singular and plural human beings is a species. or human beings are a species. ? or better ways to express it?

commentary part1 Commentary The author's claim that American society has been silently disconnected ,and that we need to encourage participation among youth in order to create social capital. This claim has considerable merit with respect to education's function. However, while the claim that community is deteriorating may be justifiable in America, I tend to disagree when it comes to our own country. At first glance empirical evidence may lend credence to the author’s statement. As social media develops, we put more attention on electronic devices and less on real social intercourse.The urbanization process has led a mass migration from the countryside to the city, where people tend to live more independently from neighbours and relatives, and in smaller families. Furthermore, higher education seems to give people more ability and skills to think about and deal with things by themselves. All these might wither the bonds of social community. However, upon further reflection it is clear that educational and technological development as well as urbanization come along with social process. It is probable that every society has the same worry that people become more indifferent and disengaged, which may be only a fuss. For the unity and engagement might very well appear themselves in a new form.（from “however”:随社会发展，教育科技和城市化进程也会一起发展。每个社会都可能有同样的担忧，认为人们变得冷漠疏离，但这可能只是小题大做，因为团结和参与可能通过一种新的形势表现出来了。） Moreover, if we define a “connected” society broadly--in terms with tolerance of differing viewpoints and of those different from us, respect for individual rights, together efforts towards common goal, and cooperation across regional and cultural boundaries, then China’s society has progressed instead of regressed. We are becoming more sensitive to, and respectful of, the rights of women, various ethnic, racial and religious groups, homosexuals, and mentally-and physically-challenged individuals. The past year has seen an resolution to protect our natural environment by vehicle restrictions and the use of clean energy. Even from an international perspective, the expansion of cross-border trade and cooperative research against public health problems are proof that nowadays people are still as socialized as ever.

commentary part2 As for the solution to the problems cited in the essay, which our society is faced with to some degree, I also hold that education should be given priority. After all, education serves to instill in students a set of fundamental values, such as tolerance and respect, upon which the general mood of society is based. They can best be taught in schools where students can work their value systems out as they interact with their peers. Besides, values are caught as well as taught, so teachers of good character can contribute to this goal by acting as a role model. Finally, educational systems should develop more forms of participation and engagement among students, such as interest groups, student associations and volunteer work.（文章中说的问题，我们的社会也多少有一些，至于解决方法。。。毕竟教育提供一套价值观，而社会风气建立在这价值观上。。Besides...:此外，教育除了应该教授以外，也应潜移默化灌输给学生，所以，起到榜样作用的老师会有帮助。） In sum, while the essay may clearly articulate America’s pressing social ills, in China it seems to be an overstatement. Social disconnectedness coexists with social progress and is to some degree another form of social social capital. Besides, providing the young ability and principle of cooperation to promote social engagement by educational systems is a good choice.

to be happy I came across a paragraph going " In childhood we are happy to receive; it is the first opening of love. In youth we take and give, dedicate and possess – rapture and anguish are mingled, until parenthood brings a dedication that, TO BE HAPPY, must ask for no return. All these are new horizons of content, which the lust of holding, the enemy of love, slowly contaminates." What does the "TO BE HAPPY" mean here? Does this mean"If we want to be happy we must ask for no return" or mean"..a dedication that musk ask for no return,which I think is happy to us."? And,If you know a little Chinese, could you please help me to translate this sentence into Chinese？ Thanks!!

explore emotions? part2 Another argument against the claim is that reason is the main driving force behind educational and academic achievement. The physical science and mathematics are pure products of logical thinking. Even in the so-called “soft” sciences, emotions play only a small part. For example, the study of history, politics, and law all require the understanding of the concepts such as fairness, equity and justice. It might be tempting to think that such kind of understand can be best arrived at by tapping our feelings. But upon further reflection it becomes clear that the basic concepts of fairness, equity and justice derive(?) not from feelings, but from reason and logic. After all, emotion is subjective, while critical thinking and analytical reasoning are objective and therefore serve to fortify communication, comprehension, consensus and peaceful compromise. In sum, emotions and feelings increase the capacity to be more human and cultivate the appreciation of beauty. Thus, the claim is correct in this respect. However, when it comes to the undue focus on emotions and scientific subjects I find this statement to be an unfair generalization. In the final analysis, while the importance of the exploration of emotions should not be neglected , reason and critical thinking should always hold the most central place in education.

