AW进阶手册——完善段落逻辑衔接，挑战ISSUE满分结构
题记：在AW写作中，想必ISSUE的写作是相当艰难的。没入门的不知道怎么提出论点，入了门的不知道怎么发展论点，知道以后又需要组织语言和论证，最后还需要解决大的结构问题。在这一系列问题中，我一向认为获得高分的关键是结构。因为不象ARGUMENT，ISSUE的结构想要突破相当困难，不是一个个攻击点串起来然后层层让步就能做到段落相互联系紧密。大部分同学在写过足够应付AW考试的习作数量后还是只能写出，第一如何如何，第二如何如何，但是如何如何，总之如何如何的段落之间没有关系、除了转折段其它分论点都相互并列的八股文。我没说八股文不好，也没有贬低并列结构的意思。但是试想一下，在所有人都能写出这样结构文章时（发展并列观点只需要对不同领域、角度将观点进行展开，所以思考量小得多，也很容易上手），如果在这个爽度平衡的考试中取得优势地位？AW主张的深入论证，如果全部并列了，哪个算深入？
比较北美及官方范文与我们平时写的习作，可以发现最大的区别（除了语言，作为非NATIVE作者我们大多数人都无法克服）就在于总体结构。有人可以把一个段落写得非常精彩，但是这一段单拿出来也成一篇文章，跟别的段落没有关系，整个作文随便拿一段出去都不影响文章的完整性。
因此我写下此文，就是希望能让大家在发展和写作段落时注意段落间的逻辑联系，做到coherent，说难这很难，因为需要因此调整文章的思路，说简单也很简单，因为只需要作微量的调整，往往只需要注意语言表达即可。
本文的主要思路来自以下几个帖子：
[高分考生访谈专题] 专访板油Jane记录
[高分考生访谈专题] 专访板油Laurie记录(满分)
[高分考生访谈专题] 专访板油Loretta记录
本文与以下帖子可互作补充，有兴趣的同学不妨一并翻阅：
AW进阶手册: ISSUE破题策略
AW进阶手册: ISSUE首段写作策略
浅谈ISSUE提纲系统性的问题 by 星夜无夏
对于Issue的一些想法(暨平衡思路的结构组织分析) by iq28
PART01、ISSUE结构的定义
想突破一项，首先就得明白这项所指的是什么。我们这里讨论的结构（structure/frame）是指一篇文章大的思路主线，是撑起一篇文章的骨架。它包括总论点、分论点和结论。段落内的小结构不在此讨论范围。换句话说，结构就是我们平时写的提纲（outline）。因此练习结构写作只需要练习提纲写作即可。
举个例子，北美范文ISSUE17（此文是我个人认为北美ISSUE中的经典之作，因此本文大部分正面论证会以此文为例，故在此全文引用）：
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.
First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just. The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.
The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance, that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget.
Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.
此文的结构比较简单：总论点，题目论点不正确。反驳理由：1、正义为主观因素；2、简单的不遵守非正义法律会造成适得其反；3、容易使社会秩序混乱。结论：无法做到判断法律是否正确，更容易产生恶劣影响，所以应该用别的标准去衡量对法律的态度。
再来看个官方范文，由于官方的高分范文大多结构严谨（似乎也验证了高分ISSUE的标准），所以就选取了大家最熟悉的专家和全才这篇：
In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists.
Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase):"I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us.
Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area.
On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow focii in which people can lose the larger picture. No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one's own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture.
Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universall issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all.
Finally, over-specialization in a people's daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focussed and generally pooprly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction.
Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are.
结构是很典型的平衡论点：主论点：专家全才都很重要。分论点：1、A专家很必要，要解决大量信息问题 B没有专家我们会很惨；2、全才也很重要 A 光专家容易局限学术视野 B 容易造成关联问题 C 容易产生个人问题 结论：二者都很重要。由于这里的言论都很接近，所以也给以前的不少考生以“ISSUE就是正反话来回说的问题”。
以下我将以这两篇为例来解释下对ISSUE完善结构的认识。
PART02、ISSUE结构的评判标准
还是让我们先来复习下ISSUE写作要求和评分标准：
You will be given a choice between two "Issue" topics. Each states an opinion on an issue of broad interest and asks you to discuss the issue from any perspective(s) you wish, so long as you provide relevant reasons and examples to explain and support your views.
