cherry-ting

"b" expert---research subject

I think it should be "D"

138 The following report appeared in a memo from the vice president of the Southside Transportation Authority. “We should abandon our current five-year plan to purchase additional buses to serve the campus of Southside University because students there are unlikely to use them. Consider the results of the recent campaign sponsored by the Environmental Club at Southside University: in a program on the campus radio station, the club asked students to call in and pledge that they would commute to school by bus instead to by automobile at least one day per week. Only ten percent of the students called in and pledged. In view of the campaign’s lack of success, we can assume that the bus service we currently offer will continue to be sufficient to serve the university.” In this argument, the arguer concludes that Southside Transportation Authority should abandon current five-year plan to purchase additional buses to server the campus of Southside University for the reason that student there are unlikely to use them. To support his/her conclusion, the arguer cited the results of a recent campaign sponsored by the Environmental Club, and assumes that the bus service they currently offer will continue to be sufficient to serve the university. A careful examination will reveal how groundless it is because it suffers some logical flaws as follow: Above all the arguer unfairly based his/her assumption that students in Southside university are not likely to use the bus service and bus service they currently offer will continue to be sufficient to serve the university on the results of the recent campaign which air a program on the campus radio station, asking students to call in and pledge that they would commute to school by bus instead to by automobile at least one day per week. Only ten percent of the students called in and pledged. The result can not convince us that this is the case since its credibility is open to doubt. As the program is aired in the campus which cannot ensure that every student in Southside University heard about it. Without knowing how many students have heard the program that the figure “10 percent” does not make any difference. It is highly possible that only ten 10 percent students have heard it and all of them called in and pledged. If this scenario is true, the assumption is completely fallacious. Next, the arguer commits a fallacy of haste generation. Given that the plan is for the future five years, so even though the result is true and creditable it only reflects that current students are unlikely to use the service but can not predicts that the future students will not. As we know things will change with time goes by. In addition, it is highly possible that the number of the students enrolling in Southside University will increase for the year to come, and then to that time it can not ensure the current bus service will continue to be sufficient. To sum up, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provide more information regarding how many student are now using the bus services and compares it with the previous situation. Meanwhile he/she should offer more information about the program such as how it is conducted, how many students have heard its. Without such specific information, the arguer can not confidently make a firm conclusion.

190. ------------------------------ The following is a letter to the editor of the Glenville Gazette, a local newspaper. "Over the past few years, the number of people who have purchased advance tickets for the Glenville Summer Concert series has declined, indicating lack of community support. Although the weather has been unpredictable in the past few years, this cannot be the reason for the decline in advance ticket purchases, because many people attended the concerts even in bad weather. Clearly, then, the reason for the decline is the choice of music, so the organizers of the concert should feature more modern music in the future and should be sure to include music composed by Richerts, whose recordings Glenville residents purchase more often than any other contemporary recordings. This strategy will undoubtedly increase advance ticket purchases and will increase attendance at the concerts." In this argument, the arguer assumed that the reason for the decline in advance tickets purchases is the choice of music and lacking for community support, and recommended that the organizers of the Glenville Summer Concert should feature more modern music in the future and should be sure to include music composed by Richerts, for the reason that Richers’s recordings are more often purchased than any other contemporary recordings, and concluded that by doing so it will undoubtedly increase advance ticket purchases and will increase attendance at the concerts. A carefully examination will reveal how groundless it is. It suffers some logical flaws as follow: Above all, the arguer assumed that the decline in advance tickets purchases indicating lack of community support. There is no evidence to support this is the case. As we all know the decline in advance tickets did demonstrate that the attendance of the concert would decline. It is true that the number of advance tickets bears some relation with the attendance, but it cannot directly represent the attendance. It is highly possible that only 50% advance tickets are sold, but the concert will get full attendance. Meanwhile, community support includes many aspects; attendance of the concert is just one aspect. Even though the attendance also declined, it is fallacious to conclude that the concert lack community support. Secondly, the arguer assumed that the choice of the concert is responsible to the decline of the advance tickets purchases which is unwarranted. There are several other possible factors contribute to the decline, such as the organization of the concert, the quality of the band, the place where the concert is hold. All these factors are highly possible give rise to the decline. In addition, the climate factor cannot be omitted. Since weather is unpredictable, it is highly possible that people would rather buy the ticket on the day in view of the weather condition rather than purchase an advance tickets. Not everyone would like to attend the concert in a bad weather. In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convince, the arguer should ruling out other possible factors that might lead to the decline in advance tickets purchases.

