Directions:
Suppose you are working for the “aiding Rural Primary School”project of your university. Write an email to answer the inquiry from an international student volunteer, specifying the details of the project.
You should write about 100 words on the ANSWER SHEET
Do not use your own name in the email , use “Li Ming” instead.

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and beg read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality,then count the number. Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index,that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted else where in the scientific literature the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account.  This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts,entails considerable saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great.If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

Translation:If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and beg read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality,then count the number. Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index,that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted else where in the scientific literature the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account.  This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts,entails considerable saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great.If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

Translation:This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and beg read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality,then count the number. Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index,that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted else where in the scientific literature the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account.  This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts,entails considerable saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great.If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

Translation:Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers.

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and beg read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality,then count the number. Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index,that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted else where in the scientific literature the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account.  This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts,entails considerable saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great.If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

Translation:Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago.

It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and beg read scientific papers from beginning to end that I realized just how bad much of the medical literature frequency was, I came to recognize various sins of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who est more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.
Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely than people do bad science,but than out current system of career advancement positively encourages it.what is important is not truth, but inflationary process at work: Nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers than would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality,then count the number. Attempts have been made to curd this tendency,for example by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index,that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted else where in the scientific literature the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account.  This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientist can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publicat or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours.
Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts,entails considerable saving in time,energy and ambiguity.Unfortunate the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great.If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible ,we must ensure that our institutions encourage that king of science.

Translation：There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generate both health scores and short-lived dietary enthusiasms.

A. These tools can help you win every argument- not in the unhelpful sense of beating your
opponents but in the better sense of learning about the issues that divide people learning why they disagree with us and learning to talk and work together with them. If we readjust our view of arguments-from a verbal fight or tennis game to a reasoned exchange through which we all gain mutual respect, and understanding-then we change the very nature of what it means to"win"an argument.

B. Of course, many discussions are not so successful. Still, we need to be careful not to accuse
opponents of bad arguments too quickly. We need to lean how to evaluate them properly. A large
part of evaluation is calling out bad arguments, but we also need to admit good arguments by
opponents and to apply the same critical standards to ourselves. Humility requires you to recognize weakness in your own arguments and sometimes also to accept reasons on the opposite side.

C. None of these will be easy but you can start even if others refuse to Next time you state your
position, formulate an argument for what you claim and honestly ask yourself whether your
argument is any good. Next time you talk with someone who takes a stand, ask them to give you a reason for their view Spell out their argument fully and charitably. Assess its strength impartially. Raise objections and listen carefully to their replies.

D. Carnegie would be right if arguments were fights, which is how we often think of them. Like
physical tights, verbal fights can leave both sides bloodied. Even when you win, you end up no
better off. Your prospects would be almost as dismal if arguments were even just competitions like. Say, tennis games. Pairs of opponents hit the ball back and forth until one winner emerges from all who entered. Everybody else loses. This kind of thinking is why so many people try to avoid arguments. especially about politics and religion.

E. In his 1936 work How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie wrote: "There is
only one way. to get the best of an argument-and that is to avoid it. " This aversion to arguments is common, but it depends on a mistaken view of arguments that causes profound problems for our personal and social lives- and in many ways misses the point of arguing in the first place.

F. These views of arguments also undermine reason. If you see a conversation as a fight or
competition. you can win by cheating as long as you don go caught. You will be happy to
convince people with bad arguments. You can call their views stupid or joke about how ignorant
they are. None of these tricks will help you understand them, their positions or the issues that
divide you, but they can help you win-in one way.

G. There is a better way to win arguments. Imagine that you favor increasing the minimum wage
in our state, and I do not. If you yell, "Yes, "and I yell. "No, "neither of us learns anything. We
neither understand nor respect each other. and we have no basis for compromise or cooperation. In contrast, suppose you give a reasonable argument: that full-time workers should not have to live in poverty. Then I counter with another reasonable argument: that a higher minimum wage will force businesses to employ fewer people for less time. Now we can understand each other's positions and recognize our shared values, since we both care about needy workers.