The government should control the amount of violence in films and on elevision in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?
Whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal nterest in preventing the harm that exposure to violence produces takes recedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.
First of all, I believe that exposure to violence does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the behavior they are exposed to.
Secondly, I believe that violence is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.
Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its urvival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests served by restricting violence in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society.
In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for violence. Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.
The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?
Recently, the discussion about whether the government should control the amount of violence in films and on television has become a heated one. People take diverse attitudes towards this issue. Before presenting my view, I seek to analyze the issue from different angles.
From some people’s point of view, there are many good reasons for controlling the amount of violence in films and on television. First, violent films and television can do harm to young people. Because they contains numerous of erotic, corrupt and provoking episode, which can bring negative influence to na?ve young people. Moreover, since young people are in the formative years, they are not mature enough. They always like imitating their idols, no matter right or wrong, which lead to the increasing of the juvenile delinquents. Thirdly, violence begets violence. Violent films and television can make people aggressive and cold-blooded, which enhance the violent crime in society. In a word, controlling the amount of violence in films and TV effectively can decrease the violent crimes in society and preserve social security.
Many others, however, take a quite strong opposite attitude towards this issue. They believe violent media have their positive sides, which should not be controlled by government. To begin with, there are many valuable education functions in this kind of films and TV. Because they can reflect the reality, and we can’t imagine that there aren’t any con information but only pro things in our world. Secondly, if the government control the violent films and television, it must influence the development of the entertainment industry. Last but not least, they can prepare children for the adult world and teach them to cherish life.
As far as I am concern, I strongly believe that the amount of violence in films and TV should be controlled. At the same time, we cannot deny the advantages brought by them. And the best policy is to develop the merits of the violent films and television, while grading and filtering them, describing that which are not fit for the children to watch.
Progress in communication and transport technology during the 20th century has enabled us to overcome geographical boundaries and revolutionize our way of living. The world is now linked to such an extent that a local happening cannot take place without impacting on the international community and vice versa. It is not surprising to find that the great differences between countries, which used to be exist in almost every sphere of people's life, have become less obvious. Nowadays we Chinese are sharing the same Hollywood movie as the American, enjoying the same fashionable clothes as the young girls in Paris and even chasing after the same brands as the people all over the world.
Now that American films can be easily accessed to, it goes without saying that people in other countries can have more opportunities to know more about the American culture since films are frequently refered to as the carrier of a particular culture. Thus, some people welcome these decreasing differences among countries without any reservations in the wish to see a better chance to link the cultures among individual countries, which appear to be the greatest merit steming from it.
But pause and reflect. This kind of chance for communication may not seem so surpring after considering some disheartening facts indicating that the potential demerits may well outweigh the relatively weak merits. To be exact, globalization, in its powerful extension of market principles, by highlighting the culture of economically powerful nations, has created new forms of inequality. Just look at several figures you'll have a more clear idea on this point: 90% of the world's languages are not represented on the Internet; Some 5 countries monoplize the world cultural industries trade and in the field of cinema, for instance, 88 countries out of 185 in the world have never had their own film production. Therefore, it has understandably ignited severe anxiety and confrontation in almost every comparatively powerless country, thereby fostering cultural conflict rather than cultural pluralism.
In a nutshell, this phenomenon, in some sense, depicts what is called "cultural hegemony" by some sociologists and thus contains several disquieting factors which will inexorably destroy the naive wish of some people about a better world where communication are much more easily to handle.
The government should control the amount of violence in films and television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this issue?
All too often people complain about the “evils” of much material available in our mass media. Some other frequently criticisms come from our disquieting society with the ever-increasing cases of violent crimes. Thus, it can make great sense for our government to put a curb on the amount of violence in public communications. (53 words)
It goes without saying that we are risking our safety and society’s values by allowing this type of material to be openly exposed to the public. That is to say, without control of what material is delivered to the masses, we can not expect people to have a proper sense of right and wrong as they will constantly see the horrific things that happen in the false reality of the media and become immune to feelings of disgust toward such atrocious deeds in real life. Controlling what is viewed on films and television is the responsibility of our government in order to decrease violence in the real world. (108 words)
Considering this problem faced by young people, who are among the most vulnerable in our society, we can never deny the government’s access. Indeed, exposing our young children to extreme violence on television or films would be detrimental to their development thus to the future of our society. (48 words)
When these points are all taken into account, we can see the straightforward necessity lies with our government’s participation, which will allow our children a better chance to develop in a healthy way and will provide a precious sense of security for the citizens. (44 words)
OVERALL: 253 words
There has been an on-going heated debate on whether government should subsidy various forms of arts, such as music and painting. Some see the taxpayers’ money spent on arts as a worthwhile investment to facilitate the healthy development of arts, which is regarded as the scream of national culture. Reasonable may it sounds, it can be Idontknowlly misleading.