66. "As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate." With the development of science and technology, human society experiences a fundamental innovation, which is unimaginable by our ancients. Washing machine enables people to wash 5kg dirty clothes within 45minutes what people need to do is just pushing a button; microwave oven prepare a nutrient dinner for people only 10 minutes as long as people put the frozen food into it and switch the power; computer ease people to calculate complex accounting. As technology make people live more and more comfortable and easy, people are more and more rely on technology to solve problems. Then a question rises: will the ability of humans to think for themselves deteriorate in view of people depending more on technology to workout problems? As for me, the answer is not positive. It is true that modern technology help people to solve problems more quickly and conveniently, which result in large usage of technology by people in solving different problems. When we in an emergence, we will use the cell phone to ask for a help; when calculate a complicated mathematic question, we use calculator to solve it; when we meet too many labor tasks to do, we resort to robot; when we explore the outer space, we send the rocket and man-made satellite to the universe. Nearly everyone use various kinds of technology to solve their problems. Do these activities imply that humans no longer solve the problem by themselves and leave all the problems to the technology, so that their ability of thinking will surely deteriorate? Of course not. The author who makes such notion omits one important thing that it is human being who invents the new technology not the technology itself. Without humans thinking for themselves, there won’t be so diverse technologies available nowadays. For instance, considering that the letter communication is too slow, people develop the telecommunication technology from telegraphy, telephone, to now widely used network. Moreover, technology is a thing without thinking; it will not know how to be used by itself. It is we, human being who determine how to use it. A case in point is that in order to exam the disease more accurate and concrete, people apply the radioactivity technology to the medicine fields, which push the advance of modern medicine and expand the utilization of the technology itself. In addition, not all the problem that humans confront can be solved by technology such as the ethnic problems, moral issues. People have to deal with these problems by themselves through using other means rather than technology, say, education. As what I have mentioned, my position is that as people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves surely will not deteriorate and may be stimulated to think independently more than ever before to develop more advanced technology for the welfare of human society.

084 In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. As the great scientist Newton said:” We make progress on the shoulder of our formers.” In this sense, I agree with the assertion that in any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. First of all, without learning the great achievements of the formers in a certain field, we simply cannot grasp the fundamental knowledge and technology of that field. Without such fundamental knowledge and technology, how can we carry out any research in that field and ultimately resulting in significant contribution? The higher a tower is, the deeper its basis is. No skyscraper towers in the air. In addition, not only can we master the primary ken of the realm where we exert our effort by studying the past great works in that field, but we can also find out the key issues that existed in this field unsolved by the past achievements and merit more endeavor. For example, Einstein’s relative theory was based on Newton’s classic mechanics theory, and further perfected it. And to observe the micro world more clearly, scientists designed electronic microscope to offset the shortcoming of optical microscope. Moreover, being strongly influenced by past achievements does not mean indulging one’s mind and ideas in the past world and lacking the innovation. After assimilating the elite of the past achievements, people may endow them with innovative application. For instance, after grasping the principle of base complement, scientists put this theory into practice and establish the PCR technology, which are widely implemented in the research of life science. Then by further understanding the PCR technology, they put forward the RAPD, RT-PCR, DNA fingerprint technology. All these technologies are the innovation based on the strong influence of the past achievement. As I mentioned above, it is impossible in any field of endeavor to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field. Admittedly, if people are too superstitious about the past achievement they won’t make significant achievement in certain field. As long as we take a positive and reasonable attitude toward the degree of the influence the past achievements exert on us, we are sure to make great contributions to the fields where we make endeavor.

