ÆÒÔ¼°¼ÆËã»ú¿ÆÑ§µÄѧϰ£¬Óëµ±´úÎÄ»¯ÖеÄ×îнø²½ÉîÉîÏàÉæ£¬ÒÔ±ãʹÈËÓëʱ¾ã½ø£¬Óëʱ´ú½ôÃÜÏà¹Ø¡£ÆäËüµÄѧ¿Æ£¬ÈçÊýѧ¡¢Å©Òµ¡¢ÒÕÊõÓëÎÄѧ£¬ºÜ´ó³Ì¶ÈÉÏÊÇ´Ó¹ýÈ¥µÄԴȪ»ñÈ¡ÕâЩ¿Î³ÌÖÐËù´«ÊڵĺËÐÄ֪ʶ¡£ÕâЩÀ´×Ô¹ýÈ¥µÄ¿Î³ÌµÄÓ¦ÓÃÍêÈ«ÊÇÇ¡µ±µÄ£¬ÓÐÖúÓÚ½«µ±´úÎÄ»¯ÖÃÓÚijÖÖÀúÊ·¼Ü¹¹Ö®ÖУ¬È¥°ïÖúѧÉúÁìÂÔºÍÀí½âËûÃÇËùÉú»îÓÚÆäÖеÄÄǸö±ä»¯Ñ¸ËÙµÄÊÀ½ç¡£

ÓÐÒ»µãËÆºõÊDz»Ö¤×ÔÃ÷µÄ£¬¼´Ò»¸öÊܹýÇ¡µ±½ÌÓýµÄ´óѧÉú±ØÐëÔÚѧϰµ±´úÎÄ»¯Ó벻ƫ·ÏÎôÈÕÒÕÊõºÍÎÄѧ֮¼äѰÕÒµ½Ä³ÖÖÆ½ºâ¡£¶ÔÁ½ÕßµÄѧϰ²¢·Ç»¥ÎªÅų⡣һÖÖ×ÛºÏÈ«ÃæµÄ½ÌÓý£¬ÆäÒæ´¦²»½öÔÚÓÚÈÃÈËÖªµÀµ±½ñÊÀ½çËù´¦µÄ״̬£¬¶øÇÒÒàÔÚÓÚÊ×ÏÈÒªÈÃÈËŪÇåÊÀ½çÊǺÎÒÔµÖ´ïĿǰÕâÒ»·¢Õ¹½×¶ÎµÄ¡£
5Â¥2006-04-06 16:01:27
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Topic

The following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaper

"Former Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant."


Sample Essay

The author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.

First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems.

In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.

Finally, the letter writer refers to the "negligence and wastefulness" of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the author's argument.

In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridge's damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durant's decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the author's point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned.

(605 words)

¡¡


²Î¿¼ÒëÎÄ


[ÌâÄ¿]

ÏÂÊöÎÄ×ÖÄËÒ»·âÖ¡¶Atticus¶¼Êб¨¡·µÄÐź¯£º

"ǰÊг¤DurantÓ¦ÏòÈ«ÌåAtticus ÊÐÃñµÀǸ¡£ÎÞÂÛÊǽ«Atticus ÊкÍHartleyÊÐÁ¬½áÆðÀ´µÄ¿çºÓ´óÇÅËùÔâµ½µÄ»Ù»µ£¬»¹ÊÇÎÒÃÇÔÚ´óÇÅÉϳ¤ÆÚÒÔÀ´Ëù¾­ÀúµÄ½»Í¨ÎÊÌ⣬ʵ¼ÊÉ϶¼ÊÇÓÉDurant Êг¤ÔÚ20Äê֮ǰһÊÖÖý³ÉµÄ¡£ÎÞÂÛÈçºÎ£¬ÊÇËûÅú×¼ÁË´óÇŵĿª¹¤½¨Éè¡£Èç¹ûËûËùÅú×¼½¨ÉèµÄ´óÇŸü¿íһЩ£¬Éè¼ÆµÃ¸ü¾«Á¼Ò»Ð©£¬¶øËùͶÈëÆäÉϵĹ«¹²¿îÏî´óÖÂÏàµÈµÄ»°£¬ÄÇô£¬ÎÞÂÛÊÇ´óÇŵÄÊÜË𣬻¹Êǽ»Í¨Óµ¶ÂÎÊÌâ¾ù²»»á·¢Éú¡£È»Ôò£¬ÔÚ¹ýÈ¥20ÄêÆÚ¼ä£¬¿çºÓ´óÇÅÏÖÔÚÔòÔ¶±ÈÉÏÓκӶÎÉϳ¤¶ÈÔ¶³¤µÃ¶àµÄDerbyºÓ´óÇŸüΪ¿ìËÙµØÔâµ½»ÙËð¡£¾¡¹Ü¹ýÈ¥¼¸ÄêÖж¬ÌìµÄÈÕ×ÓÉõΪÑϿᣬµ«ÎÒÃǾø²»ÄÜÔ­ÁÂDurant Ê㤵ÄÍæºöÖ°ÊØºÍÀË·Ñ¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

±¾ÐꝵÄ×÷ÕßÔÚÆäÂÛÊöÖеóö½áÂÛ£¬ÈÏΪǰÊг¤Durant Ó¦ÏòAtticusÈ«ÊÐ×÷³öÕýʽµÀǸ£¬ÒòΪ¶ÔÓÚ¹ýÈ¥20ÄêÖпçºÓ´óÇÅËùÔâÊܵÄËð»µËûÓ¦Òý¾Ì×ÔÔð¡£×÷ÕßÒàÔð¹ÖDurantÊг¤Ôì³ÉÁË´óÇÅÉϳ¤ÆÚÒÔÀ´µÄ½»Í¨ÎÊÌâ¡£×÷Õß³ÂÊöµÀ£¬ÓÉÓÚDurantÊг¤Åú×¼ÁËÏÖÔÚÕâ×ù´óÇŵĿª¹¤½¨É裬¶øÃ»ÓÐÅú×¼Ò»×ù¸ü¿í¡¢Éè¼Æ¸ü¾«Á¼µÄ´óÇÅ£¬¹ÊËûÔÚ20Äê֮ǰʵ¼ÊÉϾÍÒÑÖý³ÉÁËÉÏÊöÕâЩÎÊÌâ¡£Ìá³öÕâЩÂÛµãµÄ×÷Õß¿ÉÒÔ¶ÔDurantÊг¤Óд˸öÈËÔ¹³ð£¬µ«ÂÛÊöÖÐËù³ÂÊöµÄ¸÷ÏîÄÚÈݲ¢²»ÄÜΪÕâÑùÒ»ÖÖÔð¹ÖÌṩÒÀ¾Ý¡£

Ê×ÏÈ£¬×÷ÕßÕ¶¶¤½ØÌúµØ½«×ïÔð¹é¾ÌÓÚDurantÊг¤£¬½ö½öÒòΪËûÅú×¼ÁË´óÇŵĽ¨ÔìÕâÒ»ÐÐΪ±¾Éí¡£µ«×÷ÕßûÄÜÌṩ֤¾ÝÖ¤Ã÷£¬½ö½öÖ»ÊÇÅú×¼¸Ã×ù´óÇŵĽ¨ÔìÕâÒ»ÐÐΪÓë´óÇű¾ÉíËùÔâÊܵĻٻµ»ò´óÇÅÉϵĽ»Í¨ÎÊÌâÓÐÈκαØÈ»µÄÁªÏµ¡£ÍêÈ«ÓпÉÄܵÄÊÇ£¬DurantÏÈÉú½ö½öÖ»ÊÇ×¼ÐíÁ˽¨ÔìÕâ×ù´óÇŵÄÏë·¨£¬¶ø²¢Ã»ÓÐÈϿɸôóÇŵÄÉè¼Æ»ò½¨Ôì¸Ã´óÇŵijаüÉÌ¡£´¿´âÈ¥Åú×¼´óÇŵĽ¨Ô죬ÕâÒ»ÐÐΪ¾ÍÆä±¾Éí¶øÑÔ²¢²»»áµ¼Ö´óÇÅÊܻٻòÔì³ÉÈκν»Í¨ÎÊÌâ¡£

