my issues – Flashcard

With the development of science and technology made through out the human history, especially the past one hundred years or so, people these days are spending more time relying on technology to solve various types of problems. Does the ability of humans to think for themselves really deteriorate as they rely more and more on technology? Admittedly, the improvement of technology and its concomitant contribution to a more convenient daily life does to certain extent obviate the necessity of many traditional tasks, subtly affecting the humans' ability of thinking. Nevertheless, as a whole effect in general, technology progress improves working efficiency and labor safety, and frees humans from low-level repeated physical work to high-level decision-making intellectual work. In addition, technology proposes brand-new problems as well which challenges the humans' thinking ability to an even unexpected extent. It is true that in many situations, the requirement for thinking seems less demanding than before due to the development of technology as the "brains" of computers have replaced humans' role in many tasks. For instance, students no longer need think hard to solve involving algebraic equations as calculators could do the job for them; engineers do not have to worry about the side effect of modifying their design drawings at one place as in the past due to the modern CAD software's smart updates for all affected parts; people nowadays could simply forget about their previous pains of finding parking lots when they go shopping at some remote super-markets as the contemporary online shopping systems will deliver the customers anything they need right away with the help of modern logistics, information technology and advanced transportation tools. The development of technology does so much that humans are no longer required to solve many of the traditional tasks and consequently humans' ability of thinking seems indeed less explored, exercised or even deteriorating. But does the improvement of technology really eliminate the necessity of thinking and deprive humans of their opportunity of solving problems by themselves? With the fading away of stereotyped problems, such as solving algebraic equation on a piece of sketch paper, people are now faced with completely new types of problems, such as how to utilize calculators and computers to solve more complex problems where instead of the regular manipulation innovation and creativity are tested. Technology on the one hand frees humans from the boring and repeated work, yet on the other hand brings in more demanding tasks. In the old says, factory workers have to operate their machines for repeated parts processing which seemed very laborious, however, nowadays they have to program CNC machines for automatic parts manufacturing and tool replacement and they are asked to work on more than one CNC machines as the manager feels the employees are "working less". Technology does replace humans' role in many traditional tasks, but technology puts humans in new positions which are more intellectually based. In addition, with the emergence of new technologies, a host of new problems also turn up. The new technology of utilizing nuclear energy for generating electricity brings forward new questions of its ecological impact when the nuclear plant's cooling water, contaminated with radiation, is discharged into the rivers and ocean. While the development of antibiotics helped cure many patients with infection, it at the same time also produced the question of bacteria's developed immunity which makes many previously effective medicines invalid and that whether the development of these antibiotics indirectly facilitates the mutation of bacteria towards a more hazardous and dangerous state. All these new problems never existed before the development of these new technologies and they require far more thinking than the old problems. In conclusion, while technology frees humans from the traditional laborious work, eliminating the necessity of thinking for the stereotyped problems, yet technology meanwhile brings forth new types of problems which are more intellectually intense and even unprecedented. Humans' mind has been working on all kinds of problems throughout the history to keep up with pace of our world change. With the development of technology, old problems might become obsolete but new problems with more challenges will never stop appearing, ensuring the opportunity for humans' mind to explore and develop to higher state and securing the brains' role of thinking from deteriorating.

For All great civilizations have had a flourishing city. The government/king/queen have been here. To understand most of its people, the way in which it is ruled, we must understand the city. 'Most important characteristics' shows that life outside of a city can still help illuminate the society, but not as much as city life can. Learning centers/colleges/universities are typically in a city. Understanding the intellectual output is key to understanding a society. In post-agrarian societies, most jobs are contained within cities. That is commerce is conducted in the cities. Against Many societies have been agricultural. That societies customs, rituals can only be understood in the context of a rural backdrop. Even a modern society depends on agriculture to sustain it. Surely, to understand the important characteristics of a society, we need to understand the people who live in rural areas. 'Major cities' is a stretch. Even smaller cities can help us understand a society, especially if the culture/values tend to be different in the smaller cities/more rural areas.

.Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. 1.Educational institutions have a great responsibility which allows students to bulid upon their personal beliefs and abilities,apart from helping them to figure out their interests in various fields of study. 2 skills possessed by the students are partially as a result of their own diligence and mostly due to the hard work put up by the educational institutions and their teachers. 3.if the teachers or the educational institutions themselves dissuade a student against a certain field or career,then who will belief in the student's ability ? 4.there will be no hope left for the coming generations if such phenomenon of dissuading students from pursuing specific fields of study is brought into practice. 5.although the educators should be honest in deterring students from entering complex fields with harsh realities for example,medical profession requires a strong heart and if the educators feel that student is not appropriate for it he should rightly counsel the student against it. 6.but what if the student displays great or heightened interest in a particular field.If the pedagogues and educators only deter them in entering such fields then there confidence would be totally shattered. 7. imagine if somebody telling Mahatma Gandhi all those years before that his dreams and beliefs of setting a free nation would never succeed.India would have been still under the shackles of the British Empire if somebody told him so. 8. I have missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot, and I missed. I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."this is one of the famous quotes by the great basketball player Micheal Jordan .Imagine somebody telling him to quit ,then The united states of America would not have known one of its greatest players today 9. there is a Japanese proverb which states Fall down seven times, get up eight." If the educators only take a responsibility of dissuading students from entering in which they are unlikely to succeed then when bother teaching if nothing can be derived from it ? 10.keeping all the arguments aside ,one should not anticipate the responsibilities of the educational institutions .however to state that the educational authorities are endowed with the responsibility of deterring students from their fields in which they don't have a successful career is merely transgressing the boundaries of their responsibilities.the students have to decide to enter the field which is onerous for them,not the institutions and moreover when they are fortuitous to have been imparted with education,they should rightly do so.

Honesty in politics sounds good but most Americans will tell you that it doesn't exist. Few things can make that as clear as a scandal. Political scandals make for some of the most colorful anecdotes in history class and also have a large impact on pop culture. One interesting avenue for research is how harmful or beneficial an impact political scandals have on their culture. Despite the negative connotation of the term 'scandal' a look at a few of the most famous scandals in modern US politics indicates that scandals serve a useful purpose; scandals focus the population's attention and help to bring change in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Perhaps the most famous scandal in US politics involved Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Nixon had numerous critics before the Watergate break-in was made public, but none of these critics were able to affect change. Once the citizens of America learned of Nixon's involvement in a break-in at his rival's offices, change came quickly. "I am not a crook," Nixon's denial of any involvement became one of the most infamous quotes in America. The quote became so popular that it was a sort of rallying cry not only for comedians but also for people who demanded political change. The American people's demand for change was undeniable; Nixon was impeached and removed from office. This sort of focus and change was only possible because the Watergate scandal caused Americans to pay extra attention to honesty in politics. A couple of decades after Watergate, came another political scandal that rocked America. The example of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky may seem to refute my claim that scandal brings change because, unlike Nixon, Clinton was not forced to leave office. However, a closer look will show that this scandal focused Americans' attention in much the same way the Watergate scandal had. Instead of "I am not a crook," the rallying cry for comedians and those demanding change was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Once again, the American people became focused on the lies of their leader. This attention to the problem of honesty in politics led to the impeachment of Clinton, just like it had for Nixon before him. The vote did not remove Clinton from office, but the president's lies plus the subsequent focus on honesty in politics, instigated that vote and changed the political landscape in America. One of the more recent scandals in US politics came while George Bush was in office. Bush, like his father before him, sent US troops to Iraq. Unlike his father before him, the younger George Bush could not point to an invasion to justify putting American lives at risk in a foreign land. He said he had something of equal or greater magnitude: evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent danger to the world. When the military action failed to turn up the promised weapons of mass destruction, political change began to happen. Like with the Nixon and Clinton cases, that American nation once again became focused on getting the truth from its president. Once again, this cry for the truth was answered and the political landscape was changed. For example, after this scandal The Freedom of Information Act gained new supporters and many formerly classified documents have been discussed in the media as Americans once again focused on the truth. There can be no doubt that honesty is often lacking from politics. And many times, the lack of honesty is in the back of most Americans' minds. It takes a big scandal like Watergate, sex with an intern, or weapons of mass destruction and the accompanying lie from a president to remind Americans to demand honesty from their leaders. Americans may never get the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they get more of the truth after a scandal, making these nasty things quite useful.

