yunpingjian

I think that academic inquiry and research based on interest are not necessary mutual exclusive with the contribution to the society.

hi you did a good job. Excellent. Here is mine. please give some comments. thank you very much. We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all. The speaker makes a threshold claim that we learn through direct experience, and then concludes that we should learn nothing if we just accept theory without experience. While I agree with the threshold claim, the conclusion unfairly generalizes about the learning methods. In fact, following the speaker’s advice would actually impede the learning from indirect experience; in turn, hinder the learning from direct experience further. Turning first to the speaker’s threshold claim, I strongly agree that learn through direct experience. In my understanding, learning is viewed as an active process where learners should learn to discover principles, concepts and facts for themselves. In this process, students could learn anything meaningful and easy to grasp it if they effectively rely on the direct experience. Consider, child learn to walk is only by experiencing falling. To let child learn the concept of apple, the best way is to give him one to bite it. Conceding that we learn through direct experience, I disagree that to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all. In the first place, I see no reason why accept a theory cannot precede learning about its meaning and significance. Consider a hypothetical chemistry student. The speaker might advise this student to first learn about the concepts of altering chemical compounds to achieve certain reactions in the laboratory before studying the basic rule and principles of chemistry. Having no idea with the basic theory and ideas of chemistry, this student could very possible have an accident in the laboratory, and he will have learning nothing. In the second place, the speaker misunderstands the relationship between direct experience and indirect experience which is multi inclusive. Actually both of them are equally contributed to our learning task. Consider, for example, how economics students learn about the relationship between supply and demand. Learning about the dynamics of supply and demand involves (1) entertaining a theory (2) testing hypothetical scenarios against theory, and (3) examining real-world facts for the purpose of conforming the theory. In this process, the three steps included both direct experience and indirect experience which are necessary in terms of learning meaningful. To sum up, I agree that we learn through direct experience. Moreover, we also learn through indirect experience. If we learn just by direct experience, then our learning might be impeded; the contrary is also true. After all, to accept the theory is somehow the beginning of learning new ones.

you written is very good. you have very good sense of logic and have strong ability to organize you ideas. keep doing and you will be great.

thank you so much. it is really helpful.

Hi: Good written. your English is very influence. however, the first paragraph seems useless in terms of explaining your opinion.

Hey: nice written. However there are few sentences of your essay I can not understand well. Here they are: 1.In a world where technology is changing faster than the human mind can grasp and master it, technology has come to have several cultural, social and psychological effects. 2. Hence though technology might be boggling the human mind with an ever increasing range of possibilities, and more to do with free time it has by and large also helped to bridge the gaps between people.

It is very difficult for me to find your point that you agree with this statement or not.

I think your essay is great. Good writing. however, I feel that you need improve your writing skill in terms of organize, develop, and express your critique in a coherent and logically convincing manner. In other words, I can understand what you want to say, but I can not find any clue (senetence or words)of your positive opinion in this essay.

the english is good, however, the logic of this issue is not clear. some points of view is not expressed very well.

personally, i think you seem not really understand this statement. i feel this statement is requiring to argue about whether or not goverment has responsible to conserve wildness rather than why goverment should have responsibility of conserving wildness.

thank you very much and happy new year.

It is dangerous to trust only intelligence. I strongly agree that it is dangerous to trust only intelligence. Otherwise, we ultimately risk our careers, our environment, and even our very humanity. First, there is strong relationship between the intelligence and the quality of life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision—making. The more intelligence one has, the more advantage in life one own. However, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. For example, a high IQ person finds a job that requires only routine decision-making or simple problem solving. This person has obviously disadvantage in this setting. Second, intelligence as a variety of metal capabilities brings us huge profit. The development of human civilization was largely relying on intelligence. However, this behavioral trait is not predictable. It cannot guarantee each decision or choice we made is correct whatever in short term or in long term. Indeed, there are ample evidence proved that our intelligence has deeply destroyed our self. For example, the environment where we live is becoming bad. The major reason is human over use and explores it. The tools and technology that were used to exploring and conquering the nature are come from intelligence. Third, using intelligence is a goal—directed adaptive behavior. If one uses one’s intelligence to improve him or our society, the function of intelligence is positive. In contrast, the consequence of using intelligence is disaster. In other words, the importance of how people use their intelligence becomes more important than the question of how much intelligence a person has. Indeed, in the everyday life, people have easily meet somebody who has high IQ but their behavior is ant society which make so many trouble to their family and their relations. In fact, it is wrong assume, as many do, that the more intelligence one has, the more benefits one got. We like intelligence because it is a good thing. But when we use it, we have to be prudent because it is not safe. It is very dangerous, mostly, when it is used without restrict.

It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful for a politician. I agree with speaker insofar as a political leader cannot to tell the truth all the time no matter what circumstances. However, the statement fails to account for the value of honesty in the political activity. In fact, in many cases, honesty is just as crucial quality for politician who truly wants to be success for a long term. We understand that those political leaders are usually in a mass, complex, and even dangerous circumstance. They should deal so many things daily, sometime these things are so important for the institution or the nation. They do commit mistakes and misspeak. Given the amount of information they are excepted to posses, this is only natural. Not every error or verbal miscue is lie. Sometime, politicians probably choose not saying or do not answer question in some circumstances, such as war. They have to fulfill commitment, which is letting the nation avoid grave risk, so the behavior of no saying something is just a reflection of prudent. In this case, an untruth might have been spoken accidentally. However, leadership is a process instead of an accident. Being a leader, politician absolute needs the quality of being honest. Telling the truth to the best of their knowledge is remarkable important for politicians. There are many reasons requiring the leaders especially politicians possess honesty. Here I just takes two of them, which I thought very important, to support the point of my view. First, telling the truth lets everyone know what really happen. There is less chances of misunderstandings, confusion, or conflict. Politician, serving as the leader of the nation and the head of government, usually is an information source. He shares with the public the material gathered by the vast federal government, and often it is information about the most important matters confronting the nation. The public ought to expect politician to pledge allegiance to accuracy. Citizens in a democracy not only have a right to truth in government, they have a need for it. Without good information, how can they make good decisions? Second, value of trial and error is not limited to the science and the same applies to politics. Telling the truth allows everyone to learn from what happened. In government and politics, progress usually comes about through dissension and challenge—that is, when people point the mistakes of those in power. In fact, without our challenging the mistake notions of established institutions, political oppression and tyranny would go unchecked. In sum, politician as the leader of the government or the nation needs completely honesty to commit his task. Public do not allow the politician lie which means intentionally to speak statement with deception. Because politician lies matter more than most –they can lead to war, decide election break or make vital policy decisions. If the politician issues a statement, he has an obligation to ensure the remark is truthful.

hi shubha: thank you very much about your instruction. the problems that you figured out are very important for me, and i am going to practice more and hard. thanks again, and happy christmas.