56"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."


Time:1:05
Outline:
Some immediate problems can not be solved directly, it may just a signal of the anticipated problems of the future, so it is necessary to solve the anticipated ones. The solutions of some immediate problems will cause certain anticipated problems at the same time, in order to solve the immediate problem better, we must be ready to solve the future ones.
解决现实的问题是必要的。比如交通、粮食、经济下滑等。
现在的问题可能只是一个将来更大问题的信号，比如粮食紧张问题可能是因为其他深层次原因造成的，这些问题在将来可能更严重。
解决现在问题的同时可能也带来了将来的问题，比如工厂建设和环境污染问题，要提前考虑。


Should governments pay more attention on solving the immediate problems such as "insufficient food”,” economical recession ",and so on, rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future? The author thinks this is the case, however, in my opinion the anticipated problems of the future is the same important as the immediate ones, even if not more important.

Admittedly, focusing on immediate problems and trying to solve them is one of government’s important responsibilities, since governments are instituted for the purpose to organize all the resource of the social and meet the needs of social members. If the traffic is so busy that people may have to wait a long time in their cars to go to work or back home, if there are many people can not get enough food to maintain life, if there are so many houses without heat vapors during the cold winter? if the economic is declining, the governments should have no choice but to find good solutions.

However, focusing on current problems does not mean that it is less important to advert the problems of the future, especially which are able to be anticipated and are likely possible to happen. Just like a Chinese old saying: without a providence of the future, there must be a trouble in soon.

Firstly, let’s take the lack of food into account. When a city's food supplements are not enough to maintain the needs in few months, the government must act immediately to purchase more food, to take care of the price change of food, to set aside extra budget to help poor people, and so on. However, besides all these things, the government also have to look over the food supplement system of the city carefully, is the lack caused by certain factors on which have not been paid enough attention, such as the productivity of the rice has declined for long time because lots of lands have been utilized to build factories, many farmers refuse to product rice because of the lower revenues from the grains and try to plant flowers and trees for more incomings. If such problems will happen in the future and the lack is just a signal, what should the government do? I think it is greatly necessary to solve the anticipated problems.

Additionally, in my opinion, the solutions of immediate problems are sometimes causing certain anticipated problems, which if we don't care about will turn to be a great trouble in the future. The relationship between building factories and pollution is a good example. The government will try to attract more factories in order to develop local economic, while, at the same time the rivers and air will be polluted if there are no regulations of the factories to protect the environment. However, it will cost more money to clean the water and air again in the future than we will get from these factories. In this case, you will find that it is necessary to find some way to solve the anticipated problems of the future, at the same time when we try to solve the immediate problems.

In summary, it is too limited to say that the immediate problems should been focused on rather than the anticipated ones of the future. As a wise and responsible government, it must take care both the current and the future problems to maintain the sustained development of the city or the state.



190"As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

Time:0:42
Outline: public resources should be use to maintain majority’ benefits; and the limited resource should be use to benefit the people in low social status.
公共资源应该用在满足大多数人利益上，公共资源是有限的，应该用在社会低层上，艺术等可以让需要它们的富人更多支持。

The author recommends that public resources should be use to solve lack of food, job and to train people the basic skills needed to survive, as long as these problems exit in a society. I agree with the author .

In my opinion, the public resources should be used fairly to enhance the major people's benefits. If so many people are hungry or out of work, the most important benefit of the social is to survive. So, it is obvious that more money should be utilized to supply more food and to stimulate the economical development, that more public resources should appropriately be used to enhance the technical education and to pay for more people to get skill train. Living is the basic right of people, if many people are striving on the death line, it is cruel to use public resources to support the arts for little dignitaries.

Another reason for me to agree with the author is that pubic resources should be well planned to use to meet the need of people in low social class mostly, since the resources always are limited. As we know, the need of people is different, especially, when who have different social status. When the fewer barons are talking about music, painting, dancing and so on, the thousands of common poor people may be anxious for the food or job in next day. However, should the limited public resources be use to feed the poor people or to satisfy the rich man. The answer is tacit.

However, what I have talked about does not want to deny the importance of the arts to people. Arts have made our world more wonderful and will still make our life more interesting. But, when major people in society are afraid of hungry and job opportunity, I think arts should be supported by the people who need mostly rather than by the public resources.

In conclusion, arts are important to life. However, As long as people are worrying about the material life, the limited public resource should not be wasted on arts.





121"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."

物种灭绝现在很多是因为人类造成的，比如气温升高。物种灭绝会导致食物链平衡打破，最终可能导致人的灭亡。虽然花费很大，但人类其实可以节约很多费用比如建设豪华大楼。


Should we spend lots of money to save the endangered species? The author doesn't think so for the reason that many species have become extinct as a result of natural rather than human. However, I disagree with the author.

It is true that many species have been extinct by natural changes，such as dragon. However, human has become more and more powerful now that we can easily change the natural. For example, the increasing temperature of the earth atmosphere caused by human being’s activities, has changed the environment in which many species live. Many animals and plants are facing the danger to be extinct because the increasing temperature is destroying the land they live in. So I think we must stop destroying nature, to save species is just one of the efforts.


Another reason for human to save the species is that if lots of species are extinct, the biological balance system will be destroyed, which will kill human being at last. Human being does not live on the earth solo; human is part of the biological balance system. Assuming that the rice and the maize will be extinct one day, what will we do? Maybe, you think it is impossible, yet, the system is so complex that nothing is impossible. There may be full of locusts because of the bird extinct, so locusts will eat up all the rice and maize.