In fact, government and arts make nothing more than a noxious brew. It can never be something of surprise after you have accepted the truth that the government’s subsidy always carries with it a danger of government interference and distortion. That is to say, there exists a risk of the arts to be harnessed as a political tool. Subsidized art, which is concerned with reflecting the political views of the government officials who fund it, will no longer be a revelation of social temper and the general state of mind of the majority.
Thus, it can be safe to conclude that the best government promotes a free society. Keeping the government out of the business of patronizing arts ensures that all parties-individuals are not forced to advance causes against their beliefs, while the artists are not compelled to conform to government standards that are prone to change with the wind of politics and popular thought.
What’s more, it may seem thoroughly ridiculous for the government to splash a large sum of money on the arts, which is nothing short of a luxury for most of the taxpayers, while apparently we have more pressing needs, such as health care and social secure.
In a nutshell, it will be a win-win policy to get the government out of the art business, with better art and more rational allocation of taxpayers’ money.(290 words)
The age of Information Technology has taken a lot of people by surprise. While it has become a way of life for some, others know very little about it and may be unlikely to learn. Eventually we will have a polarized society and this will lead to serious social problems.
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
At the mercy of the ever-accelerated advancement of the information technology, great changes have occurred in almost every sphere of our life. Apparently, some people have managed to be perfectly adapted to this completely new era, and a few of them even developed their talent for the information technology as their lifetime career. However，there still exist a number of people who have little access to the advanced technology and are unlikely to be able to learn it in the future as well. Thus, this disquieting fact has inevitably led to our concerns that a polarized society with terrible social problems is approaching.
It is without denying that the advent of the new era has brought about the ever-greater wealth for human beings. This has led some people to easily assume that a better life has been created for every member of the society. But pause and reflection! While considering the distribution of the wealth, these people may not be so optimistic. According to the research carried out by Sus* University in London, the great growth in gross domestic product has not resulted in the wealth being spread evenly across the population, to be exact, with 2% top incomes taking away 71% of the increased wealth.
Therefore, we can hardly be surprised to observe that while the rich have benefited a lot from the rapid development of the information technology, the poor have struggled to attain the thinnest fruit. It can never be something surprising with regard to the mere fact that at the time a rich businessman is busy with his well-equipped commercial computer to harness the power of the internet to carry on his business, a typical poor man are making great efforts to hunt for his next meal. Maybe this seemingly strange society is just following the law of Matthew effect, that is to say, "those that have will have it more abundantly, whereas those that have not will have even that which they have taken away."
All these on-going trends will inexorably give rise to a polarised society with the rich and poor placed on two extreme positions, which may form a negative confrontation between the two poles and result in some serious social problems.
These days, it's not uncommon to find that some children are taking certain type of paid work in many countries. While some people, Idontknowlly astonished by this fact, firmly consider it as absolutely unreasonable, I finally fail to check out anything wrong about it.
Those subjective and overreacting arguments do have one concern in common: children’s learning. It’s without denying that taking a part-time job will take up more or less time of the children, which is originally supposed to be devoted to their study.
In fact, far beyond books, learning means keeping the mind open and active to receive all kinds of experience. Taking a paid job actually provides the children a rare opportunity to have a glimpse at our society. This experience itself may help children to gain fuller acknowledge of their motivation, expectation and final objective of the education they have received.
Some more direct benefits may lie with the children’s skill of managing time. Realizing that less time is left for study, a child may automatically cut down on the time wasting in some other less important activities, such as chatting ceaselessly on the phone with a friend nearby or watching TV. With the wise guidance of his parents, this child will surely perfect his skill of operating time, which is of paramount importance for a person living in such a competitive world.
