雅思9分作文

2005年9月3日考题

Children who grow up in families which are short of money are better prepared to deal with the problems of adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some feel that the children of low income families are better equipped to deal with difficulties posed by the …real world? when they grow up and they also believe the privileged children of wealthy families are less fit to deal with these difficulties. The implications and veracity of this argument seem self-evident, but in fact require closer examination.

The popular wisdom is that children of poorer families learn early on the value of a buck, and are thus naturally better suited to stretching money when times get tough in adulthood. Inversely, the children of wealthy families, those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, are believed to be completely ignorant of the value of money, having had everything provided for them in their youth and oftentimes erroneously expecting the same situation in adulthood. They are believed to be prone to overspending and financial irresponsibility.This belief, though logical, overlooks one key point which is, of course, education.

The basis of this argument is, of course, knowing the value of money, and the idea that children of the poor know this, and those of the wealthy do not. Who though, is in a better position to teach their children the value of money; someone skilled in earning and keeping it, the wealthy parent, or someone who cannot seem to acquire it, the poor parent? Both wealthy and poor children are equally likely to acquire an education in money, whether it is formal, or in the school of hard knocks. Conversely, both children are as likely to ignore this education.

A poor child may believe that one can get along, if not as easily, without wealth. A wealthy child may be well trained by a parent steeped in the knowledge of money management; the key to developing this skill is education.

2004年7月24日学术类大作文

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It has been suggested that the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the rate of violent crimes in society. It would certainly be easy to garner support for such a move, but solely adapting such a policy will do little to effect social change.(54 words)

The question has often been raised as to what extent media violence actually influences behavior. One can readily recount incidences of a child or young person viewing some violent behavior in a movie or on television and then trying to reproduce that situation in real life. It is hard to estimate the amount of violence which can be traced back to television shows or movies but the existence of such incidences is undeniable. Logically, removing this violent content should directly reduce the incidence of such violence but this relationship between violent media content and violent behavior is not so

While much has been recorded of young people imitating media violence, little has been directed to the influence of sad violence on those who are able to differentiate the imaginary situations in movies and on television from reality. If one were to find no similar relationship it could be immediately surmised that the most direct solution is increased supervision of young people, and not the modification of media content. The degree to which people are influenced by what they see in the media depends directly on how responsibly they are educated about the relationship of fiction and reality.(98 words)

Watching comedies does not transform one into a comedian, and watching violent movies does not directly make one violent. Rather than taking crude half measures to repair complex social problems, more focus must be placed on the nature of interpersonal relationships, social responsibility and personal accountability.(46 words)

2005/7/9

Some people think the government should pay for health care and education, others think that the government has not such responsibility. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some believe that the government should pay for health care and education; others contend that it should have no such responsibility. When it comes to governmental funding, it is easy to cause people to misunderstand what it actually means. Governmental funding in this area is a more complex question than it appears.

At its first suggestion, it may seem like a good idea to place the burden of healthcare and education funding in the hands of the government. In this way, one can imagine that funding would always be available and that there would be a standard and constancy in the quality of the institutions set up through such funding. Education and healthcare in particular are fields in which national standards are sought after. It is easy to forget however that government funds do not spring unbidden from nowhere, in fact they are gathered from individual citizens in the form of taxation.

Government funding is in fact public funding. The first objectors to such a program are those who have no immediate need of such institutions. The majority of taxed individuals are working adults who are no longer students and may not have children. Although unlikely, many people hope to be free of serious illness and would gladly trade a lifetime of healthcare taxation for the option of paying for, or better yet, not paying for personal healthcare. Aside of this, government institutions and programs are patently impersonal and not ideal for the kind of nurturing needed in these types of institutions. Regardless, people who use social services will ultimately pay for them, but the direct method of local taxation and private payment is generally more acceptable, as those who participate can see the benefit of their funding directly. Everyone ought to be entitled to getting what they pay for.

2005/12/2

Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this

Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the government rather than private companies. The results of adopting such a policy however, are difficult to anticipate. While this idea may have some benefits in theory, it may be unadvisable to bring into reality.