Though, as the author mentions that the cost to save endangered species is high, it can not be the reason for us to give up the efforts. We can cut off many unimportant expends such as building luxurious houses. In my view, it is more justified for society to save species rather than meet own greedy.

In conclusion, there is justification for society to make efforts to save endangered species, which may caused by the human being's activities in today's world. Let's try our best to help our specie friends in the same earth.

[ 本帖最后由 huangqinbo 于 2008-5-5 08:17 编辑 ]

ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
WORDS: 570         TIME: 00:48:53          DATE: 2008-5-2 13:24:44
贫困问题应该解决,但纯粹的社会主义,人人富有是不存在的,只是我们心中的乌托邦,艺术也是精神的粮食,所以我们仍然应该重视他们……

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate when most people in a sociality are hungry or out of job or lack the basic skills needed to survive. However, the speaker unnecessarily extend this broad assertion to that supporting arts is cruel-even one person is unable to survive. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and example, as discussed below.

I concede that the speaker is on the correct ideal side of this issue; After all, fundamental needs such as food, clothing, and shelter prevail over in importance compare to cultural enrichment when someone is starving and sick. Accordingly, I agree that when it comes to the use of public resources it is entirely appropriate to assign a lower priority to the arts than to these other pressing social problems. And, counting for the responsibility of our government , most fatal thing they have to do is ensure the right-including their survival right-of citizen, so it goes without saying that public resources should given to people when most them are out of jobs and speaker's statement has some merit in dealing with the contradiction.

Yet, it might also be impractical when the speaker' statement comes to the real society. To postpone arts because that there is still one unemployed or hunger means we should postpone arts funding forever. Considering this capital sociality, the sociality which can completely eliminate starving, unemployment is just a utopia; the one exists in our heart but not in the world. Namely, the waiting for the impractical fantasy is just losing our time and public resources which can provide more effect on our life in another way. Thus, it is fallacious to put the speaker's statement in realistic.

Arts enrichment is also the fundamental needs of our spiritual world.  In 2008, a storm swept the whole east of china which provides hundreds thousands of people become homeless. The government of china immediately put his public resource not only in addressing the hunger and repairmen but also in arts. They organize many famous artists to the disaster area to make some performances so that they can motivate all the people to overcome the difficulties and courage them to be brave and hopeful. The need of spiritual and physical are both needed in our life and sometimes the need of spiritual is more important such example is Vincent Van Gogh who developed his life in patting despite the difficulties in life.

What' more, the choice of putting public resource to arts or basic needs is not an 'either-or' question. Allocating public resources to the arts we actually can help to solve these social problems. Consider Canada's film industry, which is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, also provides various incentives for American production companies to film and produce their movies in Candida. These incentives have sparked a boon for the Canadian economy, thereby stimulating job growth and wealth that can be applied toward education, job training, and social programs. The Canadian example is proof that public arts support can help solve the kinds of social problem with which the speaker is concerned.

In the final analysis, Public resources allocated to the arts will create jobs and enrich our spiritual and others whose livelihood depends on a vibrant; rich culture-just the sort of culture that breeds charitable concern for the hungry, the helpless, and the hapless.

TOPIC: ISSUE56 - "Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."
WORDS: 525          TIME: 00:47:58          DATE: 2008-5-4 20:26:33
短期问题不解决他们将变成长期的问题，没有长远的眼光，他们将变成后代的短期问题，这不是独立的个体，而是相辅相成的……

Should immediate problems of today assigned higher priority when compared with the anticipated problems of future by government, as the speaker asserts? On balance, however, these questions are not independent but complement each other that I fundamentally agree with the notion that immediate problems are as important as the anticipated problems.

As I see it, there are at least two arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some responsibility of government to deal with the current problems. First and foremost is that addressing with the immediate problems of today well is the guarantee of the stability of society. With the time fly by, more and more emergent problems appeared such as the abuse of drugs, lack of supervising of weapons, the spread of AIDS. What's more, the impact of such problems has become worse and worse. If the government can not control and deal with them, how can they ensure a well-being society and the security of citizens? Accordingly, focusing on the immediate problems of today is to create a more harmonious society.

The second argument has to do with development. Many immediate problems such as unemployment, poverty and lack of marketable skills will negatively influence social sustainable developments. To make things worse, the ignorance of such problems will not only affect the handle of anticipated problems of future but also directly become the anticipated problems in the future. So it goes without saying that it deserves governments immediate and urgent attention on these current problems to avoid it becomes worse.

On the other hand, government as the distributor of public resources should not ignore anticipated problems and should allocate funds proactively. Such foresight and earlier emphasis of problems such as biodiversity loss, hazardous waste, global warming could have led to earlier and preventative treatment. Taking the saving plant and animal species as an example, it is a very tropical anticipated problem. As human beings, we should assume the responsibility of saving endangered species as it is human beings' abuse and overexploitation of nature that has caused the environment to deteriorate for the biological species. Moreover, as a species in the nature, we are all survive depends on each other, it is hard to determine what result the extinction of certain species will cause unless the extinction takes place. Thus, the focus on anticipated problems of the future is also the focus on self-perseverance of human beings.

