GREAWA范文Issue

小编给大家整理了GRE AWA 范文 Issue，希望大家可以借鉴里面的短语、句子或思路，给自己的写作找一些思路和灵感,下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE AWA 范文 ——Issue

"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own."; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."

Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.

Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.

Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power should control all economic activity.

Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.

At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the 3 stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.

In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.

GRE AWA范文 ——Issue

A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer.

The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree insofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation .At the same time , however , individual states and communities should have some freedom to augment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nation's educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long term.

A national curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects .First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum memebers of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educaitonal experience.Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught core values upon which any democratic society depaends to thrive, and even survive-values such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints ,and respect for others.

However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweight the benefits, noted above, First of all, on what basis would certain likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have theis own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children-notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities , schools, or parents.Besides,government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-pedding by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society's children in mind.

Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitiate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature undermines the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books ,programs ,and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish to suppress-as some sort of threat to its authority and power.Althought this scenario might seem far-fetched,these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level.

Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs. courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local signifcance.For example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic groups who make up the state's diverse population. A national curriculum might not allow for this feature, and California's youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorance about the traditions,values,and cultural contributions of all the people whose citizenship they share.

finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to undermine the authority of parents over their own children , to even a greater extent than uniform state laws currently do . Admittedly ,laws requiring parents to ensure that their chiledren receive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified,for the reasons mentioned earilier.However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather at the community level parents are left with far less power to particapate meaningfully in the decision-making process.This problem would only be exacerbated where decisions left exclusively to federal regulations.

In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amout to a double-edged sword. while it would serve as an insurance policy against a future populated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate cultural diversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one that imposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state -or better yet, to each community.

GRE AWA 范文 ——Issue

The video camera provide such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records.

According to the speaker,the video recording is a more important means of document hag contemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate and convincing. Althought i agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of an event's spatial aspects, there is far more to document about life than what we see and hear. Thus the speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.

For the purpose of documenting temporal,spatial events and expriences, i agree that a video record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It is impossible for anyone,no matter how keen an oberserver and skilled a journalist, to recount ha complete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, a Ballanchine ballet,the Tournament of Roses Parade ,or the scene at the intersection of Florence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angleles riots.yet these are important events in contemporary life the sort of events we might put has a time capsule for the purpose of capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium.

The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those described above. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories.Thus they can play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings -such as those involving robbery,drug trafficking,police misconduct,motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospital operating room.Indeed,whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera is superior to the written word.A written description of a hurricane,tornado,or volcanic eruption cannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record .A diary entry cannot ""replay" that wedding reception ,dance recital,or surprise birthday party as accurately or objectively as a video record.And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting, spaciousness,or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.

Nonetheless,for certain other purpose written records are advantageous to and more appropriate than video records.For example , certain legal matters are best left to written documentation: video is of no practical use ha documenting the terms of a complex contratual agreement,an incorporation,or the establishment of a trust.And video is of little use when it comes to documenting a person's subjective state of mind, impressions,or reflections of an event or exprience.Indeed, to the extent that personal interpretation adds dimension and richness to the record,written documentation statistical or other quantitative information. Returning to the riot example mentioned earlier,imagine relying on a video to document the financial loss to store owners ,the number of police an firefighters involved, and so forth .Complete and accurate video documentation of such information would require video cameras at every street corner and in every aisle of every store.

In sum, the speaker's claim overstates the importance of video records, at least to some extent. When it comes to capturing, storing ,and recalling temporal,spatial events ,video records are inherently more objective,accurate, and complete.However, what we view throught a camera lens provides only dimension of our life an times; written documentation will always be needed to quantify ,demystify,and provide meaning to the world around us.

GRE AWA 范文 ——Issue

it is often necessary ,even desirable,for political leaders to withhold information from the public.

i agree with speaker that it is sometimes necessary , and even desirable ,for political leaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naived about the inherent nature of public politics ,and about the sorts of compromise on the part of well-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the public's ultmate interests.Neverthless,we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information, otherwise,we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinnings of any democratic society.

One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain the opportunity for effective public leadership,a would-be leader must first gain and maintain political power .In the game of politics,complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivete ,neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents,and which those opponents will use to every advantage to defeast the politician.In my obserbvation some measure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership. For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personel foibles,character flaw, and detail concerning personal life,few honest politicians would ever by elected.While this view might seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the unding of many a political career; thus i think this view is realistic.

Another reason why i essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the public certain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security. For example,if the President were to disclose the government's strategies for thwarting specific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker,those stragies would surely fail, and the public's health an safety would be compromised as a result.Withholding information might also be necessary to avoid public panic .while such cases are rare,they do occur occasionally.For example,during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S. Pentagon's missile defense system experienced a Y2K-related malfunction.This fact was witheld from the public until later in the day ,once the problem had been solved; and legitimately so ,since immediate disclose would have served no useful purpose and might even have resulted in mass hysteria.

Having recognized that withholding information from the public is often necessary to serve the interests of that public ,legitimate political leadership neverless requires forthrightness with the citizenry as to the leader's motives and agenda.History informs us that would-be leaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power either by brute force or by demagoguery-that is ,by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry. Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hilter ,respectively, come immediately to mind.Any democratic society should of course abhor demagoguery,which operates against the democratic principle of government by the people.Consider also less egregious examples, such as President Nixon's withholding of information about his active role in the Watergate cover-up.His behavior demonstrated a concern for self-interest above the broader interest of the democratic system that granted his political autority in the first place.

In sum, the game of politics calls for a certain amount of disingenuousness and lack of forthrightness that we might otherwise characterize as dishonesty .And such behavior is a necessary means to the final objective of effective political leadership.Neverless, in any democracy a leader who relies chiefly on deception and secrecy to preserve that leadership, to advance a private agenda,or to conceal selfish motives,betrays the democracy-and ends up forfeiting the political game.

GRE AWA 范文 Issue相关文章：