One can observe many issues emerging from privately funded research. The key motivator for major research organizations is often monetary profit, which they pursue by seeking to develop new industrial materials, new technology, and most recently even the development of new medicine has become an avenue for profit. This system however, often places making profit above the benefit of the public. These research organizations will withhold new technologies, and keep private information that might help competing organizations make a breakthrough. Placing control of this research in the hands of governments might alleviate some problems but certainly not all of them.

The wisdom of turning this research over to government organizations however is debatable. While the primary motivator of private organizations is obviously profit, government organizations may pursue different objectives. A government organization that developed medicine would never be withheld from a needy public while on the other hand it could very well pursue research completely driven by self interest instead of that of the public. Moreover, government organizations might ultimately lack the funding and ability to attract sufficiently talented individuals. The levels of individuality and quality that can be attained by private organizations can often be lacking in government organizations.

While the government can become more interested in controlling the populace rather than serving it, private companies in their pursuit of profits are ultimately forced to operate in the interest of the public, if not always in its best interest. With regard to this arrangement, the existent one may be the best.

2004年4月24日学术类大作文

Today, the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the power of the advertising, not the real needs of the whole society in which they are sold. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion?

Some posit that the high sales of popular consumer goods reflect the increasing power of advertisement and not the actual needs of the society to which they are sold. However, adopting such a stance may more reflect a distaste for the current surge in advertising rather than the actual situation.

There is, in fact, a direct relationship between the sales of a product or service and advertisement related to that product. Advertisement campaigns have been known to thrust virtually unknown products and organizations into the public eye and the seat of economic success. Notoriety combined with availability can produce a demand for just about anything, successful ‘ad campaigns’ have even launched people from anonymity to celebrity. Advertisement is a powerful tool, and a business that is growing ever more complex, subtle, and effective. One should be careful however not to overstate the ability of the tail to wag the dog.

While advertisement can virtually create demand out of thin air, it cannot endow people with the ability to purchase products. Advertisement has not changed the amount of money that people posses, but what they do with it. More than increasing advertisement, the increased amount of extra funds available to

to ‘reorient’ priorities. Rather than saving this money, or making investments with some foreseeable future return, advertisement gently encourages individuals to invest their money differently, in popular goods, in the sheer unconscious support of consumerism.

Like a depressive over-eater trying to fill a hole in his life with food, an emptiness festering in our modern society begs to be filled with something. For those with extra funds, consumption is the perfect answer. Advertisement may hasten this natural process, but in no way creates it.

*note: ‘the tail wagging the dog’-a term which refers to media hype creating or controlling popular beliefs. A dog is supposed to control (wag) its tail and not the other way around, but when the media or a small organization is able to control public opinion by controlling or even creating information, it’s as though the tail is wagging the dog.

2004年3月13日学术类大作文

Motorized flight has changed our life so much; no other inventions have such an important impact on our lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Motoriz ed flight has changed the lives of the world’s people greatly some believe that no other invention has had such a great impact in the history of man. There are strong arguments for both those who agree with this statement and those who do not. While a very visible invention, it is certainly not the most important.

The invention of motorized flight and its development into today’s systems of public a nd private transportation as well as flying war vehicles has had and almost immeasurable impact on history and the world itself. One could make a strong argument that motorized flight .is the most significant distinction between nations of the past and those of today. While techniques and knowledge in the fields of medicine, architecture and chemistry may have at one time exceeded those of present societies, no other people or nation of the past is known to have mastered the skies as modern man has.

It is easy however to overstate the actual importance of this discovery. Without radio, radar, global positioning technology, satellites, new fuels, polymers and building materials modern flight as we know it would not be possible. Computer technology currently is inseparable from modern flight technology and indeed in many ways makes it possible. Aside from this, many inventions do not realize their full potential immediately upon their discovery. The decoding of the human genome, animal cloning, and nuclear physics are just beginning to show their true importance, which may not be ultimately realized for many years yet to come.

