這個題目需要用到一些邏輯思維和論證方法，而不是鼓勵使用直接的感覺、常識，比較有意思。

一般的寫作可以通過“數(shù)句子”來完成，例如：一篇作文要求160-200個詞/字，一句話大概平均寫15個詞，那么這篇文章就要在16句話內(nèi)結(jié)束；其中句首、句尾兩-三句話相對固定（或者說不要求什么創(chuàng)造性），中間表明銜接作用的兩句，也沒有什么創(chuàng)造性；那剩下的12句話如何擺？
這就是所謂的“作文模板”的產(chǎn)生機(jī)制。

高級寫作或者創(chuàng)意寫作主張思維獨(dú)立、論證嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)、情感共鳴，語言表達(dá)的形式只是工具，按需擇取，沒有太多套路，只有參考。但文章價值相對較高（可以放心的全文背誦，且功效不止于應(yīng)試），不會構(gòu)成雷同，拿到高分是順?biāo)浦?，自然而然?br>
兩種方法沒有好壞之分，個人主張以利用一般方式保底，利用高級方式出彩。

題目：

As we acquire more knowledge, things do notbecome more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.

Write a response in which you discuss?the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statementand explain your reasoning for the position you take.

提綱：
Outline

1. the statement suffers from both logicaland factual fallacies.

2. knowledge is not about thingsthemselves, but the ways we perceive and explain things, through which weinterpret and understand things more comprehensively and lucidly.

For example: the study of language: voice:phonetics; singular words: lexicology; affix and root: etymology; sentence:syntax; text: discourse analysis,

3. the accumulation of knowledge is not toblame for the complexity and mystery, because it is the things per se that arecomplex and mysterious.

4. complexity is not a curse but ablessing that ignites our curiosity and encourages us to delve further into ourexploration. It is irrational to stop pursuing knowledge due to the increasedcomplexity along the way.

The More We Know, the Better We Understand

The more knowledge we acquire, the more aspects of things we perceive,and thus the more complexity confronts us. Such simplistic experience seems to render the above statement intuitively compelling. However, the statement that blames knowledge for the rise of incomprehensibility and complexity suffers from both logical and factual fallacies. Personally, I believe knowledge contributes to better understanding of the world and the complexity of thingsis never a curse but a blessing to human beings.

To begin with, knowledge offers us ways to perceive and explain things, through which we understand things more comprehensively and lucidly. Take the study of language as an example. At first, we might deem language as simply a specialset of voices and signs that we use every day. As studies move further and further on, we have phonetics for the voices that we pronounce, lexicology forthe words, syntax for the sentences, discourse analysis for the texts formed bymultiple sentences, and, of course, applied linguistics for the use of languagein certain contexts. Through the development of linguistic study, our notion of how language works has changed from a sort of intuition, feeling, andexperience to a multi-layered, well-structured, and coherent system of knowledge. Admittedly, a system looks much harder to grasp than a feeling, but it never makes?phenomena more elusive or blurred to us. Instead, the systemic knowledge equips us with strong tools to figure out how language works, why itworks that way, and what results it will produce. Without such a system, our perceptionof language will inevitably remain as a kind of sense, or even prejudice orhallucination of “it just works, so let it be”. If so, we may say that we find language easy due to ignorance, but we can never say that we understand or grasp it fairly well because we feel it easy.

Moreover, knowledge does not incur the complexity of things; on thecontrary, the complexity arises from the things, which are complex in theirvery nature. This can be well illustrated by the development of physics. In the very first place, our ancestors could only observe things with their naked eyes, and thus the substance was considered to be formed by visible elements like fire, water, mud and so on. As the microscope emerged, we found that a substance was a specific combination of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Then with more sophisticated tools, we now further discover that the combination is actually formed by a tinier particle called quark. If a substance was as simple as it looks, it is impossible that our physics studies have gone this far, but rather it would have suddenly stopped somewhere. Also, from this perspective, I do not think the complexity, or the seemingly increasing complexity is something to fret about because it is the complexity that has been igniting our curiosity, breeding our desire to know more, and propelling our civilization forward.

In conclusion, the original statement is untenable because it misunderstands both the functions of knowledge and the root of the complexity of things. Knowledge does not give rise to incomprehensibility and complexity, but makes us understand?the world and ourselves better. At the same time, complexity is not something frustrating but encouraging.