Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析整理
想要提高Issue寫(xiě)作分?jǐn)?shù)，得多看一些范文哦，快來(lái)一起學(xué)習(xí)吧。下面小編就和大家分享，來(lái)欣賞一下吧。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.
"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television——programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.——should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."
The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950's when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.
Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.
Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.
Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.
(602 words)
[題目]
下述文字摘自一份地方性報(bào)紙《Midvale觀察家》所發(fā)表的社論。
"自二十世紀(jì)五十年代以來(lái)，當(dāng)電視機(jī)開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)于尋常百姓家庭時(shí)，Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率已呈現(xiàn)出持續(xù)上升的勢(shì)頭。這一青少年犯罪行為的上升與電視上所播放的暴力畫(huà)面的增加成正比。按照幾份全國(guó)性調(diào)查報(bào)告，在那些大量觀看了涉及到暴力場(chǎng)面的電視節(jié)目的青少年中，即使是極為年幼的孩童在其家庭環(huán)境中也要比那些不看暴力節(jié)目的孩童表現(xiàn)出更多的暴力行為。此外，在一項(xiàng)由《Midvale觀察家》所進(jìn)行的調(diào)查中，有90%的受訪者為父母親，他(她)們表示黃金時(shí)段的電視內(nèi)容——即晚上7點(diǎn)到9點(diǎn)所播放的節(jié)目——應(yīng)該減少播放暴力內(nèi)容。據(jù)此，為了降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率，電視觀眾應(yīng)該要求電視節(jié)目編播者減少黃金時(shí)段所播放的暴力畫(huà)面數(shù)量。"
[范文正文]
本社論作者陳述道，Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率伴隨著電視所播放的暴力場(chǎng)面的增加而上升。這一情形始于二十世紀(jì)五十年代，因?yàn)殡娨曉诋?dāng)時(shí)被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，該作者陳述道，幾項(xiàng)全國(guó)性調(diào)查顯示，觀看暴力電視節(jié)目的孩子比那些不看同類(lèi)節(jié)目的孩子更易于形成暴力傾向。社論作者還指出，一份調(diào)查表明，受訪的90%的父母親認(rèn)為，黃金時(shí)段的電視節(jié)目不應(yīng)含有那么多的暴力場(chǎng)面。最后，作者得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為要想降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)的青少年犯罪率，電視觀眾應(yīng)要求減少黃金時(shí)段所播放的暴力畫(huà)面。這一論述犯有若干關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤。
首先，社論作者將Alta國(guó)內(nèi)青少年犯罪率的上升與電視所播放的暴力場(chǎng)面的增加相提并論，但除了二者在時(shí)間上吻合以外，沒(méi)能給出任何因果關(guān)系。該作者沒(méi)有對(duì)不同的犯罪種類(lèi)作出區(qū)分——青少年所犯的罪行是屬于暴力型的還是非暴力型的。此外，對(duì)于青少年犯罪數(shù)量的增加，還存在著其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或許所有年齡段的所有類(lèi)型的犯罪行為都呈上升態(tài)勢(shì)，或者也有可能，警察現(xiàn)在要比過(guò)去更擅長(zhǎng)于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因僅僅只是人口總量的上升所致，并且，作為人口總量中的一個(gè)比例，青少年犯罪現(xiàn)在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉這些以及其他的原因，社論中的論點(diǎn)便無(wú)法令人信服，因?yàn)樽髡邲](méi)有在電視暴力和青少年犯罪之間建立起任何因果關(guān)系。
其次，社論作者提到，有幾份全國(guó)性研究表明，觀看暴力節(jié)目的孩童在家里比不看此類(lèi)節(jié)目的孩童表現(xiàn)出了更多的暴力行為。這一論點(diǎn)在二個(gè)層面上顯得站不住腳——首先是假設(shè)孩童和青少年受到電視節(jié)目同等程度的影響;第二是又一次假定在電視暴力與青少年犯罪之間存在著某種因果關(guān)系。孩童與青少年畢竟并不相同，我們不能做這樣的假定，即家庭中較為暴力的那些行為必然會(huì)隨著這些孩子長(zhǎng)大成為青少年而發(fā)展成為犯罪行為。