´ËÍ⣬ÂÛÊöÕߵóö½áÂÛ£¬ÈÏΪÈç¹ûDurantÊг¤Åú×¼½¨ÔìÒ»×ù¸ü¿í¡¢Éè¼Æ¸ü¾«Á¼µÄ´óÇŵϰ£¬Ôò¼È²»»á·¢Éú´óÇÅÊÜËð£¬Ò²²»»áÓн»Í¨Óµ¶ÂµÄÎÊÌâ¡£¶ÔÓÚ¸ÃÂ۾ݣ¬ÂÛÊöÕßҲûÓÐÌá³öÈκÎÖ¤Ã÷ÒÀ¾Ý¡£Ò»¸öÖÚËùÖÜÖªµÄÊÂʵÊÇ£¬ËùÓÐÇÅÁºµÄ×´¿ö¶¼»áÿ¿öÓúÏ£¬ÓÈÆäÊǾ­ÀúÁË20ÄêÕâÑù³¤µÄʱ¼äÖ®ºó£¬ÎÞÂÛËüÃǵ±Ê±Éè¼ÆµÃÊÇÈçºÎ¾«Á¼¡£Ðź¯×÷ÕßҲûÄÜÌṩÈκÎÄÜÆðµ½Ö§³Ö×÷ÓõÄÖ¤¾ÝÀ´Ö¤Ã÷£¬ÈËÃÇ¿ÉÒÔÓôóÖÂͬµÈÊýÁ¿µÄ¹«¹²¿îÏÆðÒ»×ù¸üΪ³Ö¾ÃµÄ¡¢½»Í¨ÎÊÌâ¸üÉٵĴóÇÅ¡£ÓпÉÄܵÄÊÇ£¬Ò»×ùÇÅÃæ¸ü¿íµÄ´óÇÅËùÔâÊܵÄË𻵿ÉÄܸü¶à£¬¶ø·Ç¸üÉÙ¡£Ò²ÓпÉÄÜÊÇ£¬ËùͶÈëµÄ×ʽ𽫸ü´ó£¬ÎÞÂÛËùʹÓõÄÊǹ«¹²¿îÏÊÇ˽ÈË×ʽð¡£

ÔÙÕߣ¬ÂÛÊöÕßÌáµ½¿çºÓ´óÇűÈÉÏÓκӶθü³¤µÄDerby´óÇÅÀÏ»¯µÄËÙ¶ÈÀ´µÃ¿ì¡£ÕâÒ»ºÁÎÞ¸ù¾ÝµÄÂÛµãûÄÜ¿¼Âǵ½µ¼ÖÂÁ½×ù´óÇÅÀÏ»¯×´¿ö²îÒìµÄÆäËûÓпÉÄܵÄÒòËØ£¬È罻ͨ¸ººÉ¡¢ÇÅÖ·¡¢ÒÔ¼°ÆäËû»·¾³·½ÃæµÄ±äÊý¡£ÀýÈ磬Derby´óÇÅÊܵ½Á˸üºÃµÄ±£»¤£¬ÊÜ×ÔÈ»ÒòËØÓ°Ïì½ÏÉÙ£¬ºÜÉÙÓÐÖØÐÍ¿¨³µÀàµÄ½»Í¨¹¤¾ßͨ¹ýÆäÉÏ¡£³ýÁËÆäÎä¶ÏµÄ¸öÈË¿´·¨ÒÔÍ⣬Ðź¯×÷ÕßûÓÐÄóöÈκÎÒÀ¾ÝÀ´ÔÚÁ½×ù´óÇÅÖ®¼ä×÷³öÖ±½ÓµÄ±È½Ï¡£

×îºó£¬Ðź¯×÷ÕßÌá¼°DurantÊ㤵Ä"ÍæºöÖ°ÊØ¼°ÀË·Ñ"¡£¸Ã×÷ÕßËùÔ®ÒýµÄÓйØDurantÊ㤵ÄΨһµÄËù×÷ËùΪ½öÊÇÔçÏÈʱºò¶Ô´óÇŽ¨ÔìµÄÅú×¼£¬¶øÕâÒ»µã¼È²»ÄÜÖ¤Ã÷ÈκεÄÍæºöÖ°ÊØ£¬Ò²²»ÄÜÖ¤Ã÷ÈκÎÀË·Ñ¡£¸Ã¾ä×Ó±¾Éí°üº¬ÁËÒ»¸ö²»¸ù¾ÝǰÌáµÄÍÆÀí--Ê×ÏÈÌÖÂÛ¹ýÈ¥¼¸ÄêÖÐÆøºòÑÏ¿áµÄ¶¬Ì죬½ô½Ó×ÅÔð¹ÖDurantÏÈÉúµÄÀË·ÑÓëÊèºö¡£ÔÚ×÷ÕßµÄÂÛÊöÖУ¬ÕâһǴÔð¼ÈÎÞÕýµ±ÀíÓÉ£¬Ò²È±·¦ÒÀ¾Ý¡£

¸Å¶øÑÔÖ®£¬Ðź¯×÷ÕßËù×öµÄÖ»ÊÇÌá³öһЩºÁÎÞ¸ù¾ÝµÄÔð¹Ö£¬¶øÃ»ÓÐÄóöÈκÎÕæÕýµÄÒÀ¾ÝÀ´Ö¤Ã÷ÆäÂ۵㡣ҪʹÆäÂÛµã¸ü¾ß˵·þÁ¦£¬¸Ã×÷ÕßÓ¦ÄóöÖ¤¾ÝÀ´Ö¤Ã÷£¬DurantÊг¤ËùÅú×¼µÄÊÇÒ»·ÝÓÐÑÏÖØÊ§ÎóµÄ´óÇŽ¨ÉèÉè¼Æ·½°¸£¬»òÒ»¸öûÓÐ×ÊÖʵĽ¨Öþ¹«Ë¾£¬´Ó¶øµ¼ÖÂÁË´óÇŵÄÊܻٺͽ»Í¨ÎÊÌâ¡£¸Ã×÷ÕßÒ²Ó¦¸ÃÌṩÓÐÖ§³Ö×÷ÓõÄϸ½Ú£¬ÒÔ±íÃ÷´óÇÅÊÜËð³Ì¶È³¬ºõѰ³££¬²¢ÇÒÊÇÒòΪDurantÊг¤¾ö¶¨Ê¹ÓÃÁÓÖʽ¨Öþ²ÄÁÏ»ò²ÉÓÃÁËÒ»·Ýõ¿½ÅµÄÉè¼Æ·½°¸¶øÖ±½ÓÔì³ÉµÄ¡£ÔÚûÓиüΪ³ä·ÖµÄÒÀ¾ÝÕâÒ»Ìõ¼þÏ£¬¸Ã×÷ÕßµÄÂÛµãÎÞ·¨ÁîÈËÖÃÐÅ£¬²¢ÇÒÒ²ÏÔµÃûÓеõ½³ä·ÖµÄÂÛÖ¤¡£
6Â¥2006-04-06 16:01:52
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's, 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."


The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.

Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.

Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.

Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.

(602 words)

¡¡


²Î¿¼ÒëÎÄ


£ÛÌâÄ¿£Ý

ÏÂÊöÎÄ×ÖÕª×ÔÒ»·ÝµØ·½ÐÔ±¨Ö½¡¶Midvale¹Û²ì¼Ò¡·Ëù·¢±íµÄÉçÂÛ¡£

"×Ô¶þÊ®ÊÀ¼ÍÎåÊ®Äê´úÒÔÀ´£¬µ±µçÊÓ»ú¿ªÊ¼³öÏÖÓÚѰ³£°ÙÐÕ¼Òͥʱ£¬Alta¹úÄÚÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂÊÒѳÊÏÖ³ö³ÖÐøÉÏÉýµÄÊÆÍ·¡£ÕâÒ»ÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÐÐΪµÄÉÏÉýÓëµçÊÓÉÏËù²¥·ÅµÄ±©Á¦»­ÃæµÄÔö¼Ó³ÉÕý±È¡£°´ÕÕ¼¸·ÝÈ«¹úÐÔµ÷²é±¨¸æ£¬ÔÚÄÇЩ´óÁ¿¹Û¿´ÁËÉæ¼°µ½±©Á¦³¡ÃæµÄµçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿µÄÇàÉÙÄêÖУ¬¼´Ê¹ÊǼ«ÎªÄêÓ׵ĺ¢Í¯ÔÚÆä¼ÒÍ¥»·¾³ÖÐÒ²Òª±ÈÄÇЩ²»¿´±©Á¦½ÚÄ¿µÄº¢Í¯±íÏÖ³ö¸ü¶àµÄ±©Á¦ÐÐΪ¡£´ËÍ⣬ÔÚÒ»ÏîÓÉ¡¶Midvale¹Û²ì¼Ò¡·Ëù½øÐеĵ÷²éÖУ¬ÓÐ90%µÄÊÜ·ÃÕßΪ¸¸Ä¸Ç×£¬Ëû(Ëý)ÃDZíʾ»Æ½ðʱ¶ÎµÄµçÊÓÄÚÈÝ--¼´ÍíÉÏ7µãµ½9µãËù²¥·ÅµÄ½ÚÄ¿--Ó¦¸Ã¼õÉÙ²¥·Å±©Á¦ÄÚÈÝ¡£¾Ý´Ë£¬ÎªÁ˽µµÍAlta¹úÄÚÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂÊ£¬µçÊÓ¹ÛÖÚÓ¦¸ÃÒªÇóµçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿±à²¥Õß¼õÉٻƽðʱ¶ÎËù²¥·ÅµÄ±©Á¦»­ÃæÊýÁ¿¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

