【正文】 chines. While I concede the fn:st claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines superiority, and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios. The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any machine even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hardpressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuse usfor example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty itemsare in fact tools, which their inventors and promoters use for engaging in merce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such machine. Thus when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for that machine. As for the statement39。s second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform numbercrunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise themas our toolsto begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of petence in performing rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems. Up until now, the notion of humanmade machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to develop socalled emotional intelligence, has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machinesas in the cases of Frankenstein39。s monster and Hal, the puter in 2020: A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century we39。ll witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so forth. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own superiority. In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as tools of human minds. And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent thought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever bee so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own wellbeing, then query whether these machines of the future would be machines39。39。 anymore. 101Although innovations such as video, puters, and the Inter seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.： （ 233） P328： Issue 101 Although innovations such as video, puters, and the Inter seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. The speaker asserts that innovations such as videos, puters, and the Inter too often distract from real learning in the dassroom. I strongly agree that these tools can be counterproductive in some instances, and ineffectual for certain types of learning. Nevertheless, the speaker39。s assertion places too little value on the ways in which these innovations can facilitate the learning process. In several respects, I find the statement pelling. First of all, in my observation and experience, puters and videos are misused most often for education when teachers rely on them as surrogates, or babysitters. Teachers must use the time during which students are watching videos or are at their puter stations productivelyhelping other students, preparing lesson plans, and so forth. Otherwise, these tools can indeed impede the learning process. Secondly, passive viewing of videos or of Web pages is no indication that any significant learning is taking place. Thus teachers must carefully select Inter resources that provide a true interactive learning experience, or are highly informative otherwise. And, in selecting videos teachers must be sure to follow up with lively class discussions. Otherwise, the paratively passive nature of these media can render them ineffectual in the learning process. Thirdly, some types of learning occur best during facetoface encounters between teacher and student, and between students. Only by way of a live encounter can a language teacher recognize and immediately correct subtle problems in pronunciauon and inflection. And, there is no suitable substitute for a live encounter when it es to teaching techniques in painting, 2 社會(huì)或城市化 Issue 5 Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation39。s cultural traditions are preserved and generated. The speaker39。s claim is actually threefold: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is a proper function of government。 (2) government support is needed for our large dries and cultural traditions to survive and thrive。 and (3) cultural traditions are preserved and generated primarily in our large cities. I strongly disagree with all three claims. First of all, subsidizing cultural traditions is not a pr