6 A 6 paper presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the complexities of the issue and demonstrates mastery of the elements of effective writing.
A typical paper in this category
--develops a position on the issue with insightful reasons and/or persuasive examples
--sustains a well-focused, well-organized discussion
--expresses ideas clearly and precisely
--uses language fluently, with varied sentence structure and effective vocabulary
--demonstrates superior facility with the conventions (grammar, usage, and mechanics) of standard written English but may have minor flaws
5 A 5 paper presents a well-developed analysis of the complexities of the issue and demonstrates a strong control of the elements of effective writing.
A typical paper in this category
--develops a position on the issue with well-chosen reasons and/or examples
--is focused and generally well organized
--expresses ideas clearly and well
--uses varied sentence structure and appropriate vocabulary
--demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English but may have minor flaws
有关结构的要求已经用红字标出，标准说得很笼统，只说是well-focused, well-organized，虽然说可以from any perspective you wish，显然这是忽悠人的话，写得天马行空用大腿想也是拿不了高分的。
那么well-focused和well-organized的具体要求呢？
讨论之前我们还是要明确ISSUE的写作目的，在6分范文的总要求里写的很清楚：cogent, well-articulated analysis of the complexities of the issue。简单来说，就是论证有力。
想作到论证有力自然就需要多个段落同时为一个论点服务，在一边倒的写法中，这个论点就是驳倒反面观点，在平衡写法中，就是说明倾向任何一方的错误性。这就是所谓的well-focused。做到这一点，就能避免段落上的跑题和文字的浪费。
而要达到这个目的话，各论点之间的组织就很必要。就象踢足球，11个人个人能力都很强但配合不足，很难拼得过整体配合强大的队伍。如果段落的各分论点相互没有联系，就等于文章由一个个小文章组合而成，虽然这样可以算是观点全面，满足分析的complexities，但即使是complex不同于complication，是存在相互联系的系统问题。因此让段落之间相互联系，可以让观点更为有力，这就是所谓的well-organized。
接下来用具体对两篇范文的分析来说明这种结构的完整性。
对于北美的ISSUE17：
虽然文章各段看上去象是并列关系，但其实它们内部的联系十分紧密，存在着层层深入的逻辑递进。