explore emotions? part1 The speaker asserts that schools should put more emphasis on exploring students’ emotions than on developing their capacity for reasoning and logical thinking. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that tapping motions and feelings(?) can benefit students and society. However, the claim overlooks the negative impact that excessive focus on emotions can have, and the benefits that logical thinking have provided to education and society. I agree with the claim insofar as developing our emotions helps enhance humanity and cultivate aesthetic appreciation. Cultural(?) and arts subjects serve to lift the human spirit by putting us more in touch with our own feelings, foibles, and fate--in short, with our own humanity. With a heightened sensitivity to the human condition, we become more others-oriented, less self-centered, and more giving of ourselves. In other words, we become a more charitable and civilized society. Moreover, art appreciation art student artistic ideas and inspiration spring not from logic but from our real feelings such as love, joy, sympathy, compassion and sorrow. The true measure of artistic craft lies not in the technical proficiency but in the impact on emotions and spirit. In the main, more emphasis on the emotions and feelings help to bring about progress for humanity and art(?). On the other hand, undue emphasis on the exploration of emotions can have undesirable effects on society. Emotions invite irrationality in thought and action，as best illustrated by today’s heatedly debated social problems. Consider, for example, the Ice Bucket Challenge,an activity involving dumping a bucket of ice water on one’s head to promote awareness OF(?) and encourage donations to research INTO(can OF,INTO coexist in this way?) a special disease. This campaign has caught on fire on social media from America(?) earlier this year. While this might indeed have achieved its goal to some degree, at the same time there are many who has criticized it as irrational and emotional，given the health risks, misuse of water, other more genuine involvement in charitable activities and more important causes that should be taken up otherwise. On the contrary, social progress are best made by cause-and-effect relationships--that is, by critical thinking.

the proper use of public resources On the other hand are two compelling arguments against the claim. One is that human suffering is enduring and there is no economic solution to it. Every society has troubles with poverty, unemployment and economic inequality，which spring from certain aspects of human nature. Although financial measures such as relief and aid have helped enhance our living standard and comfort level(?), in the meantime it is by reforming[reform?in this meaning”reform”is a transitive verb,so is it cannot be used as a verb (reforming) but without a object? ] and enlightenment--that is ,up to our economists, jurists,social reformers and teachers--not the government--to mitigate these problems. On the other hand(?),if excessive money flows into welfare budget(?), it would(will?) impair(?) individuals motivation to work. Consider the northern European welfare states, where the disparity between wages and vacation compensation is so small that many people choose less competitive career or even not to work. This has increased society’s burden, hampered economic growth, and in turn, impede(?) the maintenance of social welfare(policy). Another argument against the claim has to do with the beneficial effect art has had on humanity. First, art can nurture, guide and inspire us in our life. By learning to appreciate art works, people can improve their comprehension of society, and thus be reassured about their life; can explore their own inner emotions and be more inspired and persevering in(?) (the?) striving to improve the quality of life. Next, art has also helped create innumerable jobs and solve social problems. In today’s China, more and more people are finding jobs in the growing entertainment industry. An increasing number of students are choosing to major in the art field, and the empirical evidence shows that they will have already secured highly paid jobs upon graduation. Even independent artists seem unlikely to be starving--they always have a knack for creating their own vocational niche, in which they can express their love while make a living. Finally, by supporting art projects, government also reduce unemployment and generate revenue,all serving to fulfill the need for surviving. In sum, the basic need for surviving outweigh any other and should be given precedence. However, the claim fails to account for the inability of the government with respect to the dealing with art, and of financial resources when it comes to the solving of long-lasting problems. Besides, funding the arts can also(coexists with “besides”?) amount to another that helping to reduce human suffering. Finally, given finite economic resources we should strike a balance between welfare and the arts[confused? What I really wanna mean is “a balance between the amount of money spent in welfare and art ”].