±¾ÉçÂÛ×÷Õß³ÂÊöµÀ£¬Alta¹úÄÚÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂʰéËæ×ŵçÊÓËù²¥·ÅµÄ±©Á¦³¡ÃæµÄÔö¼Ó¶øÉÏÉý¡£ÕâÒ»ÇéÐÎʼÓÚ¶þÊ®ÊÀ¼ÍÎåÊ®Äê´ú£¬ÒòΪµçÊÓÔÚµ±Ê±±»ÒýÈëµ½ÆÕͨ°ÙÐյļÒÍ¥¡£´ËÍ⣬¸Ã×÷Õß³ÂÊöµÀ£¬¼¸ÏîÈ«¹úÐÔµ÷²éÏÔʾ£¬¹Û¿´±©Á¦µçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿µÄº¢×Ó±ÈÄÇЩ²»¿´Í¬Àà½ÚÄ¿µÄº¢×Ó¸üÒ×ÓÚÐγɱ©Á¦ÇãÏò¡£ÉçÂÛ×÷Õß»¹Ö¸³ö£¬Ò»·Ýµ÷²é±íÃ÷£¬ÊܷõÄ90%µÄ¸¸Ä¸Ç×ÈÏΪ£¬»Æ½ðʱ¶ÎµÄµçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿²»Ó¦º¬ÓÐÄÇô¶àµÄ±©Á¦³¡Ãæ¡£×îºó£¬×÷Õߵóö½áÂÛ£¬ÈÏΪҪÏë½µµÍAlta¹úÄÚµÄÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂÊ£¬µçÊÓ¹ÛÖÚÓ¦ÒªÇó¼õÉٻƽðʱ¶ÎËù²¥·ÅµÄ±©Á¦»­Ãæ¡£ÕâÒ»ÂÛÊö·¸ÓÐÈô¸É¹Ø¼üÐÔµÄÂß¼­ÃýÎó¡£

Ê×ÏÈ£¬ÉçÂÛ×÷Õß½«Alta¹úÄÚÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂʵÄÉÏÉýÓëµçÊÓËù²¥·ÅµÄ±©Á¦³¡ÃæµÄÔö¼ÓÏàÌá²¢ÂÛ£¬µ«³ýÁ˶þÕßÔÚʱ¼äÉÏÎǺÏÒÔÍ⣬ûÄܸø³öÈκÎÒò¹û¹ØÏµ¡£¸Ã×÷ÕßûÓжԲ»Í¬µÄ·¸×ïÖÖÀà×÷³öÇø·Ö--ÇàÉÙÄêËù·¸µÄ×ïÐÐÊÇÊôÓÚ±©Á¦Ð͵ϹÊǷDZ©Á¦Ð͵ġ£´ËÍ⣬¶ÔÓÚÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÊýÁ¿µÄÔö¼Ó£¬»¹´æÔÚ×ÅÆäËûһЩÓпÉÄܵÄÔ­Òò¡£ÀýÈ磬»òÐíËùÓÐÄêÁä¶ÎµÄËùÓÐÀàÐ͵ķ¸×ïÐÐΪ¶¼³ÊÉÏÉýÌ¬ÊÆ£¬»òÕßÒ²ÓпÉÄÜ£¬¾¯²ìÏÖÔÚÒª±È¹ýÈ¥¸üÉó¤ÓÚ×¥²¶ÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÕßÁË¡£¸üÓпÉÄܵÄÊÇ£¬·¸×ïÉÏÉýµÄÔ­Òò½ö½öÖ»ÊÇÈË¿Ú×ÜÁ¿µÄÉÏÉýËùÖ£¬²¢ÇÒ£¬×÷ΪÈË¿Ú×ÜÁ¿ÖеÄÒ»¸ö±ÈÀý£¬ÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÏÖÔÚÉõÖÁµÍÓÚÒÔǰµÄ³Ì¶È¡£Èç²»ÅųýµôÕâЩÒÔ¼°ÆäËûµÄÔ­Òò£¬ÉçÂÛÖеÄÂÛµã±ãÎÞ·¨ÁîÈËÐÅ·þ£¬ÒòΪ×÷ÕßûÓÐÔÚµçÊÓ±©Á¦ºÍÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÖ®¼ä½¨Á¢ÆðÈκÎÒò¹û¹ØÏµ¡£

Æä´Î£¬ÉçÂÛ×÷ÕßÌáµ½£¬Óм¸·ÝÈ«¹úÐÔÑо¿±íÃ÷£¬¹Û¿´±©Á¦½ÚÄ¿µÄº¢Í¯ÔÚ¼ÒÀï±È²»¿´´ËÀà½ÚÄ¿µÄº¢Í¯±íÏÖ³öÁ˸ü¶àµÄ±©Á¦ÐÐΪ¡£ÕâÒ»ÂÛµãÔÚ¶þ¸ö²ãÃæÉÏÏÔµÃÕ¾²»×¡½Å--Ê×ÏÈÊǼÙÉ躢ͯºÍÇàÉÙÄêÊܵ½µçÊÓ½ÚĿͬµÈ³Ì¶ÈµÄÓ°Ï죻µÚ¶þÊÇÓÖÒ»´Î¼Ù¶¨ÔÚµçÊÓ±©Á¦ÓëÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÖ®¼ä´æÔÚ×ÅijÖÖÒò¹û¹ØÏµ¡£º¢Í¯ÓëÇàÉÙÄê±Ï¾¹²¢²»Ïàͬ£¬ÎÒÃDz»ÄÜ×öÕâÑùµÄ¼Ù¶¨£¬¼´¼ÒÍ¥ÖнÏΪ±©Á¦µÄÄÇЩÐÐΪ±ØÈ»»áËæ×ÅÕâЩº¢×Ó³¤´ó³ÉΪÇàÉÙÄê¶ø·¢Õ¹³ÉΪ·¸×ïÐÐΪ¡£

µÚÈý£¬ÉçÂÛ×÷Õ߸ø³öÒ»Ïîµ÷²é£¬ÒÔÆÚÖ¤Ã÷90%µÄ»Ø´ðÎʾíµÄÊÜ·ÃÕß¾ùΪ¸¸Ä¸Ç×Ò»ÀàµÄÈË£¬Ëû(Ëý)ÃÇÌá³ö»Æ½ðʱ¶ÎµÄµçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿²»Ó¦¸Ã²¥·ÅÈç´Ë¶àµÄ±©Á¦¾µÍ·¡£µ«ÉçÂÛÖÐûÓÐÌÖÂ۸õ÷²éËùʹÓõĵ÷²é·½·¨ÊÇʲô¡£Çé¿öÓпÉÄÜÊÇ£¬¸Ãµ÷²éµÄÑù±¾Ñ¡ÔñµÃ²¢²»Ç¡µ±£¬»òÔÚijÖ̶ֳÈÉϲàÖØÓÚÖ»½«ÄÇЩ¶ÔµçÊÓ±©Á¦Éõ¸ÐÑá¶ñµÄ¸¸Ä¸Ç×ÄÒÀ¨ÓÚÑù±¾Ö®ÖС£ÔÙÔò£¬Çé¿öÒ²¿ÉÄÜÊÇ£¬ÕâЩ¸¸Ä¸Ç×ÔÚ±í´ïÆäÒâ¼ûʱҪ±ÈÄÇЩ¶Ô»Æ½ðʱ¶ÎµçÊÓ±©Á¦Ä®²»¹ØÐÄ»òÂú²»ÔÚºõµÄÈËÀ´µÃÓïÆøÇ¿Áҵö࣬ÕâÑù±ãÔÙ¶Èʹµ÷²é½á¹ûʧ֮ƫÆÄ¡£¼´Ê¹ÎÒÃǼٶ¨Ëùµ÷²éµÄÈË¿ÚÑù±¾ÊÇÕæÊµµÄ£¬½ö½öÒÔ´ËΪÒÀ¾Ý½«µçÊÓ±©Á¦ºÍÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÁªÏµÆðÀ´Ò²ÊDz»ºÏÂß¼­µÄ¡£ ×îºó£¬ÉçÂÛ×÷Õß×÷³öÒ»²»±ØÒªµÄ¼ÙÉ裬¼´Ö»ÒªÓеçÊÓ¹ÛÖÚÒªÇóµçÊÓ½ÚÄ¿±à²¥Õß¼õÉٻƽðʱ¶Î±©Á¦ÄÚÈݵIJ¥·ÅÁ¿±ã¿É½µµÍAlta¹úÄÚµÄÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÂÊ¡£¼´Ê¹²»¿¼ÂÇ´ËǰÒÑÌÖÂÛ¹ýµÄÄÇЩº¬ÓÐȱÏݵÄÂ۵㣬ֻÊÇÈ¥ÒªÇó×÷³öijÖָı䲢²»»á¶ÔÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ï²úÉúÈκÎÓ°Ïì¡£ÈôÒªÔöÇ¿ÆäÂÛµãµÄÂß¼­ÐÔ£¬ÉçÂÛ×÷Õß±ØÐëÔÚµçÊÓ±©Á¦ÓëÇàÉÙÄê·¸×ïÖ®¼ä±íÃ÷ijÖÖÖ±½ÓµÄÒò¹û¹ØÏµ£¬¶ø²»ÊÇ×÷³öijЩº¬ºýÆä´ÇµÄºÍȱ·¦ÒÀ¾ÝµÄ±È½Ï£¬Éù³Æ´æÔÚ×ÅijÖÖÁªÏµ¡£¸Ã×÷Õß¼ÈûÓÐÄóöÖ¤¾ÝÖ¤Ã÷ÈκÎÖÖÀàµÄµçÊÓ±©Á¦µ¼ÖÂÁËÇàÉÙÄêµÄ·¸×ҲûÄÜÖ¤Ã÷»Æ½ðʱ¶ÎµçÊÓ±©Á¦µÄ¼õÉÙ½«»á·À·¶ÇàÉÙÄêµÄÎ¥·¨ÂÒ¼ÍÐÐΪ¡£
7Â¥2006-04-06 16:02:44
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Issue