The globalization taking place in our world would be impossible without motorized flight, and so its importance cannot be understated. Motorized flight itself however would not be possible without the hundreds of other inventions leading up to it and their importance cannot be overlooked either.

2005/02/05

Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved facilities and better machinery. However, some of the methods may be dangerous to human health, and may have

Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved techniques and facilities and better machinery. Some of these methods however may be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. The importance of this impact has been debated by many but not enough has been done to address these emerging problems.

When the issue of food production management is first raised, many will immediately point out the legions of starving nations in the world, the lack of sufficient food, the poverty induced starvation and such. This seems to imply some justification for the adoption of new methods of food production and the sacrifice of high standards of safety and quality. Bringing food to those who need it is a noble cause, and indeed should be one of the primary concerns of so-called developed and developing countries. Food management and distribution are however much greater issues than new methods of food production.

There is no lack of food in the world. Food that would feed those who are starving goes instead in to the bellies of cows and other livestock that consume enough in their lifetimes to feed hundreds. Restaurants prepare more food than their customers could ever consume, food in one part of the world goes into the garbage while people in another starve to death. The primary drive behind new methods of food production is not service of the public, but comes from private companies and farmers hoping to secure larger profits by adopting more efficient and less expensive methods.

Like death and taxes, food is the great leveler of all mankind. Everyone needs to eat, and the quality and safety of that food determines the quality of our lives. Steps must be taken to ensure that standards are created and rigorously enforced.

2005/10/22

The speeding up of life in many areas such as travel and communication has negative effects on society at all levels ------ individual, national and global. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In the last century the pace of life all over the globe has increased greatly, not the least in the areas of travel and communication. Some maintain that this increase has been to the detriment of society at all levels, individual, national, and global. The real impact of this phenomenon is difficult to measure at best but many markedly negative effects can be seen.

Technology developed in the most recent century has opened the doors to all sorts of social phenomenon and changed the lives and mindset of people all across the globe. This development stretches out from those which have been come to known as ‘developed’ cultures like a hand, to envelop the world and sink its fingers into the recesses of every location. In many cases it has brought enlightenment, medical advancement, and sorely needed new technology for the health and welfare of the societies it has touched. It has also brought the taint that stains all of developed countries.

Rampant corruption, environmental destruction, the poison of soulless western civilization, the glacial erasure of any culture bearing a shred of historical or interpersonal value are all the hallmarks of globalization and so-called progress and development. Nearly the entire world is careening down an empty road, chasing an invisible dream, going ever faster because they can’t find a destination. The

earth is our ship in this universe, we are tearing up wood for fuel to keep it moving.

The pursuit of individual wealth has divided communities, spouses and even siblings, people today unite only under the flag of war, and then in hopes of getting more for themselves indirectly. One can only hope that humanity is a renewable resource.

2004年2月14日学术类大作文

People have shown their selfishness and greed in modern society. Therefore, some people would like to go back to those traditional societies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The selfishness and greed rampant in modern society has lead many to wish for a return to traditional society, which they believe to be free of these problems, or at least have a lower incidence of them. The ultimate benefit, as well as the feasibility of such an idea is hard to estimate, and deserve closer consideration.

The first premise of this problem is that traditional society had less selfishness and greed than our current one, but this may or may not be true. Modern society has torn loose the fabric of community, so that neighbors may live next to one another for years without exchanging a single word; pedestrians may share a train car, never to see each other again. The impact of this phenomenon on society is to completely remove accountability and empathy from social interaction. This milieu destroys interpersonal relationships fundamentally and gives rise to greed, selfishness and corruption as a matter of course.

The question at hand is whether previous societies were any better. Those who know you best have the power to hurt you the most, and most would rather be cheated by a stranger than a friend. While the members of a close-knit community may have no interest in petty thievery, they may be able to completely destroy the lives of one another. It should be noted as well that this movement backwards, to previous social states is simply impossible. One can even call to mind attempts in the past to radically change social direction and their disastrous results.

Just as a person who grows and matures may sometimes wish for the simplicity of youth, people often hope to return to former ‘simpler’ times. These wishes however are misguided, just as with maturing, one can only acquire the tools to deal with reality and move forward.