Another compiling argument has to do with our offspring. In order to stimulate economy and satisfy our own needs, thousands of wild animals are killed and factories are built without any equipment for purifying hazard waste. The direct victims are our offspring because the ignorance of anticipated problems has become their 'immediate problems of today' badly. For that matter, they will pay much more for dealing with them, if they can. So the government should also draw some attention on such problems that we can give anything but disasters to our offspring.

Without the focus on immediate problems of today, social development and stability will wholly damaged. Without a society that draws attention on anticipated problems of future, our offspring will pay much more for it. Thus, while our government should focus on immediate problems, anticipated ones are equally important.

[ 本帖最后由 Olivexp 于 2008-5-4 20:57 编辑 ]

Issue 56
Government should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future

As the speaker contends, I fundamentally agree that government should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today, unless the problems at hand are well-settled, our society would trap into chaos, which exert chilling impact on our sustained development as a whole. Despite the emphasis on immediate problems, however, losing sight of anticipated problems of the future invites a series of subsequent problems related to our next generation very survival also. Thereby, to some degrees, long-term problems worth our attention and time either.
With respect to the contemporary problems linked to either our every day experience or our lasting progress, invariably , our government hold the responsibility to resolve, as the essential duty of government lies in enhancing the living standard and comfort level of citizens, upon which government’s well-function is based. Consider , for instance, unemployment as a striking example of the immediate problem is a source of social instability which directly has association with our very survival, for coming along with it is a lack of economic opportunity that may result in poverty. Ultimately , unemployment leads to a series of subsequent social problems involving family instability, crime, violence and so forth, all of which mentioned above inevitably have deleterious consequences.
Nevertheless, placing emphasis on immediate problems is not amount to being blind to anticipated problems of the future. Analyzing the potential influence resulted from anticipated problems, few would argue the indispensable for paying attention on them. There is no denying the natural resources served as the necessity of our development both in our everyday life and industrial field are limited in its own quantity. I find quite telling the truth that petroleum functioned as our source in generating dynamic either in machines or in vehicles, whose reserves are less and less, invariably bring about the mass destruction to our daily life unless we seek for the substitute before the situation coming into reality.
On balance, neither the immediate problems nor the anticipated ones should ignore. Perhaps the most important, therefore, is weighing the compete interests between them and distribute the responsibilities to different departments. For example, the contemporary problems including as unemployment mentioned above is best left to the department charged on the sustenance of citizens. And the domestic violence may be addressed by community department at best. On the other hand, the anticipated problems related more to scientific area should be taken by research department or  involving academicians into practical project research.
To sum up, the speaker’s assertion is fundamentally correct. I strongly have pleasant association with it insofar as we should emphasize more on immediate problems and also the emphasis is equally important to anticipated problems, for both of them link to our very survival as a specious.     

Issue 190
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate---and, perhaps, even cruel---when one considers all the potential uses of such money.

The speaker contends that it is inappropriate, even cruel, to support the arts under the circumstances that hungry, unemployment and lack of basic skills existing in our society still. I concede that such social problems as mentioned above are immediate ones which can not be ignored. On balance, nevertheless, I oppose the speaker’s claim.
As the speaker presents, hungry, unemployment and so forth are social problems at hand in any society no matter the developed one or the developing nations. Physical support labeled as the basic needs are necessities in our everyday life. Human History was replete with examples that the government invariably was overturned by populace as long as its incompetence in well-resolving physical problems related closely to our very survival. On the other hand, with the grave social problem of unemployment unsettled, our society is vulnerable to holding the slip into instability. The Great Depression during 1930s lend further credence to this fact. The large scale unemployment resulted from financial crisis ultimately led to a series of subsequent social problems such as crime, poverty, all of which have destructive effect either on the development of our society or our own life as we go about everyday.
Despite the important role in solving social problems is so essential to our nations survival, it dose not amount to the lose sight of the support to the arts, grounding on both the physical and mental benefits brought about by that arts themselves. With respect to the physical benefits, lending support to striving arts at the expense of some part of our public resources, in turn, provide feedback to our public economy. Firstly, the existence of art institutions such as museums provides job positions, which can directly benefit to alleviate employment pressure to some extent. Besides, funding artists, a group of people who were usually troubled in finance deficiency is definitely helping them with basic needs. For them, public support is kind of salary and feed them. However, the patronage which indeed reduce the support of other social problems has served to add to it also, as our patronage to some artists, the standard of living and comfort level ensconced in their life will be enhanced. Turning to other respect, arts mirroring our history and manifesting the spiritual world of our humans directly and indirectly influence our forming of value system which in turn help us to determine which one is more deserving, value to do or to choose. Consider , for example, the paintings produced during Renaissance Time present the charity of human beings may contribute to one’s philanthropy if taken to heart. It is a strong evidence that aptly illustrates the important role of arts in exerting positive impact on harmonizing our society through more tolerance and more charity which lend further strength to solving social problems.
Last but not least, whether supporting arts will reduce the subsidizing in other social problems remains under debate, as solving other social problems is best left to the government while the patronage of the arts is not a proper or necessary role of government always. For example, during 20th century, the fundamental sources of subsidizing the arts come from the industrial magnates. And tomorrow, we can imagine the support may be invited by the moguls of  new technology and media areas such as Bill Gates. Thus, basing on such dividing work , the speaker points out an unfair generalization that supporting that arts is a waste of public resources.
To sum up, solving the social problems such as hungry and unemployment is very important, and it is equally important to patron the arts, for it is beneficial to both the physical and mental respects. In the final analysis , the speaker unfairly suggests that we should exert all public resources to social problems instead the subsidize in the arts, for the speaker overlooks the dividing work in supporting these two kinds of things.