首先对just的讨论是从字面意思去批判题目，也就是前提论证法（参见AW进阶手册: ISSUE破题策略），以此来确定全文对题目的基调，简单明了，便于读者从浅入深去了解论题的荒谬性。
然后从这种策略应用本身的问题来批判题目。虽然表面上没有做让步或者其它与第一论点对应的讨论，但很明显这段的讨论前提是让步假设了存在不正义的法律，然后说明即使有这种法律，单纯的违反也不能达到目的。（这一段的论证并不充分，个人认为这是本范文最大的瑕疵，没有对一个分论点进行充分的展开，也因为这样导致它与第一论点的衔接看起来并不那么自然）
第三段将第二段的危险进一步深化，扩展到社会层面，以恶劣影响法来说明命题的荒谬性。
至此，全文形成了字面->抽象分析->具体社会效应的逻辑线，层层递进，相互咬合，缺一不可。
对于官方范文：
文章采用了正反结构，以专家的优缺点为视野展开论证。有点象我们很喜欢用的正反转折保留意见，但因为两者篇幅接近所以被算作正反平衡结构。（要补充的是，这里很明显后半部分篇幅更多，因此我们可以认为ISSUE中重要的放前面还是放后面并没有定论，哪一段更重要也没有定论，其实每一段都很重要，这样才是完整强力的结构）。
首先强调二者的平衡关系。
然后从专家的优点说明，信息爆炸造成单一领域的难度。
接着用否则假设法（没专家的会怎样），说明缺少专家会出现问题。
然后从专家缺点说明，三层，全部为否则假设法（没全才的话会怎样）。
这一论点由三个二级分论点组成：
A 学术层面
B 社会层面
C 个人层面
这三个层面是否为层层递进仁者见仁，我个人的观点是作者这么写的肯定是把个人层面作为最深层次的分论点来讨论的，因为社会影响的根源来自于个人的影响。这种递进思路似乎也能反映美国人的价值观和世界观。
由此形成了一个完成的辨证过程。由于是官方范文所以它的标准很高，我想即使是只写出后面三个二级分论点来组成一篇文章，也能拿到很高的分数。
分析了两篇文章的优点，接下来就说说我们从它们能学到什么，它们怎样来帮助我们拿高分。
PART03、ISSUE结构的组织手法
一、前提论证
这一点在ISSUE破题思路中有写过，即对题目中某个特殊的单词进行前提式讨论，作为全文展开讨论的基础。比如ISSUE17的“JUST”。
可以用作前提论证的素材单词往往包括：
A、带有主观感情色彩的判断词，比如JUST，CORRECT，EFFECTIVE，REASONABLE等等。
在讨论这些观点词时就必须确立一个标准，进而为全文的讨论确定标准，常见的比如“对社会中大部分人有利”“对社会稳定有利”“能使资源有效分配，最低投入最高产出”等等。
B、作用、意义、任务等值得讨论的名词关键词，比如EDUCATION，GOVERNMENT，LAW，TEACHER等等。
这些词其实在间接讨论A类判断词，即“B类词干什么才是A类词（教育干什么才是对的，法律干什么才是有效的……）”，由此确定判别一个事物该做什么的标准，才能在全文中讨论题目说的此事物做的东西是否正确。
在[高分考生访谈专题] 专访板油Loretta记录中Loretta同学就是用这种前提讨论，将政府的职能说明后作为文章前提加以展开。
前提论证的好处是从字面出发，确定主基调，可以防止全文的发展出现价值观的自我矛盾导致的中心论点混乱，从而将文章后面的各段拉到一起。换句话说，就是我们讨论什么问题时，需要先把什么别的一个小问题说清楚。前提论证法可以有效保证后文段落的逻辑有效联系。
二、层面升华
前提论证属于前提层面，其后自然有更高阶的层面，之前提到的学术、社会、个人就是这种层面层次。
其实我们写ISSUE在组织分论点时无外乎就两种，一种同层面展开，一种层面升华式展开。同层面展开可以有辨证法、分领域讨论，而不同层面的升华则包括了不同的哲学层次。这二者都属于ISSUE题目要求中的“perspectives”。
而大家最喜欢用的保留式同意/反对，那个保留论点通常就是站在不同的层面上来看待问题，从而得出的不同结论。
一方面，层面升华可以使你的论证涵盖不同的逻辑深度，从而保证对问题看法的全面性，另一方面，层面升华也能使文章的整体组织层层递进，做到结构严密。
具体来说，常见的层面包括：
A、字面意义。见前提论证
