下面是范文网小编收集的Issue写作范文详细解析整理3篇 issue官方范文，供大家赏析。
Issue写作范文详细解析整理1
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)
观点陈述型作文/[题目]
"在许多国家，人们现在可以打开电视，便可以看到政府是如何运作的。观看到这样一些程序能够帮助人们理解那些影响到其生活的问题。电视转播政府程序——审判，辩论，会议等不一而足——的种类越多，则社会将会获益更多。"
[范文正文]
任何能使一个国家的政府更透明的事情无疑总是一件好事情，至少在民主国家中是如此。这些社会通过得以看到他们所选举的政府官员在做些什么而获益匪浅。但是，如果只是笼统地说政府程序转播得越多，社会就会获益更多，那么，这便忽视了这样一个事实，即有些时候，转播得越少越好。有些类型的程序如果进行转播，则甚至会受到负面影响，使社会处于更糟糕的境地，而不是带来任何裨益。有些类型的政府程序应获得更多的电视报道，但有些应该减少报道，以确保这些程序能恰当地进行。
转播所有政府程序会引发负面作用，这方面的例子是美国对所指控的谋杀者和前美式足球全国联赛超级明星O.J.辛普逊的审判。审判全程转播，成为媒体一大焦点，在整个审判进程中吸引了全国的注意力。律师们清楚地知道，整个审判程序被转播，他们的所作所为几乎像电影演戏那样。媒体的焦光灯如此穷追不舍，以致于那种马戏团般的氛围甚至波及到主审法官。电视镜头的存在以及密集的媒体报道效果致使这场审判史无前例，严重影响到这次审判的正常进程。参与者在镜头面前装腔作势，根本不专注于手头应做的工作。许多人会认为，很大程度上由于电视的缘故，在这场特定的审判中，正义并未得到申张。
另一方面，有关政府日常实际工作的电视转播能让人们直接地深入了解政府实际上是怎样运转的。由于电视镜头每天都在那里，政府官员们便变得习以为常，不再会因为它们的存在而受太大的影响。这样，社会就能获益，因为民众能够亲眼目睹实际所在发生的事情。工作中的政府不再像以前那样藏匿在一层秘密的面纱背后，从而使人无从知晓所被选举的官员的神秘行为。
被电视转播的政府程序越多，一个社会就会变得更好，此番陈述的问题之一是，人们可能会以为他们能目睹一切，但在实际上，电视镜头所捕捉到的可能只是所有发生的事情的一部分，无论有多少电视镜头。政府内发生的相当一部分事情是在"幕后"完成的，并不必定是在开会场所众目睽睽之下进行的。尽管在某种程度上"眼见为实"，但在相当多的时候，不为你所见的事情才起着决定性的作用。纯粹去电视转播政府的各项程序，当然能增进理解，但要充分理解某一过程，则人们须实际上积极地参与到这一过程中来。
政府程序电视转播越多越好，这一陈述的另一个问题是，这一陈述认为当政府程序被转播时，人们实际上正观看着这些程序。美国有一个电视频道，每天播放国会程序，但看这一频道的人寥寥无几。只有当某些重大问题需要进行辨论或进行投票时，才会有大量的人观看这一频道。纯粹电视播放政府程序并不会影响到社会，除非社会观看这些事件。
社会无疑能得益于电视对某些政府程序的报道。亲眼目睹民选官员处理政府事务，能带来一个额外的理解因素，来弄清政府的内在运转机制。当政治家们被置于电视镜头的"注视"时，可以使其对其行为负责。他们在处理公众事务时再也无法隐名埋姓。但政府程序并非应该全部进行电视转播。有些时候，为了确保能作出正确的决策，隐秘应成为一种绝对的要求。
Issue写作范文详细解析整理2
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)
[题目]
下述文字摘自一份地方性报纸《Midvale观察家》所发表的社论。
"自二十世纪五十年代以来，当电视机开始出现于寻常百姓家庭时，Alta国内青少年犯罪率已呈现出持续上升的势头。这一青少年犯罪行为的上升与电视上所播放的暴力画面的增加成正比。按照几份全国性调查报告，在那些大量观看了涉及到暴力场面的电视节目的青少年中，即使是极为年幼的孩童在其家庭环境中也要比那些不看暴力节目的孩童表现出更多的暴力行为。此外，在一项由《Midvale观察家》所进行的调查中，有90%的受访者为父母亲，他(她)们表示黄金时段的电视内容——即晚上7点到9点所播放的节目——应该减少播放暴力内容。据此，为了降低Alta国内青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面数量。"
