Writing:
Some people claim that, in the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was and that people can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Write an essay of about 400 words.
In the first part of your essay you should state clearly your main argument, and in the second part you should support your argument with appropriate details. In the last part you should bring what you have written to a natural conclusion or make a summary.
You should supply an appropriate title for your essay.
Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
更新时间:2024-10-30 11:24:28Sample
Books Speak as Loud as TV
This is an era filled with various scientific achievements, and television is one of the most flamboyant among them, influencing several generations' behavior by molding them into the same mindset regardless of their race, gender, and background. Intoxicated by the superficial success of TV culture, some throw the irresponsible statement that reading is not as important as it once was, for people can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books. This is far from the truth. Though television has become an integral part of our daily lives, the role that books play is still irreplaceable and merits further advocating.
Admittedly, television gives us an option to traditional education through reading and classroom teaching. Indeed the vivid images it produces succeed in the education of children, who are much more inclined to accept visual information than abstract letters or characters. Television also raises our consciousness by providing the latest news and discoveries, extending our horizon by such documentary programs as "National Geographic" and "Discovery", whose contents might otherwise be unapproachable in an entire lifetime.
Despite all these advantages, the shortcomings of televisions are equally, if not more, apparent. Television stations operate as profit enterprises. Consequently, television programs are profit-based, and their commercial orientation drives them to be entertaining more so than educational, for the latter are typically less profitable.
Furthermore, watching television can neither provoke abstract thinking, which is most crucial in advanced scientific research, nor can it teach effective management and adequate control of written language. Written language carries the utmost importance in inheritance and dissemination of knowledge. Books contain the collective human experience, knowledge and wisdom. Human talents of abstract thought, logical dialogue, philosophy and writing style can be acquired only through the reading, digesting, and rumination of novels, texts, essays and speeches. Shallow, short-sighted, entertainment programs offer no such enrichment.
In addition, watching television tends to overemphasize machinery, ignoring humanity. Open an ancient book and read the comments by those living centuries ago, thousands of miles away. The book itself connects readers and writers across time and space, giving one the sense of belonging to one large human family. Lying on sofa watching television with popcorn in hand can only cause isolation, alienation and depression.
Borrowing the saying John Keats inscribed on his tombstone, we can describe television programs as "written on water". They are ephemeral. Whereas for books, as William Shakespeare wrote, "nothing of them doth fade/but doth suffer a seachange/ into something rich and strange".
暂无解析
—How do you like this dress?
—It ’s beautiful, and it fits me well. _______ I like it very much.
I’d rather you ____ by train because the weather forecast said there would be heavy snow tomorrow.
In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence – as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us. The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and herder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living-standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law. Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed." Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.
1. What is the best title for this passage?
[A] Advocating Violence.
[B] Violence Can Do Nothing to Diminish Race Prejudice.
[C] Important People on Both Sides See Violence As a Legitimate Solution.
[D] The Instincts of Human Race Are Thirsty for Violence.
2. Recorded history has taught us
[A] violence never solves anything. [B] nothing. [C] the bloodshed means nothing. [D]everything.
3. It can be inferred that truly reasonable men
[A] can't get a hearing.
[B] are looked down upon.
[C] are persecuted.
[D] Have difficulty in
advocating law enforcement.
4. "He was none the wiser" means
[A] he was not at all wise in listening.
[B] He was not at all wiser than nothing before.
[C] He gains nothing after listening.
[D] He makes no sense of the argument.
5. According the author the best way to solve race prejudice is
[A] law enforcement. [B] knowledge. [C] nonviolence. [D] Mopping up the violent mess.