第三，社論作者給出一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，以期證明90%的回答問(wèn)卷的受訪者均為父母親一類(lèi)的人，他(她)們提出黃金時(shí)段的電視節(jié)目不應(yīng)該播放如此多的暴力鏡頭。但社論中沒(méi)有討論該調(diào)查所使用的調(diào)查方法是什么。情況有可能是，該調(diào)查的樣本選擇得并不恰當(dāng)，或在某種程度上側(cè)重于只將那些對(duì)電視暴力甚感厭惡的父母親囊括于樣本之中。再則，情況也可能是，這些父母親在表達(dá)其意見(jiàn)時(shí)要比那些對(duì)黃金時(shí)段電視暴力漠不關(guān)心或滿不在乎的人來(lái)得語(yǔ)氣強(qiáng)烈得多，這樣便再度使調(diào)查結(jié)果失之偏頗。即使我們假定所調(diào)查的人口樣本是真實(shí)的，僅僅以此為依據(jù)將電視暴力和青少年犯罪聯(lián)系起來(lái)也是不合邏輯的。 最后，社論作者作出一不必要的假設(shè)，即只要有電視觀眾要求電視節(jié)目編播者減少黃金時(shí)段暴力內(nèi)容的播放量便可降低Alta國(guó)內(nèi)的青少年犯罪率。即使不考慮此前已討論過(guò)的那些含有缺陷的論點(diǎn)，只是去要求作出某種改變并不會(huì)對(duì)青少年犯罪產(chǎn)生任何影響。若要增強(qiáng)其論點(diǎn)的邏輯性，社論作者必須在電視暴力與青少年犯罪之間表明某種直接的因果關(guān)系，而不是作出某些含糊其辭的和缺乏依據(jù)的比較，聲稱(chēng)存在著某種聯(lián)系。該作者既沒(méi)有拿出證據(jù)證明任何種類(lèi)的電視暴力導(dǎo)致了青少年的犯罪，也沒(méi)能證明黃金時(shí)段電視暴力的減少將會(huì)防范青少年的違法亂紀(jì)行為。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
"In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings - trials, debates, meetings, etc. - that are televised, the more society will benefit."
Sample Essay
Anything that makes a country's government more transparent is certainly a good thing, at least in democratic countries. These societies have a great deal to gain by being able to watch their elected government officials in action. But to broadly state that the more government proceedings that are televised, the more society will benefit is to ignore the fact that sometimes, less is more. Some types of proceedings can even be adversely affected if televised, making society worse off rather than giving it a benefit. Some types of governmental proceedings should receive more televised coverage, but there are some that should probably receive less to ensure that they are properly conducted.
One example of the possible negative effects of televising all governmental proceedings was the trial in the United States of accused murderer and former National Football League superstar O.J. Simpson. The trial was televised and became a huge media spectacle, captivating the nation's attention during the entire trial. Attorneys were well aware that the proceedings were being televised and almost behaved as if they were acting in a movie. The spotlight was so unrelenting that the circus atmosphere affected even the judge. The presence of television cameras and the effect of the intense media coverage led to a trial like no other, and adversely affected the natural progression of the trial. The participants played to the cameras rather than focusing on the task at hand. Largely because of television, many people would argue that justice was not served during this particular trial.
On the other hand, television of the day-to-day workings of government in action provides direct insight into how a government actually works. Because the television cameras are there everyday, the governmental officials become accustomed to them and are no longer greatly affected by their presence. In this way, society benefits because they are able to see what is happening as it happens. The government in action is no longer hidden behind such a veil of secrecy so that no one knows the mysterious ways of their elected officials.
