The speaker believes that economic and other pragmatic concers are what drive people's career decisions, and that very few people are free to choose their careers based on talents and interests. I tend to disagree; although practical considerations often play a significant role in occupational trends, ultimately the driving forces behind people's career decisions are individual interest and ability. At first glance the balance of empirical evidence would seem to lend considerable credence to the speaker's claim. The most popular fields of study for students today are the computer sciences-- fields characterized by a relative glut of job opportunities. Graduates with degrees in liberal arts often abandon their chosen fields because they cannot find employment, and reenter school in search of more practical careers. Even people who have already achieved success in their chosen field are ofthen forced to abandon them due to pragmatic concerns. For example, many talented and creative people from the entertainment industry find themselves looking for other, less satisfying, kinds of work when they turn 40 years of age because industry executives prefer younger artists who are tuned in to the younger demographic group the purchases entrertainment products. However, upon further reflection it becomes clear that the relationship between career-seekers and the supply of careers is an interdependent one, and therefore it is unfair to generalize about which one drives the other. Consider, for example, the two mainstream fields of computer science and law. In given the highly lucrative financial rewards. But, would our legions of talented progremmers, engineers, scientists, and technicians really pursue their careers without a genuine fascination, a passion, or at least an interest in those areas? I think not. Conversely, consider the field of law, in which it wolud appear that demand drives the job market, rather than vice versa. The number of applications to law schools soared during the civil rights movenment of the 1960s, and again in the 1980s during the run of the popular television series L.A.Law. More recently, the number of students pursuing paralegal and criminal-justice careers spiked during and immediately after the O.J.Simpson trial. Query, though, whether these aspiring lawyers and paralegals would have been sufficiently motivated had the supply of jobs and the financial rewards not already been waiting for them upon graduation. Another compelling argument against the speaker's claim has to do with the myriad of ways in which people earn their living. Admittedly, the job market is largely clustered around certain mainstream industries and types of work. Nevertheless, if one peers beyond these mainstream occupational areas it becomes evident that many, many people do honor their ture interests and talents -- in spite of where most job openings lie and regardless of their financial rewards. Creative people seem to have a knack of creating their own unique vocational niche -- whether it be in the visual or the performing arts; many animal lovers create work which allows them to express that love. Caregivers and nurturers manage to, find work teching, socializing, counseling, and healing others. And people bitten by the travel bug generallyhave little trouble finding satisfying careers in the travel industry. In sum, the speaker's threshold claim that it is strictly the pragmatic concerns of job availability and financial compensation that drive people's career decisions oversimplifies both why and how people make their choices. Besides, the speaker's final claim that people are not free to choose their work violates my intuition, In the final analysis, people are ultimately free to choose their work; it's just that they often choose to betray their true talents and interests for the sake of practical, economic considerations.

要反驳的题目：

72.In measuring electrical activity in different parts of the brain, researchers found that people who describe themselves as generally happy have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains than do other people. Therefore, a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal前额 lobe of the brain would be an effective treatment for clinical depression.

在测量大脑不同部分的电波活动的时候，研究者发现那些把自己描述成快乐的人大脑左前额部分的活动比其他人更多。因此，刺激大脑左前额部分对于抑郁症的临床治疗将会是一种有效的方法。

我的文章：

The argument concludes that a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal lobe of the brain would be an effective treatment for clinical depression. Yet, the argument contains several critical flaws. I will discuss each of these questionable facets in turn.

First of all, the argument is based on the problematic assumption that a happy people may have a more activity left prefrontal lobe. However, the evidence that the arguer provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. It has the possibility that those who describe themselves as generally happy may not be happy at all. Perhaps there are other reasons leads to an activity left prefrontal lobe. As the author did not provide more evidence, such as one people who feels happy has more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of brain than the one when is not happy. Laughing people has more activity in the left prefrontal lobe, etc.. Lacking evidence makes this is a fallacious assumption.

In addition, even if I were concede that people who feel happy have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains than people who is not. There is no evidence indicates that to stimulate the left prefrontal lobe may let people feel happy or may let the left prefrontal lobe became more activity than before. Without ruling out all other possible condition, the argument cannot convince me.

Finally, even if I were concede that one’s stimulate to the left prefrontal lobe may surely let the left prefrontal lobe became more activity than before; the argument contains no evidence that it can cure the clinical depression. In fact, this argument does not provide any solid information about which cause the depression at all.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more data about the research. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that a medication for stimulating the left prefrontal lobe of the brain may let people have more activity in the left prefrontal lobe of their brains and it can cures clinical depression.

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.