"In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benefit."


Sample Essay

Anything that makes a country's government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.

One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation's attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.

On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.

One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don't see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.

Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.

Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.

( 694 words)


¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ/[ÌâÄ¿]

"ÔÚÐí¶à¹ú¼Ò£¬ÈËÃÇÏÖÔÚ¿ÉÒÔ´ò¿ªµçÊÓ£¬±ã¿ÉÒÔ¿´µ½Õþ¸®ÊÇÈçºÎÔË×÷µÄ¡£¹Û¿´µ½ÕâÑùһЩ³ÌÐòÄܹ»°ïÖúÈËÃÇÀí½âÄÇЩӰÏìµ½ÆäÉú»îµÄÎÊÌâ¡£µçÊÓת²¥Õþ¸®³ÌÐò----ÉóÅУ¬±çÂÛ£¬»áÒéµÈ²»Ò»¶ø×ã----µÄÖÖÀàÔ½¶à£¬ÔòÉç»á½«»á»ñÒæ¸ü¶à¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

ÈκÎÄÜʹһ¸ö¹ú¼ÒµÄÕþ¸®¸ü͸Ã÷µÄÊÂÇéÎÞÒÉ×ÜÊÇÒ»¼þºÃÊÂÇ飬ÖÁÉÙÔÚÃñÖ÷¹ú¼ÒÖÐÊÇÈç´Ë¡£ÕâЩÉç»áͨ¹ýµÃÒÔ¿´µ½ËûÃÇËùÑ¡¾ÙµÄÕþ¸®¹ÙÔ±ÔÚ×öЩʲô¶ø»ñÒæ·Ëdz¡£µ«ÊÇ£¬Èç¹ûÖ»ÊÇÁýͳµØËµÕþ¸®³ÌÐòת²¥µÃÔ½¶à£¬Éç»á¾Í»á»ñÒæ¸ü¶à£¬ÄÇô£¬Õâ±ãºöÊÓÁËÕâÑùÒ»¸öÊÂʵ£¬¼´ÓÐЩʱºò£¬×ª²¥µÃÔ½ÉÙÔ½ºÃ¡£ÓÐЩÀàÐ͵ijÌÐòÈç¹û½øÐÐת²¥£¬ÔòÉõÖÁ»áÊܵ½¸ºÃæÓ°Ï죬ʹÉç»á´¦ÓÚ¸üÔã¸âµÄ¾³µØ£¬¶ø²»ÊÇ´øÀ´ÈκÎñÔÒæ¡£ÓÐЩÀàÐ͵ÄÕþ¸®³ÌÐòÓ¦»ñµÃ¸ü¶àµÄµçÊÓ±¨µÀ£¬µ«ÓÐЩӦ¸Ã¼õÉÙ±¨µÀ£¬ÒÔÈ·±£ÕâЩ³ÌÐòÄÜÇ¡µ±µØ½øÐС£

ת²¥ËùÓÐÕþ¸®³ÌÐò»áÒý·¢¸ºÃæ×÷Óã¬Õâ·½ÃæµÄÀý×ÓÊÇÃÀ¹ú¶ÔËùÖ¸¿ØµÄıɱÕߺÍǰÃÀʽ×ãÇòÈ«¹úÁªÈü³¬¼¶Ã÷ÐÇO.J.ÐÁÆÕÑ·µÄÉóÅС£ÉóÅÐÈ«³Ìת²¥£¬³ÉΪýÌåÒ»´ó½¹µã£¬ÔÚÕû¸öÉóÅнø³ÌÖÐÎüÒýÁËÈ«¹úµÄ×¢ÒâÁ¦¡£ÂÉʦÃÇÇå³þµØÖªµÀ£¬Õû¸öÉóÅгÌÐò±»×ª²¥£¬ËûÃǵÄËù×÷ËùΪ¼¸ºõÏñµçÓ°ÑÝÏ·ÄÇÑù¡£Ã½ÌåµÄ½¹¹âµÆÈç´ËÇî×·²»ÉᣬÒÔÖÂÓÚÄÇÖÖÂíÏ·ÍŰãµÄ·ÕΧÉõÖÁ²¨¼°µ½Ö÷É󷨹١£µçÊÓ¾µÍ·µÄ´æÔÚÒÔ¼°Ãܼ¯µÄýÌ屨µÀЧ¹ûÖÂʹÕⳡÉóÅÐÊ·ÎÞǰÀý£¬ÑÏÖØÓ°Ïìµ½Õâ´ÎÉóÅеÄÕý³£½ø³Ì¡£²ÎÓëÕßÔÚ¾µÍ·ÃæÇ°×°Ç»×÷ÊÆ£¬¸ù±¾²»×¨×¢ÓÚÊÖÍ·Ó¦×öµÄ¹¤×÷¡£Ðí¶àÈË»áÈÏΪ£¬ºÜ´ó³Ì¶ÈÉÏÓÉÓÚµçÊÓµÄÔµ¹Ê£¬ÔÚÕâ³¡ÌØ¶¨µÄÉóÅÐÖУ¬ÕýÒ岢δµÃµ½ÉêÕÅ¡£

ÁíÒ»·½Ã棬ÓйØÕþ¸®ÈÕ³£Êµ¼Ê¹¤×÷µÄµçÊÓת²¥ÄÜÈÃÈËÃÇÖ±½ÓµØÉîÈëÁ˽âÕþ¸®Êµ¼ÊÉÏÊÇÔõÑùÔËתµÄ¡£ÓÉÓÚµçÊÓ¾µÍ·Ã¿Ìì¶¼ÔÚÄÇÀÕþ¸®¹ÙÔ±ÃDZã±äµÃϰÒÔΪ³££¬²»ÔÙ»áÒòΪËüÃǵĴæÔÚ¶øÊÜÌ«´óµÄÓ°Ïì¡£ÕâÑù£¬Éç»á¾ÍÄÜ»ñÒæ£¬ÒòΪÃñÖÚÄܹ»Ç×ÑÛÄ¿¶Ãʵ¼ÊËùÔÚ·¢ÉúµÄÊÂÇé¡£¹¤×÷ÖеÄÕþ¸®²»ÔÙÏñÒÔǰÄÇÑù²ØÄäÔÚÒ»²ãÃØÃܵÄÃæÉ´±³ºó£¬´Ó¶øÊ¹ÈËÎÞ´ÓÖªÏþËù±»Ñ¡¾ÙµÄ¹ÙÔ±µÄÉñÃØÐÐΪ¡£