This is a very sensitive issue and it is difficult for us to decide the role of governments. There are many issues in this statement that need to be addressed. The first question is whether the actual culture and traditions is in big cities or small towns and villages. The second thing is that whether it is really a government's duty to subsidize cultural traditions. The author claims that governments should ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need to preserve the nation's cultural traditions. However, preserving cultures should not be the single reason to develop major cities. This is not only for preservation of nation's culture but also for the reason of developing the whole society. There is no doubt that major cities are the principal force when constructing a healthy country and their development directly reflects the development of the country. Major cities primarily generate a nation's cultural traditions and makes it famous in the world. However, it is actually towns and villages where cultural traditions originate and are preserved and any government that pays attention to its cultural traditions should neither neglect nor ignore those places. Hence, these small places should receive equal if not more financial support than major cities. The culture and tradition maintained in these places might be much more integrated and purer than in counterpart cities. Therefore, in order to protect their cultural traditions, governments should support tradition-based towns and villages rather than invest a lot to the cities, which have little traditional foundation. If we take the example of Hong Kong, it used to be a small fishing village 150 years ago. After it became the colony of the Great Britain, Hong Kong has developed gradually and has established as a financial center in Asia. Therefore, from its present, nobody can assert that Chinese cultural traditions are generated in Hong Kong. Hong Kong developed completely according to the style of the capitalism country, during the reign of Britain, although the majority of residents were Chinese, who are known for preserving their culture and traditions. The Chinese culture is not preserved in Hong Kong, hence there is no point in providing financial support to Hong Kong just for the culture's sake. However, as it is a major financial and shopping hub, it attracts people from all over the world and it is a great source of revenue for the government. Hence, the government of China has to patronize it to maintain its importance. However, while major cities are the resource of one country's culture, the major part of population in many countries lives in villages. In cities, most people are doing salary-based jobs and in villages, most of the people are farmers. The government of a country has to take care of both the sides to keep balance in society. To construct major cities, the rural places should not be ignored.

consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position. 1.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. 2. 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 tenn. 3.A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. 4.First of all,by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productive members of society. 5. 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 educational experience . 6.However, a common curriculum that is also an exdusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. 7. First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children-- 8.Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature which would undermine the very purpose of true education: to enlighten 9.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 significance. 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. 5 . In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amount 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.

For against funding of arts 1. Since time immemorial art has been an integral part of our society. The varied creativity of people results in distinctive forms of art 2. The various forms of art act as a mirror of the country's values and beliefs. Art is not dependent upon any other source for its existence. The only thing that an artist ever wishes for is his admirers who are the true source for his inspiration. 3. I believe that an artist does not need any sort of monetary support and hence an artist is capable of protecting his form of art. Therefore, government's intervention by funding arts is unnecessary and it would certainly harm the integrity of any art form. 4. the various forms of art came into existence without any monetary support but out of creativity. An artist's creativity does not depend upon any sort of funding and an artist can not be forced to create any form of art because that art form is funded by government. 5. A dancer does not need funds to support his dance rather he needs admirers and followers who would take his legacy to another level. Similarly, a sculptor is not dependent upon government's funds for his sculptures rather he would need students who would keep alive his art form. 6. The great painter artist Leonardo Da Vinci was not funded by any government for his art form but his admirers were the true source of his popularity. 7. The government intervention in protecting certain art forms because those art forms were on the verge of extinction is credible. In such fields the role of government has shown remarkable success. The support from government has only helped in saving an art form and also it has aided artists to keep their art form alive. 8. The various small scale industries are supported by government and pottery is one of them. The artisans are now provided funds by government to save their art form. 9. Various art forms have been in existence on their own and without the support of the government. It is not important that art needs funding for its existence but when any form of art needs funds the support from government can always be asked for.The government should also encourage young aspiring artists.

AGAINST 1. revitalization is good but it is not always true or it does not always follow that it will always leads to success 2. The key to success are having a good leader, right people, good products and services. 3. leader is one surest key to success in politics, business and government. Having a good leader to manage and supervise his people is considered to be the biggest asset of every successful and big company 4. for instance in business great entrepreneurs like Bill Gates,Ratan Tata have been in the position since the startup of their business. With their good leadership, experiences, knowledge and commitment with their company, they were able to make it big and get renowned worldwide Without them, their companies would not reach the success it has now. 5. having good and right people as a support system also plays a vital role in success. In government, having a good President is good but having supportive subordinates and constituents (mayors, congress, senates) is great because it is not only the President working alone to attain goals but he/she will also have support systems that would help him/her to reach these goals 6. also there should be good product and services to offer no matter how good a leader, people and marketing strategies you have or do, if the product is not good then all this will be a waste 7. Revitalization is needed but it does not necessarily have to be changing the leaders or people in position, it can be done through different ways like developing new ideas, products and services 8. changing leaders every 5 years could result to a lot of waste in resources, money and time.for eg.changing the President of a country leads to wastage and incompletion of projects done by the previous President . 9. a good and effective leader should not be removed in position but instead should be kept to assure the continuity of the institution's continued success.