One of the problems with stating that the more governmental proceedings that are televised, the better of a society is, is that people might come to believe that they are seeing everything when in fact, a television camera can only see part of what is happening no matter how many cameras there are. Much of what happens in government takes place "behind the scenes", not necessarily in full view of the cameras in the meeting place. While to an extent "seeing is believing", quite often it is what you don't see that makes the difference. Merely televising governmental proceedings certainly enhances understanding, but to fully understand the process a person would actually have to actively participate in that process.
Another problem with the statement that the more televised governmental proceedings, the better, is that it assumes that people actually watch the proceedings when they are broadcast. There is a television channel in the United States that broadcasts Congressional proceedings every day, but few people watch it. Only when some big issue comes up for a debate or for a vote does a significant number of people tune in. To merely televise governmental proceedings will not affect society unless society watches these events.
Society can certainly benefit from the television coverage of certain governmental proceedings. To actually see the elected officials in action can bring an extra element of understanding into the inner workings of a government. Politicians can be held accountable for their actions while they are being "watched" by the television cameras. No longer can they hide in anonymity while they are conducting the business of the people. But not all governmental proceedings should be televised. There are times when secrecy is an absolute requirement for making sure that the correct decisions are made.
( 694 words)
觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/[題目]
"在許多國(guó)家，人們現(xiàn)在可以打開(kāi)電視，便可以看到政府是如何運(yùn)作的。觀看到這樣一些程序能夠幫助人們理解那些影響到其生活的問(wèn)題。電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府程序——審判，辯論，會(huì)議等不一而足——的種類(lèi)越多，則社會(huì)將會(huì)獲益更多。"
[范文正文]
任何能使一個(gè)國(guó)家的政府更透明的事情無(wú)疑總是一件好事情，至少在民主國(guó)家中是如此。這些社會(huì)通過(guò)得以看到他們所選舉的政府官員在做些什么而獲益匪淺。但是，如果只是籠統(tǒng)地說(shuō)政府程序轉(zhuǎn)播得越多，社會(huì)就會(huì)獲益更多，那么，這便忽視了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即有些時(shí)候，轉(zhuǎn)播得越少越好。有些類(lèi)型的程序如果進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)播，則甚至?xí)艿截?fù)面影響，使社會(huì)處于更糟糕的境地，而不是帶來(lái)任何裨益。有些類(lèi)型的政府程序應(yīng)獲得更多的電視報(bào)道，但有些應(yīng)該減少報(bào)道，以確保這些程序能恰當(dāng)?shù)剡M(jìn)行。
轉(zhuǎn)播所有政府程序會(huì)引發(fā)負(fù)面作用，這方面的例子是美國(guó)對(duì)所指控的謀殺者和前美式足球全國(guó)聯(lián)賽超級(jí)明星O.J.辛普遜的審判。審判全程轉(zhuǎn)播，成為媒體一大焦點(diǎn)，在整個(gè)審判進(jìn)程中吸引了全國(guó)的注意力。律師們清楚地知道，整個(gè)審判程序被轉(zhuǎn)播，他們的所作所為幾乎像電影演戲那樣。媒體的焦光燈如此窮追不舍，以致于那種馬戲團(tuán)般的氛圍甚至波及到主審法官。電視鏡頭的存在以及密集的媒體報(bào)道效果致使這場(chǎng)審判史無(wú)前例，嚴(yán)重影響到這次審判的正常進(jìn)程。參與者在鏡頭面前裝腔作勢(shì)，根本不專(zhuān)注于手頭應(yīng)做的工作。許多人會(huì)認(rèn)為，很大程度上由于電視的緣故，在這場(chǎng)特定的審判中，正義并未得到申張。
另一方面，有關(guān)政府日常實(shí)際工作的電視轉(zhuǎn)播能讓人們直接地深入了解政府實(shí)際上是怎樣運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的。由于電視鏡頭每天都在那里，政府官員們便變得習(xí)以為常，不再會(huì)因?yàn)樗鼈兊拇嬖诙芴蟮挠绊憽＿@樣，社會(huì)就能獲益，因?yàn)槊癖娔軌蛴H眼目睹實(shí)際所在發(fā)生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那樣藏匿在一層秘密的面紗背后，從而使人無(wú)從知曉所被選舉的官員的神秘行為。