Besides all these mentioned above, there are other less important benefits from a paid work for our children, such as easing their parents’ financial burden, teaching them to take responsibility to make their own plans for spending, etc. Thus, I completely advocate our children to take some kind of paid work in order to enjoy all the great benefits. (288 words)
Arguments 1. Advertisements provide the most direct comprehensive and detailed information. We get to know about household goods from advertisements. 2. Advertising itself is a business that has provided a great number of jobs. 3. With advertisements, people save a lot of time in shopping, looking for jobs, etc. 4. Daily life needs advertisements because the main function of advertising is to disseminate information on commodities, services, culture, employment, student enrolment and even marriage. 5. A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of news of calamities. 6. Without advertisements, newspapers, commercial radios and television companies could not survive. 7. You can find a job. rent an apartment, buy or sell a house, etc. by way of advertising. 8. Advertising is a process of artistic creation. 9. Advertising creates mass markets. Without advertisements, manufacturers may find it difficult to sell their products. 10. Advertising helps stabilize industry and employment, improves quality, and, by competition, helps keep prices within bounds.
Counter-arguments 1. Advertisements are imposed upon a captive audience: e.g. on television. 2. Advertisements on TV are a nuisance: they interrupt television programmes at a shocking frequency. 3. Consumers have to pay more for the goods owing to the advertising expenses: high prices are maintained by such artificial means. 4. Advertisements are simply misleading and cheating. They are filled with flowery phrases and empty promises. 5. Fake advertising cheats consumers and, in some serious cases, threatens gullible people's lives. 6. Advertisers are inconsiderate to the public. What they care about is making money. 7. Advertisements are not -based on the quality of the goods, but on the principle that if one keeps talking about the same thing long enough, eventually people will pay attention to it. 8. Advertisements are an insidious form of brainwashing, using the same techniques, like slogans, catchphrases, etc. 9. Advertising is offensive: it appeals to baser instincts. 10. Advertising cheapens the quality of life: most ads are in poor taste.
We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. They are used in businesses, hospitals, crime detection and even to fly planes. What things will they be used for in the future? Is this dependence on computers a good thing or should we be more auspicious of their benefits?
Computers are a relatively new invention. The first computers were built fifty years ago and it is only in the last thirty or so years that their influence has affected our everyday life. Personal computers were introduced as recently as the early eighties. In this short time they have made a tremendous impact on our lives. We are now so dependent on computers that it is hard to imagine what things would be like today without them. You have only got to go into a bank when their main computer is broken to appreciate the chaos that would occur if computers were suddenly removed world-wide.
In the future computers will be used to create bigger and even more sophisticated computers. The prospects for this are quite alarming. They will be so complex that no individual could hope to understand how they work. They will bring a lot of benefits but they will also increase the potential for unimaginable chaos. They will, for example, be able to fly planes and they will be able to co ordinate the movements of several planes in the vicinity of an airport. Providing all the computers are working correctly nothing can go wrong. If one small program fails ó disaster.
There is a certain inevitability that technology will progress and become increasingly complex. We should, however, ensure that we are still in a position where we are able to control technology. It will be all too easy to suddenly discover that technology is controlling us. By then it might be too late I believe that it is very important to be suspicious of the benefits that computers will bring and to make sure that we never become totally dependent on a completely technological world.
Topic: some people say that the subject of international news should be taught in secondary school, other people say that it is a waste of valuable school time, discuss both sides and give your opinion.
We know that a lot of fundamental and useful subjects, such as mathematics, languages, chemistry and physics had been applied in secondary school for a long period. But nowadays, some people propose that the subject of international news should also be taught in secondary school. For my part, I think, before we add a new subject to our secondary school education system, both advantages and disadvantages of the subject need to be considered deliberately.
On one hand, the subject of international news really bring about a lot of benefits to the secondary school students. To be a modern and open-mind person, the knowledge of basic science will not adequate for his or her future career, other kinds of knowledge, such as the knowledge of society, the knowledge of laws is also required in his or her practical work, otherwise, he or she will meet lots of problems that he or she could not handle. Consequently, secondary school is supposed to play not only the function of providing students with systematic and disciplined basic science knowledge, but also play the function of helping students to be more social, more open-mind and more competent in their practical work. We could hardly imagine that a modern person claim no idea about the great event happened in the world. So, it is quite reasonable to add the subject of international news in secondary school to make the students more competitive for the society.