2004年3月27日学术类大作文

Differences between countries have become less and less evident, so we can enjoy the same films, brands and TV program. To what extent do you think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?

In recent years, we have seen a narrowing in the gulfs between different societies, so that people across the world can enjoy the same films, brands, products and even television programs. There are both advantages and disadvantages to these developments but from an international standpoint, there are far more benefits.

Cultural exchange can be seen in two main ways, dependent on what is being exchanged. Every

Cultural mores as well often to not agree, a conservative culture may find the influx of less conservative cultural influences to be an affront to its values. Young people and the disaffected are especially susceptible to cultural influences which, if not simply negative, can lead to the loss of their cultural identity. There is a thin boundary beyond which cultural exchange becomes cultural hostility.

Despite all of these negative aspects however, one cannot dispute the overbearing positive effects of cultural exchange. Rather than a loss of cultural identity, cultural exchange can lead to new identity, forged from several good sources. Those who feel something lacking in their lives can often find answers in other cultures, and the broadening of cultural horizons is also the expansion of the mind and personal character. Like a cloth of many different materials, like a bed of wildflowers, the mixing and mending of many different cultures makes the world stronger and a more beautiful place in which to live. Not only is cultural exchange unavoidable in our modern world, but it reminds us that we live in a broad and diverse world rich in cultures which are worth respecting and preserving. This exchange turns a world of strangers into one of neighbors. Healthy cultural exchange is the foundation of peaceful global development.

2004年1月10日学术类大作文

There are many women serving in the army, the navy, and the air force. What do you think of females joining the armed forces? Do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons.

Presently, there are many women serving in the army, the navy, and the air force, the specific effect of women joining the armed forces is debatable, but may perhaps be of less consequence than one expects. Any conflict which arises from this may indeed stem directly from old traditions and the lopsidedness of our male-oriented culture.

There are many arguments for keeping women out of the armed forces. Many believe that women are too sentimental, which is seen as a useless and even detrimental quality to have in war. Leadership, which is in high demand in stressful situations, is traditionally seen as coming from men, and not women. The issue of relationships developing on the battlefield is serious. War is a place of cold, dispassionate decisions which are often vital to success and survival and cannot be clouded by romantic feelings. The source of these issues however may not lie with women at all.

Women are certainly viewed as being more sentimental than men, but the truth of this has never been proven. On the contrary, those who claim women are sentimental are just as quick to accuse them of being cold and calculating. People may see women as unfit for leadership roles because of our patriarchal society which does not even give women the chance to show leadership skills, should they have them. As professionals, both men and women should be able to put aside romantic feelings and focus on their tasks, military personnel who are renowned for discipline are no exception.

Presently, the greatest obstruction to assimilating women into the military may be the fact that they are not already there. People once used the same logic to defend segregation; that different races would be simply incapable of coexisting, but they have already been proven wrong.

The issue of environmental protection is becoming too big and far-reaching for individuals and any single nation to handle. Therefore, the issue can only be addressed from an international or global perspective. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

The issue of environmental protection is becoming too large and far-reaching for individuals or any single nation to handle. Some believe therefore that the issue can only be addressed from an international or global perspective. As is the case with any issue having global impact however, and the elimination of the individual from the solution is highly debatable.

The actions of a single individual can do nothing to curb the swelling avalanche of environmental pollution overtaking our world. A single nation as well, depending on its individual contribution to global pollution can not make much of a difference acting alone against such a large problem. If the people of one nation were to entirely stop all forms of pollution this very day, it would still make only an infinitesimal difference in the scheme of things. A world lead by an organization encouraging reform however could spur real change but this organization cannot bring itself into being.

Change always starts small. A single individual while powerless alone has the ability to influence others and a group of people large enough and with a singular voice has the power to influence a nation. Likewise, influential nations acting in concert have the power to effect global change. The key to bringing about this chain reaction is engendering a consciousness and sense of responsibility toward the environment in a sufficient number of individuals; individuals who are not interested in stopping global pollution itself, but ensuring a healthy environment for themselves and their own progeny. People are the driving force of change.

