Skip to content

6

约 1961 个字 1 张图片 预计阅读时间 7 分钟

小测卷

While I appreciate the points made by Lisa and John, I attribute the increase in life expectancy primarily to changes in people's lifestyle habits. Nowadays, as we focus more and more on a healthy lifestyle, an increasing number of people are inclined to abandon our old, detrimental living habits like smoking, drinking and eating too much, shifting toward a more sustainable lifestyle characterized by regular exercise, nutritious diet and work-life balance. It is these changes that have contributed to a stronger body and better immune system, which is essential for effective defense against disease. While the progress in our medical technology is also conducive to longevity, it would be in vain if we do not care about our very own health and the healthy lifestyle habits. Therefore, I owe the extending life expectancy to the changes in our lifestyle habits.

From my perspective, John has made a quite sounding point. I attribute the longevity to the well-developed and continuously-advancing public health system, boosting the wellbeing from infants to the elderly. Looking back to our childhood, we all received those varies anti-disease doses in the first years of our life. Now as a teenager, many of us are suggested to take some medical precautions against the HPV. The promotion of the public health system and the propaganda of health ideologies pushed our actions and raised the awareness of our health, contributing to lower disease rates and longer life expectancy. The medical technology mentioned by Lisa has made its devotion, but we should note that not all citizens are affordable for those high-techs. Does it mean that they'll definitely die earlier?

I strongly agree with David’s idea that AI will help us deal with many serious problems currently affecting society. I’d add that AI has already been used to make driving safer and reduce car accidents, so we already have some proof that AI is helping people around the world. Megan raised the relevant point that AI could eliminate certain jobs, but she didn’t mention that AI is creating new jobs. For example, when new products are invented using AI they still have to be manufactured, which means that new factory jobs are created. Not only that, but AI learning tools can help people increase their skills and make themselves more attractive employees for various companies. Overall, then, I would say that AI will improve our lives.

The topic of AI has generated much discussion in recent years. I understand Megan’s concern over the risks that AI will bring, but I would like to add that it is impossible to stop the development of computer sciences, and all we can do is to explore how to better embrace the improvement of technology. I strongly agree with David’s idea that we must keep the AI on the right track. For instance, laws should be set up to regulate the use of AI, and companies in relevant fields can work together to communicate with the government to optimize the laws; the operators and users of AI should be taught the morality of how to use it in a proper way. In conclusion, AI is a good opportunity, instead of a threat to the future.

The topic of AI has generated much discussion in recent years. I think David has made a good point that AI is a great tool for today’s social progress. From my perspective, not only will AI help us deal with many obstacles with its strong analyzing ability, but also assist scientists to explore more of the world. Take volcano and deep-sea robots as an example. With new technologies, they can get into the most dangerous part of the earth easily, getting precious samples back to the lab for scientists to investigate and evaluate, without causing any harm to human explorers. Additionally, scientists can also use AI to identify certain materials, analyze them in research and apply them in practice, therefore promoting the development of the whole society with prominent science exploration which they were not able to achieve before.

outweigh: 比...更重/更重要

From my perspective, the advantages of AI far outweigh its disadvantages. To begin with, I totally agree with David’s opinion that AI has the potential to solve many global problems, and I’d add that the use of AI has also made our academic research much more convenient, thanks to its power to integrate information from the Internet. Take myself as an example. When I try to figure out where to find the latest development or former literature articles in a specific field of study, I always find AI an efficient tool since it has the ability to provide me with a comprehensive list of databases, professional journals and related websites. In contrast, before AI was invented, I had to spend hours sitting in front of the computer struggling to search for what I need for a project, followed by hours of sorting and filing. So AI has definitely made academic tasks easier for me and I believe it has the potential to change the way of researching in the future.