Argument 147

The writer concludes that the situation manifesting the decline sales of Whirlwind video games is about to be reversed, indeed, its sales are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months as the writer predicts. To substantiate his conclusion, the writer provides a recent survey as an crucial evidence, which indicates that the most important feature in a video game acting as the role of attracting consumers is lifelike graphics. The writer, thereby, suggests that only through introducing several games designed with such feature as mentioned above to the age group ranging from 10 to 25 who are regarded as the most likely ones to play video games by the way of ad campaign, the sales will increase dramatically. However, this statement is undermined by a series of precarious assumptions.
First, after a scrutiny of the survey, the justifiable of it is to be suspicious. On the one hand, the writer fails to inform us the sample size of the survey, which may be far from sufficient and hardly can it represent the overall conditions. Even though the size is sufficient enough, the selection procedure mentioned neither will sabotage the reliability of the survey, also, as the sample just cover the age ranging above 25 or just aimed at men or women only. On the other hand, the design of the survey is also questionable under the condition that the features exhibited in the survey are limited which contributes to the regardless of other factors. Actually, the writer overlooks this logical fallacy as well.
Secondly, the writer unfairly assumes that the decline of sales attribute to the failure of as campaign. In fact, the writer renders no evidence enduring the ad campaign is the only factor resulting in the sales decline, as many other factors are likely to bring about such consequence. First of all, the quality of the products, the significant impact exerted on the sales, whose decline may have chilling influence on the confidence of consumers related directly to the long-term success of a company. Second of all, the amount of companies which engaged in this field dramatically increasing during the recent years, would lead to the reducing in market occupation giving rise to the sales decline as well.
Thirdly, even if the survey is reliable so does the ad campaign, the writer is too curt to draw a conclusion that the age group ranging from 10 to 25 will invite the promotion in sales. As the writer points out that the video game providing lifelike graphics require the most up-to-date computers. Nevertheless, the economic ability of those who are 10 to 25 years old is so limited as to the possessing proportion of so expensive up-to-date computers remains questionable.
In the final analysis, as is known to everybody, profits subject to cost and revenue. How much truths in the conclusion that the profits will be increase are under debate. May be the exploiting of new video games rises the cost of this company, for new products have to do with more advanced technology as well as more diligent devise. Besides, if this kind of video game are popular indeed, there is no denying more companies will invest in this field, which may render this market overprice, ultimately being responsible for the coming down of profits.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strength it the writer must provide evidence that the sample size of the survey is large enough which is also aimed at the age group covering from 10 to 25. and the design of the survey is justifiable. To better assess the argument, I would need to know what caused the two-year sales to decline, whether it can be solved by ad campaign. Whether the cost of new product’s exploitation equal to before or the market campaign exert no negative impact on the sales of new products.

Argument 178
in this report, the president of NBC maintains that the company will earn a profit in the coming year by the way of paying for the brushes workers producing rather than the time workers spending on producing. To demonstrate the prediction, the presidents cites these evidences, first, this kind of payment will lead to the production of more and better brushes which results in high profits. Secondly, this policy contributes to reducing staff size and operate hours which give rise to the saving on electricity and security costs, thus , in turn, bring about high profits. This report is fraught with suspicious assumptions which render it unconvincing.
To begin with, it is true that paying for the number of brushes comes the higher productivity, as every worker will spare on effort in enhancing the speed of producing in order for the maximize of payment but the whether the quality of products will be maintained or even better as the presidents anticipated is dubious. It is widely acknowledged that with the declining time spending on per brush resulted from the enhancing speed, the quality of products will inevitably be exerted negative impact unless the producing technology gets improvement. Nevertheless , the president gives no evidence about the improvement of technology. Hardly can maintain the quality without the development of technology, let alone getting better quality. Moreover, declining in quality bring about the absence of consumers’ confidence which directly linked to the profits of company. On the other hand, with this policy putting into practice, the production of brushes will be more, which, perhaps, ultimately results in higher expending on payment, thereby, in return, influences negatively on the profits reaped at last.
Even if ,the company can achieve more brushes without at the expense of quality, the reducing in staff size and lowering the use of electricity will counteract what gains from the higher productivity. Notwithstanding, this policy lend help to keep the most efficient workers who can minimize the lose in reducing workers or shorting the working time, the president lend no further credence in ensuring the increase in production which render the argument unjustifiable.
Last but not least, the president unfairly suggests that the reducing in staff size contributes to the saving on security costs. At first glace, this assertion seems to be reasonable as the company pays security costs for less people, however, after the scrutiny of it, we find it is problematic. The expend of security costs not only depends on the number of workers but the amount of costs taken on each. As everyone known, higher efficiency without more effective protection measures may result in higher probability in occurrence of accident which leads to higher expends in compensating. Thus , the ultimate result of the new policy might increase the security costs and, in turn, reduce the profits.
In sum, the president has failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claim that the new policy would serve to ensure a higher profit in the coming year. To strengthen the argument, the president should make sure that the production will be more without sacrificing the quality, what’s more, the reducing in staff size and electricity exert no impact on enhancing the productions. In the final analysis, the president should give more evidences which lend further credence on the saving of security costs.