被電視轉(zhuǎn)播的政府程序越多，一個(gè)社會(huì)就會(huì)變得更好，此番陳述的問(wèn)題之一是，人們可能會(huì)以為他們能目睹一切，但在實(shí)際上，電視鏡頭所捕捉到的可能只是所有發(fā)生的事情的一部分，無(wú)論有多少電視鏡頭。政府內(nèi)發(fā)生的相當(dāng)一部分事情是在"幕后"完成的，并不必定是在開(kāi)會(huì)場(chǎng)所眾目睽睽之下進(jìn)行的。盡管在某種程度上"眼見(jiàn)為實(shí)"，但在相當(dāng)多的時(shí)候，不為你所見(jiàn)的事情才起著決定性的作用。純粹去電視轉(zhuǎn)播政府的各項(xiàng)程序，當(dāng)然能增進(jìn)理解，但要充分理解某一過(guò)程，則人們須實(shí)際上積極地參與到這一過(guò)程中來(lái)。
政府程序電視轉(zhuǎn)播越多越好，這一陳述的另一個(gè)問(wèn)題是，這一陳述認(rèn)為當(dāng)政府程序被轉(zhuǎn)播時(shí)，人們實(shí)際上正觀看著這些程序。美國(guó)有一個(gè)電視頻道，每天播放國(guó)會(huì)程序，但看這一頻道的人寥寥無(wú)幾。只有當(dāng)某些重大問(wèn)題需要進(jìn)行辨論或進(jìn)行投票時(shí)，才會(huì)有大量的人觀看這一頻道。純粹電視播放政府程序并不會(huì)影響到社會(huì)，除非社會(huì)觀看這些事件。
社會(huì)無(wú)疑能得益于電視對(duì)某些政府程序的報(bào)道。親眼目睹民選官員處理政府事務(wù)，能帶來(lái)一個(gè)額外的理解因素，來(lái)弄清政府的內(nèi)在運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)制。當(dāng)政治家們被置于電視鏡頭的"注視"時(shí)，可以使其對(duì)其行為負(fù)責(zé)。他們?cè)谔幚砉娛聞?wù)時(shí)再也無(wú)法隱名埋姓。但政府程序并非應(yīng)該全部進(jìn)行電視轉(zhuǎn)播。有些時(shí)候，為了確保能作出正確的決策，隱秘應(yīng)成為一種絕對(duì)的要求。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
The following appeared in the editorial section of a health and fitness magazine.
"In a study of the effects of exercise on longevity, medical researchers tracked 500 middle-aged men over a 20-year period. The subjects represented a variety of occupations in several different parts of the country and responded to an annual survey in which they were asked: How often and how strenuously do you exercise? Of those who responded, the men who reported that they engaged in vigorous outdoor exercise nearly every day lived longer than the men who reported that they exercised mildly only once or twice a week. Given the clear link that this study establishes between longevity and exercise, doctors should not recommend moderate exercise to their patients but should instead encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis."
It is natural to assume that exercise would have a positive effect on the length of life for middle-aged men given all of the medical literature that has been published in the past showing a positive correlation between exercise and longevity. In this particular argument, the writer puts forth a study purporting to track five hundred middle-aged men with different occupations in different parts of the country. The survey was apparently conducted on the basis of an annual survey asking how often and how strenuously these men exercised. The writer not only concludes that there is a clear link between longevity and exercise, but that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise, rather vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis to all their patients. This writer's argument fails to convince in a number of areas due to several lapses in logical thinking.
The first and most glaring error in logic lies in the fact that the results of only two types of exercising men are reported: those that exercise strenuously outdoors almost every day and those that only had mild exercise once or twice per week. There are no other results mentioned from the survey, such as the results of men who exercise vigorously indoors every day, or those that exercise moderately either indoors or outdoors three or four times per week. Additionally, it is likely that those men that are exercising outdoors vigorously and almost every day are already in better health than those men that only exercise mildly once or twice per week. Unhealthy men, either due to obesity, smoking or other health-related problems, would naturally be expected to exercise less and die sooner than those apparently healthy men who are physically able to exercise strenuously every day.