On the other hand, spending too much time on the subjects irrelevant with basic science could be regarded as a waste of valuable school time for the students in certain circumstance. We know that the main function that secondary school play is to help student lay a solid literature foundation and provide them with necessary preparation for his future education (university,college,etc.). Accordingly, secondary school is supposed to put their focus on the content and improvement of teaching basic science. As for social subjects, such as international news, the educators and school managers need to arrange a proper portion of time in teaching them and provide students with a more reasonable and perfect secondary school system.
In conclusion, the subject of international news need to be taught in secondary school because of its great importance, however, it is plausible to teach this subject at a proper portion of time.
Does parental permissiveness affect children's development?
Arguments 1. The excessive permissiveness of present-day parents is doing more harm than good to children and society as well. 2. Children should develop the habit of working and living independently and, meanwhile, practise the virtue of being filial to their parents. 3. Children who have a surfeit of happiness in their child hood often emerge like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life. 4. The fact that young people nowadays are self-centred, indifferent and inconsiderate 'of others is largely the outcome of parental permissiveness in their childhood. 5. Parental authority in a family helps a child to develop his character healthily. 6. Parents should exercise strict discipline over their children because, the more permissive the parents are, the more rebellious against their parents the children will become. 7. Lavish care and excessive permissiveness will only give rise to hedonism among the younger generation. 8. If one lets the child do whatever he wants to, he will ruin the child for life. 9. We have to admit the fact that we now have got a generation of spoilt, self-centred brats with no respect for their elders. 10. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our age is largely due to parental permissiveness.
Counter-arguments 1. More care for children is not the same as permissiveness to them. 2. The truth is that parents nowadays do not take enough care of their children and often neglect their development because the parents are only interested in their careers. 3. Parents are not at all permissive to their children. Violence often takes place in families in which children are abused. 4. Only a relaxed family atmosphere can help the physical and psychological growth of children. 5. To let children do what they like contributes to their independence and competence in their adult lives. 6. It is unfair to blame parents for the spread of juvenile delinquency. There are a lot of other causes involved. 7. Many cases show that children leave home and become members of street gangs just because they can not bear authoritarian control over them by their parents. 8. Strict discipline does not always work in terms of developing children's personal qualities. Too much pressure on children leads to rebellion and other extreme actions. 9. Parents are not justified in using violence to keep discipline and maintain their authority over the children. 10. Children are human beings, too. They need to be protected instead of being frequently scolded or physically abused.
Does television play a positive or negative role in the modern world?
Arguments 1. Television is now playing a very important part in our lives. 2. Television is not only a convenient source of entertainment, but also a comparatively cheap one. 3. Television keeps one informed about current events, allows one to follow the latest developments in science and politics and offers an endless series of programmes which are both instructive and entertaining. 4. A lot of television programmes introduce people to things they have never thought or heard of before. 5. Television has been good company to those who do not work, like housewives, lonely old people, etc. 6. Television provides enormous possibilities for education, like school programmes via closed-circuit television. 7. Television provides special broadcasts for those in TV university, or open university. It also offers specialised subjects like language teaching, sewing, cooking, painting, cosmetics, etc. 8. Television does the job of education in the broadest sense. Instructive programmes achieve their goal through entertaining the viewers. 9. Compared with the radio, everything on television is more lifelike, vivid, and real. 10. Television may be a vital factor in holding a family together where there are, for example, economic problems and husband and wife seem at breaking point.
Arguments 1. Advertisements provide the most direct comprehensive and detailed information. We get to know about household goods from advertisements. 2. Advertising itself is a business that has provided a great number of jobs. 3. With advertisements, people save a lot of time in shopping, looking for jobs, etc. 4. Daily life needs advertisements because the main function of advertising is to disseminate information on commodities, services, culture, employment, student enrolment and even marriage. 5. A cheerful, witty advertisement makes such a difference to a drab wall or a newspaper full of news of calamities. 6. Without advertisements, newspapers, commercial radios and television companies could not survive. 7. You can find a job. rent an apartment, buy or sell a house, etc. by way of advertising. 8. Advertising is a process of artistic creation. 9. Advertising creates mass markets. Without advertisements, manufacturers may find it difficult to sell their products. 10. Advertising helps stabilize industry and employment, improves quality, and, by competition, helps keep prices within bounds.