another essay, please rate it. thank you for your suggestion. 163 Most people live, whether physically or morally, in a very restricted circle. They make use of a very limited portion of the resources available to them until they face a great problem or crisis. For most people, they often live in a certain place as we define it habitat for a relatively long period or even a life-long time. Meanwhile, as environment will exert great influence on people psychologically and morally, I admit that most people live physically or morally, in a relatively restricted circle but not very restricted. When it comes to the issue that most people make use of a very limited portion of the resources available to them until they face a great problem or crisis, however, I simple cannot agree with at all. Firstly, let make a definition of “circle”. It can be divided into two meaning, one is physical and the other is moral. As far as the physical one is concerned, what does it mean? A dwelling, a city, a state, or a nation? The scope of “circle” can be either large or small. If “circle” means a dwelling, then most people will move their home often, once a year or even more often, and they won’t live in a very restricted circle. If “circle” means a nation, maybe most people won’t have the chance to live in different countries, I cannot deny that most people live in a very restricted circle. Then, on the level of the moral one, most people will be affected by the environment where they live; and their value, their attributes, and their moral standard vary with the environment. Here the environment can be regarded as the physical circle. So most people live morally in a very restricted circle should be considered with regard of the physical circle. In addition, people’s morality not only is influenced by the environment, the education backgrounds and other factors also play a role on it. That’s why I conceive that most people live physically or morally, in a relatively restricted circle but not very restricted. Secondly, the resources available to people are different with different people. So are the ways they handle affairs or work out problems. Whether make use of a variety of the resources available to them or just use limited portion until they face a great problem or crisis depend on person. Some people will have great resources and some people just have limited ones, due to their characteristics, experience, and education background, et al. For a people who likes thinking, and with good education background and abundant experience, are likely to own plenty resources and use different resources he or she possessed to solve a problem, no matter great or small. For people who are lazy to think, even he with affluent resources, he or she is inclined to make use of the limited portion of the resources, even in face of a great problem or crisis. In other case, some people who like thinking, in that they lack adequate resources, they can only use limited ones to tackle with the problems even the great ones. On the first glance, the above assertion sounds reasonable, with a deep reflection, nevertheless, I cannot agree with it totally. For people are different with their background and the definition of “circle” is equivocal, it is presumptuous to say that most people live, whether physically or morally, in a very restricted circle and they make use of a very limited portion of the resources available to them until they face a great problem or crisis. We should consider more deep and comprehensive with the problem.

Hey, another essay, please rate it in 6 score and give me some suggestions.Great appreciation for you.Thanks. I want to know what score I can get because my exam date is impending. Admittedly, as a leader of an academic field, independent thinking is an indispensable characteristic. With retrospections of the history, we can find many examples that demonstrated it. Einstein who established the relative theory, Darwin who pointed out the evolution idea, and Galileo who concluded the theory of falling body, are all independent thinker. They propelled the development of the responsive academic fields and infuse the vigor to the realms where they studied. Then when it comes to the definition of “truly independent thinkers”, I simply cannot agree with such notion that truly independent thinkers are people who are willing to ignore established boundaries and challenge long-standing assumptions.” Firstly, independent thinking does not equate to willing to ignoring established boundaries. As independent thinkers, they often study the existed works of the former in their study fields. After assimilating the elite of the works, they will expand the usage of the theory or ideas in some new practices. By doing so, they prolong the boundaries of the established theory, not ignore. For instance, in the development of mathematics, many theories are established on the basis of the formers. Scientists put recombining theory into practice from plant to animal, resulting in the cloning technology. Secondly, it is true that independent thinkers will challenge long-standing assumptions, but the initial purpose is not to challenge the assumptions, but to discover the truth of the unknown world. During the process of probe the frontier inquire field, they establish some new theory which is on the contrary of the established ones. To prove Aristotle’s theory of geocentric, Copernicus conducted a series of observation, concluded that the earth is rotated with the sun, and established the theory of heliocentric which is a great challenge to the long-standing assumption. Let us see, were Copernicus initially going to challenge Aristotle’s theory? The answer is not positive. In sum up, in my opinion, any academic field needs truly independent thinkers but truly independent thinker are people who expand the formers’ theories into new practices and establish new theories for the purpose of explore the truth of the mysterious unknown world rather than people who are willing to ignore established boundaries and challenge long-standing assumptions.

