log
Your Replies
-
September 24, 2021 at 12:27 pm
The reading passage explores the issue of several ways to reduce the level of salt in the Salton Sea lake. The professor’s lecture deals with the same problem. However, she thinks that the three methods mentioned above are neither realistic nor practical, which contradicts what the reading states. And in the lecture, she uses three specific points to support her idea.
First, even though the reading passage suggests that removing salt from the lake’s water could be achieved through distillation. The professor argues in the lecture that it would cause tremendous environmental problems. This is because the remainder of the distillation contains other noxious chemicals, which means people could breathe in this poison with winds.Moreover, despite the statement in the reading that we can dilute the lake with ocean water, the professor contends that government does not have the necessary resources to build the pipelines needed to fetch the water in the Pacific Ocean. Then she supports this point with the fact that the nearest ocean is 100 kilometers away. In other words, such a huge task won’t be practical.
Finally, the professor asserts that dividing the late into several parts makes the lake susceptible to natural disasters, whereas the author of the reading claims that it could control the lake’s salinity. The professor proves that the claim is indefensible by pointing out that mishaps such as earthquakes could break the walls between those sections, i.e., the waters from different areas would mix back in the lake and make all the efforts end up in vain.
In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weakness in the reading passage and convincingly shows that the central argument in the reading, that is, those methods to reduce salt level, are just impractical and unrealistic.September 24, 2021 at 12:17 pmTo enjoy art or to a workout, it is worth considering. With limited budgets, governments have to choose between sponsoring the arts and funding extraordinary athletes. From my perspective, despite the potential positive influence of the arts, much more public spending on sports is in need when it comes to the digital era.
As it is known to all, art could never be replaced by any other kind of human invention. Historically, artists such as Picasso and Galileo had made significant contributions to the education of enriching people’s souls by their paintings. However, we have to admit that more public money donated to art museums and artists doesn’t necessarily help make masterpieces. On the contrary, by investing more money in supporting athletics, we can achieve much greater success.
First, more money spent on athletics can boost the participation of sports events among the public. Regardless of the precious works and splendid museums, young people are more likely to be attracted by exciting sports events and excellent players. After watching a football match in the local sport studio, I will organize a game with my friends and classmates, trying to perform well just like the players I love. While after visiting the local art museum, despite being admirable to the masterpieces by ancient artists, I do not want to pick up my brush or sit in front of a piano. Therefore, the money spent on athletics is much more efficient.
Moreover, bodybuilding is actually a part of art in a broad sense. In ancient Roman and Athens, great artists and philosophers are both talented in art and sport. We can learn this obvious fact from their works. The extraordinary sculptures at that time are primarily about muscling generals, which shows the beauty of humankind. Thus, exercising and doing sports are enjoyed from an artistic perspective.
For those reasons mentioned above, we can conclude that supporting athletics is more important compared to supporting art.