ven the most radical breakthroughs in science result from questioning—and sometimes subverting—past achievements. Example #1a: Einstein's space relativity Einstein had to have a solid grasp of Newtonian physics in order to describe how Newton's model of the universe broke down in extreme conditions. Example #1b: (Counter) Copernicus's heliocentric universe For centuries the Ptolemaic conception that the earth was the center of the universe went unchallenged. Kepler, using his knowledge of mathematics, challenged this view. Had he been influenced by Ptolemy he would have relied on common-sense observation that heavenly bodies appear to rotate around the world; instead, Kepler used the scientific method to guide him. In Art, significant breakthroughs are only possible by building on past refinements. Example #2a: Rafael By drawing on the perspective refined by Giotto, Rafael was able to produce some of the Renaissance's greatest works. Example #2b: (Counter) Pollock There was no precedent, no influence to draw from, for Jackson Pollock to arrive at his breakthrough in Art: throwing paint, seemingly at random, at a blank canvas on the wall, effectively throwing the artistic tradition out the window. Significant breakthroughs in business have resulted from taking influences in the past. Example #3a: Steve Jobs Steve Jobs did not invent the computer; he did not even the desktop. He did, however, make it a whole lot better. Example #3b: (Counter) Ford Ford's assembly was not derived from any other business practice, but instead was a revolutionary way to create machines. Without Ford's breakthrough the pace of technological innovation would have been held back by decades.

As environmental problems grow more and more severe today, controversies about wilderness preservation and economic development have come into our eyes. Indeed, during the past centuries, we have made the nature suffer a lot during our developing, and it is high time we should protect remaining wilderness areas. The statement claiming that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas regardless of their economic potential seems to be reasonable at the first look, but a problem emerges when considered more deeply. As we all know, it is not a fact that every nation has the problem that wilderness areas are in urgent need of protecting. Some African nations, for instance, are in desperate destitution today with a large amount of wilderness areas. So I think their most urgent problem is not how to preserve wild areas, but to develop the economy, so their people can escape from hunger and poverty. In my opinion, people cannot let themselves starve to death just to protect wilderness areas that could be used to exchange for foods. Surviving should always be in the first place in any case. If people in these nations pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state and give up their economic gain, then it is very likely that they cannot get a fortune out of nowhere, and so they cannot further develop their countries because they have neither resources nor money. So if a nation that is rich in natural resources is in such a crisis, the protection of nature should then give in to the developing of economy. However, for those countries without crisis, I think it is urgent for them to pass laws to preserve their remaining wilderness areas, even not to preserve every one of them. Some people may think that wilderness areas are something mother nature gives us to make a profit from, and they indeed are, but the profit we gain from them cannot be measured by how much money we can make from exploiting it. The value of wilderness areas is always more than the financial gain, and if we do not start to protect them and continue to use them for our economic gain, we will lose it sooner or later. Then some other day, we may be sitting alone in our forests of high rises, and missing our old friends.

...

. 1.I agree with the statement that government should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.It goes without saying that government should aid excellent students who cannot pay their tuition because of poverty. In a sense, despite different family economic status, every one has the right to receive higher education for which he or she has already qualified. 2.If all poor students cannot enter college for further study, even though they are talented, society is bound to lose promising talents in the future. 3.On the other hand, without funds from government, wealthier students with poor performance may occupy vacancies that should be filled by those poor but gifted students. As a result, rich students are more likely to get promising jobs than poor ones. Therefore, in long term, it is detrimental to countries for further development since the social mobility will stagnate and country can hardly pick up genuinely talented people 4.Admittedly, governments should fund university so as to provide opportunities for poor students, but from my perspective, offering a free university education to any student is a little bit infeasible. This action will put a heavy burden on governments' budget because government may utilize revenues to carry out more urgent projects, such as amelioration of transportation system or construction of public libraries. Thus, a realistic way to handle this dilemma is that government ought to help poor students by paying off one third or half of tuition and let students pay the rest through part-time jobs. Some people may argue that the time spent on part-time jobs can be used in a more meaningful way by students as they can do experiments or read books during this time. It is true that they can get rich knowledge in these ways and consequently become more experienced in certain fields, but doing part-time jobs enable them to learn something they can never obtain from books. Humans are social creatures. Without proper skills of communication and cooperation, a talent is not able to make contributions to society. Therefore, doing part-time is a win-win situation in which poor students can not only earn money for tuition, but also gain some unique experiences. In addition, government can motivate enterprises to donate to universities for the purpose of avoiding heavy pressure on budget. Or colleges can encourage eminent alumni to patronize qualified poor students. A large number of universities in China is an excellent example of this point. Local governments will spend some money for financial aid coupled with local prestigious corporations which patronize students annually. In this way, most impecunious students need not pay any tuition. So, instead of offering a free university education to any student alone, government can take great pains to motivate other enterprises to undertake responsibilities mutually. In conclusion, government should not offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. On one hand, government can pay some amount of tuition while students can pay the rest through part-time jobs. On the other hand, local enterprises can also patronize students voluntarily. _________________________________________