“Most societies do not take their greatest thinkers seriously, even when they claim to admire them.” Most societies claim that they admire their greatest thinkers. How they admire them? What did they do for these great men? Just print the terrific phases about the greatest thinker in the textbook, on the newspaper, or praise them in a discourse in a public affair? Is that enough? I’d rather leave it to doubt. What they have done are just superficial things, often oral appreciation not indeed activities. As a matter of fact, greatest thinkers, the contributors of a society do not get full appreciation by the society in these days, for most people do not recognize their greatness. Nowadays, people are more concerned with the economy than ever before. In such context, persons who earn the greatest fortune are admired by most people and are the hero or paradigm of modern society. They contribute to the prosperity of the society and inspire the followers to make efforts to get greater achievement than they did. They are the idols, appreciated by almost everyone with different age, education backgrounds, careers, and characteristics. Their events and achievements reported in the newspaper, represented on TV, documented in the books, recounted in the classroom, prized by the government, but also spread by people all over the world. They share the physical fortune with the social statues and appreciation. People in the field of science and technology share the same treatment as the economic figures, for most people recognize the importance of science and technology. Science and technology make people live in a more efficient and comfortable life, realize many dreams of human being, and open the mysterious world to common people. Under such circumstance, scientists earn great admiration and high social statues nowadays. They are also the icons of most people. Then when it comes to greatest thinkers, few people realize their great contribution to our society. For their in-depth thought cannot be understood, recognize and appreciated by common people, and often their great work will not have an instant outcome to the society, it is not quaint that their greatness cannot be recognized by people. For instance, Confucius’s idea not spread by most people nowadays. Most people know his name, but when be asked about his ideas, a few people can say something, then when be asked to give some comment on his ideas, few people can give you a word. In fact, his ideas exert great influence on people’s life including political, educational and economical parts. While, these influences are often neglected by people, because they cannot be seen or touched in the physical world. Admiration of the greatest thinker in a society is a complex problem influenced by the value of the people and the society. Only when most people recognize the greatness of the great thinker and their far-reaching ideas spread widely in the society, can they get certain appreciation.

"All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems." The consensus is that the current terrorist attack on the United States will forever change the way we think about ourselves and look at each other. This hideous act of ignorance will certainly have a far-reaching effect on the way we live and deeply affect our collective consciousness. With this horrible act, Americans have become intensely aware that we live in a new world that is inherently interdependent. The emergence of this new world is especially challenging for nations who must conceive of innovative strategies to educate humankind for the future where global cooperation is the norm, not the exception, and planetary citizenship is held in the same high esteem as national patriotism. In such context, I stand for the assertion that all nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems. Globalization is defined as the compression of the world internationally and the intensification of consciousness globally. The process is real and ongoing on an international social, political, and humanitarian scale. Our age has been characterized as one of accelerated globalization requiring a shift in society's orientation toward international relations and developments. The establishment of a global university designed to engage student in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems further propels the process of globalization on worldwide scale, not only favoring the problem solving, but also contribute to developing the student¡¯s social intelligence and social competence. Moreover, the establishment of such global university will increase the friendship and trusty of all nations. Young people often possess the novel idea and method in the process of solving the problem. At the same time since they come from different nations, they will bring different point of view to a certain problem, resulting a deep understanding to the persistent social problems confronted by modern world. They will discuss the problem rather objectively without any influence coming from the outside world. As we all know different nation will have different comment on certain international issue due to their conventions, cultures, moral standards, political stands and economic interest. Out of question, these factors will exert an subliminal influence on the mind of the young people, which will impede them to come up with their proposal that maybe effective to solve the persistent social issues. Here I would like to cite such example as a student, from a nation where its main economic income mainly comes from the exports of tobacco, will get the criticize from his or her society for his or her proposal that stop the planting of tobacco to solve the pollution and health problem of human being. In addition, as young people are the future and the hope of our society, we should provide them such opportunity to cultivate their competence of problem solving. When they enter the society and go into the international realm. They will face lots of thorny problems. With the experience of being educated in such a global university, they are more competent to solve the other problem, at least they will have some thing in mind such as: how to solve the problem, which he or she should consider first, by doing so will bring what predictable influence, et al. All in all, to support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems is a wise decision for all nations. Thought there will exist some problems such as faculty, the management of the students, the language, the form of the class, and the arrangement of curriculum and so on. I am sure that these problems will be conquered if all nations take efforts to such practice and the benefits can be expected to see in the near future.