±»µçÊÓת²¥µÄÕþ¸®³ÌÐòÔ½¶à£¬Ò»¸öÉç»á¾Í»á±äµÃ¸üºÃ£¬´Ë·¬³ÂÊöµÄÎÊÌâÖ®Ò»ÊÇ£¬ÈËÃÇ¿ÉÄÜ»áÒÔΪËûÃÇÄÜÄ¿¶ÃÒ»ÇУ¬µ«ÔÚʵ¼ÊÉÏ£¬µçÊÓ¾µÍ·Ëù²¶×½µ½µÄ¿ÉÄÜÖ»ÊÇËùÓз¢ÉúµÄÊÂÇéµÄÒ»²¿·Ö£¬ÎÞÂÛÓжàÉÙµçÊÓ¾µÍ·¡£Õþ¸®ÄÚ·¢ÉúµÄÏ൱һ²¿·ÖÊÂÇéÊÇÔÚ"Ä»ºó"Íê³ÉµÄ£¬²¢²»±Ø¶¨ÊÇÔÚ¿ª»á³¡ËùÖÚÄ¿î¥î¥Ö®Ï½øÐеġ£¾¡¹ÜÔÚijÖ̶ֳÈÉÏ"ÑÛ¼ûΪʵ"£¬µ«ÔÚÏ൱¶àµÄʱºò£¬²»ÎªÄãËù¼ûµÄÊÂÇé²ÅÆðמö¶¨ÐÔµÄ×÷Óᣴ¿´âÈ¥µçÊÓת²¥Õþ¸®µÄ¸÷Ïî³ÌÐò£¬µ±È»ÄÜÔö½øÀí½â£¬µ«Òª³ä·ÖÀí½âijһ¹ý³Ì£¬ÔòÈËÃÇÐëʵ¼ÊÉÏ»ý¼«µØ²ÎÓëµ½ÕâÒ»¹ý³ÌÖÐÀ´¡£

Õþ¸®³ÌÐòµçÊÓת²¥Ô½¶àÔ½ºÃ£¬ÕâÒ»³ÂÊöµÄÁíÒ»¸öÎÊÌâÊÇ£¬ÕâÒ»³ÂÊöÈÏΪµ±Õþ¸®³ÌÐò±»×ª²¥Ê±£¬ÈËÃÇʵ¼ÊÉÏÕý¹Û¿´×ÅÕâЩ³ÌÐò¡£ÃÀ¹úÓÐÒ»¸öµçÊÓÆµµÀ£¬Ã¿Ìì²¥·Å¹ú»á³ÌÐò£¬µ«¿´ÕâһƵµÀµÄÈËÁÈÁÈÎÞ¼¸¡£Ö»Óе±Ä³Ð©ÖØ´óÎÊÌâÐèÒª½øÐбæÂÛ»ò½øÐÐͶƱʱ£¬²Å»áÓдóÁ¿µÄÈ˹ۿ´ÕâһƵµÀ¡£´¿´âµçÊÓ²¥·ÅÕþ¸®³ÌÐò²¢²»»áÓ°Ïìµ½Éç»á£¬³ý·ÇÉç»á¹Û¿´ÕâЩʼþ¡£

Éç»áÎÞÒÉÄܵÃÒæÓÚµçÊÓ¶ÔijЩÕþ¸®³ÌÐòµÄ±¨µÀ¡£Ç×ÑÛÄ¿¶ÃÃñÑ¡¹ÙÔ±´¦ÀíÕþ¸®ÊÂÎñ£¬ÄÜ´øÀ´Ò»¸ö¶îÍâµÄÀí½âÒòËØ£¬À´ÅªÇåÕþ¸®µÄÄÚÔÚÔËת»úÖÆ¡£µ±ÕþÖμÒÃDZ»ÖÃÓÚµçÊÓ¾µÍ·µÄ"×¢ÊÓ"ʱ£¬¿ÉÒÔʹÆä¶ÔÆäÐÐΪ¸ºÔð¡£ËûÃÇÔÚ´¦Àí¹«ÖÚÊÂÎñʱÔÙÒ²ÎÞ·¨ÒþÃûÂñÐÕ¡£µ«Õþ¸®³ÌÐò²¢·ÇÓ¦¸ÃÈ«²¿½øÐеçÊÓת²¥¡£ÓÐЩʱºò£¬ÎªÁËÈ·±£ÄÜ×÷³öÕýÈ·µÄ¾ö²ß£¬ÒþÃØÓ¦³ÉΪһÖÖ¾ø¶ÔµÄÒªÇó¡£
8Â¥2006-04-06 16:03:53
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.

"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."

It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writer's argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.

The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.

Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.

Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors' patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.

In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors' patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients' health than it would prevent.

(615 words)

¡¡


²Î¿¼ÒëÎÄ


[ÌâÄ¿]

ÏÂÊöÎÄ×Ö¿¯µÇÓÚij½¡¿µÓ뽡ÃÀÔÓÖ¾µÄÉçÂÛÀ¸£º

"ÔÚÒ»ÏîÓйØÔ˶¯¶Ô³¤ÊÙµÄÓ°ÏìµÄÑо¿ÖУ¬Ò½ÁÆÑо¿ÈËÔ±ÔÚΪÆÚ20ÄêµÄʱ¼äÖиú×Ùµ÷²éÁË500ÃûÖÐÄêÄÐÐÔ¡£±»µ÷²é¶ÔÏó´ú±íןùúÈô¸É¸ö²»Í¬µØÇøµÄÐÎÐÎɫɫµÄÖ°Òµ£¬ËûÃǶÔÿÄê¶Èµ÷²éÖеĶþ¸öÎÊÌâ--ÄãÔ˶¯µÄƵ·±³Ì¶ÈÈçºÎ£¿Ô˶¯µÄÁ¦¶ÈÈçºÎ£¿--×÷³ö»Ø´ð¡£ÔÚËùÓÐ×÷³ö»Ø´ðµÄÈËÖм䣬ÄÇЩ»ã±¨Ëµ¼¸ºõÿÌì¶¼´ÓʾçÁÒ»§ÍâÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ£¬ÆäÊÙÃüÒª¸ßÓÚÄÇЩ»ã±¨ËµÃ¿ÖÜÖ»´ÓÊÂÒ»´Î»ò¶þ´ÎÇá΢Ô˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ¡£¼øÓÚ±¾ÏîÑо¿ÔÚ³¤ÊÙÓëÔ˶¯Ö®¼äËùÈ·Á¢µÄÃ÷ÏÔ¹ØÏµ£¬´ó·òÃDz»Ó¦ÏòÆä²¡È˽¨ÒéÊʶȵÄÔ˶¯£¬¶øÓ¦¸Ã¹ÄÀø²¡ÈËÿÌì´ÓʾçÁҵϧÍâ»î¶¯¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

