Some people think that sport is very important for society. Others, however, argue that it is nothing more than a leisure activity. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
题目大意
有人说运动对社会很重要，而有人说运动无非是娱乐活动。讨论双边并给出你的观点。
写作思路解析
双边讨论类的题目，可以自由讨论双方各自的利弊，我的观点可以是中立或单边支持。
我持中立立场——两个观点都有不合理的地方
甲方：important for society表达过于笼统——society是个抽象概念，体育可能在某个领域重要，而在对其他领域没有价值；
乙方：nothing more than a leisure activity 同样也是过于笼统——运动对于普通人可能仅限于休闲目的，而对于职业运动员而言则是终身事业和奋斗目标；对国家而言，运动更是国力的体现；
提纲
写作示范
Some people consider athletics to be of paramount importance to society, whereas it is difficult for others to see sport as anything more than leisure activities. From my perspective, I would say it is not an either-or question; neither of the two opinions represents the entire picture.
It is not difficult to understand why physical fitness is given great social significance by some people. Directly, a wider participation in sports events among the general public leads the populace to an active lifestyle. This will increase the public health, and may reduce the expenditure on medical services for both individuals and governments. Nevertheless, the claim of ‘being important to the society’, in my view, is a vague descriptor that can lead to overgeneralization – the definition of the term ‘society’ is ambiguous – whether it could benefit from athletics is domain specific and context dependent. For example, when it comes to socioeconomic problems like narrowing the gap between rich and poor, I don’t think physical exercises will have much of a role to play.
Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to me either when others equate physical exercise with a leisure activity. Of course, from the perspective of the majority, the purpose of physical activities is just for relaxation or fun, whether they go to a gym for aerobic exercise or just do simple workouts at home. However, the advocates of this are oblivious to the needs of professional athletes, who take sport as their careers, with being a champion as their ultimate goal. Taking this point to the national level, the meaning of sport goes far beyond the pursuit of relaxation for citizenry; rather, it serves as the manifestation of the competence and ethos of a nation.
I would conclude, therefore, that neither of the two views can be deemed justified – it is oversimplified to credit sport with a social implication or overlook its value; one must take the multifaceted context of ‘sport’ into account.
