issue范文

因果型：

Q+The sperker claim so, for the reason that...I concede that...Otherwise, in my

view(大正小负)

比较型：

The speaker would prefer...instead of...I agree insofar as...At the same time,

however,...

According to the speaker, A is a more important means to...than B. Although I

agree...the speaker overstates the comparative significance of A.

结论型和现象型

I agree with the speaker that A would serve the interest of...Nevertheless, A

would pose certain risks which...

The speaker claims that..., and that...I then to disagree with both aspects of this

claim

It would be tempting to support the speaker's claim that...It is true that...In my

view, however, the potential harm they can inflict on … far outweiths their …

benefits.

Issue1

The speaker claims that we can learn more frem people who disagree wiht us

than from those agree with us, for the reason that...I concede that disagreement

may...under some circumstances. However, we can learn from each other

through debates if...

Issue 31 money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even

when the results of that research are controversial.

According to this statement, the speaker claims that government should invest

on all researches regardless what the results of them would be. I fundamentally

agree with the speaker insofar as research is the path to development of

technology and accumulation of knowledge. Yet, strictly followed, in some

cases, investing on researches would pose certain risks to the society.

One compelling argument in favor of investment on researches has to do with

the fact that the results of most researches are unclear at the beginning.

Admittedly, for inadequate resources, government has no choice but to pick

some researches with clear results, which serve to address the pressing social

problems. However, in my observation, it is always the researches without

certain results--so called "cutting edge", that contribute most to meet the social

needs in a few years later. Consider, for instance, the research of gene does not

have any guaranteed result or even any certain aim at the beginning, but when

as it carried on, marvelous achievements appears. The fruition of genetics research will allow for treatment on gene defects in the foreseeable future. If

refuse to invest on researches with controversial results, the government would

be bogged down into the Sargasso Sea of endless contention about which

research have definitive outcome. Therefore, it is impossible to determine

whether to invest on a research regarding to its seemingly dim result.

Another compelling argument for how it is needed for government to invest on

research comes into my mind when I consider the nature of research- learning.

Indeed, research is the path to intelligence adventure, an adventure leading

people to seek the truth lying behind the uncharted and unexplainable

phenomena. Even if some researches turn out to be fruitless after years of study

and depleting huge amount of money, it does not indicate that these

researches have nothing to do with the development of society. At least, they

are sure signs of a free environment of scientific study, which encourage people

to pursue their curiosity for the eternal laws and orders of the outside world.

Notwithstanding the foregoing reasons why it is necessary to invest most of the

researches, the government must be consciously aware that certain research

avenues would become potential time bombs that threaten the very safety of

humans. Apt examples involve biochemistry weapons and unclear bombs,

which would bring catastrophes to the world if we do not control the relevant

researches of them.

On balance, I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that investment on

research is always beneficial, no matter how ambiguous their results seem to be.

Yet for certain ill-conceived researches, government should never hesitate to

inhibit.

17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has

a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and

resist unjust laws."

The speaker claims that it is every individual's duty to obey just laws and, at the

same time, disobey unjust laws. I tend to disagree with this statement, in two

respects. First, how does every individual discriminate from just laws and unjust

ones? Second, what consequences would it bring to the society if each one in a

society disobey and resist laws he regards as unjust?

Admittedly, in some circumstances, people's will to disobey unjust laws carries

impetus to the sociopolitical reforms and transformations. Consider, for

instance, the French Revolution was instigated by groups of individuals who