¼øÓÚ¹ýÈ¥Ëù³ö°æµÄҽѧÎÄÏ×¾ù±íÃ÷£¬ÔÚÔ˶¯ºÍ³¤ÊÙÖ®¼ä´æÔÚ×ÅÒ»ÖÖ»ý¼«µÄ¹ØÏµ£¬ÈËÃÇ×ÔÈ»»áÈÏΪÔ˶¯»á¶ÔÖÐÄêÄÐÐÔµÄÊÙÃü²úÉúÒ»ÖÖ¼«»ýµÄÓ°Ïì¡£ÔÚÕâ¶ÎÌØ¶¨µÄÂÛÊöÖУ¬×÷ÕßÒýÓÃÒ»·ÝÑо¿£¬Éù³Æ¸ÃÑо¿¶Ô500Ãû±¾¹ú²»Í¬µØÇø´Óʲ»Í¬Ö°ÒµµÄÄÐÐÔ½øÐÐÁ˸ú×Ùµ÷²é¡£Õâ·ÝÑо¿ÏÔȻÿÄê½øÐÐÒ»´ÎÎʾíµ÷²é£¬Ñ¯ÎÊÕâЩÄÐÐÔ´ÓÊÂÔ˶¯µÄƵ·±³Ì¶ÈÒÔ¼°Á¦¶ÈÈçºÎ¡£¸Ã×÷Õß²»½öµÃ³ö½áÂÛ£¬ÈÏΪ³¤ÊÙºÍÔ˶¯Ö®¼ä´æÔÚ×ÅÃ÷ÏÔµÄÁªÏµ£¬¶øÇÒÒ²ÈÏΪ´ó·ò²»Ó¦¸ÃÏò²¡ÈËÍÆ¼öÊʶȵÄÔ˶¯£¬¶øÓ¦¸Ã¹ÄÀøËùÓеIJ¡ÈËÿÌì¶¼Ó¦½øÐоçÁҵϧÍâÔ˶¯¡£¼øÓÚÆäÂß¼­Ë¼Î¬ÖеÄÈô¸É²î´í£¬¸Ã×÷ÕßµÄÂÛÊöÔÚÖî¶à·½ÃæÎÞ·¨ÁîÈËÐÅ·þ¡£ Âß¼­ÍÆÀíÖеÚÒ»¸öÒ²ÊÇ×îÕÃÖøµÄÃýÎóÔÚÓÚÕâÑùÒ»¸öÊÂʵ£¬¼´Ñо¿½ö±¨¸æÁË´ÓÊÂÔ˶¯µÄ¶þÀàÄÐÐԵĽá¹û£¬µÚÒ»ÀàΪ¼¸ºõÿÌ춼Ҫȥ»§Íâ×ö¾çÁÒÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ£¬µÚ¶þÀàΪһÐÇÆÚÖ»½øÐÐÒ»ÖÁ¶þ´ÎÊʶÈÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ¡£¸Ãµ÷²éÖÐµÄÆäËû½á¹û¾ùδÌá¼°£¬ÖîÈçÿÌìÔÚÊÒÄÚ½øÐоçÁÒÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐԵĽá¹û£¬»òÕßÄÇЩÿÖÜÈýÖÁËÄ´ÎÔÚÊÒÄÚ»òÔÚÊÒÍâ½øÐÐÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐԵĽá¹û¡£´ËÍ⣬ÄÇЩÔÚÊÒÍâ×÷¾çÁÒÔ˶¯ÇÒ¼¸ºõÿÌì¶¼½øÐÐÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ£¬¿ÉÄܱÈÄÇЩ½öÿÖÜ×÷Ò»ÖÁ¶þ´ÎÊʶÈÔ˶¯µÄÈËÔç¾Í´¦ÔÚ¸ü¼ÑµÄÉíÌå×´¿öÖ®ÖС£ÉíÌå²»¹»½¡¿µµÄÄÐÐÔ£¬»òÒòΪ·ÊÅÖ£¬»òÒòΪ³éÑÌ£¬»òÒòΪÆäËûÓ뽡¿µÏà¹ØµÄÎÊÌ⣬×ÔÈ»²»±»ÆÚÍûÈ¥×÷ÄÇô¶àµÄÔ˶¯£¬·ñÔò£¬ÓëÄÇЩÏÔÈ»ÊÇÉíÌ彡¿µµÄ¡¢ÓµÓÐÿÌì½øÐоçÁÒÔ˶¯ÌåÄܵÄÄÐÐÔÏà±È£¬ËûÃÇ¿ÉÄÜ»áËÀµÃ¸üÔç¡£ ÁíÒ»·½Ã棬¸Ã×÷Õß±íʾ£¬´ËÏîµ÷²éËùÑо¿µÄÄÐÐÔ·Ö²¼Ôڸùú²»Í¬µÄµØÇø£¬´ÓÊÂ×Ų»¾¡ÏàͬµÄÖ°Òµ¡£ÎÒÃÇ×ÔÈ»»áµÃ³öÕâÑùµÄ½áÂÛ£¬¼´ÄÇЩÄܹ»ÔÚ»§Í⼸ºõÿÌì¶¼´ÓʾçÁÒÔ˶¯µÄÄÐÐÔ£¬ËûÃDZض¨Éú»îÔÚ½ÏÊÊÒËÓÚÕâÀàÔ˶¯µÄÆøºòÖ®ÖС£ÔÊÐí»§ÍâÔ˶¯µÄ½ÏΪÎÂºÍµÄÆøºòÎÞÒÉÒª±È´æÔÚÓڸùúÆäËûµØÇø½ÏΪ¶ñÁӵįøºò¶ÔÈκÎÈ˵ÄÉíÌå¸üΪÓÐÀû¡£³ý´ËÖ®Í⣬ÖîÈ羯²ì¡¢Ïû·ÀÔ±ÒÔ¼°¸ÖÌú¹¤ÈËÕâЩְҵ£¬×ÔȻҪ±ÈÆäËûÀà±ðµÄÖ°Òµ¸ü¼ÓΣÏÕ£¬´Ó¶øµ¼ÖÂÒ»¸öÈ˵ÄÊÙÃü¿ÉÄÜËõ¶Ì¡£¸Ã×÷ÕßûÄÜ¿¼Âǵ½ÈκÎÓпÉÄÜÓÉÈËÃÇËùÔÚµØÇøµÄÆøºò²îÒì»òÆäÖ°Òµ²îÒìËùÖµÄÊÙÃü³¤¶Ì·½ÃæµÄ²î±ð£¬´Ó¶øÏ÷ÈõÁËÆäÂ۾ݼ°Æä½áÂÛ¡£ ×îºó£¬µ±×÷Õß×÷³öÕâÑùµÄ³ÂÊö£¬¼´´ó·ò²»Ó¦¸ÃÏòÆä²¡È˽¨ÒéÊʶȵÄÔ˶¯£¬¶øÖ»Ó¦¸Ã¹ÄÀøÃ¿ÈÕ½øÐл§Íâ¾çÁÒµÄÔ˶¯Ê±£¬ÆäÂÛÊöµÄ½áÂÛÖбã²úÉúÁËÒ»¸ö¹Ø¼üÐÔµÄȱÏÝ¡£ËùµÃ³öµÄ½áÂÛÔÚÂÛÊöÖоø¶ÔÕÒ²»µ½ÈκοÉ×Ê×ôÖ¤µÄÒÀ¾Ý--ÉõÖÁ£¬Ö»ÊÇÖ±µ½ÉçÂÛ½áÊøÖ®´¦²ÅÌá¼°ÊʶȵÄÔ˶¯¡£´ËÍ⣬´ËÏîÂÛÊöûÄÜ×¢Òâµ½Ëù×÷µÄÑо¿½öÉæ¼°ÄÐÐÔ£¬¶ø·ÇÉæ¼°Í¬ÑùÒ²×÷Ϊ´ó·ò²¡È˵ÄÅ®ÐԺͶùͯ¡£ÔÙÕߣ¬¶ÔÓÚijЩÄÐÐÔ¡¢Å®ÐÔ¡¢¼°¶ùͯ¶øÑÔ£¬Ã¿ÌìµÄ»§Íâ¾çÁÒÔ˶¯Êµ¼ÊÉÏ·´¶ø»áΣº¦ËûÃǵĽ¡¿µ£¬ÓÈÆäÊǶÔÓÚÄÇЩÓÐÐÄÔಡΣÏÕ»òÉú»îÔÚ¶ñÁÓÆøºòÖеÄÈËÃÇÀ´Ëµ¡£ ¹éÄɶøÑÔ£¬±¾ÉçÂÛ×÷ÕßûÄÜÖ¤Ã÷´ó·òÃÇΪʲô¾ÍÓ¦¸ÃÍÆ¼ö¾çÁÒµÄÿÈÕ»§ÍâÔ˶¯£¬¶ø²»ÊÇÊʶȵÄÔ˶¯£¬ÎÞÂÛ²¡ÈËÊÇÄÐÐÔ¡¢Å®ÐÔ¡¢»¹ÊǺ¢×Ó¡£ÈôÐèҪǿ»¯ÆäÂ۵㣬×÷ÕßÓ¦°Ú³öÖ¤¾Ý£¬½«ÄÐÐÔÿÈÕ¾çÁҵϧÍâÔ˶¯ºÍËùÓдó·òµÄ²¡È˵ÄÔ˶¯Ö±½ÓÁªÏµÆðÀ´£¬È»ºó²Å²ÉÄÉÈκÎÕâÑùµÄ½¨Òé¡£ÕâÒ»±¡ÈõµÄÂÛ¾Ýʵ¼ÊÉÏÓпÉÄÜÒýÆðµÄ¶Ô²¡È˽¡¿µµÄÉ˺¦£¬»áÔ¶³¬¹ýËüËù¿ÉÄÜ·À·¶µÄÉ˺¦¡£
9Â¥2006-04-06 16:04:29
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû

blueseashore

Ìú³æ (СÓÐÃûÆø)

Issue

"The purpose of many advertisements is to make consumers want to buy a product so that they will 'be like' the person in the ad. This practice is effective because it not only sells products but also helps people feel better about themselves."


Sample Essay

Many advertisements do indeed use attractive models or celebrities to entice consumers into buying the products that are being promoted. Who would not like to look like the beautiful models that are depicted enjoying the product? Who would not like to be like a Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods? To a certain extent, buying products to emulate the persons shown in the advertisements can make a person feel better about him or herself. But this type of advertisement can be a double-edged sword - when the product does not make the person "be like" the person in the advertisement, there can be disappointment and disillusionment with the product.

