【正文】 more negative than positive effects on young children. Do you agree or disagree?I tend to agree that young children can be negatively affected by too mcuh time spent on the coumputer every day. This is partly because sitting in front of a screen for too long can be damaging to both the eyes and the physical posture of a young child, regardless of what they are using the puter for.However, the main concern is about the type of puter activities that attract children. These are often electronic games that tend to be very intense and rather violent. The player is usually the ‘hero’ of the game and too much exposure can encourage children to be selfcentred and insensitive to others.Even when children use a puter for other purposes, such as getting information or ing friends, it is no substitute for human interaction. Spending time with other children and sharing nonvirtual experiences is and important part of a child’s development that cannot be provided by a puter. In spite of this, the obvious benefits of puter skills for young children cannot be denied. Their adult world will be changing constantly in terms of technology and the Inerent is the key to all the knowledge and information available in the world today. Therefore it is important that children learn at an early age to use the equipment enthusiastically and with confidence as they will need these skills throughout their studies and working lives.I think the main point is to make sure that young children do not overuse puters. Parents must ensure that their children learn to enjoy other kinds of activity and not simply sit at home, learning to live in a virtual world.劍7 Test 3Task 2It is generally believed that some people are born with certain talents, for instance sports or music, and others are not. However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to bee a good sports person or musician. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.MODEL ANSWERThis model has been prepared by an examiner as an example of a very good answer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible approaches.The relative importance of natural talent and training is a frequent topic of discussion when people try to explain different levels of ability in, for example, sport, art or music.Obviously, education systems are based on the belief that all children can effectively be taught to acquire different skills, including those associated with sport, art or music. So from our own school experience, we can find plenty of evidence to support the view that a child can acquire these skills with continued teaching and guided practice.However, some people believe that innate talent is what differentiates a person who has been trained to play a sport or an instrument, from those who bee good players. In other words, there is more to the skill than a learned technique, and this extra talent cannot be taught, no matter how good the teacher or how frequently a child practices.I personally think that some people do have talents that are probably inherited via their genes. Such talents can give individuals a facility for certain skills that allow them to excel, while more hardworking students never manage to reach a parable level. But, as with all questions of nature versus nurture, they are not mutually exclusive. Good musicians or artists and exceptional sports stars have probably succeeded because of both good training and natural talent. Without the natural talent, continuous training would be neither attractive nor productive, and without the training, the child would not learn how to exploit and develop their talent.In conclusion, I agree that any child can be taught particular skills, but to be really good in areas such as music, art or sport, then some natural talent is required.《劍七》議論文 ：Topic : Some people belive that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime . Others , however , argue that the circumstances of an individual crime , and the motivation for mitting it , should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment .Discuss both these views and give your own opinion .Answer : Band Fixing punishments for each type of crime has been a debatable issue . There are many arguments supporting both views , those for and those against fixed punishments .On the one hand , fixed punishments will have a deterring effect on society . Individuals knowing that they will be subject to a certain punishment if they are convicted with a given crime , will reconsider mitting this act in the first place .This deterring effect also leads to social stability and security , through minimising the number of crimes mitted .If people knew they would be able to convince the court or the jury of a reason for having mitted the crime they are accused of , penal decisions would be largely arbitrary . This would result into criminals getting away with their crimes and into a high level of injustice caused by the subjective approach of different courts .On the other hand , taking the circumstances of a crime and its motivation into consideration is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity .A person killing in selfdefense can not be pared to a serial killer , moving from one victim to the next . In my opinion an intermediary position between both solutions is the perfect way to establish and ensure justice and equity .There has to be fixed punishment for all crimes . However , criminal laws have to provide for a minimum and maximum for the punishment and the laws also have to foresee certain cases of exemptions .An example for setting minimum and maximum penalties is petition law where a person being held liable of a crime under this law will be convicted to pay a fine , according to the harm caused by the violation and the profit gained by the violator through mitting the crim