Some people think that the government should ban dangerous sports, but others think that people should have freedom to do whatever sport activities they choose. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
题目大意
有人认为政府应该禁止危险运动，其他人认为人们有权自由选择运动。讨论双边并给出你的观点。
写作思路解析
l 双边讨论类的题目，可以自由讨论双方各自的利弊。这两个观点中，都有表述不合理的地方：
l 甲方：危险运动就要禁止，观点中所谓的“危险”，定义模糊，缺乏限定的前提；
l 乙方的“个人自由就可以参加任何体育活动”也有逻辑的不严密，所谓“个人自由”未必意味着可以无所顾忌的参与任何运动。
l 我的观点就是双方的观点都不完美，每一种观点应该在特定的条件才适用
审题，找出关键词
l dangerous sports：这个危险是一个主观和模糊的定义，缺乏客观和具体的参照标准，需要在文中予以阐述；也可以探讨到其同ban之间是否具有逻辑必然性；
l whatever sport activities：同上，是一个主观和模糊的定义，缺乏具体的条件限定，也要讨论其同freedom之间的逻辑合理性；
提纲梳理见下
写作示范
The contradiction between the personal freedom and apprehension about dangers creates a dilemma when we decide whether to engage in extreme sports or not. It looks to me that a combination of both freedom of choice and safety concerns are needed when choosing to engage in any sport activities, with careful consideration being made to different aspects of this issue.
On the one hand, I personally think it irrational for government to ban any sports solely for reasons of safety. The crux of the argument rest on an ambiguity – that is the definition of ‘dangerous sports.’ Any physical activities could be reckoned as risky if proper protective measures and training are ignored. Sport, such as the boxing an auto racing, have potential risks but we do not expect them to be prohibited. Rather, if there were a stringent code of conduct and proper safety equipment, the potential harm would be mitigated, and it seems pointless to proscribe these sports activities.
On the other hand, it does not make sense to me either that people venerate personal as a determinant while choosing to participate in any sports. I doubt there exists absolute freedom unhindered by other factors; whether these be threats to individual’s life or public safety. One of the most controversial examples is the bullfight: while devotees of the activity claim its justification in the name of freedom of choice, the sport has long created a bitter controversy between personal right and threat to life, not to mention the violation to animal protection.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that neither of the two opinions justifiably illustrates the entire picture of either problem; it will be too simplistic to ban a sport without a comprehensive evaluation of risks and possible safety measure solutions, while the freedom principal also doesn’t work with all sports. Both arguments deserve consideration according to the context of the individual and their participation in a particular activity.