TOPIC: ISSUE56 --"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."
Outline: 1.当前面临的问题和预期的问题实际上是一个问题的不同时期；
2.即使假设他们是互不相关的，单独过分关注任何一个都是很可笑的

There is an element of truth in this argument, but it seems to neglect to take into account that there is a deeper and more basic relationship between the immediate problems and the anticipated ones, that is, they are identical, to some extent. My view of dissent from the arguer involve the two hypotheses, as discussed below.

The first hypothesis given for illustrate the philosophical connection is that the two kinds of problems are inseparable. Admittedly, everything has its own consequence and reason while we usually take one of them as a separate problem to deal with. That's how this argument come into being, holding the classification of time and the degree of urgency. The history sees how the destruction in the Ozone layer due to coolants in the air conditioners serves as an immediate issue primly evolve to the global warming attached with a series of anticipated problems, say the skin cancer and eye diseases. Thus, the facts here are reminding that any problem labeled immediate or anticipated is the different period of the same problem.

The other hypothesis, to say the least, is that the current problem has nothing to do with the expected ones. Moreover, we create a possibility that they are supposed to be worked out in the separate dimensions. Then the absurdity jumps out to advertise focusing on any side of them is ridiculous.

On one hand, it might be tempting to agree with the government concentrating on the present problem with the purpose to please the public and win more support. For instance, the new policy aiming at encouraging children to appreciate the classical literature allows various entertaining edition to hit the market. As a result, these classical masterpieces lose their deserved respect and compliment, instead they receive being made fun of and modified. Due seriously to the government’s ignorance in the expected problem of genuine classical culture running off, the masterpieces are not masterpieces any more in the present time. Similarly, the south Korean researcher who claimed to have cloned the human cells, fabricated evidence for all that of research, which suggested the governor was so anxious to see an significant achievement in science without further thinking. In short, it is unwise to simply give emphasis to the immediate issue .

On the other hand is the belief of treating all the anticipated problems as the center of government’s work. That is to say, allocate all public sources to the problems which has not taken place yet and has no effect on today’s life, let alone the probability it appeared. United States officials decrease the percent of visa permission only in order to avoid the tendency of     excessive immigration, which ends in lose more friendly relationships in political, economical, and even academic field. Besides, the basic element of the society, such as peace, food, environment would be devastated if the governors give up to resolving them, and as it turns out, the governors are unable to figure out the future problems without the present material support. After all, the anticipated problems are not the only ones worthy to be paid so much attention.

To sun up, from what has been discussed above, it is clear to find both hypotheses are not suitable to be existed. We may safely draw the conclusion that to put the appropriate effort on both kinds of problems may be beneficial since there is no easy solution to this argument. In the final analysis, given finite attention we are forced to strike a balance in how to allocate those effort among immediate and anticipated problems.

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
Outline: 1.在由饥饿贫穷问题引发的社会动乱问题面前，将公共资源分给艺术是不明智的；
       2.公共资源应该被最大回报率的分配；
3.艺术将处在激烈竞争环境中的人们带向享受和休闲，丧失战斗力；
4.艺术的广泛性决定它不会被资源分配忽视；
5.艺术帮助形成人们的思维方式。

Distribution of public resources to develop the arts when whole society is subject to scant food, severe poverty, unqualified housing condition and low employment is unaccepted, which I strongly concur with. After all, it is these basic elements that ensure us primary right as human being to survive by our own. Yet, I dare not deny the essential role the arts play in our daily life, and still maintain the view that the arts are worthy to occupy certain part of public resources.

As far as I am concerned, there are three fundamental arguments can throw light upon the conclusion why the statement is inappropriate and ever cruel as it told. At the very beginning, according to the world’s two major themes-----peace and development, the argument is undoubtedly circumstance every member of society expected tends to be stable and developing at a proper rate. Admittedly, every policy of macro-regulation must be made based on the benefit of most people, such as the decision to support education or carry out a latest law. That is to say, confronting with so much basic society problems unsettled, it is unwise to allocate limited public resources to the arts. If the arts happen to receive adequate resources when people are all complaining about the unfair living conditions, then we can wildly imagine how the world would be. Perhaps, the streets were stuffed with unsatisfied people in procession and what is worse, they may be armed to fight for their primary living right, especially in the time of war and natural disasters.

The second argument include the validity in using the public resources. Not as same as other areas, the arts need a considerable long period of time, say several hundreds of years, to determine whether a work is worthy to remain. Comparatively, the Nobel prizes nods a great many achievements in science while the economic field tests its fruits more directly---earning. Thus, considering the whole group's economic interest, the policy to support arts seems unconvincing to be abide by. Moreover, it cannot win the ok key to unlock the gate of the national bank. Instead, we see that over thousands of years, the world have embraced just few artists like Raphael, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci who bring significant influence in our life amount to the yearly Nobel prize winners.

The last argument has to do with attitude. The arts lead to a comfortable and epicurean   attitude toward the competitive life we are leading unconsciously. Apparently, this is resulted from the origin of the arts. Even though the arts can be enjoyed by all people now, it is simply an optional choice of entertaining in the life of the rich, just as tennis and golf. Therefore, in order to avoid the relatively negative spirit spread among people who have not solved the surviving problems, we had better refuse to accept the statement.

