土星的卫星Titan有3个unusual features 难以解释。
1. unusual orbit 普通的卫星运转是circular环形的轨道,但是Titan卫星运转时是 elliptical orbit椭圆轨道。
2. massive depression Titan表层周边有很多depression and crater洼地和坑，正常来讲，一般是由火山活动和碰撞造成的，但是没有证据显示周边有火山，碰撞的话也应在随机位置。
3. sand dunes Titan赤道附近有很多沙丘，沙丘的方向一般是和风向相符的，但是Titan的沙丘斜面朝东，但是一般表层风向确是朝向西的。
The reading raises three unusual features of Titan, which are puzzling. The listening, however, strongly insist that those features are explainable.
The first feature mentioned in the reading is its elliptical orbit which is different from the common satellites whose orbit is circular. This phenomena is explained by the listening which reminds us that there are other satellites which move around Titan. The nearby satellites could exert influence on titan, hence leading to the elliptical phenomena.
As to the second point, it is believed in the reading that the usual feature of massive depression, which should have been caused by volcanic eruption, but there is no volcano on Titan. The listening pushes forward another theory that instead of being caused by volcanic eruption and collision, the massive depression and crater formed as a result of storm. The reading, therefore, is wrong again.
Lastly, the reading is of the view that the sand tunes near the Titan’s equator should be in the same direction with the wind direction but the opposite is true. It is admitted in the listening that the direction of sand tunes is originally in conformity to the wind direction. What’s more, it is true that the top sand tunes point to the east, which is in a reverse direction to the wind. But the truth is that under the influence of the storm, its direction has been changed. As a result, the last phenomena is also explainable.
Topic: Sometimes we are assigned to work in a group on a project. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The group will be helped more by person who will be willing to do what other group members want than by person who often strongly insists that things should be done in a way that is different from what the group wants to do.
As the core power of a group, the group members are obliged to spare no efforts to push forward the project in progress. However, the members of a group encompass people of different characteristics, divergent way of thinking and working styles, as a result of which, someone may unconditionally follow the group's orders, while someone maybe always critical about them. As far as I am concerned, the former is more favorable when considering benefiting the whole group.
Primarily and undeniably, a higher working efficiency could be achieved if the group members could comply with the whole group’s rules and targets. During the process of accomplishing a project, team cooperation is of great significance, which could be realized by the wholehearted dedication of all members with their divergence being eliminated. Evidently, team cooperation is in direct proportion to the working efficiency of the group. By contrast, if a group member, when assigned tasks, always goes against the whole group’s progressing direction and working targets, a bunch of time will be wasted. What’s worse, direct conflict may arise, which brings forth great obstacles standing in the way before the project is started. It is due to such a disagreement within the group that exerts side effects on the working efficiency.
Apart from working efficiency, another important benefit of choosing a compliant group member is all team members will work with greater impetus. Compared with harmony, disagreement never fail to fuel bias and possibly discrimination, hence creating a negative state of mind. Under such circumstance, almost everyone loses the impetus and motivation to struggle in the group, no matter how ambitious and aggressive they are before. Just imagine, an English association is going to conduct an English speaking contest. Every member of the group is allocated with certain assignment like purchasing required necessities, site layout, selecting the contestants and so on, with the purpose of guaranteeing the smooth progression of the contest. If someone of them refuses to accept the assignment by arguing that things should be arranged in another way, it may turn out to be great hazard to the morale of the group especially when others are in agreement with the plans. Needless to say, morale is to a group what soul is to humankind.
I tend to concede that some novel ideas and inspirations may turn out to be new blood for the whole group, but that should not be an excuse for not obeying what the majority of the members insist. Just as an old saying goes: the minority is subject to the majority. Those bearing different considerations should put the collective in the first place.
From what has been discussed above, it is safe to draw the conclusion that a member willing to do what other group members want is more favorable for a group, not only for a higher working efficiency but also for a greater impetus.