Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Location: Shanghai China
, given: 0
Just rate my AI and AA ESSAY [#permalink]
18 Jun 2011, 07:45
“Since science and technology are becoming more aid more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science; and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with opinion stated above. Support your vies with reasons and/ or examplies from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Different people have different views due to their own respective angles. On the one hand, as is well known and has often advocated since science and technology are becoming more aid more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teach science, and technology and less to teach the arts and humanities. On the other hand, others probably refute such idea. We do not have to look very far to see the valid standpoint of this matter. In the final analysis, I am prone to hold the position that school should both teach science, technology and arts, humanities to students. My conclusion which is based on the subsequent grounds and considerations.
One reason for my belief is that school shouldn’t abandon arts and humanities classes. Histories has it that arts and humanities will stimulate the development of children’s mental, physical health. Being an artist and humanist are very noble and prosperious in the future. Under this situation, it is obvious that school shouldn’t solely focus on teach students science and techology, all the subjects should be balanced. It is wise to acknowledge that this idea, althoght suffer from some obvious drawbacks nourish some merits primarily because the implicit rational behind the speaker’s assertion accoding with common sense and our everday experience as human beings, hence is fundamental indisputable.
Another equivalently crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that the combination of arts and science will originate more creativity for mankind. For example, let take look at business world --- Google. Google is a company enjoys high reputation of high tech knowledge and science ideaology. The company’s annual gross profits exceed over 1 billion dollars for successive several years. Why do they become so successful? They use arts on science to produce something people never experience before. Let take another look at history, history plays essential part of our everyday life. In the business world, in the academic field or even social life we cannot ignore history, so humanities is very important, it is a subject related to history, math and even all typies other sujects. So as far as I am concerned, putting arts and humanities back to class is a sagacious action.
Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions teaching science and technology will help the world grow faster and stronger. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that abandonce of arts and humanities is imperative. As matter of fact these cases are not common and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When the advantage and disadvantage are carefully examined, more striking conclsion is obivious that arts and humanities are related to science and techonology, today’s world cannot survive with talents who don’t possess art and humanities knowledge.
Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we will find out that advantage of arts and humanities should be taught in class while science and techonology also taught in class outweigh less teach arts and humnanities in class. There from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that choosing balanced arts and humanities taught in clas is a rather wise decision.
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
“As evidence in movies increase, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority votes.”
Discuss how well reasoned, etc.
The conclusion of this argument is that crime rates increase in our cites and our legislators are not concerned about problems since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority votes. For one thing , the author reasons the due to movies increases. For example, the author reasons that we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.
To begin with, the author assume that there are relevance between movies increase and rise of crime waves in our cities. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is possible that social secruity system collapsed lead to more crimes or violent and obscene tv or radio programs lead to such situation. Hence, without weighing and then eliminating these and other possible causal explanations contributing to the long term trend endorsed in the argument, the author can not solely attribute more crimes waves to movies increase while convincing us of the suspect conclusion.
Secondly, the author claims that we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years age. Clearly our legislator are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority votes. But he fails to support this argument because that legislators have nothing to do with censorship of movies or limitation of admission to persons over 21 years age. For example, adults over 21 years old have their self control on selecting certain tv or movie programs. If they know that if they commit a crime they will be charged for illegal actions. Police will intervene such robberies or violent crimes which won’t lead to more crime rates in cites. Movie producers have their discretion of warning audience on certain movies for their purposes, more educational-valued movies and innovative high tech movies are going to be replaced those violent or obscene movies. In addition, news and social media will amplify if such problems occur alert more people not to watch unhealthy movies. The problem will be solved without appearance of government officials.
In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out the above-mentioned factors, tries in vain to justify the argument. To better his argument, the arguer needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning. In assessing whether movies increase and legislation bill can succeed by following crime waves upsurge and censorship of movies or limitation of persons over 21 years ago age. I would recommend, from a business points of view, the research on busines feasibility encompassing the factors discussed above will instrumental in minimizing any potential risks.