On the other hand, I also provide two logic arguments against ignoring arts as part of life. The first is the fact that arts penetrate in every aspect of society. It is entirely impossible to prohibit arts from taking the public resources. As it is the case, we choose to allocate proper resource to it for better resource administration and best realization of the arts' value.

Further more, to argue philosophically, the arts serve as one of modes of thinking, help to shape the way people evaluate things and appreciate beauty. Only the combination of arts and other typical modes can give birth to a complete ideological system of how to think about the life, relationships and the world. Otherwise, we are surely same as primitive people, content with pure desire and the approach to meet it .

In sum, the issue of supporting the arts when a series of social problems referred to the most people's benefit and the essential of arts is a complex one. Thus, there are no easy certain answers. However, it is for this right reason I agree that based on the case--to--case principle, we give public resources to arts dependently. In the final analysis, at a point when it becomes critical for our basic survival to utilize the public resources, then we will take affirmative measures to avoid wasting it.

请大家在互批的时候,把队友的文章复制到WORD中,用不同颜色改后以附件形式上传~~
并发帖在作业帖中告知,不必一大篇一大篇的重复发帖~~
请保持我们查帖的方便性!


请大家关注我们的公告帖,里面更新的内容是作业题和批改分配~~!!

[ 本帖最后由 kimrubens 于 2008-5-5 22:11 编辑 ]

TOPIC: ISSUE56 - "Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."

Should governments focus more on immediate urgent problems of today, comparing to some anticipated future problems, as the speaker asserts? I tend to agree with the speaker at first glance that immediate problems require quick solutions to some extent. Yet, after careful scrutiny, we may conclude the future problems might bring more severe consequences, if inappropriately handled. And a well balance is severely required to settle the two antitheses.

Admittedly, individuals, institutes, governments tend to focus on short-term outcome, thus prefer to address immediate problems in priority to future problems. As the rapid increasing pace of technology and science in this era, a handful of problems were proposed simultaneously, such as the deterioration of environment, the terrorist organization which endanger the safety of human race, the endless battles and conflicts between countries and areas, the societal controversies including the discrimination of race and color. All these questions can be divided into two categories: long remaining problems and immediate problems. In consideration of limited resources and energy, most governments incline to dress the nowadays problems such as poverty and hungry, when compared with potential troubles as environmental pollution. These immediate answers to certain problems nowadays might appear effective in some respects; after all, quick solutions to current problems would solve complex dilemmas like the high unemployment ratio. However, reconsidering the cause and effect of the most nowadays predicaments we encounter, it is evident they are long established and those quick responses is far beyond enough.


Indeed, for some developing countries, they are left with no choice but to face those severe problems like poverty, lack of substances and water, epidemic diseases, or devastating battle affairs. Therefore, under these situations, it is irresponsible to impose issues of establishing eco-tourisms or policing protection of elephants or archaeology findings in the face of those homeless child and women. Actually, the speaker’s claim is more than authentic in respect of these conditions. If turning into other aspects for the governments, the individual’s pain would not diminish a little, the democratic essence of government to serve the nation as a whole is totally overlooked and left behind. Moreover, the world communities would not approve these irresponsible behaviors in the cost of majority citizens’ ordinary lives and health insurance. Thus, the government should evaluate the significance of issues comprehensively to make the final decision which problem should come first to the priority.


However, anticipated problems should not be neglected for the reason that it might influence extensively and intensively in the long run. This is more than real when considering the India tsunami which cause numerous lost of lives and destruction of families and facilities; merely happened because the potential problem is neglected as the government is more attended to other ambivalence in the country. Another illustration best demonstrate itself in the business field. For businessmen, the quality of products and reputation far outweigh the immediate money profits, as a principle no one would argue. Corporations like KFC, McDonalds, or the computer celebrities like Intel and AMD, all focus on long term reputation to avoid anticipated problems like custom dissatisfaction. On the contrary, those small countries with shortsighted visions are more likely to adulterate, deceive, plagiarize the originalities, neglecting the potential long term problems. Comparing the two attitudes, any sensible man would pro the farseeing vision and con the shortsighted perspectives. Applying to the government level, it also have its merits when deciding the precedence of long term process or short term profits.


In sum, I agree with the speaker that immediate problems require immediate solutions due to their urgency. However, the future problems might bring more severe consequences, if inappropriately handled. Finally, it is best to balance the conditions wholly when deciding which should take priority due to the limited resources and energy.

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
WORDS: 609
TIME: 00:45:00 之后又修改了下小错误
DATE: 2008-5-4 20:54:59

The speaker asserts that the support of arts is inappropriate or even cruel unless all the members in a society are free from the problem of hungry or unemployment. At first glance, it appears logical and fundamentally correct since the well being of the citizens in a society is the essence for a government’s discipline. However, the speaker overlooked the importance of arts and the beneficial influences it might bring about.

Admittedly, the pursuing of arts, a form which most people regard as the upper class material enjoyment, pales in the face of numerous poor children and starved women. Though the human beings have enjoyed a high speed of development in a host of fields in the recent century, extensive and intensive societal problems and ambivalences stays unsolved and unsettled. For example, the majority people in some developing countries still suffer from the exposure and starvation. They lack basic food, uncontaminated drinking water resources, even adequate asylums to live in. In the face of these people, the proposal of shifting the money to advocating those fine arts work seems cruel and goes against the principle of democracy, the discipline of the government to serve all its people a improved situation for living and enjoying the life. Also, under this condition, the citizens would not allow the government to continue govern and might eventually turnover it, then establish one which can represent the willingness of the majority.

