| 查看: 315 | 回复: 2 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
[交流]
跟着斑竹写作文-Issue38&Argu51
|
|||
|
ISSUE38 - "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books." 电视时代的读书已经不像以前那么重要了。人们通过看电视学到的和他们读书所能学到的一样多。 提纲： 1。 电视的好处 2。 书本可以助于人们的思考能力 3。 书本的其他好处：例如便携，可选择性多等等 The invention of television has influenced our life in many aspects: the way we spend our pastime, the way we learn, the way we communicate and so on. Especially in the field of education, television has played a more and more important role, however, this is not to say television is totally superseded the conventional means: reading books. Nowadays, I can choose to learn a foreign language at home easily and only reading this kind of books pales in comparison with television. Such programs on television can teach me how to pronounce and directly shows me when to use a sentence; it can also teach grammar and spelling easily on the screen. What books possess, the TV programs can display, even more, what the books can not do, the TV programs can teach me. And the same is true not only of learning foreign languages but also of other courses such as computer programming, horticulture, chemistry, math, arts...The images, colors, sounds make up videos which are more effective than just words and static images in books. In the past, reading books used to be the most important way in the world if one wants to learn knowledge. But today, more and more people choose to learn by watching television. However, if we scrutiny the process when we read, we will still find out that there is no substitute for reading books, because the most precious experience we gain from reading is the reflective thinking ability of our own. When watching television, people have to accept with the pace of the program without enough time to think the problems come into their brains, such as "how is the reaction happens" or "why this is the result"? When we read a philosophy book, we are reading the philosopher's ideology, but what we gain from television is the interpreter's idea. When we found something agains our own in reading books, we can stop and think as long as one wishes, and came to the conclusion that "No, this is not the case, the case should be...". Whereas when watching TV, the teacher or experts on the screen have already told us: in fact, the case is... Additionally, books are more convenient than televisions. If you want to read some novels on the bus, you can take one as you wish. It is ridiculous if you bring a television with you. And there are millions and millions of books in the library, whereas just a small portion of them are made to television programs, thus books give you more freedom to choose than television programs. Although reading books can not introduce people to all, and it also can not provide people with a learning process full of videos just as television do. However, it is through reading books can we gain other people's knowledge and experience at our own wish and pace, with our own thinking ability and imagination--we are the master of books, however, we seem to be servants of televisions to some extant. We should know that to gain is not the only goal of learning, what we need more is to imagine, to think on our own. Only when knowledge, experience, thinking ability are combined together can we make our lives better than before. ARGUMENT51 - The following appeared in a medical newsletter. "Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment." 医生长期以来怀疑严重肌肉扭伤后的二次感染妨碍了一些患者迅速康复。这一假说现在被一项对两组患者的研究的初步结果所证实。第一组患者全部由专攻运动医学的Dr.Newland治疗肌肉损伤，他们在疗程中经常服用抗生素。他们的康复期平均比通常预期的快40％。第二组患者由综合医师Dr. Alton治疗，他们被给予糖丸，而患者相信他们在服用抗生素。他们的平均康复时间没有明显缩短。因此，任何被确诊为肌肉损伤的患者应被建议服用抗生素作为辅助治疗。 In this argument, the author suggests all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of the treatment to prevent secondary infections to recover quickly. The only evidence supported is a study, in which the recuperation time of the first group of patients is 40% quicker than expected, whereas the recuperation time of another group of patients was not significantly reduced. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws. First of all, we do not know any specific information of the study, thus its validity is doubtful. Are the muscle strain of the two groups of people the same degree? How many patients there are in each groups? What about their ages, genders and other physical situations? These are all important factors that would influence the recuperation time. And what's more, in the study the author said the recuperation time of the first group was on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected. This evidence is full of flaws. On one hand, suppose that there are 100 patients in this group, and the recuperation time of only 10 of them is far less than the other 90 people, thus make the recuperation time of the whole group is quicker on average. And 10 of 100 is not a representative sample to prove the author's conclusion. On the other hand, the number 40% is come out compared to the expected time. It is unreliable because we do not know the validity of the "expected time". Who gives such expected time according what? There is no confirmative evidence in this study to assure us that people in the first group do recover faster than another group. Third, the two groups of people are treated by two different doctors: Dr. Newland is specialized in sports medicine and Dr. Alton is just a general physician. Common sense tells that Dr. Newland may be good at treating muscle strains that Dr. Alton. Even if the patients of Dr. Newland's group recovered quicker that Dr. Alton's, the author still fails to prove the only reason is because the first group's patients take antibiotics. How about the doctor's ability? Lacking a detailed analysis of the two doctors’ therapies, it would be presumptuous to attribute the first group's patients short-recuperation time to only antibiotics. Forth, Dr. Alton's patients took sugar pills in this study. The author mentions nothing about these sugar pills. What is its constitute? Maybe it is just these pills that cause serious secondary infection of the patients thus their recuperation time became longer. In order to convince us that these sugar pills are of no use in the study, the author should offer more information about them. Finally, the author suggests all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This suggestion is irresponsible to patients, because it neglect the side-effect of antibiotics. We all know that now every individual are suitable for antibiotics, especially those patients. There are no evidence showed that antibiotics do no harm to patients. And what's more, there are various kinds of muscle strain. Maybe not all of them can be cured by antibiotics. In fact, in such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all. In sum, this argument is not persuasive at all. In order to convince us that taking antibiotics is helpful to treat all kinds of muscle strains, the author should demonstrate that this treatment is effective and has no side-effect at all to all kinds of patients. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
材料调剂
已经有11人回复
-
295材料工程专硕求调剂
已经有18人回复
-
081200-11408-276学硕求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