Counter-arguments 1. Advertisements are imposed upon a captive audience: e.g. on television. 2. Advertisements on TV are a nuisance: they interrupt television programmes at a shocking frequency. 3. Consumers have to pay more for the goods owing to the advertising expenses: high prices are maintained by such artificial means. 4. Advertisements are simply misleading and cheating. They are filled with flowery phrases and empty promises. 5. Fake advertising cheats consumers and, in some serious cases, threatens gullible people's lives. 6. Advertisers are inconsiderate to the public. What they care about is making money. 7. Advertisements are not -based on the quality of the goods, but on the principle that if one keeps talking about the same thing long enough, eventually people will pay attention to it. 8. Advertisements are an insidious form of brainwashing, using the same techniques, like slogans, catchphrases, etc. 9. Advertising is offensive: it appeals to baser instincts. 10. Advertising cheapens the quality of life: most ads are in poor taste.
Arguments
1. A good appearance may help people make a better impression in social contacts. 2. When people are getting old, they should pay more attention to their appearance. 3. The way people are dressed helps them to preserve a sense of their own value and personality. 4. Fashion adds spice to life with its rich colour, variety, and beauty. 5. Men and women follow fashions in order to please each other and themselves. 6. The world will be a dull place to live in if people always wear clothes of the same style and colour. 7. Mass production makes well-designed clothes cheap, available to everyone. 8. The fashion industry is an enormous one. It provides employment for people like textile workers, designers, shopkeepers, etc. 9. The fashion industry has helped industrial research in the sense that a lot of new materials, like nylon, rayon, etc. have been made to meet the demand of the consumers. 10. Being well-dressed is of psychological importance because confidence in one's appearance leads to confidence in one's success in life.
Counter-arguments
1. People sometimes look odd with the so-called fashionable hair styles, make-up, and dresses. 2. Top designers in Paris and London are dictatorial, for they lay down the law and the whole world rushes to obey. 3. Fashion goes like this: one year, one thing; the next year, the reverse. 4. People are so vain that they are afraid of being seen in old-fashioned clothes. 5. People, especially the fashion-followers, are blackmailed by fashion-designers and stores. 6. Changing fashions is a deliberate creation of waste because one will have to discard a lot of new clothes in order to follow fashions. 7. Fashion designers are not interested in important things like warmth, comfort, and durability of the clothes. They are only interested in outward appearance and profits. 8. The odder the clothes, the more expensive they are, and the more fashionable they become. It's a great pity that people have lost their appreciation of real beauty. 9. In order to follow fashions, people have to put up with great discomfort, such as suffering from cold in winter. 10. One's confidence does not grow from the way one is dressed, but from the inner qualities one possesses.
Topic： It's the only way to improve the satety on our roads that give much strict punishment to driving offence.Are you agree that?
The issue of how to improve the safety on roads has always been the focus of much attention.people come up with various solutions,but some emphasize that the only feasible way is to give strict punishment to driving offence.Personally,I share these people's point of view.
It is much lesser punishment that makes those hit-and-run drivers devoid of the reverence for other people's life and close attention to road safety.---topic sentence An authoritative traffic analysis reporting indicates that approximately 80% of traffic accidents result from driving offence which occured in large and medium cities in China during the second half of 2004, and the rest of traffic accidents are due to bad weather and poor quality of automobile. These statistics show that most automobile drivers lack the consciousness of safe driving.They deserve severe legal punishment.Only after stricter punishment is carried out can driving offence decrease.
In recent years,the Chinese government intensify efforts to publicize safe driving and traffic rules by the mass media(i.e. TV and radio, newspapers,magazines).But that has very little effect on reducing driving offence.Therefore,it's time to beat the dog before the lion! Only strict punishment can play a role of a serious warning to those reckless drivers.