Please rate it , thanks very much. "The stability of a society depends on how it responds to the extremes of human behavior." Since "society" came into being, people have been making their efforts to maintain the stability of it. From the slavery society, in which the monarchist killed the slaves who call on independence to stabilize his society, to the modern society, where different nations enact laws and regulations to keep their society in a stable situation. The way to stabilize the society differs according to different natures of societies and different times. Admittedly, the extremes of human behavior, in some sense, will shake the stability of a society. For example, in the western world, nowadays, we often heard from the media that there was an suicide bombing event happed in a public place, say, the office building of a government, park, subway station and so on. Such extreme behavior do deteriorate the stability of a society, causing the horror of the people residing in that society, tarnishing the reputation of the society mainly in the term of safety, even worse, triggering the war. In such context, a society's responding to the extremes of human behavior play a positive role on stabilization. When the extremes of human behavior happen, the society pay attention to it, not just reporting it, but regarding it as an serious event to resolve. Digging out the real reason for such events and taking steps to water down the negative impacts of them and ultimately solve them. However, only responding to the extremes of human behavior but not taking proper measures is futile. It is not only an issue faced to government but also to people in that society. There are many ways by which will be conducive to the stability of a society. For an instance, government can indoctrinate the mainstream ethic standard and behavior codes through media, educational department to people, so that most people will have a calm and positive attitude towards the extreme events, and, at the same time, formulate laws and regulations to such events. For people, they should keep calm to such events and do not make a mess of it. It is the mutual efforts taken by both people and government that ensure the stability of the society. In addition, the unstable factors of the society are various, say, economy, and the extremes of human behavior is one part of it. Just measuring the stability of a society by the extent to which it responds to the extremes of human behavior is not comprehensive. On the first glance, the above assertion is somewhat appealing, but further reflection make me simply cannot agree with it. In my opinion, that a society's responding to the extremes of human behavior do help stabilize the society, but it is not the only standard to measure the stability of a society.

Please give me some suggestion on this issue, and rate it in 6 score. Thanks. "An individual's greatness cannot be judged objectively by his or her contemporaries; the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time." How to definite the greatness of an individual? As far as this question are concerned, different people will give different answers to it in view of their respective believes which are influenced by the society and the age they live in. It is well known that a society's moral standards, culture and nature, which vary with the time passing by, will play an important role on people's ability of judgment. As a result, the standards to judge an individual’s greatness change accordingly. For an instance, during the civil war, for most southern people Lincoln was not so great as General Li, while it was opposite in the eyes of the northern people. With time going by, both people are looked on as great men. In history, we can find many cases, in which a man's greatness had been judged not only by his or her contemporaries but also by people belonging to a later time. For example, Aristotle was regarded as a sage in Greece for his great contributions to his country and was credit by all people in the world for his contribution to the science, philosophy and other realms. It was he who built up the base of modern science. His greatness was recognized by people all over the world. Why? It is the contribution he made to the human that make his greatness be recognized: he revealed the truth to people and propelled the progress of science. So as for me, I think, an individual's greatness can be judged relatively objectively by the contribution he or she had made to the development of human being and to people’s long-term interest not just by people. Edison, who impelled the development of the science and technology, is another example. Thanks to his invention, people’s living condition improved greatly, and living in a rather comfortable way. His invention of the bulb brings the brightness to people in the dark condition. His invention of X-ray makes modern medicine more efficient to find the diseases. Not only the contemporaries but also people belonging to the later time appreciate his greatness. Admittedly, for some people their greatness are identified by the descendants not by their contemporaries. Copernicus was a good example than any others. His consistence on heliocentric theory was criticized by his contemporaries, but got the approbation by the following people. But this is not to say that the most objective evaluators of a person's greatness are people who belong to a later time. The reason why he was appreciated was due to his contribution to the human’s recognition of the world. For what I have mentioned, an individual’s contribution to human being and the development of the human society is a relatively objective standard to judge his or her greatness. Whether his or her greatness is recognized by his or her contemporary or by the followers, this standard will in effect forever.