Individuals must learn to appreciate the problem of global pollution on a personal level before they can take true responsibility for it. Assigning this responsibility to a global organization, while lending organization and clear direction to the solution, only further removes people from the problem.

2005/8/6

Many people say that we have developed into a “throw-away” culture, because we are filling up our environment with so many plastic bags and rubbish that we cannot fully dispose of. To what degree do you agree with this opinion and what measures can you recommend to relieve this problem?

It has been said that many nations have developed into a ‘disposable’ culture, because we are filling up our environment with non-biodegradable material that we cannot effectively dispose of. In our modern society not only products, but everything has become disposable. If not curbed, this will surely be the seed of our destruction.

We don’t just throw out c ontainers and packaging, we throw away cars and computers a few years after we buy them, cell phones and electronics which have no way to degrade, weapons and machinery that has been outmoded, the mad-paced development in our society has created an ever growing garbage heap of ‘yesterday’s mess’. Newspapers, quite possibly one of the most useless and vestigial features of our culture tower over landfills decomposing so slowly that the headlines from thirty year old issues are still legible. All the while manufacturers continue production, happily counting their forty pieces of silver.

hand. Perhaps they would understand the grave situation our world is truly in if they viewed for themselves the boundless landfills around them. Everyone must be made aware of the actual rate at which dumping is increasing and consuming space on the planet, and governments must take immediate and decisive action to curb this development. Lastly, everyone must take responsibility for themselves and keep waste production to a minimum. Lest we be buried in our own filth like swine.

Soon, the most significant accomplishment of our modern society will be the pile of garbage we have built, larger than that of any previous civilization. If this wanton disposal continues unchecked, our own civilisation will soon add itself to the garbage heap.

*forty pieces of silver- the price for which Judas betrayed Christ, the prophet of the Christian religion. This is used in Western culture as a synonym for the price, or profit gained from betrayal.

2004年9月25日学术类大作文

In some societies, sports and entertainment personalities are more valued than professional workers like doctors, nurses and teachers. Why do you think this has happened? Do you think it is a good development?

In some societies, sports and entertainment figures have become more revered and respected than professional workers like doctors, nurses and teachers. The reasons for this development are various and complex, but not so much so that they cannot be investigated. The long reaching consequences of this development, however, are certainly negative.

Many societies have developed a sickness, a kind of obsession with famous sports and entertainment figures. They epitomize the prime directives of our modern societies, seizing fame and wealth for oneself and using these things only to one’s own benefit. While these figures certainly add spice and flavor to our lives, and inspire many with dreams and ambitions, their contribution to society is debatable. They feed again, the dream that makes our society possible. We accept gross imbalances in wealth and privilege, because we believe that someday we may stand on the light end of the scale.

In our lottery-style society, these sports and entertainment stars are the winners. They make us believe that anyone with talent in these areas and luck can be instantly catapulted to the top of society; to brush shoulders with the most powerful and enjoy every luxury the world has to offer. Though sooner or later the root of our sycophantism, jealousy, turns to hatred and we tear down these stars as surely as we made them. All the while the true heroes of our society live out a thankless existence, like air or the earth itself, solely responsible for our continued existence and completely ignored.

Instead of parents, teachers and leaders, many people admire most popular figures that they have never met or come to know. They fall in love with an illusion, a fantasy, and a lifestyle that they squander their youth wishing that they will someday enjoy, and our society suffers because of it.

2005/05/21

Many people are optimistic about the 21st century and see it as an opportunity to make positive changes to the world. To what extent do you agree or disagree with their optimism? What changes

Many people are optimistic about the twenty first century and see it as an opportunity to make positive changes in the world. Given current trends however this optimism is certainly unwarranted. If we are to see our way safely into the twenty second century, many fundamental changes still need to me made.

The world has been changed in the twenty first century; advancements in medicine and technology have changed life and lifestyles for virtually all of the peoples of the world. Not only have these advancements brought society forward, it has brought society onto the cusp of a new era, the entire direction of human development is now changing from that of single nations eking out an existence in some corner of the world, to the people of the world drawing together to take on projects and research that could never be accomplished in isolation.

