Issue 18
"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research
is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involves the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.精華：However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why…
這種說法可以用來抨擊原題觀點(diǎn)的絕對(duì)化，非常有力。
My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
帶出自己觀點(diǎn)的新句型。
I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research is the exploration of the unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion of research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any value it must explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact, query(=doubt) whether research whose benefits are immediate and predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all.
在第二段，作者展開論辯，先攻擊原觀點(diǎn)的邏輯錯(cuò)誤——who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it，參照前幾篇，我發(fā)覺只要是原觀點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)了邏輯的錯(cuò)誤，大部分作者都不會(huì)忘記去指出甚至由此推出自己的獨(dú)到見解。這是一個(gè)好辦法，在展現(xiàn)你的申辯能力的同時(shí)，不知不覺中也占去了一些字?jǐn)?shù)，挺適合臨場(chǎng)發(fā)揮的。
While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs--in terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing society's more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called "Star Wars" defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day--by establishing after- school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.
進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)并不是所有researches都是valuable的，必須考慮到其所帶來的效益是否>損失，否則，是會(huì)導(dǎo)致災(zāi)難性連鎖反應(yīng)的。
在這里需要進(jìn)一步指出的是，我們?cè)谄綍r(shí)練習(xí)的時(shí)候就要注意多多記住一些有用的數(shù)據(jù)和年代，這樣會(huì)非常persuasive & convincing啦。
The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature--such as aggression and greed. Although human genome research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists--not our research laboratories--to mitigate these problems. Secondly, for every new research breakthrough that helps reduce human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an alternative source of energy and invaluable "peace-keepers," this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling the promise of "better living through chemistry" research has given us chemical weapons for human slaughter. In short, so-called "advances" that scientific research has brought about often amount to net losses for humanity.
最后一句是非常震撼的。作者的雄辯提醒各位，時(shí)刻從全方位思考每一個(gè)問題，也就是說，每一樣新事物的出現(xiàn)和產(chǎn)生，必然附帶一些不利的因素，也是就類似新概念里的“The progress of knowledge”所提到的two-edged weapon效應(yīng)。
In sum, the speaker's assertion that we should invest in research whose results are "controversial" begs the question, because we cannot know whether research will turn out controversial until we've invested in it. As for the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research is generally a sound investment because it is an investment in the advancement of human knowledge and in human imagination and spirit. Nevertheless, when we do research purely for its own sake without aim or clear purpose--we risk squandering resources which could have been applied to relieve the immediate suffering of our dispirited, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised members of society. In the final analysis, given finite economic resources we are forced to strike a balance in how we allocate those resources among competing societal objectives.
最后一段作者等于是把每一段的中心進(jìn)行有效的濃縮歸集。
這篇文章大部分從反面的角度反駁了原文觀點(diǎn)，不僅語言運(yùn)用得體，而且靈活運(yùn)用復(fù)雜句，是難得的好文章。如果ets心情好，忽略一些語法錯(cuò)誤(我已更正)的話，6分應(yīng)該不成問題的。
"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research
is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involves the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.精華：However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why…
這種說法可以用來抨擊原題觀點(diǎn)的絕對(duì)化，非常有力。
My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.
帶出自己觀點(diǎn)的新句型。
I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research is the exploration of the unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion of research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any value it must explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact, query(=doubt) whether research whose benefits are immediate and predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all.
在第二段，作者展開論辯，先攻擊原觀點(diǎn)的邏輯錯(cuò)誤——who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it，參照前幾篇，我發(fā)覺只要是原觀點(diǎn)出現(xiàn)了邏輯的錯(cuò)誤，大部分作者都不會(huì)忘記去指出甚至由此推出自己的獨(dú)到見解。這是一個(gè)好辦法，在展現(xiàn)你的申辯能力的同時(shí)，不知不覺中也占去了一些字?jǐn)?shù)，挺適合臨場(chǎng)發(fā)揮的。
While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs--in terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing society's more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called "Star Wars" defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day--by establishing after- school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.
進(jìn)一步強(qiáng)調(diào)并不是所有researches都是valuable的，必須考慮到其所帶來的效益是否>損失，否則，是會(huì)導(dǎo)致災(zāi)難性連鎖反應(yīng)的。
在這里需要進(jìn)一步指出的是，我們?cè)谄綍r(shí)練習(xí)的時(shí)候就要注意多多記住一些有用的數(shù)據(jù)和年代，這樣會(huì)非常persuasive & convincing啦。
The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature--such as aggression and greed. Although human genome research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists--not our research laboratories--to mitigate these problems. Secondly, for every new research breakthrough that helps reduce human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an alternative source of energy and invaluable "peace-keepers," this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling the promise of "better living through chemistry" research has given us chemical weapons for human slaughter. In short, so-called "advances" that scientific research has brought about often amount to net losses for humanity.
最后一句是非常震撼的。作者的雄辯提醒各位，時(shí)刻從全方位思考每一個(gè)問題，也就是說，每一樣新事物的出現(xiàn)和產(chǎn)生，必然附帶一些不利的因素，也是就類似新概念里的“The progress of knowledge”所提到的two-edged weapon效應(yīng)。
In sum, the speaker's assertion that we should invest in research whose results are "controversial" begs the question, because we cannot know whether research will turn out controversial until we've invested in it. As for the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research is generally a sound investment because it is an investment in the advancement of human knowledge and in human imagination and spirit. Nevertheless, when we do research purely for its own sake without aim or clear purpose--we risk squandering resources which could have been applied to relieve the immediate suffering of our dispirited, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised members of society. In the final analysis, given finite economic resources we are forced to strike a balance in how we allocate those resources among competing societal objectives.
最后一段作者等于是把每一段的中心進(jìn)行有效的濃縮歸集。
這篇文章大部分從反面的角度反駁了原文觀點(diǎn)，不僅語言運(yùn)用得體，而且靈活運(yùn)用復(fù)雜句，是難得的好文章。如果ets心情好，忽略一些語法錯(cuò)誤(我已更正)的話，6分應(yīng)該不成問題的。