1. What’s the attitude of most experts to TV?
2.Why does the author say most studies of the impact of television are seriously flawed？
3.What is the meaning of “if anything” in the sixth paragraph?
4. What two different aspects does the Gentzkow and Shapiro prove the impact of TV by?
5. What kind of children can get a more sizable positive impact?
6. Do you agree with the author’s opinion? Why?
7. What kinds of harm does the TV bring to children? ( at least list 6, from you article and your opinion)
8 comments:
1. According to most experts, TV for kids is basically a no-no. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most.
2. They compare kids who watch TV and kids who don't, when kids in those two groups live in very different environments. Kids who watch no TV, or only a small amount of educational programming, as a group are from much wealthier families than those who watch hours and hours. Because of their income advantage, the less-TV kids have all sorts of things going for them that have nothing to do with the impact of television. The problem with comparing them to kids who watch a lot of TV is like the problem with a study that compared, say, kids who ride to school in a Mercedes with kids who ride the bus. The data would no doubt show that Mercedes kids are more likely to score high on their SATs, go to college, and go on to high-paying jobs. None of that has anything to do with the car, but the comparison would make it look as if it did.
3. If anything means if there has anything different. In the text, it means Gentzkow and Shapiro found none evidence that greater exposure to television lowered test scores, and there were no significant test-score differences between kids who lived in cities that got TV earlier as opposed to later, or between kids of pre- and post-TV-age cohorts. Nor did the kids differ significantly in the amount of homework they did, dropout rates, or the wages they eventually made.
4. By where you lived and when you were born, the total amount of TV you watched in your childhood could differ vastly.
5. For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6. No, I don’t agree. People may and should watch TV everyday; they can know news and knowledge from TV. I usually watch TV one or two hours a day, it makes me feel comfortable and relax. However, people couldn’t watch TV more than over 4-5 hours a day. I think it will harm for the health.
7. Attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, learn dirty words from TV, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests.
1. What’s the attitude of most experts to TV?
The attitude of them is a no-no attitude; this mean that they are against of the television because can be very harmful to the children.
2. Why does the author say most studies of the impact of television are seriously flawed？
Because they are comparing two groups that are totally differents and the condition of each doesn’t have similarities at all.The data obtained won’t show the real situation
3. What the meaning of “if anything” in the sixth paragraph?
In my opinion it mean that is irrelevant the data that was found in the study.
4. What two different aspects does the Gentzkow and Shapiro prove the impact of TV by?
The key point for Gentzkow and Shapiro's study is that depending on where you lived and when you were born, the total amount of TV you watched in your childhood could differ vastly.
5. What kind of children can get a more sizable positive impact?
If anything, the data revealed a small positive uptick in test scores for kids who got to watch more television when they were young. For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6. Do you agree with the author’s opinion? Why?
I’m not agree at all, television can be beneficial if it is under control. Children and adults ca be harm if they see a lot of television, TV is not harmful by itself it is up to people to prevent how harmful it can be.
7. What kinds of harm do the TV do to children? (at least list 6, from you article and your opinion)
Deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, poor performance in school and on standardized tests, health problems especially in the eyes, poor concentration when is required for example in reading.
1. TV for kids is basically a no-no.
2. They compare kids who watch TV and kids who don't, when kids in those two groups live in very different environments. Kids who watch no TV, or only a small amount of educational programming, as a group are from much wealthier families than those who watch hours and hours. Because of their income advantage, the less-TV kids have all sorts of things going for them that have nothing to do with the impact of television.
3. The data revealed a small positive uptick in test scores for kids who got to watch more television when they were young.
4. The data revealed a small positive uptick in test scores for kids who got to watch more television when they were young.
5. For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6. I agree. Because TV is innocent.
7.
attention deficit disorder, violent behavior,
obesity,
poor performance in school,
poor performance on standardized tests,
become nearsighted.
1. According to most experts, TV for kids is basically a no-no.
2. Because most studies are gothered from persons in differnt environments, or in not same life style.
3. It means "rather" or "rather than otherwise."
4. They are where you lived and when you were born.
5. Those kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education.
6. No, because it depends on poeple or TV programs whether TV is harm for people or not.
7. Attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, learn dirty words from TV, poor performance in school and on standardized tests, and weaking of your eyesight, and a decline in your imagination and creativity.
1-No TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most.
2- They compare kids who watch TV and kids who don't, when kids in those two groups live in very different environments. Kids who watch no TV, or only a small amount of educational programming, as a group are from much wealthier families than those who watch hours and hours
3-I think it is like, "if anything that mentioned was correct".
4-where you lived and when you were born.
5-For who live in households in which English was a second language.
6-I think it depeneds on the family, if the kids are being banned from watching TV, they will find anyway to watch TV which then will be harmful for them as they want to see the forbidden things; in this way, i would say that i agree with the auther that TV is harmful, but if the kids are well-educated and TV is controled, i don't agree with the auther.
7- 1-Deficit disorder
2-violent behavior
3-obesity
4-poor performance in school and on standardized tests
5-health problems.
6-decline in imagination and creativity.
1.TV for kids is basically a no-no. Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most.
2.Because, in the finding of a study was that kids who watch no TV, or only a small amount of educational programming, as a group are from much wealthier families than those who watch hours and hours.
3.I didn’t found it in the sixth paragraph. Maybe in the seventh paragraph and it means: no matter which.
4.The key point for Gentzkow and Shapiro's study is that depending on where you lived and when you were born, the total amount of TV you watched in your childhood could differ vastly.
5.For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6.I think that the author is a proponent of watching TV. In don’t think, specially for children, TV is a good source of information or education. TV does more harm than good.
7.TV does more harm than good in many way.
1. It could cause obesity.
2. It can cause sloth because reduce mental stimulation.
3. TV show many bad behavior that can be a bad influence for children.
4. TV increase the risk of diabetes.
5. TV is addictive.
6. TV is used as a tool to deceive people using strategies such as advertising and movies.
1. They do not think TV is good for kids. According to most experts, TV for kids is basically a no-no.
2. Because two studies are in completely different environment.
3. I think "if the date was correct."
4. Where are you live or born. The amount of TV watching.
5. For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6. I disagree, because TV was invented by people. That means we can control them. The person who are complaining id lacking of strong will to control the addiction like me.
7.
violent behavior,
nearsighted,
lacking of the power of concentration,
narrow thinking,
poor perfomance in school,
poor ability to communicate with others.
1. According to most experts, TV for kids is basically a no-no.
2. Because they are comparing two groups that are totally differents and the condition of each doesn’t have similarities at all.
3. It means "rather" or "rather than otherwise."
4. The data revealed a small positive uptick in test scores for kids who got to watch more television when they were young.
5. For kids living in households in which English was a second language, or with a mother who had less than a high-school education, the study found that TV had a more sizable positive impact on test scores in reading and general knowledge.
6. I disagree, because TV is still useful if people can control them. And I don't believe people couldn't control them.
7. attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, learn dirty words from TV, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests.
Post a Comment