在第二段,作者展开论辩,先攻击原观点的逻辑错误who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it ,参照前几篇,我发觉只要是原观点出现了逻辑的错误,大部分作者都不会忘记去指出甚至由此推出自己的独到见解。这是一个好办法,在展现你的申辩能力的同时,不知不觉中也占去了一些字数,挺适合临场发挥的。
While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costsin terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing societys more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called Star Wars defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the dayby establishing after-school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.
【GRE作文点评:开启我们的辨证思维】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01
2016-03-01