材料求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
材料求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
材料专硕322分
已经有10人回复
-
311求调剂
已经有13人回复
-
0856，269分求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
一志愿 南京邮电大学 288分 材料考研 求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
085602化学工程268分蹲调剂
已经有8人回复
砖头来了
|
The invention of television has influenced our life in many aspects: the way we spend our pastime, the way we learn, the way we communicate and so on. Especially in the field of education, television has played a more and more important role, however, this is not to say television is totally superseded (superseding)the conventional means: reading books.常规的开篇，很稳 Nowadays, I can choose to learn a foreign language at home easily and only reading this kind of books pales in comparison with television. Such programs on television can teach me how to pronounce and directly shows me when to use a sentence; it can also teach grammar and spelling easily on the screen. What books possess, the TV programs can display(also posses), even more, what the books can not do, the TV programs can teach me. And the same is true not only of learning foreign languages but also of other courses such as computer programming, horticulture, chemistry, math, arts...The images, colors, sounds make up videos which are more effective than just words and static images in books. In the past, reading books used to be the most important way in the world if one wants to learn knowledge. But today, more and more people choose to learn by watching television. However, if we scrutiny(examine) the process when we read, we will still find out that there is no substitute for reading books, because the most precious experience we gain from reading is the reflective thinking ability of our own. When watching television, people have to accept with the pace of the program without enough time to think the problems come into their brains, such as "how is the reaction happens" or "why this is the result"? When we read a philosophy book, we are reading the philosopher's ideology, but what we gain from television is the interpreter's idea. When we found something agains our own in reading books, we can stop and think as long as one wishes, and came to the conclusion that "No, this is not the case, the case should be...". Whereas when watching TV, the teacher or experts on the screen have already told us: in fact, the case is... Additionally, books are more convenient than televisions. If you want to read some novels on the bus, you can take one as you wish. It is ridiculous if you bring a television with you. And there are millions and millions of books in the library, whereas just a small portion of them are made to television programs, thus books give you more freedom to choose than television programs. Although reading books can not introduce people to all, and it also can not provide people with a learning process full of videos just as television do. However, it is through reading books can we gain other people's knowledge and experience at our own wish and pace, with our own thinking ability and imagination--we are the master of books, however, we seem to be servants of televisions to some extant. We should know that to gain is not the only goal of learning, what we need more is to imagine, to think on our own. Only when knowledge, experience, thinking ability are combined together can we make our lives better than before. 论证取得例子还算不错，文章写得也比较流畅，不给砖头了  "Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment." In this argument, the author suggests all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain to take antibiotics as part of the treatment to prevent secondary infections to recover quickly. The only evidence supported is a study, in which the recuperation time of the first group of patients is 40% quicker than expected, whereas the recuperation time of another group of patients was not significantly reduced. This argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws. First of all, we do not know any specific information of the study, thus its validity is doubtful. Are the muscle strain of the two groups of people the same degree? How many patients there are in each groups? What about their ages, genders and other physical situations? These are all important factors that would influence the recuperation time.（最好写的语句精炼一点，看起来比较累赘） And what's more, in the study the author said the recuperation time of the first group was on average 40 percent quicker than typically expected. This evidence is full of flaws. On one hand, suppose that there are 100 patients in this group, and the recuperation time of only 10 of them is far less than the other 90 people, thus make the recuperation time of the whole group is quicker on average. And 10 of 100 is not a representative sample to prove the author's conclusion. On the other hand, the number 40% is come out compared to the expected time. It is unreliable because we do not know the validity of the "expected time". Who gives such expected time according what? There is no confirmative evidence in this study to assure us that people in the first group do recover faster than another group. Third, the two groups of people are treated by two different doctors: Dr. Newland is specialized in sports medicine and Dr. Alton is just a general physician. Common sense tells that Dr. Newland may be good at treating muscle strains that Dr. Alton. Even if the patients of Dr. Newland's group recovered quicker that Dr. Alton's, the author still fails to prove the only reason is because the first group's patients take antibiotics. How about the doctor's ability? Lacking a detailed analysis of the two doctors’ therapies, it would be presumptuous to attribute the first group's patients short-recuperation time to only antibiotics. Forth, Dr. Alton's patients took sugar pills in this study. The author mentions nothing about these sugar pills. What is its constitute? Maybe it is just these pills that cause serious secondary infection of the patients thus their recuperation time became longer. In order to convince us that these sugar pills are of no use in the study, the author should offer more information about them. Finally, the author suggests all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. This suggestion is irresponsible to patients, because it neglect the side-effect of antibiotics. We all know that now every individual are suitable for antibiotics, especially those patients. There are no evidence showed that antibiotics do no harm to patients. And what's more, there are various kinds of muscle strain. Maybe not all of them can be cured by antibiotics. In fact, in such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all. In sum, this argument is not persuasive at all. In order to convince us that taking antibiotics is helpful to treat all kinds of muscle strains, the author should demonstrate that this treatment is effective and has no side-effect at all to all kinds of patients. 很佩服能写这么多字，但论证的稍微欠缺，文章的漏洞都找到了，但没有well-reasoned或者比较累赘，说不清楚的感觉，下次改进一下 |
2楼2006-07-21 16:29:44
可可西里
管理员
甾体者说
- 应助: 170 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 0.271
- 金币: 71619.6
- 散金: 1291
- 红花: 150
- 沙发: 35
- 帖子: 58413
- 在线: 2274.6小时
- 虫号: 244935
- 注册: 2006-04-22
- 性别: MM
- 专业: 天体中基本物理过程的理论
3楼2006-07-22 10:10:59