These changes however, have not all been positive. The environmental impact of industriali z ation has changed the face of the world as well, polluting oceans and rivers, stripping the world of some of its oldest and most verdant forests darkening the sky with air pollution, poking holes in the protective ozone layer, and leading to the development of radioactive poisons capable of poisoning the earth and continuing to poison it for millions of years to come. Meanwhile, man is beset by problems of overpopulation and pollution. Like vermin, man is being overcome by his own filth and inability to stop reproducing.

Man’s development in the last century has been massive, but in both directions, both forward and backward. This combination of development and destruction seems to be the basic nature of man, but if we are to survive, we must realize that progress, at the cost of ourselves is not only unacceptable but the path to destruction.

2005/06/11(与2004年6月11日考题极为相似)

The government is responsible for protecting a nation?s cultural identity. Thus, some people believe new buildings should be built in traditional styles. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Some beli eve that the government is responsible for protecting a nation’s cultural identity, and as a result of this, believe that new buildings should be built in traditional styles. As a gesture, this may make sense at first but the underlying logic is debatable. Protecting culture is more complicated than simply maintaining a traditional outward appearance.

Firstly, there should be a clear understanding of the government’s role in the cultural identity of the people it governs. While the government itself should certainly maintain cultural standards and guidelines supported and desired by the people, it has no real role in giving direction to cultural development. On the subject of maintaining cultural standards it seems like a fine idea, but if one can imagine a government preventing cultural change or going against the desires of people to sample different cultures this truth becomes clear. Governments have at best, a back seat in the cultural development of its people.

Secondly one should examine cultural development itself. Culture, rather than being static or existing in a frozen vacuum, is a living thing that is ever changing and ever new. Outside cultural influences

identify as our own culture is actually a combination of many different cultural influences of the past. People define culture, and not the other way around. These new buildings, the outward representation of a developing culture are something new, and they should have a new look to them, to reflect the development that they represent.

Maintaining culture does not mean resisting change, but keeping social values while moving into the future. As long as they are new expressions of traditional culture, and not blindly borrowed forms, we should welcome the changes expressed in architecture and other areas.

2005/06/25

People think that news media have influenced people?s lives nowadays. It is therefore a negative development. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people think that the influence the news media has had on people’s lives nowadays is a negative development. While there are many negative aspects to this influence, it is of course not completely bad. There is much good that the news media has done for people in general also.

As a tool of propaganda for the government and as a private institution seeking to make profits through high ratings, the news media is certainly a negative force in people’s lives. Most recently g overnment organizations have put together false news reports, made to seem as though they were created by local news organizations and fed to the public as legitimate news, a dangerously misinforming development. Aside of this, in order to maintain ratings, many news agencies have departed from reporting important and useful information and instead have begun seeking the most sensational or disturbing news rather than the most informative.

These are in fact negative developments, but they do not negate the many good things that people are able to obtain from news media. As long as one remembers their responsibility to seek out for themselves what is important, and to view all information, not just news, with a critical eye, the news presented by the media can be very useful indeed. The availability and ubiquity of news as information today is unmatched in any former time. Responsible citizens have almost all vital information at their fingertips, but must take on a personal responsibility to sort the facts from fiction.

Like all tools, the news media is most useful when it is used properly. Unfortunately most people today are not being taught to think for themselves, or to be critical of what they see or hear. This, rather than the flaws in news media is what must change.

2005/06/18

Sending criminals to prisons is not the best method of dealing with them. Education and job training are two better ways to help them. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It has been said that sending criminals to prison is not the best method of dealing with them, that instead providing them with education and job training are two better ways to deal with them. The current penal system certainly needs serious revision, and such a move would be a step in the right direction.

Many complain that we now have a ‘rotating door’ penal system, that our prisons house criminals only to send them right back out into society to continue committing crimes. Indeed almost half of offenders released from prison return within a few years, proving that there is little or no reform built into our penal system. The penal system takes no responsibility for the criminals which they house; there has always been a fundamental understanding that they are responsible only for punishing criminals, not reforming them. The result is to exacerbate the problem rather than ameliorate it in any way.