Please rate this essay, I have posted six essays, but none have been rated, I feel a bit disappointed. Please give me some courage and suggestions. Thank you very much "All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems." The consensus is that the current terrorist attack on the United States will forever change the way we think about ourselves and look at each other. This hideous act of ignorance will certainly have a far-reaching effect on the way we live and deeply affect our collective consciousness. With this horrible act, Americans have become intensely aware that we live in a new world that is inherently interdependent. The emergence of this new world is especially challenging for nations who must conceive of innovative strategies to educate humankind for the future where global cooperation is the norm, not the exception, and planetary citizenship is held in the same high esteem as national patriotism. In such context, I stand for the assertion that all nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems. Globalization is defined as the compression of the world internationally and the intensification of consciousness globally. The process is real and ongoing on an international social, political, and humanitarian scale. Our age has been characterized as one of accelerated globalization requiring a shift in society's orientation toward international relations and developments. The establishment of a global university designed to engage student in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems further propels the process of globalization on worldwide scale, not only favoring the problem solving, but also contribute to developing the student¡¯s social intelligence and social competence. Moreover, the establishment of such global university will increase the friendship and trusty of all nations. Young people often possess the novel idea and method in the process of solving the problem. At the same time since they come from different nations, they will bring different point of view to a certain problem, resulting a deep understanding to the persistent social problems confronted by modern world. They will discuss the problem rather objectively without any influence coming from the outside world. As we all know different nation will have different comment on certain international issue due to their conventions, cultures, moral standards, political stands and economic interest. Out of question, these factors will exert an subliminal influence on the mind of the young people, which will impede them to come up with their proposal that maybe effective to solve the persistent social issues. Here I would like to cite such example as a student, from a nation where its main economic income mainly comes from the exports of tobacco, will get the criticize from his or her society for his or her proposal that stop the planting of tobacco to solve the pollution and health problem of human being. In addition, as young people are the future and the hope of our society, we should provide them such opportunity to cultivate their competence of problem solving. When they enter the society and go into the international realm. They will face lots of thorny problems. With the experience of being educated in such a global university, they are more competent to solve the other problem, at least they will have some thing in mind such as: how to solve the problem, which he or she should consider first, by doing so will bring what predictable influence, et al. All in all, to support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems is a wise decision for all nations. Thought there will exist some problems such as faculty, the management of the students, the language, the form of the class, and the arrangement of curriculum and so on. I am sure that these problems will be conquered if all nations take efforts to such practice and the benefits can be expected to see in the near future.