[范文正文]
本社论作者陈述道，Alta国内青少年犯罪率伴随着电视所播放的暴力场面的增加而上升。这一情形始于二十世纪五十年代，因为电视在当时被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，该作者陈述道，几项全国性调查显示，观看暴力电视节目的孩子比那些不看同类节目的孩子更易于形成暴力倾向。社论作者还指出，一份调查表明，受访的90%的父母亲认为，黄金时段的电视节目不应含有那么多的暴力场面。最后，作者得出结论，认为要想降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率，电视观众应要求减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面。这一论述犯有若干关键性的逻辑谬误。
首先，社论作者将Alta国内青少年犯罪率的上升与电视所播放的暴力场面的增加相提并论，但除了二者在时间上吻合以外，没能给出任何因果关系。该作者没有对不同的犯罪种类作出区分——青少年所犯的罪行是属于暴力型的还是非暴力型的。此外，对于青少年犯罪数量的增加，还存在着其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或许所有年龄段的所有类型的犯罪行为都呈上升态势，或者也有可能，警察现在要比过去更擅长于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因仅仅只是人口总量的上升所致，并且，作为人口总量中的一个比例，青少年犯罪现在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉这些以及其他的原因，社论中的论点便无法令人信服，因为作者没有在电视暴力和青少年犯罪之间建立起任何因果关系。
其次，社论作者提到，有几份全国性研究表明，观看暴力节目的孩童在家里比不看此类节目的孩童表现出了更多的暴力行为。这一论点在二个层面上显得站不住脚——首先是假设孩童和青少年受到电视节目同等程度的影响;第二是又一次假定在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间存在着某种因果关系。孩童与青少年毕竟并不相同，我们不能做这样的假定，即家庭中较为暴力的那些行为必然会随着这些孩子长大成为青少年而发展成为犯罪行为。
第三，社论作者给出一项调查，以期证明90%的回答问卷的受访者均为父母亲一类的人，他(她)们提出黄金时段的电视节目不应该播放如此多的暴力镜头。但社论中没有讨论该调查所使用的调查方法是什么。情况有可能是，该调查的样本选择得并不恰当，或在某种程度上侧重于只将那些对电视暴力甚感厌恶的父母亲囊括于样本之中。再则，情况也可能是，这些父母亲在表达其意见时要比那些对黄金时段电视暴力漠不关心或满不在乎的人来得语气强烈得多，这样便再度使调查结果失之偏颇。即使我们假定所调查的人口样本是真实的，仅仅以此为依据将电视暴力和青少年犯罪联系起来也是不合逻辑的。 最后，社论作者作出一不必要的假设，即只要有电视观众要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段暴力内容的播放量便可降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率。即使不考虑此前已讨论过的那些含有缺陷的论点，只是去要求作出某种改变并不会对青少年犯罪产生任何影响。若要增强其论点的逻辑性，社论作者必须在电视暴力与青少年犯罪之间表明某种直接的因果关系，而不是作出某些含糊其辞的和缺乏依据的比较，声称存在着某种联系。该作者既没有拿出证据证明任何种类的电视暴力导致了青少年的犯罪，也没能证明黄金时段电视暴力的减少将会防范青少年的违法乱纪行为。