1.Universities hold the responsibility for planning the curriculum of the programs they offer; such that the students acquire the skill sets the society looks for. Every day, the world faces new problems in all spheres of life, and men are looking for solutions to these. To solve most of these problems, multidisciplinary knowledge is required. Therefore, it is natural that, for universities to cultivate multidisciplinary thinking, they should encourage the student to study courses outside their major field of study. Many inventions in the past century have been a result of borrowing of ideas and design from one area of science and applying it to solve another analogous problem after appropriate changes were made. Genetic algorithms, now popularly used in computer science to solve computationally intensive problems, were inspired by the evolutionary mechanisms studied in biology. Lizards and other crawling reptiles have been the motivating factor for engineers to build robots which are capable of crawling and climbing vertical surfaces. One cannot disagree with the fact that exposure to new concepts and ideas from different walks of life foster ideation. Google Inc. has taken this so seriously that their employees are encouraged to work on their own interests for twenty percent of their weekly working hours. This has lead to a lot of innovative products being built in Google labs, Google Finance being one of the successful ones. On similar lines when students are exposed to concepts from new fields of study it helps them look at their own study areas with a different perspective. This not only helps in sustaining the student's interest in their field of study but also leads to ideas which could be pivotal in solving problems of the present day. Global warming, for example, is a grave problem that the world is facing today. To find effective solutions to global warming, knowledge about the environment is necessary. But an environmentalist, without the help of an engineer can do nothing to cut down the emission of harmful green houses gases from refrigerators and air conditioners. For the engineer to realize the seriousness of the problem and be convinced that a solution is necessary, he has to have basic exposure to environmental and ecological sciences. Therefore, students should be encouraged to study subjects outside their major field of study. This will kindle the creativity in them and encourage them to think differently, and consequently contribute more to the society. It is the role of the university to persuade the students to study other subjects and cultivate this culture. your position.

Educational Institutions are relied upon by the society and are indeed responsible for cultivating and nurturing the talents of students to help them burgeon into professionals with sufficient expertise to survive in the real world. If these institutes persuade students to choose fields of study that will persuade them for lucrative careers then they would not only fail their very purpose, but also wrong the students who depend upon the advice from their teachers. Students are like clay who can be molded in any shape, so, it becomes all the more important for schools to promote their interests without developing a predilection towards pecuniary aspects that accompany it. The responsibility of educational institutes to steer students' interests in the right direction is quite warranted. But the 'right direction' in itself is very subjective. A lucrative career may be that of a doctor or an engineer, but can a career in painting be considered a fiasco from the very beginning? A reasonable answer to that would definitely be a 'NO'. A career as a doctor does not guarantee financial prosperity nor does a career in the arts warrant financial insecurity. There are numerous artists who have lived the life of a king by pursuing their lifelong dream, for example, musicians like The Beatles, painters like M.F Hussain, authors like Dan Brown. I'm assured of the fact that one cannot recall the names of doctors or engineers or fashion designers just as they would remember the names of celebrities in the fields of art, music, drama and cinema. A person's success in a particular field is not always determined by the choice of their field but by their caliber and expertise at what they do. Anything done willingly and with perfection brings money. It is essential that students receive the guidance in any field they choose to pursue. If educational institutes are biased to certain careers then they cannot provide a wholesome learning atmosphere. Concurrently, if they try to wheedle students into following lucrative careers they might dampen their spirits, thus impairing their ability to do well in the field that they have been coaxed into as well as deterring them from developing a skill in their desired field. All the above stated reasons point to the same view that educational institutes must promote students' interests by providing best possible faculty and accoutrements for enriching their cognizance about the subject irrespective of its monetary aspects in their careers. It is not wrong to expect students graduating from school to prosper in their careers but it is a grave crime to drag them to pursue subjects based on monetary denouements of a certain field of study. Every student graduating must be good at what he/she does,only that can assure a financially stable career in the long run

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...