Moreover, it appears the main purpose of government is not to facilitate arts and if inappropriately handled, the interference might hamper the prosperity of arts contrarily. As far as I am concerned, most bureaucrats knows little about arts, referring to literature and music, or paintings, thus leaving the priority to a handful of governors might result in unfair decisions and inclinations of own propensity. For instance, a president who has approved the proposal to finance the industry of architecture might hold the inclination to facilitate the typical style he prefers. Under this situation, we can not guarantee the most prominent and those hardy needed artist can be well supported; as well, some people might adulate the officials to get those funds but actually for personal indecent usages. Then not only the funds is abused in other methods, but also the very intention of supporting the arts can be misrepresented.


Nevertheless, since arts is the spiritual homeland for nowadays exhausted human beings, arts also calls high attention in society to emphasize and advocate. Under multiple pressures from competitors, peers and one's self-esteem, the survivor in this era is replete with psychological displacements and anxieties. The arts work, can solve this problem and dilemma to some extent for every individual. A melancholy song from the pop singers might soothe the exhausted body and mind after a long harsh day for working and can refresh you for the tomorrow continuation. The painting which characterizes silent sacrifices and devotions of parents towards their rebelling teenagers might beget your regret for quarreling with your parents and upsetting the one who cares about you most. Also, the novels and dramas can stimulate the wildest imagination of a human being, extending oneself in the story line of the literature work, and for this very moment to evade from responsibility, pressure, competition and harsh reality to find inner peace and spiritual enjoyment. Therefore, the importance of arts should not be neglected and overlooked, for its natural function in complementing the well being of human race.


In sum, I agree that arts are of general significance and should be stressed and well placed. However, under some cases, when other social problems dominates, the government should place much more emphasize on those problems.

issue190

As we all known that in the society, there existed a large group of people who are still hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive. Even though, the public resources are widely used to support the arts. So the speaker's opinion is: the resources used on arts are inappropriate, which is reasonable but I only agree part of it. I think the resources should be used on arts in a proper way.
The earth is a globe which should not has edges, but actually it does have. In many developing countries or even in the well-developed country, there surly live so many people fighting for their living, while at the same time; a lot of money is spending in a meaningless, inappropriate or even cruel way. For the people struggling for surviving, food, and clothes are more important to them than music or paintings. All the people turn to arts, we can say, at least, they have no trouble with their survive. So the speaker said we can use the resources to these people who really needed them, I agree. However, I can not agree the speaker said that as long as there are poor people, we cannot spend money on arts. Because there are already a lot of people who need not to care about the living problems, and they have the requirements to make their lives more colorful and they need arts to improve their inner temperament. What is more, when all the people are skillful and have a job or get out of hungry, what time it will be, and when we can develop our arts?
The speaker also can argue, which is reasonable, that the government has no responsibility to spend resources on arts, but it is their duty to help the poor. And the rich who want arts, they can spend some money to support the arts. But the resources used to arts can also help the poor people by offering job to them or many other ways to help them. The resources spent on arts can also make a fortune, which can help the poor to make their living, for example, the government want to build a theatre, it is a place for art, but building the theatre need so many people, they can make some money and make a living.

Besides, arts can cultivate people’s sentiment，teach us how to be good, make the world a better place, make the society more harmony。 I remember a pianist once said: a child learns the piano can never grow to be a bad guy. I could not agree more, because people can turn into art when they break the emotion rather then do something bad to the society, and arts can clam us down。The resources spending on arts can make the rich people care more about the society and be kind to the poor, and the society can be in a order.
In sum, the issue is reasonable in some ways but not totally. Not only the resources should be spend on the people to skill them or to help them get out of staving, but also spend on the arts. All the resources spending are used to help the world become a better place, no matter spending on arts or on the poor. The resources should be spent properly, but not only on some particular areas beside which we not use the public resources. Spend the public resources in the fields that need it thoroughly, use resources to make more efficiency, be benefit to the society: it is our aim.

issue 56
There are so many issues waiting for the government to solve, we can divide them into immediate problems of today the anticipated problems of the future. We can not say which is more important, because it is all depends. In my opinion, the government should focus on the affairs that need to be solved immediately according to the specific situation。
Surly the government should focus on the immediate problems. There is an old saying says: little by little will go far, which teach us to pay attention to the little things in hand, don not always think about the problems that are too far away, and just action now. On this point, I couldn't agree more. The immediate problems are very important, only when we can solve the immediate problems, can we move on. And the anticipated problems are still changeable, we don not know if it is still as our imagination and under our control. And it is the same to the government that it should focus on the problems in hand, never always draw so many blueprints and many of them are not bases on the fact and could hardly achieve.
However, the anticipated problems also deserved the government's attention. There is also a saying says: a person without aim is just like a bird without wings. Some of the anticipated problems are aims to us, by knowing them, focus on them, we can arrange our immediate problems more aimly and efficiently. So the anticipated problems is also important enough and the government should pay attention to.
The government shouldn't focus on one problem and ignore another just because it is the immediate problem or anticipate one. Just as the speaker said, the government should focus more solving the immediate problems, what if the immediate problem is just a thief steeling a woman' purse, but the anticipate problem is to make a law to prevent the purse from stealing.
In my opinion, we should pay attention to the problems depending on their urgency and importance and irreplaceable ， find a balance between them and make a harmony. As in China, every 5 year, our government draw a 5-yaer-plan, we can call it a general plan, and under the general plan, there are so many specific plans. By achieving the specific plans we can finally reach the general plan. But if there is no general plan, there are no specific plans, because all the plans are severed for the general one and under it. I do not think there is a conflict between the immediate problems and the anticipated ones and once the government focus more on one of them has to lead to a lack of attention to the other one. These two problems are under different system and in the government there are different apartments doing their duty to solve them. And the whole government is in a balance.
Finally, I reach a conclusion that focus more solving the immediate problems of today is partly right, but not a perfect way. On which one the government should focus more depend on if it is good and efficient, and if it can benefit to the government, the people and the society.