Furthermore, the writer indicates that the survey looked at men in different parts of the country with a variety of occupations. It would follow that men that can exercise vigorously outdoors almost every day must live in more favorable climates for such exercise. Milder weather that permits outdoor exercise would likely be healthier for any men rather than the harsher climates that may be present in other parts of the country. In addition, some occupations such as a policeman, firefighter or steelworker are naturally more dangerous than others, leading to a possibly reduced life span. The writer fails to take into account any possible disparity in longevity that may be caused by climatic differences where the men lived or due to their occupations, thus weakening the argument and its conclusion.
Finally, the argument suffers from a critical flaw in its conclusion when the writer states that doctors should not recommend moderate exercise for their patients, instead stating that they should only encourage vigorous outdoor exercise on a daily basis. This conclusion is supported by absolutely no evidence in the argument - indeed moderate exercise is not even mentioned until the end of the editorial. Additionally, the argument fails to take into account that the study only addresses men, not women or children that are also doctors' patients. Furthermore, for some men, women or children, outdoor vigorous exercise on a daily basis might actually be detrimental to their health, such as those at risk for a heart attack or living in harsh climates.
In summary, the writer fails to show that doctors should recommend vigorous daily outdoor exercise rather than moderate exercise whether it is for men, women or children. To strengthen the argument, evidence should be presented that directly links strenuous outdoor exercise on a daily basis for men as well as all doctors' patients before any such recommendation should be adopted. This weak argument might actually cause more damage to patients' health than it would prevent.
(615 words)
[題目]
下述文字刊登于某健康與健美雜志的社論欄："在一項(xiàng)有關(guān)運(yùn)動(dòng)對(duì)長(zhǎng)壽的影響的研究中，醫(yī)療研究人員在為期20年的時(shí)間中跟蹤調(diào)查了500名中年男性。被調(diào)查對(duì)象代表著該國(guó)若干個(gè)不同地區(qū)的形形色色的職業(yè)，他們對(duì)每年度調(diào)查中的二個(gè)問(wèn)題——你運(yùn)動(dòng)的頻繁程度如何?運(yùn)動(dòng)的力度如何?——作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中間，那些匯報(bào)說(shuō)幾乎每天都從事劇烈戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性，其壽命要高于那些匯報(bào)說(shuō)每周只從事一次或二次輕微運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性。鑒于本項(xiàng)研究在長(zhǎng)壽與運(yùn)動(dòng)之間所確立的明顯關(guān)系，大夫們不應(yīng)向其病人建議適度的運(yùn)動(dòng)，而應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)病人每天從事劇烈的戶外活動(dòng)。"
[范文正文]