Marketing departments have long known that using attractive models and celebrity endorsers can help to persuade consumers to buy a product. Some customers may actually believe that buying and using the product will make them "be like" the people featured in the ad. For other consumers, there is probably at least some subconscious reaction that causes them to believe that they will in fact assume some of the characteristics of the person depicted in the advertisement. Consumers with a lower sense of self-esteem are more likely to buy a product based on the motivation that they will become like someone else.

Proof of this marketing axiom can be found by simply looking at advertisements from around the world. People featured in advertisements are almost always good-looking, healthy and physically fit. Marketers are savvy enough, and enough market research has proven that, consumers are motivated to buy by advertisements featuring attractive models. Even advertisements that are aimed at the older people of a population will feature attractive older people. Although there has been some criticism about the effect of showing only "beautiful people" on the general population, particularly on young women, advertisers know that beauty sells. But whether this practice makes people feel better about themselves depends on the individual and is certainly open to debate.

Some individuals with a low sense of self-esteem, especially younger people, may purchase products in an attempt to make themselves be like the person featured in the advertisement. Young women in particular may buy cosmetics or clothing advertised by beautiful models in an attempt to look the same as them. Young men may buy athletic shoes or apparel in an attempt to perform athletically in the same way that the person featured in the advertisement plays. These people may then become further discouraged when they use or wear the product and find out that they are the same person that they were before. Buying the product hasn't changed anything.

There are others that may derive a certain sense of satisfaction over the fact that they wear the same underwear as some beautiful models or that they drink the same soft drink as Britney Spears. These people in general already have a good sense of who they are and don't expect a particular product to perform miracles for them. For these people, the purchase of the product is not so much as an image enhancer; it is more of a form of self-expression. Perhaps drinking a Pepsi-Cola makes them feel younger or wearing Nike shoes makes them feel more athletic, no matter how old or inactive they may be in reality. In this manner, it is possible that advertising can make people feel better about themselves.

Marketing and advertising absolutely must appeal to people in one way or another to be successful. Research has shown that using celebrities and attractive people can motivate consumers to purchase a product. In whatever manner, advertisers hope that they actually can make people feel better about themselves, because that can help foster repeat purchases of a product. Ultimately, whether an advertisement makes a person feel better about him or herself depends on the individual and how they perceive themselves as compared to the particular advertisement in question.

(692 words)


¹Ûµã³ÂÊöÐÍ×÷ÎÄ[ÌâÄ¿]

"Ðí¶à¹ã¸æµÄÄ¿µÄÔÚÓÚ£¬Í¨¹ýʹ¹Ë¿Í¹ºÂòijÖÖÉÌÆ·£¬´Ó¶øÈÃËûÃǾõµÃËûÃǽ«»áºÍ¹ã¸æÖеÄÄǸöÈË'Ïà²îÎÞ¼¸'¡£ÕâÒ»×ö·¨ÉõΪÓÐЧ£¬ÒòΪËü²»½öÄÜÊÛ³ö²úÆ·£¬¶øÇÒÒ²°ïÖúÈËÃÇÓиüºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõ¡£"


[·¶ÎÄÕýÎÄ]

Ðí¶à¹ã¸æÈ·ÊµÊ¹ÓÃÃÔÈ˵ÄÄ£ÌØ»òÃûÈËÀ´ÓÕʹ¹Ë¿Í¹ºÂòËùÍÆÏúµÄ²úÆ·¡£ÊÔÏ룬˭²»Ïë¿´ÉÏÈ¥Ïñ¹ã¸æËùÃè»æµÄÄǸöÕýÔÚÏíÊܸòúÆ·µÄƯÁÁÄ£ÌØÄØ£¿Ë­²»Ï²»¶³ÉΪÂó¿Ë¶û¡¤Çǵ¤»òÌ©¸ñ¡¤Îé×ÈÄØ£¿ÔÚijÖ̶ֳÈÉÏ£¬Í¨¹ý¹ºÂò²úÆ·´Ó¶øÈ¥Ä£·Â¹ã¸æÖÐËù±íÏÖµÄÈËÎï¿ÉÒÔʹÈ˲úÉú½ÏºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõ¡£µ«ÕâÀà¹ã¸æÈ´ÊÇÒ»°ÑË«Èн£----µ±²úÆ·²»ÄÜʹ¹ºÂòÕßÓë¹ã¸æÈËÎï"Ïà²îÎÞ¼¸"ʱ£¬ÈËÃǾͻá¶Ô²úÆ·²úÉúʧÂä¸ÐºÍ»ÃÃð¸Ð¡£

ÓªÏú²¿ÃÅÔç¾ÍÉîÖª£¬Ê¹ÓÃÃÔÈ˵ÄÄ£ÌØºÍÃûÁ÷ÓÐÖúÓÚ˵·þ¹Ë¿Í¹ËÂòijһ²úÆ·¡£Ä³Ð©¹Ë¿Í¿ÉÄÜʵ¼ÊÉÏÏàÐŹºÂòºÍʹÓøòúÆ·»áʹ×Ô¼ºÓë¹ã¸æÖÐÃè»æµÄÈËÎï"Ïà·Â"¡£¶ÔijһЩ¹Ë¿ÍÀ´Ëµ£¬ÖÁÉÙÓпÉÄÜ´æÔÚijÖÖDZÒâʶµÄ·´Ó¦£¬Ê¹ËûÃÇÏàÐÅËûÃÇÔÚʵ¼ÊÉÏ¿ÉÒÔ»ñÈ¡¹ã¸æÖÐËù±íÏÖµÄÈËÎïµÄÄ³Ð©ÌØÕ÷¡£×Ô×ð¸Ð½ÏµÍµÄ¹Ë¿Í¸üÓпÉÄܹºÂòijһ²úÆ·£¬Æä¶¯»ú±ãÊÇËûÃǽ«ÄܱäµÃÀàËÆÓÚÁíÒ»¸öÈË¡£

ÒªÖ¤Ã÷ÕâÒ»ÓªÏú¹«Àí£¬ÎÒÃǽöÐëÉóÊÓÒ»ÏÂÊÀ½ç¸÷µØµÄ¹ã¸æ¡£¹ã¸æËù¿Ì»®µÄÈËÎXºõ×ÜÊÇÆ¯ÁÁ£¬½¡¿µ£¬¾«Á¦³äÅæ¡£ÓªÏúÈËÔ±¸ö¸öÀÏıÉîË㣬ÓÐ×ã¹»µÄÊг¡Ñо¿ÒÑÖ¤Ã÷£¬ÓÐÃÔÈËÄ£ÌØµÄ¹ã¸æ¿É¼¤·¢Æð¹Ë¿ÍµÄ¹ºÂòÓûÍû¡£¼´Ê¹ÊÇÃæÏòÀÏÄêÈËµÄ¹ã¸æÒ²»áչʾÃÔÈ˵ÄÀÏÄêÈËÐÎÏó¡£¾¡¹Üֻչʾ"ƯÁÁÁ³µ°"¶ÔÆÕͨÃñÖÚ£¬ÓÈÆäÊǶÔÄêÇḾŮÐÕ£¬Ëù²úÉúµÄÓ°ÏìÒÑÔ⵽ijЩÅúÆÀ£¬µ«¹ã¸æÉÌÉîÖª£¬ÃÀÄÜ´øÀ´ÉÌÒµÐ§Òæ¡£µ«¸Ã×ö·¨ÊÇ·ñÕæÄÜʹÈËÓиüºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõ£¬ÕâÒòÈ˶øÒ죬ÇÒÖµµÃÉÌȶ¡£

ijЩ×Ô×ð¸ÐµÍµÄ¸öÈË£¬ÓÈÆäÊÇÄêÇáÈË£¬ËûÃǹºÂò²úÆ·ÓпÉÄÜÊÇÊÔͼÈÃ×Ô¼ºÀàËÆÓÚ¹ã¸æÖÐËù±íÏÖµÄÈËÎï¡£ÌØ±ðÊÇÄêÇáÅ®ÐÔ£¬ËýÃǹºÂòÄÇЩƯÁÁÄ£ÌØ×÷¹ã¸æÐû´«µÄ»¯×±Æ·»ò·þÊΣ¬¿ÉÄÜÊÇΪÁËÄÜºÍ¹ã¸æÈËÎïÏÔµÃһģһÑù¡£ÄêÇáÄÐÐÔ¹ºÂòÔ˶¯Ð¬»ò·þ×°£¬ÊÔͼÄÜÔÚÔ˶¯·½ÃæÓë¹ã¸æÖеÄÈËÎïÏàæÇÃÀ¡£È»¶ø£¬µ±ÕâЩÈËʹÓûò´©ÉÏ¹ã¸æÖеIJúÆ·£¬È´·¢ÏÖËûÃÇ»¹ÊÇËûÃÇÒÔǰµÄÄǸöÑù×Óʱ£¬ËûÃǻᱶÊÜ´ò»÷¡£¹ºÂò¹ã¸æ²úÆ·²¢Ã»Óиıäʲô¡£

