| Topic议题 | ||
| m类生物 vs p类生物 | ||
| Reading | Listening | |
| Thesis总论点 | 3 weaknesses. |
Against. 反对 |
|
Sub-point 1 分论点1 |
M幼崽在pouch腹袋里器官发育得不如P好，而且immune system有缺陷. | Pouch里organism得到保护长得很好， 在pouch里喝奶成长immune system也正常 |
|
Sub-point2 分论点2 |
M生物lack abilities to adapt to environment 例子：control body temperature比p生物要低 |
M体温低时一种长期进化的过程，温度低可以save energy为了减少消耗 |
|
Sub-point3 分论点3 |
M生物cannot compete with P生物 例子：Australia近100年才出现p但是m一直都在，m却竞争不过而数量少 |
在澳大利亚，两种五种coexist了数百万年live side to side，长期处于竞争关系而且大部分情况下M赢得了great success |
独立写作：
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: it is important for government to provide money for things that are beautiful not just for things that are practical. 重复2012.7.15 ML
Government’s core function is to provide for health, safety, education and defense of its citizens. It may be tempting to argue that by focusing on things pleasing to behold, a government can harvest more support. I, however, believe this could be a bad idea. Eye-catcher projects can be no substitute for ones with practical purposes.
Consider real estate. The recent decades has witnessed a boom in majestic mansions and skyscrapers on a global scale. While they are all pleasing to our eyes, quite a few boasts fashionably hallow designs taking up much space yet serving few practical purposes. Even so, governments still play along, funding projects and enforcing policies in the hope of a sound public image. However, all this could be in vain when the housing reality of the working class has become so harsh that few others would step up to fill the role. If the government could subsidize affordable housing, things would be a lot better for struggling college graduates. Studies have shown 60 percent of young people have to postpone their wedding plans as the result of inability to buy a house. Affordable housing does not necessarily make a good headline, but government is doing the right thing for the benefits of the public from a practical sense.
Let’s now turn to public transit. Maglev train can be regarded as a remarkable milestone in transportation history. The sleek design and fast speed gives this invention aura of fame and the government aura of flourish. Can we thus assume the administration is a successful one? The answer is negative. This technological advancement is rather costly and energy inefficient. At the expense of huge financial and human resources, the government manages to present the world with an eye-catcher yet fails to satisfy the needs of the majority. Poorly maintained bus lines and overly crowed subways are the reality for the public. It surely falls under the rubrics of government responsibility to upgrade the current public transit. Such practical plan does not always gather much spotlight but if we take a long view, government is making a contribution commuters can benefit from on an every-day basis.
To sum up, nice-looking projects tend to be a huge drain on government’s recourses. Things that seem to be practical, on the other hand, deserve more attention. (Bao Lei)