phenomenal issue56

TOPIC: ISSUE56 --"Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."

Outline:
1. 重点处理当前面临的问题是有重要意义的, 这是维护社会稳定的基础
2. 在处理当前面临的问题的同时, 也要考虑到将来预期的问题
3. 某些手段虽然能迅速有效地解决当前问题, 却可能使将来预期的问题变得更严重

In my opinion, it is important for governments to focus on solving the immediate problems of today while the anticipated problems of the future should also be paid enough attention.

First, solving the immediate problems of today is the basis for maintaining a stable society. Let's just imagine what will happen if a government fails to control a inflation. Then everything gets more valuable except money and therefore people will be not be able to get what they need for basic subsistence. If this situation could not be improved, those hungry people may go on strike, there may be more crimes and a lot of other problems may also come into being. At last, the economy collapsed and the government crumbled.

Second, people should pay enough attention to the anticipated problems of the future as long as they are dealing with today's problems. If the government use a proper method to deal with the immediate problems, it may also help to solve some anticipated problems in the future. For example, if a government decide to encourage the development of some reproducible energy such as the solar energy and the wind energy, it will not only solve the present energy crisis, but also help to protect the environment for our offspring since the number of power plants which pollutes our environment could be reduced.

On the contrary, although some measures are effective for solving the immediate problems, they may also cause serious problems in the future. For example, a government plan to built factories over a natural park in order to push down the unemployment and develop the economy, it should also consider whether the pollution of the factories can be controlled or will cause serious environmental problems. If the pollution is out of control, the residents who live there may have serious healthy problems and thus impede the development of the economy. It will also cost the government a lot of money to recover the polluted area.

It is natural for people to pursue their immediate happiness but overlook the pains may come after their happiness, and so do the governments. It would be difficult but necessary for governments to maintain a balance between the benefits today of solving the immediate problems and the side effect of these solutions in the future.

phenomenal issue190

190 "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

Outline:
1. 当人们生活在困难之中时, 艺术可以带给人们前进的动力, 使人们保持乐观的精神
2. 当人们缺乏奋发图强的精神而自甘堕落时, 饥饿和贫穷将是无论用多少社会资源也填不满的黑洞
3. 在困难时期, 主要的社会资源还是要用于满足人们的基本生活需求的


In my opinion, even though people in a society are enduring a hard time for food and clothes, a proper sum of public resources used for supporting the art is beneficial.

When people are living in poverty and hunger, certain kind of art will help them to be optimistic about their future and further more driving them to move forward. Here is an  example showing how arts help people to overcome these difficulties: Many children participate in the International Children' s Art Competition organized by the United Nations to commemorate the INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY. Through their artwork, they demonstrated enormous creativity, thoughtfulness and concern for the poor. Seeing these little children are working hard by means of art to end poverty, the grownups will also be encouraged to fight against poverty and this is the power of the arts.

However, if we do not use any public resources to support it, we may lose the power. Even worse, people may lose their confidence and just reached out their hands for help, the problem of poverty will not be solved even if a great sum of public resources is poured in.

Another point should be noticed is that since people are still in hunger, we should carefully plan the purpose of the arts supported by public resources and the majority of public resources should be used to meet people's basic needs. The reason is that with a clear purpose, we can use a small sum of money to support the arts which encourage people and expect a great repayment, but only by using a great sum of public resources can we help the many poor to maintain a basic living. That is to say, the arts bring people hope, and the food will support people to fulfill their hope.

In all, my conclusion is that even though life is difficult, the arts is still a indispensable part of people's life and there should be a proper sum of public resources used for supporting the arts that will help people to overcome the difficulties.

ISSUE 56 "Governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future."

Outline
**不能只看眼前问题；
环境问题，只顾眼前利益，导致为了经济发展，破坏环境，走先发展后保护的老路；
人口问题，短时间解决劳动力短缺问题，但长久后造成人口过多，平均资源过少；
总结：要由长远眼光。

The speaker asserts that governments should focus more on solving the immediate problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. However, I disagree with the speaker’s assertion. It seems to be a rather shallow statement that implies that governments should focus more on problems of survival or a better life in a short term than plan a better future for their offspring and nations in a long term.

The best example is environmental problem. To save people from poverty and jobless, some governments focus on improving the local economy, regardless of its environmental effect. Forest is lost in deforestation because wood is profitable in the market and more land for farming or herding brings local people more income. Factories and mines are opened, which resolve the problem of employment rate. However, looking back into the history, various effects of various human behaviors on the environment clearly show valuable lessons on what could happen if the government focus more on the present question, ignore the anticipated problems of future and take no proper precautions.

Human activity since the industria