Issue 18 [b]"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the [b]results of that research are controversial." [b][b][b]I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research is [b]generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends [b]this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," [b]while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might [b]be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involves the [b]fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below. [b]精华：However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to [b]embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain [b]compelling reasons why…这种说法可以用来抨击原题观点的绝对化，非常有力。 [b][b]My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives [b]and nature of research, as discussed below. [b]带出自己观点的新句型。 [b][b]I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this [b]issue. After all, research is the exploration of the unknown for true [b]answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our enduring [b]problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans attempt to [b]satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to [b]understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion of [b]research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who [b]illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we [b]invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any value it must [b]explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact, query（=doubt） [b]whether research whose benefits are immediate and predictable can break any [b]new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all. [b]在第二段，作者展开论辩，先攻击原观点的逻辑错误——who illogically presumes [b]that we can know the results of research before we invest in it ，参照前几 [b]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 [b]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 [b]数，挺适合临场发挥的。 [b][b][b]While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might [b]be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research [b]whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too [b]speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant [b]opportunity costs--in terms of how the money might be spent toward [b]addressing society's more immediate problems that do not require research. [b]One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called "Star Wars" [b]defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the [b]1980s. In retrospect, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste [b]of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of [b]money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward [b]addressing pressing social problems of the day--by establishing after- [b]school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness [b]and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars [b]debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an [b]unprecedented federal budget deficit. [b]进一步强调并不是所有researches都是valuable 的，必须考虑到其所带来的效益是否>损 [b]失，否则，是会导致灾难性连锁反应的。 [b]在这里需要进一步指出的是，我们在平时练习的时候就要注意多多记住一些有用的数据和年 [b]代，这样会非常persuasive & convincing啦。 [b][b]The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, [b]no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, [b]poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects [b]of human nature--such as aggression and greed. Although human genome [b]research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable [b]aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists, [b]diplomats, social reformers, and jurists--not our research laboratories--to [b]mitigate these problems. Secondly, for every new research breakthrough that [b]helps reduce human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to [b]that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics [b]researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an [b]alternative source of energy and invaluable "peace-keepers," this argument [b]flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered [b]and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling [b]the promise of "better living through chemistry" research has given us [b]chemical weapons for human slaughter. In short, so-called "advances" that [b]scientific research has brought about often amount to net losses for [b]humanity. [b]最后一句是非常震撼的。作者的雄辩提醒各位，时刻从全方位思考每一个问题，也就是说， [b]每一样新事物的出现和产生，必然附带一些不利的因素，也是就类似新概念里的“The [b]progress of knowledge”所提到的two-edged weapon 效应。 [b][b][b]In sum, the speaker's assertion that we should invest in research whose [b]results are "controversial" begs the question, because we cannot know [b]whether research will turn out controversial until we've invested in it. As [b]for the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research [b]is generally a sound investment because it is an investment in the [b]advancement of human knowledge and in human imagination and spirit. [b]Nevertheless, when we do research purely for its own sake without aim or [b]clear purpose--we risk squandering resources which could have been applied [b]to relieve the immediate suffering of our dispirited, disadvantaged, and [b]disenfranchised members of society. In the final analysis, given finite [b]economic resources we are forced to strike a balance in how we allocate [b]those resources among competing societal objectives. [b]最后一段作者等于是把每一段的中心进行有效的浓缩归集。 [b][b]这篇文章大部分从反面的角度反驳了原文观点，不仅语言运用得体，而且灵活运用复杂句， [b]是难得的好文章。如果ets心情好，忽略一些语法错误（我已更正）的话，6分应该不成问题 [b]的。 [b]