Education and job training are fine ideas, but they would probably disturb a curious balance that has been struck at least in the prisons of the United States. Penal institutions are highly profitable in the United States, which has certainly been a factor in their exponential growth since the 1970’s. Incarceration alone is a failure as a solution to crime, especially now that some have found ways to profit from it. No one however, not citizens, not governments, wants the task of effectively addressing the problem of effective rehabilitation. Imprisonment in our society however is only a path to ostracism.

If prisons were hospitals, they would be torn down because of their inability to cure patients. Ineffectively treating the illness that is crime has proved to be more convenient and profitable for our society however. Reform is sorely needed but there may be no one to undertake it.

2005/12/17

It is more important for a building to serve its purpose than look beautiful. Architects should not worry about buildings as works of art. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some feel that it is more important for a building to serve its purpose than to look beautiful and, that architects should not consider the artistic value of their buildings. This is mainly an issue of esthetics, where people vary widely on opinion. Esthetic value in our world however, cannot be ignored.

The function of form is a serious consideration in architecture. Any project that is undertaken must primarily and ultimately fulfill a utilitarian demand. A library must be large enough to house books and be laid out in a sensible and functional arrangement; a bridge must ultimately reach both ends of the gap it must span. Visual appeal is at best a secondary consideration and is often the source of additional costs and consideration that otherwise would not go into a construction project. Efficiency should always be the prime consideration, especially when dealing with public funds.

Esthetics and ergonomics however cannot be ignored. The impact that more pleasing structures and spaces has on our minds and sensibilities is irrefutable. Plain dreary structures, shapes and colours can make one feel oppressed and desperate, institutional forms and floor plans make one feel caged in, people naturally seek out more pleasing forms anywhere they can find them. Clothing, cars, accessories, electronics, furniture, everything is constantly seeking to become more pleasing to the eye and ergonomic because they appeal more to the delicate sensibilities of man. The beauty of form is built into our minds as a necessity.

Buildings are no exception to this truth. The structures on the skylines of our cities become a part of our social identity; they represent us and reflect our artistic taste and ingenuity. Form should certainly follow function, but the beauty of a building’s form is a very important part of its funct ion.

2004年6月19日学术类大作文(与2004年3月20日考题极为相似)

Unlike most countries, the police in the United Kingdom do not normally carry guns. Some people think it leaves the citizens unprotected, while others believe that this practice reduces the overall violence in society. Discuss both views and use your own experience and evidence.

Unlike most countries, the police in the United Kingdom do not normally carry guns. Some people think it leaves citizens unprotected, while others believe that this practi c e reduces the overall violence in society. Police having guns however is an issue secondary to criminals having guns.(45words)

结构分析:2+1’模式,最后一句为主题句,明确地表达了自己的观点。但是,前两句的问题很严重,即照抄了题目。(这可能是我和老外没有沟通好,在他所写的所有例文中都出现了类似的情况,大家千万不要学!!!)

. Because criminals usually have access to guns, police officers need them in order to control crime. If police in the U.K. are able to go without guns and not have crime getting completely out of control then they have already set a fine example that other countries should follow. The fact that they are able to do this is an indication of their ability to control the flow of guns to the general populace and this makes citizens safer than anything else. To a civilian, taking guns away from criminals is more important than giving them to police. (98words)

For places that are not able to, or are unwilling to control this availability of guns to criminals, police have no choice. Countries with weak or ineffective gun laws, or countries bordering such countries, like Mexico which has strong gun laws, but virtually no way to prevent them from being smuggled over the border from the U.S., need a police force that is not only armed, but is armed better than the criminals. This ‘domestic arms race’ is the fate of any country that does not reali ze that civilians have no need of being armed and should have no access to weapons whatsoever.(103words)

The root of the problem is embarrassingly corrupt governments and ineffective half-measures taken to control the circulation of guns, which allows criminals to easily come into possession of guns. Nations around the world should hope to someday reach the point where their police force can afford not to carry guns and still be effective. (54words)

2005/12/2

Far too little has been done to prevent animals and plants from dying out, but people have noticed this problem for a long time. Why don?t they take action to solve it? Give your suggestions about how to solve this situation.