鑒于過(guò)去所出版的醫(yī)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)均表明，在運(yùn)動(dòng)和長(zhǎng)壽之間存在著一種積極的關(guān)系，人們自然會(huì)認(rèn)為運(yùn)動(dòng)會(huì)對(duì)中年男性的壽命產(chǎn)生一種極積的影響。在這段特定的論述中，作者引用一份研究，聲稱(chēng)該研究對(duì)500名本國(guó)不同地區(qū)從事不同職業(yè)的男性進(jìn)行了跟蹤調(diào)查。這份研究顯然每年進(jìn)行一次問(wèn)卷調(diào)查，詢(xún)問(wèn)這些男性從事運(yùn)動(dòng)的頻繁程度以及力度如何。該作者不僅得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為長(zhǎng)壽和運(yùn)動(dòng)之間存在著明顯的聯(lián)系，而且也認(rèn)為大夫不應(yīng)該向病人推薦適度的運(yùn)動(dòng)，而應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)所有的病人每天都應(yīng)進(jìn)行劇烈的戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)。鑒于其邏輯思維中的若干差錯(cuò)，該作者的論述在諸多方面無(wú)法令人信服。 邏輯推理中第一個(gè)也是最彰著的謬誤在于這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即研究?jī)H報(bào)告了從事運(yùn)動(dòng)的二類(lèi)男性的結(jié)果，第一類(lèi)為幾乎每天都要去戶外做劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性，第二類(lèi)為一星期只進(jìn)行一至二次適度運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性。該調(diào)查中的其他結(jié)果均未提及，諸如每天在室內(nèi)進(jìn)行劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性的結(jié)果，或者那些每周三至四次在室內(nèi)或在室外進(jìn)行運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性的結(jié)果。此外，那些在室外作劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)且?guī)缀趺刻於歼M(jìn)行運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性，可能比那些僅每周作一至二次適度運(yùn)動(dòng)的人早就處在更佳的身體狀況之中。身體不夠健康的男性，或因?yàn)榉逝?，或因?yàn)槌闊煟蛞驗(yàn)槠渌c健康相關(guān)的問(wèn)題，自然不被期望去作那么多的運(yùn)動(dòng)，否則，與那些顯然是身體健康的、擁有每天進(jìn)行劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)體能的男性相比，他們可能會(huì)死得更早。 另一方面，該作者表示，此項(xiàng)調(diào)查所研究的男性分布在該國(guó)不同的地區(qū)，從事著不盡相同的職業(yè)。我們自然會(huì)得出這樣的結(jié)論，即那些能夠在戶外幾乎每天都從事劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)的男性，他們必定生活在較適宜于這類(lèi)運(yùn)動(dòng)的氣候之中。允許戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)的較為溫和的氣候無(wú)疑要比存在于該國(guó)其他地區(qū)較為惡劣的氣候?qū)θ魏稳说纳眢w更為有利。除此之外，諸如警察、消防員以及鋼鐵工人這些職業(yè)，自然要比其他類(lèi)別的職業(yè)更加危險(xiǎn)，從而導(dǎo)致一個(gè)人的壽命可能縮短。該作者沒(méi)能考慮到任何有可能由人們所在地區(qū)的氣候差異或其職業(yè)差異所致的壽命長(zhǎng)短方面的差別，從而削弱了其論據(jù)及其結(jié)論。 最后，當(dāng)作者作出這樣的陳述，即大夫不應(yīng)該向其病人建議適度的運(yùn)動(dòng)，而只應(yīng)該鼓勵(lì)每日進(jìn)行戶外劇烈的運(yùn)動(dòng)時(shí)，其論述的結(jié)論中便產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)關(guān)鍵性的缺陷。所得出的結(jié)論在論述中絕對(duì)找不到任何可資佐證的依據(jù)——甚至，只是直到社論結(jié)束之處才提及適度的運(yùn)動(dòng)。此外，此項(xiàng)論述沒(méi)能注意到所作的研究?jī)H涉及男性，而非涉及同樣也作為大夫病人的女性和兒童。再者，對(duì)于某些男性、女性、及兒童而言，每天的戶外劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)實(shí)際上反而會(huì)危害他們的健康，尤其是對(duì)于那些有心臟病危險(xiǎn)或生活在惡劣氣候中的人們來(lái)說(shuō)。 歸納而言，本社論作者沒(méi)能證明大夫們?yōu)槭裁淳蛻?yīng)該推薦劇烈的每日戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)，而不是適度的運(yùn)動(dòng)，無(wú)論病人是男性、女性、還是孩子。若需要強(qiáng)化其論點(diǎn)，作者應(yīng)擺出證據(jù)，將男性每日劇烈的戶外運(yùn)動(dòng)和所有大夫的病人的運(yùn)動(dòng)直接聯(lián)系起來(lái)，然后才采納任何這樣的建議。這一薄弱的論據(jù)實(shí)際上有可能引起的對(duì)病人健康的傷害，會(huì)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)它所可能防范的傷害。
Issue寫(xiě)作范文詳細(xì)解析整理相關(guān)文章：