ÁíÍâÓÐһЩÈË¿ÉÄÜ»á´ÓÕâÑùµÄÊÂʵÖлñµÃijÖÖÂú×ã¸Ð£¬¼´ËûÃÇ´©×ÅºÍÆ¯ÁÁÄ£ÌØÒ»ÑùµÄÄÚÒ»òºÈ×ÅÓëBritney SpearsÒ»ÑùµÄÒûÁÏ¡£ÕâЩÈËÆÕ±é¶øÑÔÔçÒÑÇå³þ×Ô¼ºÊÇʲôÑùµÄÈË£¬²¢²»Ï£ÍûÄ³Ò»ÌØ¶¨²úƷΪËûÃÇ´´ÔìÆæ¼£¡£¶ÔÕâЩÈËÀ´Ëµ£¬¹ºÂò²úÆ·ÓëÆä˵ÊÇÔÚÌáÉý×Ô¼ºµÄÐÎÏ󣬻¹²»Èç˵ÊÇÒ»ÖÖ×ÔÎÒ±íÏÖ¡£»òÐí£¬ºÈ°ÙÊ¿ÉÀÖʹËûÃǾõµÃÄêÇᣬ»ò´©ÉÏÄÍ¿ËЬʹËûÃǾõµÃ¸üÏóÒ»¸öÔ˶¯Ô±£¬²»¹ÜËûÃÇʵ¼ÊÉÏÄêÁäÓжà´ó»ò¶àôµÄ²»°®Ô˶¯¡£¹ã¸æÓпÉÄÜÒÔÕâÑùµÄ·½Ê½Ê¹ÈËÃÇÓиüºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõ¡£

Êг¡ÓªÏúºÍ¹ã¸æ¾ø¶ÔÓ¦¸ÃÒÔÒ»ÖÖ·½Ê½»òÁíÒ»ÖÖ·½Ê½À´´ò¶¯ÈËÃÇ£¬ÒÔ±ãÈ¡µÃ³É¹¦¡£Ñо¿±íÃ÷£¬Ó¦ÓÃÃûÈË»òÃÔÈ˵ÄÈËÎï¿ÉÒÔ´ÙʹÏû·ÑÕß¹ºÂòijһ²úÆ·¡£ÎÞÂÛÓúÎÖÖÊÖ·¨£¬¹ã¸æÉÌÃÇÏ£Íû£¬ËûÃÇÄܹ»Ê¹ÈËÃÇʵ¼ÊÉÏÐγɸüºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõ£¬ÒòΪÕâÑùÓÐÖúÓÚÅàÑøÈËÃÇ·´¸´¹ºÂòijһ²úÆ·µÄϰ¹ß¡£×îÖÕÀ´Ëµ£¬¹ã¸æÊÇ·ñÄÜʹÈËÃÇÓиüºÃµÄ×ÔÎҸоõÈ¡¾öÓÚ¸öÈË£¬È¡¾öÓÚËûÃǽ«×Ô¼ºÓëÄ³Ò»ÌØ¶¨¹ã¸æÁªÏµÆðÀ´Ê±ÊÇÈçºÎ¿´´ýËûÃÇ×Ô¼ºµÄ¡£
10Â¥2006-04-06 16:05:20
ÒÑÔÄ   »Ø¸´´ËÂ¥   ¹Ø×¢TA ¸øTA·¢ÏûÏ¢ ËÍTAºì»¨ TAµÄ»ØÌû
Ïà¹Ø°æ¿éÌø×ª ÎÒÒª¶©ÔÄÂ¥Ö÷ blueseashore µÄÖ÷Ìâ¸üÐÂ
×î¾ßÈËÆøÈÈÌûÍÆ¼ö [²é¿´È«²¿] ×÷Õß »Ø/¿´ ×îºó·¢±í
[¿¼ÑÐ] 070300»¯Ñ§Çóµ÷¼Á +14 С»ÆÑ¼±¦ 2026-03-30 14/700 2026-04-02 10:07 by oooqiao
[¿¼ÑÐ] 336Çóµ÷¼Á +5 kiyy 2026-04-01 5/250 2026-04-02 07:14 by chixmc
[¿¼ÑÐ] ²ÄÁÏÇóµ÷¼Á +8 ÄØÄØÄÝÄÝ 2026-04-01 8/400 2026-04-02 07:13 by yjolah
[¿¼ÑÐ] ²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì322·Ö +7 ¹þ¹þ¹þºðºðºð¹þ 2026-04-01 7/350 2026-04-02 07:05 by yjolah
[¿¼ÑÐ] ²ÄÁϵ÷¼Á +11 Ò»ÑùYWY 2026-03-31 11/550 2026-04-01 22:25 by zhouyuwinner
[¿¼ÑÐ] 320·Ö£¬²ÄÁÏÓ뻯¹¤×¨Òµ£¬Çóµ÷¼Á +14 Ò»¶¨Éϰ¶aaa 2026-03-27 18/900 2026-04-01 20:10 by »ý¼«µ÷¼ÁµÄСѧÉ
[¿¼ÑÐ] ÕÒµ÷¼Á +5 ³þÇÇÇÇ 2026-04-01 5/250 2026-04-01 16:12 by w³æ³æ123
[¿¼ÑÐ] Çóµ÷¼Á +4 ͼ¼ø212 2026-03-30 5/250 2026-04-01 15:32 by ͼ¼ø212
[¿¼ÑÐ] Ò»Ö¾Ô¸ÖÐÅ©0710ÉúÎïѧ£¬Î¢ÉúÎï·½Ïò×Ü·Ö338Çóµ÷¼Á +3 Æâxxxx. 2026-03-26 3/150 2026-04-01 12:30 by ±ùÎÚÁú
[¿¼ÑÐ] 262Çóµ÷¼Á +9 ÀøÖ¾Ò»¶¨·¢ÎÄÕ 2026-03-31 10/500 2026-04-01 12:22 by sunshine0013
[¿¼ÑÐ] 08¹¤¿Æ£¬295£¬½ÓÊÜ¿çרҵµ÷¼Á +6 lmnlzy 2026-03-31 6/300 2026-04-01 11:02 by ÄæË®³Ë·ç
[¿¼ÑÐ] 085701»·¾³¹¤³Ì£¬267Çóµ÷¼Á +17 minht 2026-03-26 17/850 2026-04-01 09:11 by xiayizhi
[¿¼ÑÐ] Ó¢Ò»ÊýÒ»×Ü·Ö334Çóµ÷¼Á +4 ³ÂÑôÀ¤ 2026-03-31 4/200 2026-03-31 14:22 by ¼Çʱ¾2026
[¿¼ÑÐ] 081200-11408-276ѧ˶Çóµ÷¼Á +4 ´Þwj 2026-03-31 4/200 2026-03-31 11:56 by jp9609
[¿¼ÑÐ] 266·Ö£¬Çó²ÄÁÏÏà¹Ø×¨Òµµ÷¼Á +10 ÍÛºôºßºôºß 2026-03-30 12/600 2026-03-31 11:00 by ÐÜÒ»µ¶
[¿¼ÑÐ] 317·Ö Ò»Ö¾Ô¸ÄÏÀí¹¤²ÄÁϹ¤³Ì ±¾¿Æºþ¹¤´ó Çóµ÷¼Á +12 ÓóÄàСÁåîõ 2026-03-28 12/600 2026-03-30 17:06 by wangjy2002
[¿¼ÑÐ] 085701Çóµ÷¼Á³õÊÔ286·Ö +5 secret0328 2026-03-28 5/250 2026-03-30 12:54 by fangnagu
[¿¼ÑÐ] 332Çó92µ÷¼Á +8 ½¶½¶123 2026-03-28 8/400 2026-03-29 10:46 by ÖÜè÷µ¤
[¿¼ÑÐ] Ò»Ö¾Ô¸ÄϾ©º½¿Õº½Ìì´óѧ²ÄÁÏѧ˶Çóµ÷¼Á +3 @taotao 2026-03-28 3/150 2026-03-28 10:26 by JourneyLucky
[¿¼ÑÐ] 295Çóµ÷¼Á +5 1428151015 2026-03-27 6/300 2026-03-28 04:04 by fmesaito
ÐÅÏ¢Ìáʾ
ÇëÌî´¦ÀíÒâ¼û