看看我的wordpress的post2qzone插件能否正常运行。

In general, I agree with this assertion that intense media always serves to diminsh the reputation of society' would-be heroes, for the chief reason that it seems to be the nature of media to look for ways to demean public figures -- whether heroic or not. Moreover, while in isolated cases our so-called heros have vindicated themselves and restored their reputations diminished by media, in my observation these are exceptional cases to the general rule that once slanderde, the reputation of any public figure, hero or otherwise, is forever tarnished. The chief reason why I generally agree with the statement has to do with the forces that motivate the media in the first place. The media generally consist of profit-seeking entities, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders or other owners. Moreover, our corporate culture has sanctioned this objective by codifying it as a fiduciary obligation of any corporate executive. For better or worse, in our society media viewers, reader, and listeners find information about the misfortunes and misdeeds of others, especially heroic public figures, far more compelling than information about their virtues and accomplishments. In short, we love a good scandal. One need llok no further than the newsstand, local television news bordcast, or talkshow to find ample evidence that this is the case. Thus, in order to maximize the profit the media are simply giving the public what the demand-- scrutiny of heroic public figures that serves to diminish their reputation. A second reason why I fundamentally agree with the satement is that again for better or worse, intense media scrutiny raises a presumption, at least in the public's collective mind, that their hero is guilty of some sort character flaw or misdeed. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think any demographic study would show that the vast majority of people relying on mainstream media for their information lack the sort of critical-thingking skills and objectivity to see beyond what the media feeds them, and to render a fair and fully informed judgement about a public figure -- heroic or otherwise. A third reason for my agreement with the statment has to do with the longer-term fallout from intense media scrutiny and the presumption discussed above. Once tarnished as a result of intense media scrutiny, a person;s reputation is forever besmirched, regardless of the merits or motives of the scrutinizers. Those who disagree with this seemingly cynical viewpoint might cite cases in which public figures whose reputations had been tarnished were ultimately vindicated. For example, certain celebrities have successfully challenged rag sheets such as National Enquirer in the courts, winning large damage awards for libel. Yet, in my observation these are exceptional cased; besides, a dagmage award is no indication that the public has expunged from its collective memory a perception that the fallen hero is guilty of the alleged character flaw or peccadillo. In sum, this statement is fundamentally correct. As long as the media are motivated by profit, and as long as the public at large demands stories that serve to discredit, diminish and destroy reputations, the media will continue to harm whichever unfortunate individuals become their cynosures. And the opportunity for vindication is little consolation in a society that seems to thrive, and even feed, on watching heroes being knocked off their pedestals.

This argument concludes that in a certain study of reading habits Leeville citizens had misrepresented their reading habits. To justify the conclusion, the argument points out an apparent discrepancy between their representations and the results of a follow-up study showing that a different type of book is the one most frequently checked out from Leeville's public libraries. However, the argument fails to account for several other possible explaination for this apparent discrepancy. First of all, the argument does not indicate how much time passed between the two studies. During a suffciently long interim period the demographic makeup of Leeville might have changed, or the reading habit of the first study's represents might have changed. In other words, the longer the time between studies the less reliable the conclusion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits. Secondly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that the respondents in the first study consititute a different population than public library patrons. Admittedly, both groups are comprised of Leeville citizens. However, it is entirely possible that more highly educated citizens who frequent the University library rather than public libraries, or who puchase books rather than borrow them, are the ones who responded to the first study. However, it is entirely possible that more highly educated residents may go to the Universal libriaries instead of the public libraries, or to buy the books not to borrow books, and these people are the ones responded to the first study. Thirdly, the argument fails to account for the possibility that literary classics, the book type that the first study respondents indicated they preferred, re not readily available at Leeville's public libraries -- or at least not as readily available as mystery novels. Experience informs me that this is likely, because mystery novels are in greater supply and a cheaper for librarie to aquire than literary classics. If this is the case, it provides an alternative explanation for the fact that more mystery novels than literary classics are checked out from Leeville's public libraries. Finally, the reliability of the first study rests on its statistical integrity. The argument fails to indicate what the portion of the people surveyed actually responded; the smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Nor dose the argument indicate how many people were surveyed, or whether the sample was representative of Leeville's general population. Again, the smaller the sample, the less reliable the results. In conclusion, the assertion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is untenable, in light of a variety of alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. To strengthen the argument, its proponent must show that the respondents in the first out study are representative of Leeville citizens generallyy, and that both groups are eqaually likely to check out book from Leeville's public libraries. To better evaluate the argument, we would need to know the length of time between the two studies, and whether any significant demogreaphic changes occurred during this time. We would also need to know the availability of literary classics compared to mystery novels at Leevills's public libraries.

The author of this letter concludes that a wordwide decline in the number of amphibians is the indicateion,or result, of global air and water pollution.To support this assertion the author first notes a decline in amphibians in Yosemite Park between 1915 and 1992, and acknowledges that trout, which eat amphibian eggs, were intruduced in there in 1925. But, the author then claims that the intruduction of trout cannot be the reason for the decline in Yosemite Park because the introducion of trout in Yosemite does not explain the worldwide decline. I find this argument logically unconvincing in three critical respects. First, the author falis to provide any envidence to refute the strong inference that the decline in the number of amphibians was indeed caused by trout. Because the author dose not provide no affirmative evidence that pollution-- or some other phenomenon-- was instead the reason for the decline, the author's board assertion that wordwide decline in amphibians indicates global pollution is entirely unconvicing. Seconde, even if I were concede that the intruduction of trout was not the couse of Yosemite's amphibian decline, the author provide the decline was caused by pollution-- rather than some other phenomenon. Perhaps some other environmental factor was instead the cause. Without ruling out all orther possible explanations the author cannot covince me that pollution is the cause of the worldwide amphibian decline-- or even the decline in Yosemite alone. Thirdly, even if I were concede that pollution caused Yosemite's amphibians decline, this single sample is insufficient to draw any general conclusion about the reason for wordwide amphibian decline. It is entirely possible that the cause-and-effect relationships in Yosemite are not typical of the world in general. Without addittional samples from diverse geographic locations, I cannot accept the author's sweeping generalization about the decline of amphibians and global pollution. In sum, the scant evidence the author cites proves nothing about the reason for the general decline of amphibians wordwide; in fact, this evidence only serves to refute the author's own argument. To strengthen the argument the author should examine all changes occuring in Yosemit between 1915 and 1992, nad shouw that air and water pollution have at least contributed to the park's amphibian decline. In any event, the author must provide data about amphibian population changes and pollution at diverse geographical locations; and this data must show a strong inverse correlation between levels of air and water pollution and amphibian population worldwide.

argument 还是没一点进步...这样可不行啊..着急