5分The university should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give students more practical training. Do you agree or disagree?In modern society, more and more people think that the university should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give students more practical training. However there’s also a lot of people do not agree with them. In my opinion, the university provide student more practical training is very necessary.First, when people come to university, most of them is more than 18 years old, so they have ability to teach-self. That means student can learn theoretical knowledge mainly by self-teaching rather than by lessons.Second, in modern society, the practical ability is becoming more and more important. But in school, students rarely have chance to practice themselves. The most of their life is compare with lots of books rather than practical training. Therefore when graduating from university, many students find them can not adapt social working requirement. That makes them frustrated. If this situation happens, it’ll be the failure of high education of the university.Third, the target of high education is to bring up person with ability for society. The ability can be understood in two points: one is theoretical ability, the other is practical ability. As a result, the practical training is also a very import part in high education. Many universities gradually know that practical training is necessary but most of universities do not make enough effort or even give enough attention to this main task. Thus they could not really complete their duty.So I agree that should not provide so much theoretical knowledge but give students more practical training.6分Some people think that animal experiments are cruel, while others believe that it is good for the development of science. Discuss both views and give your own opinion?The animal experimentation is very difficult issue with a lot of people feeling very strongly of it, we are use the animals for the experimentation in different way, one of most big problem is for test the cosmetics, the images of animals with things put in their eyes for so we are able to look a bit better make many people very angry. Is it necessary?The companies such as the body shop said that they do not experiment on animals and they produce good cosmetics who make money, I am not agree that making the cosmetics that make our faces better does not mean the animals must suffering in terrible ways, it does not seem moral for me. On the other hand we also use the animals for test the new drugs.Without these new drugs people die and suffer when they need not, some of the people believe that the animals should not suffer and die so that we can avoid it, I am not agree here, these people will change the minds when it is they who are die or one of their children, it is sad that the animals have to suffer for this thing but here I believe that the suffering is justify. Is there alternative to the animal experimentation?I’m not expert but I don’t think so, the monkeys are most near biology animals and without test to them, we cannot sure of affects of the new drugs, we test on humans also but only when we know the drugs not a problem to us, the testing on humans without the tests on the animals could make the tragedies.So in conclusion I do not believe that the animal testing is justify for not essential things but for essential things I believe that there is not choice and it is justify.7分You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.In many countries television shows many foreign-made programmes. The dominance of imported entertainment is harmful to the cultures of these countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?You should write at least 250 words. You should use your own ideas of knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.In developing countries, where resources limit domestic productions, many programs are imported. They bring people opportunities to broaden outlooks, however, much content contains characters and messages that, at best, are simply not relevant to local cultures, and at worst convey violent images and mass marketing messages, which threatens cultural identification and values. In addition, the pervasive programs block the citizens to have access to their own cultural products.Many people may see the effects that the foreign-made programs bring to the scattered culture. Citizens may be less identified with their own traditions and habits. What’s the worse is that people don’t see the dominance of commercialism on TV programs, which converts their national cultural awareness. Few are really aware that television programs exist solely as a means of delivering culture as marketing tool. The commercial advertising has moved from the obvious and easily ignored sponsorship of programming to more subtle and effective means. The viewers’ consumption trends will be influenced by theforeign-made programs.Television programs define the modes of education and discourse. Most imported TV programs are entertaining, supported by superficial self-esteem. They seldom encourage viewers to think deeper about meanings of life. The viewers may even be lost in the jungle of mixed cultures; and abandon the essence of their own culture to pursue the fashionable but dross part of foreign culture.To save our culture from being overwhelmed by foreign entertainment imports, the government should censor programs and policies in cultural industries to ensure the citizens are not so strongly affected by foreign culture. The government should also developa competitive environment for the production and distribution of national content in all media.。