Another issue, please rate, thank you very much 30. "The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people's efficiency so that everyone has more leisure time." Can you image that a car can been manufactured within five minutes? Can you believe a person can collect a large quantity of information for a seminar, while cooking dinner and washing clothes? Can you conceive that a businessman can endorse three different contacts in three different countries in a day? The answer is positive. All those are commonplace in our daily life. Are these phenomena results of technological advancement? I think so. Today more than ever, the world is rotating like a busy lathe, and people are more efficient than their forefathers as well. Then do people have more leisure time? I take leave to doubt. Admittedly, technological advancement does increase people's efficiency and save more time for people compared to ancient time when the level of technology is relatively low. A case in point is that within 10 minutes we can prepare a nutrient dinner including beef, egg, bread, milk, vegetable salad, stew with the help of micro oven and frozen foods, while in the nineteenth century, a housewife should spend at least 45 minutes to do that. It really spares us lots of time, which we can spend in reading, watching TV and working. It does not mean, however, such time as saved resulting from technological advancement are used by people to leisure themselves. In the context of modem society, competition is more intensive than ever before, everyone are requited to work effective and efficient which means some people who are not competitive and fast learners should pay more time to work hard. As a result these people will use time spared from technological advancement to work hard and study to offset their shortcomings. Are these people have more leisure time? Probably not. Another scenario: you can see an author stick to his desk to writing a novel by the means of typewriter or computer; a programmer sit in front of the computer making up a fresh video game; a electronic engineer apply him/herself inventing a chip day and night in mini workshop on the desk all day and all night. Do these people have more leisure time? The technological advancement on the one hand increase their efficiency, while on the other hand put them into a more busy situation rather than accord them more leisure time. Next I doubt about the assertion that the primary goal of technological advancement is to make people more efficient. In my opinion of view, the primary goal of technological advancement should be to improve people's living condition and further propel the progress of human beings. Hence making people more efficient is one of the results of the technological advancement, but not the primary goal. Over emphasizing on the efficiency of people without considering their feelings will ultimately lead the world into hell. This would be detrimental for human life, but more likely delay the progress of humans, even worse, destruct human society. In general, considering that neither should the primary goal of technological advancement be to increase people's efficiency nor do people will have more leisure time for that purpose, I cannot agree with the above assertion.

This is my essay, please rate it. Thank you. "28 Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little." Ever since we, human beings, grow up, we are besieged by a large number of facts: some are necessary, some are useless, some are forgettable, and some are indelible. Do we remember all these facts? No. Do we need to memorize some of these facts? I think so. Then should students, people whose major tasks are to absorb knowledge and develop competence, memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts? Probably not. I think every people, except that who are deprived the right to study, have the same experience that the first mathematics lesson in which teachers taught us one, two, three, four.... Then every student memorizes one, two, three, four.... Is there any ideas, trends, and concepts that explain what are these means? Not at all. Teachers just told us that's the numbers, and she or he presented a picture with a duck and said:" there is one duck", with another picture printed two rabbits and read:" there are two rabbits". Though such way, a concrete and perceivable way, we learnt the basic math knowledge, with which we go further study on mathematics and other subjects. And most of the students' first year study is the same as this. Did they learn just a little? I cannot agree. After a few years' study, students accumulate certain facts, ideas and concepts, which were gained directly from hard memorizing. From then on they begin to use such things to memorize more complex knowledge and facts. During this course, ideas, trends and concepts contributed to the facts memorizing, so did the facts. No one can neglect the important of the facts gained before, in that they are the bases of our knowledge gaining, just as the building blocks. Admittedly, ideas, trends and concepts that help explain the facts do assist the students to memorize them well. Just as a biology student who grasp a certain concepts of genetics and related fields to biology, can well understand and memorize the procedure of "cloning", students major in arts with no basic biologic concepts, also can memorize the facts after seeing the illustration of such project. It's clearly studying the ideas and concepts that help to explain the facts is not the only way to memorize the facts, maybe a good to understand and memorize them. The notion that students who have learned only facts have learned very little is absolutely wrong to me. As I have mentioned above, facts is also a source for us to memorize new facts. For example, since we have memorize the one, two, three, four, it's easy for us to memorize twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three and so on. Today, the phrase "association memorizing" is scattered all around. That is also a fact-to-fact memorizing. Hence, facts got before also can help us to memorize new facts. Everything in the world has two aspects, we cannot say one side is right and the other is wrong. Given that the methods of memorizing facts are diverse, there can be an utterly right one. Students should use the method that suits them to memorize. That's the wise decision.