Take an Asian country Singapore for instance.Singapore is well-known for its extremely stric trffic law worldwide.Those who break the traffic rules must be severely punished.Without the supervision of traffic police，an extraordinarily low rate of traffic accidents has been kept for years,which totally attributes to local people's following the traffic rules.
Undoubtedly,improving the unsafe traffic situation is the most vital thing these days.I firmly hold the view that giving strict punishment to driving offence is the unique practicable solution.
Difference between children’s education
IN certain respects, children are the same all over the world. But many factors affect the development of children, both parental support and education being major influences. There are vast differences between schooling styles, and parental attitudes towards children, in China and the West.
Some of these differences have obvious causes, for example, the "Little Emperor" syndrome in China. Parents everywhere have dreams for their offspring. However, the concentration of energy invested into planning for a child’s future is noticeable in China, as it is not diluted by the presence of siblings.
This adoration can be seen in other ways. One of the most common is spoiling children, giving them everything they want. Some of the time this is a reward for good work, although there are children who receive all they want merely because they demand it from their parents.
Hard work?
Parents also have this tendency to spoil children in the West. If a child does start to see itself as the all-deserving star of the Universe, usually its siblings will tease and bully the child until it stops feeling self-important.
Another contrast between the upbringing of children in China and the West is in schooling. Without a doubt, Chinese children work harder than their European and American counterparts. Their industriousness is admirable, and in comparison, Western students are lazy. In European countries, teenagers will often have a Saturday job, or holiday job, to supplement their allowance. This is rare in China, where education is considered of paramount importance, and time working detracts from study. The same contrast is true of romantic relationships between teenagers. I spoke to Han Li, a 16-year old student in Huhhot, about boyfriends. She said: "I have no time for a boyfriend, even if I did want one. I must study hard, there is a lot of pressure on me to get good grades and go to university."
The style of teaching is very different in China from in the West. The notion of "repeating after a teacher’’ seems old-fashioned and redundant in America and Europe. Large class sizes may be the reason for the popularity of this teaching method. In England, any class over 30 is considered large enough to impair learning. However, I have noticed that this parrot-style of learning is being replaced with more progressive methods of education in many Chinese schools.
The perfect solution would be to combine Western and Chinese education methods. Combat the laziness and apathy of Western students; encourage initiative within Chinese students, by expecting independent thought as opposed to mindless repetition. As for spoilt kids anywhere, some of these children would benefit from a smack on the bum.
【Topic】We can get knowledge from news, but some people think we can't trust the journalist, What do u think? And what do you think is the important qualities that a journalist should have?
Prompted by the fast development of the media, people can get lost of knowledge and information from news, but whether we can fully trust the journalist has become a thorny issue. People have been attaching greater weight to this problem. In this essay, I will try to explore this controversial issue and seek out some effective factors.
When it comes to news of today’s newspaper, different people have different attitudes. Personally, I think some news in some newspaper are misleading and cheating, especially the news about entertainment。Some journalists even produce or imagine a story and write it as a piece of news. The only task for they do so is just to achieve the major’s attentions. However some news from some famous media, for instance, BBC and Guangzhou Morning Post are true and responsible. This kind of news are always accompanied by data and evidences which are much more believable. They just tell the truth and what happened exactly.
Why some news is unbelievable while some are responsible and true? I believe that the qualities of a journalist contribute to this complicated phenomenon. Firstly, as a journalist, he or she should have a strong sense of responsibility. The journalist needs to tell the truth and the fact, be responsible of what he writes and talks. Furthermore, he must have skills of expressing himself by writing. He just needs to use exact words and suitable phrases to tell the public the fact, with out any imaginations. The last but not the least, he should be objective. What he needs to do just to tell what the fact is, it doesn’t need any personal ideas or emotion.