the proper use of public resources The speaker asserts that as long as there are people struggling to survive, the government should not allocate public resources to(?) the arts. It might be tempting to agree that the basic needs for surviving(basic needs to survive?) should take precedence over all others(?), and governments are not always reliable with respect to the arts. However, I take exception with the claim when it comes to the significant positive impact the resources supporting the arts have had on us,as well as the long-lasting existence(?) of human problems. I agree with the statement insofar as human’s basic needs for food, work, and skills should take priority over the anything else. After all, it is being alive and healthy that underlies mental and spiritual interest. A person cannot even make his living hardly has any higher pleasure(?) to speak of. That is why developed nations have a far more thriving entertainment industry than developed ones, and have more, and more active,artists and writers(?). It is not only due to(?) government’s decision as to how to use public resources, but it is of(?) people’s will. If a government still(or,continue?) to lavishes on the arts despite the condition(situation?) that most people are living on or below poverty line, then the masses will rise up to demand their due share. It might also be tempting to agree with the claim on the basis that arts patronage should not be a function of the government(?). Art is subjective and it should rely on individuals or organizations to develop. It would be unwise to give bureaucrats the control over funding for the arts,for they are likely to depreciate the value of art,and make decisions based on [what I want to mean is “their own notion(about art)”.is this confused?]. Conversely, the development of art should rely on individual and non-governmental organizations. Civil organizations and groups(?)[in the last sentence I put “individual” before “organizations”,then is it good to discuss “organization” before “individual” in the following? If not, should I put in the last sentence “individual”,which is shorter behind “non-governmental organizations”,which is longer?] are composed of artists and art lovers, and therefore can far better subsidize and stimulate the arts industry than government. This is aptly illustrated by today’s painting(?) and photographic exhibitions which are nearly all(?) funded by private foundations. Moreover, it is by individuals keen on the arts that the real arts are produced(?). In this sense levying heavy taxes on people to for the purpose of art may be just the opposite of the wish.

the consideration in choosing a career 1 The speaker asserts that most of us choose a career on the basis of pragmatic considerations rather than of talents or interest. I agree with this allegation that utilitarian needs play an important role in choosing jobs;however,i take exception with the claim insofar as it is ultimately(ultimately?) interest and ability that determine what a career one pursues for life. Statistics show that practicality is the main consideration in today’s education and job market. More and more students are choosing to major in the marketable fields for the purpose of getting a highly-paid jobs upon graduation such as accounting and computer . Though student still advance to graduate-level education, the most popular such degrees are professional masters,such as MBA MTI or MPA. After all, business administration is more about practicality--that is,getting the job done-- and therefore seems to be able to securing lucrative jobs in the competing working world. Moreover, take a glance at(?) today’s job fair held occasionally everywhere we can find that the job opportunities occur mainly in some certain fields and applicants from other majors relatively not popular usually cannot be able to find satisfactory jobs without great difficulty. Another compelling argument for the claim that we choose a career based on practical interests involves the nature of work. In some sense we humans are born to be indolent,loving ease and comfort and trying our best to enjoy them,in which case work amounts to an obligation rather a right for us. We are,to some extent,compelled to find a work to make a living and support a family, as illustrated by the so-called “second rich generation”--the offspring of the rich,who never seems frustrated by the grim labour market situation. And ,based on this compulsion, it is indisputable that utilitarian interests including the relative ease of finding a job and the salary one can expect to make might take precedence over other needs such as  those of one's interests or talents. In short, from a general perspective it is practical interests that drive our decision on what kinds of job to take.