1.Some said teachers’ main role is to transmit the information. Nowadays students are exposed to many kinds of information, so the role of the teacher will not work in modern education. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Some people hold the opinion that the main purpose of teachers’ existence is to offer information. However, students in current society can have access to amounts of information, so teachers are not as significant as before. I totally disagree with this statement.
The Internet provides students with abundant information and makes the process of obtaining information more efficient, convenient and interesting and in this sense, teachers seems dispensable. For example, if a student wants to know the history of French, he can easily find sufficient information, which ranges from vivid pictures to profound paper. Nevertheless, only with teachers, can students gain a better understanding of the knowledge. That is to say, teachers can select the most suitable information, no matter where the information comes from and employ different strategies suited to the particular group of pupils.
Apart from the most obvious function of teachers discussed above, teachers play a key role in moral education and social skills learning. The competition in modern society is so fierce that only equipping with academic knowledge is not adequate. Under the guidance of teachers, students can understand how to behave properly and become productive members of society. The same is true for social skills. If a student is rich in knowledge but weak in social skills, there is little possibility for him/she to become well-adjusted adults.
To sum up, although the advent of modern technology brings about ample information for students, students require more direction in terms of standard of upright conduct and social skills, so the role of teacher is less likely to be replaced.
2.People are buying more and more products from famous brands such as clothes, cars, and other items. What are the reasons for this? Do you think it's a positive or a negative development?
Is it because of identity or vanity that more and more people want to buy famous brands with clothes, cars and other items? The question is a matter of cause and effect, and this trend may be considered as positive if identity is cause, but it may be regarded as a negative development if vanity is cause. In either case, brand is not cause but effect.
On the positive side, identity is cause and brand is effect because the former influences the latter. In an identity-conscious society, buying a certain brand says something about the person who buys it. The logic: the strength of identity leads to the strength of brand, and a strong brand is no less than a promise. For example, thinking of some top "trusted" brands, such as Nike, Volvo, Apple, or Coca Cola, people immediately know what these famous trade-marks would promise. In one sense, a trade-mark is a trust-mark for those people who want to identify with quality names. So, it may be said that such identity is emotionally associated with that kind of trust which a top brand has to delivery.
价格 : ￥免费