It is a brazen violation of the people’s basic right to know the truth of the world that journalists are cheating in the newspaper. As we should read a novel when we want to read a story, we should read a Newspaper when we want to now the truth. It is high time that both the government and the whole media make concerted efforts to let all the news are believable. I strongly hope that we can know what we want to know and what we should know from our media.（作者：启德雅思学员曾捷）
Food can be produced much more cheaply today because of improved fereilisers and better machinery. However, some of the methods used to do this my be dangerous to human health and may have negative effects on local communities. To what extent do you agree or disagree？
In today's world, meals are no longer too expensive to prepare. With such modern technologies as chemical fertilizers and machinery we can enjoy delicious food at a much lower cost. Nevertheless, these inexpensive, mass-produced foods affect our health, to a greater or lesser degree. For one thing, they are less nutritious than those naturally cultivated. In my view, however, their advantages far outweigh this little disadvantage, in the following aspects:
Apart from being cheap and mass-produced, convenient food saves us both time and energy in preparing our everyday meals. In a world that idolizes efficiency, we can thus devote our valuable time and energy to other and more meaningful, undertakings.
By applying the latest agricultural technologies, we can also enjoy a much greater variety of foods at lower prices, which was impossible a century ago. For instance, even when they are not in season, water melons are now sold all the year round, and are enjoyed by young and old, rich and poor alike.
Finally, the demand for healthier foods with a greater variety and at lower prices enables modern technologies to develop by leaps and bounds. For example, GM (genetically-modified) plant technology is being promoted by the demand for the ever-increasing number of healthy recipes it can Provide, including disease-resistant rice, meat-flavoured apples and various green foods. In this way, nutrition and modern technologies go hand in hand, much to the benefit of us all .
In conclusion, our food culture is greatly enriched by the application of modern agricultural technologies. Possible negative effects are, so far, a mere technical problem, and I believe that in a matter of only a few years this will be properly tackled.
Topic：Animal testing may be necessary, but we need to be be merciful
Every year, millions of animals undergo painful suffering or death as a result of scientific research into the effects of drugs, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. While most people think animal testing is necessary, others are upset by what they see as needless suffering. This essay looks at some of the positive and negative aspects of animal testing.
Many medical treatments and procedures have been developed from experiments on animals. Since animals share many features with humans, scientists use animals to test the safety and effectiveness of newly developed drugs before pilot testing on small groups of patients. Medical teams practice new operating techniques such as transplants on animals. Without animal testing, many procedures or new drugs would be extremely unsafe.
However, many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models. They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used.
We need to make sure that the millions of animals who are used for testing new products are treated with the minimum of suffering. Although some animal testing may be unavoidable at present, treating our fellow creatures as mercifully as possible will demonstrate our humanity.
267 words
There is no alternative
Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, however, some people are calling for animal testing to be banned because of alleged cruelty. This essay will examine arguments for and against animal testing.
Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.
Opponents of animal testing also claim that the results are not applicable to humans. This may be partly true. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research.
I agree that we need to make sure that animals who are used for testing new products have the minimum of suffering. However, I am convinced that animal testing is necessary, and that it will continue to benefit humans in new and wonderful ways.
311 words
Advantages of Animal Testing in Medical Research
Medical research involving animals has dramatically improved the health of the human race. Without animal testing, the cure for polio would not exist and diabetics would suffer or die from their disease. Despite these benefits, some people believe that animals should be not be used for testing medical techniques and drugs. This essay will outline the advantages of animal testing.
Animal testing allows scientists to test and create new drugs. Animals such as monkeys or rabbits have similar physical processes to humans. This allows scientists to test the effects of certain drugs. If a drug produces adverse effects in animals it is probably unfit for human use.
Animal testing is cheap. There is a large supply of animals for medical research. Animals are easily bred, and maintained safely in controlled labs. The costs of testing in humans would be extremely high.
Many people argue that animal testing is cruel. In some cases this is true. However it would be much more cruel to test new drugs on people or children, or to let people die because there was not enough information about a drug. Furthermore, legislation in most countries sets standards for animal treatment, and laboratories have guidelines to prevent cruelty.
Opponents of animal research also say that information from animals does not apply to humans. They point to certain commercial drugs which have been withdrawn because of side-effects in humans While it is true that animal systems differ from human systems, there are enough similarities to apply information from animals to humans.
Animal rights campaigners claim that we don’t need new tests because we already have vast amounts of information. However, many new deadly infections appear every year and new treatments and drugs are needed to combat these deadly plagues.
Animal testing is needed in the world we live in. Our responsibility is to manage the animals in our care and balance their suffering against the good that comes from them.