Lisa and John have raised good points on merits and demerits of AI. From my perspective, I prefer the idea considering AI a good tool to improve people’s lives. There is no denying of the fact that AI is developing in an unprecedentedly high speed, which means multiple and various possibility in the future. Thus, we will be able to solve loads of remained issues with the assistance of AI, for instance, to reorganize and improve city traffic, to do medical operation, even to predict environmental disasters and save lives. Never should we ignore the potential risks that AI has posed, but it doesn’t mean we should be scared and retreat. As long as we take right action and attitude towards AI, it can be a perfect tool to serve us and make a better future (140)

积累句子/短语

范文1：

  • In the lecture, the professor casts doubt on the reading passage's idea that the "let it burn" policy can cause three kinds of damage. She asserts that the policy is fundamentally a good one.
  • First, the reading passage assumes that Yellowstone fires caused damage to the park's vegetation. However, the professor argues that the fires actually made the vegetation more diverse. In fact, the fires created opportunities for certain plants that could not grow otherwise, such as the seeds which demand high levels of heat to germinate.
  • Secondly, the reading passage claims that the wildlife was also affected by the fires. The professor refutes the idea. To illustrate, she elaborates that the recovery of small plants actually provided ideal habitat for certain animals, such as rabbits. Furthermore, the thriving of rabbits made it easier for the predators to prey them. Therefore, the food chain became much stronger than before.

  • Thirdly, the reading passage claims that the fires compromised the value of the park. Nevertheless, the professor does not agree with this opinion. She points out that the fires would not be a problem as long as it did not happen every year and Yellowstone cannot seen such a fire since then. She says that it was the unusual combination of factors, like low rainfall and strong winds, that caused fire to so massive. In fact, the visitors came back to the park next year and every year after the fires.

  • The reading criticizes the "let it burn" policy through mentioning 3 kinds of damage of Yellowstone fires in 1988. In contrast, the lecturer challenges the points in the reading and regards "let it burn" as a fundamentally good policy.

  • First of all, the passage states that the Yellowstone fires caused huge damage to vegetation. But the lecturer claims that the areas burned out were covered with new plants and the fire created new opportunities to more diverse plants. For example, the smaller trees in need of open, unshaded area and seeds surviving high level of heat grew after the fire.
  • In addition, contrary to the belief in the passage that wildlife as well as habitats and food chain was ruined by the fire, the lecturer argues that the animal number recovered soon after. And more importantly, the fire created new chances. For instance, small plants became the ideal habitat for rabbits or hares, and thrive of which gave predators food source. Therefore, the food chain was stronger.
  • Finally, the reading points out the negative effects of fires on the local economy. However, the lecturer suggests that this would happen only if the widely spread fire happened every year. She demonstrates that multiple unusual factors such as low rain fall combined together to evoke the fires in 1988. The tourists could come back each year after the fire.

Sure, here is the extracted text from the image:

  • The reading passage and listening hold divergent standpoints toward "let it burn" policy. The author presents three detrimental consequences caused by 1988 Yellowstone fire. However, each of them is contradicted by the lecturer.

  • First and foremost, the writer raises the issue that vegetation suffers severe damage from the 1988 Yellowstone fire. On the contrary, the professor points out that scorched land was colonized with new plants and the fire actually offered more opportunities for divergent plants that otherwise would not grow. She adds that small plants take up open and unshaded area where trees used to. Moreover, certain seed species germinate after exposure to high temperature.

  • Second, as for destruction of habitats and disruption of food chains mentioned in the reading, the lecturer states that animals recovered fast. In fact, small plants that substitute the trees provide habitats for small animals like rabbits as well as predators that feed on the small ones. Therefore, some food chains are reinforced after the fire.

  • Finally, the author is concerned that the fire jeopardized the touristic industry of the park. Nevertheless, the professor contends that the fire was an extremely rare accident caused by a combination of many unusual factors like low rainfall and strong wind. The tourists came back to the park every year after the fire further validates the fact the fire would not compromise the local economy.

In the lecture, the professor thinks that the fire of the Yellowstone was a part of the ecological cycle. However, the reading contends that “let it burn” policy needed to be replaced. The first point that the professor uses to refute the reading is that the fire increased the diversity of plants. According to him, after the fire, some small plants would have chances to grow, and plants whose seeds needs high temperature to grow also got its suitable environment. However, this is different from the reading, which states that the fire caused damage to park trees and other vegetation, with flames and smoke. Moreover, contrary to the belief in the passage that the wildlife was affected and was hard to return because of the destruction of the habitats and the disruption of food chains, the professor asserts that the diversity of animals increased and the food chains became stronger. To be specific, the fire created opportunities for small animals like rabbits and hairs to live, which could be the result of the growing small plants. Finally, the professor points out that the decline of the tourists was caused by a combination of a lot of factors, including rainfall and strong winds. Thus, they came back next year after the fire and each year after that. This is not what the reading says, and the reading states that the fire compromised the value of the park as a tourist attraction and led to the decline of the visitors and local business.

Comments