B、学术层面。学习知识的有效性、合理性等等。这个层面比较浅，原因在于我们还要追问学习的目的是什么？接下来可以引出社会层面和个人层面。
C、社会层面。戴云教主常讲的“恶劣影响法”就是属于这个层面的东西。一个论点可能本身没什么错误，但一旦承认它的正确性，就会导致种种不堪设想的后果，比如过分强调有的法律不公正而造成犯罪分子有自己的道理，或者过分强调社会秩序的重要性造成独裁当道民不聊生。
D、个人层面。之所以把这个放到最高层面是因为社会效应最终是作用于个人的。升华到最后往往是人类幸福、身心愉悦这种目的。个人层面的评论标准有很多，比如人本主义、弗洛伊德精神分析学说、唯物论、社会道德、先验主义等等。具体的可以查阅相关资料。
在[高分考生访谈专题] 专访板油Laurie记录中Laurie同学就提到了对这种手法的运用。
层面升华的好处是可以让文章环环相扣，步步深入，最后的论证深度恰倒好处，而结构也严密可靠。
注：在半年前写的AW进阶手册: ISSUE破题策略中我提到的内因外因，可以认为是对层面分段的一种比较粗糙的概括方法。由于当时还没有彻底理解这种层次的区别，所以用了很抽象的描述手法，现在想来那个解说实在是太笼统了，说明不了什么问题，所以对于ISSUE展开的组织手法还是以本文为准。
注2：
层面升华过程中的辨证法
各位从小就受马克思主义哲学毒害，啊不对，教育的同学应该都知道辨证唯物论。所谓辨证，就是指一个事物有好的方面，也有坏的方面，从不同的方面去看它就有不同的正误判断。所以没有绝对的事物，凡事都存在二元性。
在以前提论证确定了评判标准后，往往从不同层面出发还会发现对论题有不同的评价，这就是辨证法。另外从不同的领域（同一层面并列）也会发现一个事物的不同评价，这也是辨证法。对于后者我个人不太喜欢，因为在同一层面上辨证固然全面，但往往会造成自相矛盾，难以把握，又令全文的立意深度受到限制，所以不太合算。常见的分领域讨论就属于这个范畴。
辨证法由于讨论的是一个事物的多面性，所以可以达到全面的论证效果。本质上讲它属于层面升华的组织手法，只是在不同层次采用了不同的评价结果。
三、正反论证
正反论证就是说先说明了一个事物的必要性，然后说明缺乏它以后的后果。表面上看这象是废话，但其实正反论证能让你说的问题更加明白有有力，而且由于逻辑转折简单，非常好把握。对于打字速度快的同学正反论证其实十分好用。
本文引用的官方范文就是非常典型的正反论证，它不但有“缺乏”的反，也有“过度”的反（所谓“物极必反”）。由于这种正反难以归到任何一个层面上，所以应该算另一种独立的手法。
正反论证的好处很明显，正反段相互依存，互为解释，因此两段之间的逻辑完全咬合。如果全文都以这种手法组织，结构组织就会变得的非常轻松。官方范文就是个很好的例子：说明专家的必要性后先说正“反”，再说反“反”，整个文章两头照顾，内容严谨。
在具体的操作上，正反论证往往是用反去证明正缺失（或过分）的后果，借以说明论证“正”的过程的合理性。
严格来讲对于过度的所生的“反”应该另立名词，我这里为了方便就把二者放到一起说了。因为没有正确性就没有过分的可能，这一点上过度所产生的“反”与“正”的“反”是相同的。物极必反也可以说是辩证法的一个角度，当然与层面升华后产生的反面评价是不同的。
PART04、结语
以上是我所总结的三种组织手法，借以达到ISSUE组织段落过程中的逻辑衔接完善。这三种手法不能完全割离，也不绝对，应该结合使用。写在这里无非是希望给各位在写作时一点参考，想能有所裨益。
三种组织手法我都叙述的很笼统，还是需要具体的训练来加以练习，从而领会其中的意义。
在具体应用上，可以参考追星剑特训。这里IMONG前辈对每个ISSUE题目的具体分析对于各种组织手法的应用都有很好的提示。 沙发~好难得啊
学习ing~~ 版主真得很下功夫的研究！佩服 顶一个~ 使徒写的要大大大的赞下的 :) :kiss: :kiss: 顶起~~好帖子一定要顶:) 顶起,又一个学习的精华,好好学习! 写得不错，谢谢了！ 强贴，要顶，版主实在都很牛～～ 谢谢:) 好帖，看完顶下～ 强帖，赞，通俗易懂
三篇issue的终于有一篇看懂了...
趁还没进精华库前留名... :) 很好 赞天使斑竹
页:
[1]