Some say far too little has been done to prevent animals and plants from becoming extinct, but people have been aware of this problem for a long time. Many wonder why steps have not been taken to solve this problem. The solution to this problem is quite elusive and, given the current state of affairs, perhaps unattainable.

In the most recent century, man’s ceaseless development and expansion around the globe have driven specie after specie to extinction, sometimes as a secondary result of human expansion, sometimes with a

continental United States. This cavalier attitude towards extinction comes mostly from the lack of tangible consequences stemming from it. Many have long warned of a fatal tipping of environmental balance resulting from the extinction of a key species, but it has never happened, and many believe it never will.

Before that delicate balance is irreversibly altered however, man must realise that mastery of the globe and nature is a deadly illusion. People everywhere are educated that man is separate from the environment, that it exists only to serve our needs, and so pollution and extinction continue to grow. This misconception must be corrected immediately. The wanton destruction of the environment and living things in it is destined to catch up with mankind sooner than later, only by adapting a more responsible attitude can this impending disaster be averted. Presently however, man is too far consumed with his own development.

Nations should take steps to show at least some ability to regulate expansion and environmental impact. It seems that nothing will be done until it is too late, until humans themselves fall down dead in the streets as a result of environmental problems, and maybe not even then.

It is right that college graduates earn higher salaries than the less well-educated in the community. But they should also pay the full cost of their study. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Some conclude that college students should bear aIl expenses for their higher learning on the generalization that college graduates usually receive higher salaries for similar jobs than those without a college degree. We can not deny that higher level of education, indeed, do associate with better income. Still, build on such fact alone, the conclusion remains questionable when more aspects are taken into consideration.

The whole argument in question rests on an assumption that it is always the case that people with higher education make more money than those less well-educated. But salary or income is, in most cases, based on contributions made by employees to companies or organizations in which they are employed. Statistics in the labor market indicate that people with professional training tend to find jobs easier than college graduates do and that blue-collar workers who do not hold college degrees are becoming the hotties in the labor market. Employers prefer to hire and pay more to highly skilled and specially trained people rather than fresh college graduates. In the auto industry, for instance, skilled technicians make two or three times more than their college educated counterparts who make the average salaries in other companies. And it is widely accepted that people’s income is determined more by talent, hard work, and willingness to take risks than solely by certain qualifications such as college education. Otherwise, the unemployment rate of college graduates would

market. Admittedly in some knowledge extensive field such as research, teaching, and practice of law the labor force are primarily consists of highly educated professionals. But such people make up only a fraction of the labor market and are thus unrepresentative of the whole employment in general.

Considering the goal of education, we find that it is even more problematic for the country to throw all the responsibility of financing college education to college students. The goal of higher education of a nation is to improve and strengthen the general level of intellectual and professional capacity of its labor force, thereby increasing the competency of the nation in the global economy. As tax payers, parents all contributes to the education system and country in various ways. It is only reasonable and necessary that the country gives some forms of financially assistance to students to ease the burden of rising education costs. Such help should go to not only students from needy or impoverished families but also outstanding students from affluent backgrounds. Doing so can significantly boost the motivation of children from millions of families to engage in higher level of study. It is understandable that the general quality of people in a country will improve and its economy will benefit both now and in years to follow.

If the burden of supporting children’s higher education is dumped on parents and students, thousands of brilliant students will be deprived of chances to pursue their academic inspiration. Among those who suffer would definitely be future great scientists, business managers, artists and statesmen. The loss will be disastrous and irreversible.

In conclusion, the idea that students should also pay the full cost of their study is wrong and harmful because it is wrong to assume that higher education necessarily equalize high income. Moreover, it is in the best interest of a nation to take responsibility in financing college education so that the goal of higher education will be better met.

相关文档
最新文档