Writing:
“Tradition and modernization are incompatible. One must choose between them”. To what degree do you agree with this statement? Write an essay of about 400 words.
In the first part of your essay you should state clearly your main argument, and in the second part you should support your argument with appropriate details. In the last part you should bring what you have written to a natural conclusion or make a summary.
You should supply an appropriate title for your essay.
Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
Sample
Tradition and Modernization Can Be Compatible
There is much debate over whether tradition and modernization are compatible. Some people maintain that they necessarily conflict with each other, while others argue that it is possible to combine tradition and modernization in our pursuit of development. As far as I am concerned, these two forces undermine each other at times, but they can also compliment each other, if handled properly.
Most people take it for granted that modernization and tradition are contradictory, which is true in a sense. Modernization, a popular yet a vague term, is generally understood as "Westernization," which means individualist, rights-based democracy, capitalism, and technological imperatives. Meanwhile, tradition comprises the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that characterize a specific society or a social group. It includes not only the arts and letters, but also modes of life, the value systems and beliefs of the indigenous people. In this sense, it is only natural that modernization, as a foreign culture forced upon non-Western cultures, tends to cause damage to the tradition and arouse confrontation from the native people involved in this destructive and painful process. Where modernization marches on, we often see traditional customs disappearing, traditional value systems collapsing, traditional craftsmanship withering, and traditional ways of life disintegrating. As a result, modernization has not brought about prosperity and happiness at it promises to traditional societies. On the contrary, we are alarmed at the deterioration of the cities and disintegration of society—overcrowding; slum formation; breakdown of culture, community, and family; isolation of social and age groups, etc. —as well as the environmental destruction—water and air pollution; noise; destruction of wildlife, vegetation and land, etc.
However, if we understand modernization as sustainable development, we must believe in the necessity and possibility of synthesizing modernization and tradition. Development can only flourish where it is rooted in the culture and the tradition of each country, since it is an all-encompassing process linked to each society's own values and calling for an active participation of individuals and groups who are both the authors and the beneficiaries of it. The success of Japan and the South-East Asian "dragons," is a case in point. While espousing the free enterprise system of the western development model, these traditional societies dosed it with more than a little government control, a form of paternalism alien to the West but totally in keeping with their own traditions. In the same vein, China is confidently pushing forward its development by synthesizing modernization and tradition.
To conclude, it seems unavoidable that some traditional cultural elements will be lost in the process of modernization. Yet any external experience, technique or model cannot be successfully integrated by mere adopting or reproduction; it needs to be reinterpreted or reinvented in such a way that it can be absorbed through the filter of the society's cultural identity and value system. In other words, any traditional society, if it aims at sustainable development, should endeavor to maintain a mutually enriching relationship between the external modernization and the internal tradition.
范文推荐：
暂无解析
In some countries where racial prejudice is acute, violence has so come to be taken for granted as a means of solving differences, that it is not even questioned. There are countries where the white man imposes his rule by brute force; there are countries where the black man protests by setting fire to cities and by looting and pillaging. Important people on both sides, who would in other respects appear to be reasonable men, get up and calmly argue in favor of violence – as if it were a legitimate solution, like any other. What is really frightening, what really fills you with despair, is the realization that when it comes to the crunch, we have made no actual progress at all. We may wear collars and ties instead of war-paint, but our instincts remain basically unchanged. The whole of the recorded history of the human race, that tedious documentation of violence, has taught us absolutely nothing. We have still not learnt that violence never solves a problem but makes it more acute. The sheer horror, the bloodshed, the suffering mean nothing. No solution ever comes to light the morning after when we dismally contemplate the smoking ruins and wonder what hit us. The truly reasonable men who know where the solutions lie are finding it harder and herder to get a hearing. They are despised, mistrusted and even persecuted by their own kind because they advocate such apparently outrageous things as law enforcement. If half the energy that goes into violent acts were put to good use, if our efforts were directed at cleaning up the slums and ghettos, at improving living-standards and providing education and employment for all, we would have gone a long way to arriving at a solution. Our strength is sapped by having to mop up the mess that violence leaves in its wake. In a well-directed effort, it would not be impossible to fulfill the ideals of a stable social programme. The benefits that can be derived from constructive solutions are everywhere apparent in the world around us. Genuine and lasting solutions are always possible, providing we work within the framework of the law. Before we can even begin to contemplate peaceful co-existence between the races, we must appreciate each other's problems. And to do this, we must learn about them: it is a simple exercise in communication, in exchanging information. "Talk, talk, talk," the advocates of violence say, "all you ever do is talk, and we are none the wiser." It's rather like the story of the famous barrister who painstakingly explained his case to the judge. After listening to a lengthy argument the judge complained that after all this talk, he was none the wiser. "Possible, my lord," the barrister replied, "none the wiser, but surely far better informed." Knowledge is the necessary prerequisite to wisdom: the knowledge that violence creates the evils it pretends to solve.
