【正文】 Issue 老外文章 125篇 Issue 1 We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own。 disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in mon than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker claims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. （ 因果型論證的開頭方式 ） I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own. Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today39。s typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding mon ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent39。s viewpoint. Understandably, neither the batants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded. Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissezfaire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power should control all economic activity. Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker39。s claim. Assuming mon ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, munity, or global level. At the personal level, by listening to their parents39。 rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers39。 concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the munity level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can e to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other39。s legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth. In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct. Issue 4 No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study. I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertise from various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical and anthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of a variety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of cultural anthropology and astronomy. Consider how a cultural anthropologist39。s knowledge about an ancient civilization is enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologistwho unearths the evidencebut ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic scientists can determine the life expectancy, general wellbeing, and mon causes of death of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structuresthereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about the civilization39。s economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and templessince ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures. An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists. These advances also require increasingly soph