Issue写作范文详细解析整理3
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)
[题目]
下述文字刊登于某健康与健美杂志的社论栏："在一项有关运动对长寿的影响的研究中，医疗研究人员在为期20年的时间中跟踪调查了500名中年男性。被调查对象代表着该国若干个不同地区的形形色色的职业，他们对每年度调查中的二个问题——你运动的频繁程度如何?运动的力度如何?——作出回答。在所有作出回答的人中间，那些汇报说几乎每天都从事剧烈户外运动的男性，其寿命要高于那些汇报说每周只从事一次或二次轻微运动的男性。鉴于本项研究在长寿与运动之间所确立的明显关系，大夫们不应向其病人建议适度的运动，而应该鼓励病人每天从事剧烈的户外活动。"
[范文正文]
鉴于过去所出版的医学文献均表明，在运动和长寿之间存在着一种积极的关系，人们自然会认为运动会对中年男性的寿命产生一种极积的影响。在这段特定的论述中，作者引用一份研究，声称该研究对500名本国不同地区从事不同职业的男性进行了跟踪调查。这份研究显然每年进行一次问卷调查，询问这些男性从事运动的频繁程度以及力度如何。该作者不仅得出结论，认为长寿和运动之间存在着明显的联系，而且也认为大夫不应该向病人推荐适度的运动，而应该鼓励所有的病人每天都应进行剧烈的户外运动。鉴于其逻辑思维中的若干差错，该作者的论述在诸多方面无法令人信服。 逻辑推理中第一个也是最彰著的谬误在于这样一个事实，即研究仅报告了从事运动的二类男性的结果，第一类为几乎每天都要去户外做剧烈运动的男性，第二类为一星期只进行一至二次适度运动的男性。该调查中的其他结果均未提及，诸如每天在室内进行剧烈运动的男性的结果，或者那些每周三至四次在室内或在室外进行运动的男性的结果。此外，那些在室外作剧烈运动且几乎每天都进行运动的男性，可能比那些仅每周作一至二次适度运动的人早就处在更佳的身体状况之中。身体不够健康的男性，或因为肥胖，或因为抽烟，或因为其他与健康相关的问题，自然不被期望去作那么多的运动，否则，与那些显然是身体健康的、拥有每天进行剧烈运动体能的男性相比，他们可能会死得更早。 另一方面，该作者表示，此项调查所研究的男性分布在该国不同的地区，从事着不尽相同的职业。我们自然会得出这样的结论，即那些能够在户外几乎每天都从事剧烈运动的男性，他们必定生活在较适宜于这类运动的气候之中。允许户外运动的较为温和的气候无疑要比存在于该国其他地区较为恶劣的气候对任何人的身体更为有利。除此之外，诸如警察、消防员以及钢铁工人这些职业，自然要比其他类别的职业更加危险，从而导致一个人的寿命可能缩短。该作者没能考虑到任何有可能由人们所在地区的气候差异或其职业差异所致的寿命长短方面的差别，从而削弱了其论据及其结论。 最后，当作者作出这样的陈述，即大夫不应该向其病人建议适度的运动，而只应该鼓励每日进行户外剧烈的运动时，其论述的结论中便产生了一个关键性的缺陷。所得出的结论在论述中绝对找不到任何可资佐证的依据——甚至，只是直到社论结束之处才提及适度的运动。此外，此项论述没能注意到所作的研究仅涉及男性，而非涉及同样也作为大夫病人的女性和儿童。再者，对于某些男性、女性、及儿童而言，每天的户外剧烈运动实际上反而会危害他们的健康，尤其是对于那些有心脏病危险或生活在恶劣气候中的人们来说。 归纳而言，本社论作者没能证明大夫们为什么就应该推荐剧烈的每日户外运动，而不是适度的运动，无论病人是男性、女性、还是孩子。若需要强化其论点，作者应摆出证据，将男性每日剧烈的户外运动和所有大夫的病人的运动直接联系起来，然后才采纳任何这样的建议。这一薄弱的论据实际上有可能引起的对病人健康的伤害，会远超过它所可能防范的伤害。
Issue写作范文详细解析整理
Issue写作范文详细解析整理3篇 issue官方范文相关文章：
★ GRE写作如何合理引用范文素材和高分模板3篇(GRE写作素材)