1. What is the best title for this passage?
[A] Advocating Violence.
[B] Violence Can Do Nothing to Diminish Race Prejudice.
[C] Important People on Both Sides See Violence As a Legitimate Solution.
[D] The Instincts of Human Race Are Thirsty for Violence.
2. Recorded history has taught us
[A] violence never solves anything. [B] nothing. [C] the bloodshed means nothing. [D]everything.
3. It can be inferred that truly reasonable men
[A] can't get a hearing.
[B] are looked down upon.
[C] are persecuted.
[D] Have difficulty in
advocating law enforcement.
4. "He was none the wiser" means
[A] he was not at all wise in listening.
[B] He was not at all wiser than nothing before.
[C] He gains nothing after listening.
[D] He makes no sense of the argument.
5. According the author the best way to solve race prejudice is
[A] law enforcement. [B] knowledge. [C] nonviolence. [D] Mopping up the violent mess.
____,sheledalifeofcompleteseclusion.
The tourist trade is booming. With all this coming and going ， you'd expect greater understanding o develop between the nations of the world. Not a bit of it ! Superb systems of communication by air， sea and land make it possible for us to visit each other's countries at a moderate cost. What was once the 'grand tour' ， reserved for only the very rich ， is now within everybody's grasp ?
The package tour and chartered flights are not to be sneered at. Modern travelers enjoy a level of comfort which the lords and ladies on grand tours in the old days couldn't have dreamed of. But what's the sense of this mass exchange of populations if the nations of the world remain basically ignorant of each other?
Many tourist organizations are directly responsible for this state of affairs. They deliberately set out to protect their clients from too much contact with the local population. The modern tourist leads a cosseted， sheltered life. He lives at international hotels ， where he eats his international food and sips his international drink while he gazes at the natives from a distance. Conducted tours to places of interest are carefully censored. The tourist is allowed to see only what the organizers want him to see and no more. A strict schedule makes it impossible for the tourist to wander off on his own ; and anyway， language is always a barrier， so he is only too happy to be protected in this way. At its very worst ， this leads to a new and hideous kind of colonization.
The summer quarters of the inhabitants of the cite universitaire ： are temporarily reestablished on the island of Corfu. Blackpool is recreated at Torremolinos where the traveler goes not to eat paella， but fish and chips. The sad thing about this situation is that it leads to the persistence of national stereotypes. We don't see the people of other nations as they really are， but as we have been brought up to believe they are. You can test this for yourself. Take five nationalities ， say， French， German， English， American and Italian. Now in your mind， match them with these five adjectives ： musical， amorous， cold， pedantic， native. Far from providing us with any insight into the national characteristics of the peoples just mentioned ， these adjectives actually act as barriers. So when you set out on your travels， the only characteristics you notice are those which confirm your preconceptions. You come away with the highly unoriginal and inaccurate impression that ， say，'Anglo-Saxons are hypocrites' of that 'Latin peoples shout a lot'. You only have to make a few foreign friends to understand how absurd and harmful national stereotypes are. But how can you make foreign friends when the tourist trade does its best to prevent you ? Carried to an extreme， stereotypes can be positively dangerous. Wild generalizations stir up racial hatred and blind us to the basic fact 〞how trite it sounds ! 每 That all people are human. We are all similar to each other and at the same time all unique.
1. The best title for this passage is
[A] Tourism contributes nothing to increasing understanding between nations.
[B] Tourism is tiresome.
[C] Conducted tour is dull.
[D] Tourism really does something to one's country.
2. What is the author's attitude toward tourism ?
[A] apprehensive. [B]negative. [C] critical. [D] appreciative.
3. Which word in the following is the best to summarize Latin people shout a lot?
[A] silent. [B] noisy. [C] lively. [D] active.
4. The purpose of the author's criticism is to point out
[A] conducted tour is disappointing.
[B]the way of touring should be changed.
[C] when traveling ， you notice characteristics which confirm preconception.
[D] national stereotypes should be changed.
5. What is 'grand tour' now ?
[A] moderate cost.
[B]local sight-seeing is investigated by the tourist organization.
[C] people enjoy the first-rate comforts.
[D] everybody can enjoy the 'grand tour'