银落

今天疯狂的研究argument的写法和模板。。。恩。。直到现在依然在寻找出路
8 J- U. `7 ~. R; r3 i# B+ O
2 S( A. ~( Y, Y) D  {: i" A& Z看了精华区的argument应该这么写三部曲。。。。发现自己始终纠结的问题是和作者所说一样的--就是我难以把逻辑顺序理清楚。。。找逻辑错误其实对大家来说都不难。。。但重要的是怎么把逻辑用一根线理出来。。。也就是说我没有办法看清作者的写作思路而只是零散地攻击一些擦边球。。。不过虽然知道问题的纠结所在却找不到对症下药的良方。。。
& G" m$ G$ S0 P9 F: f7 c稍微理下。。。可以分前提。。论据。。结论来串文章的逻辑错误。。并且要通过明白作者的写作目的来判断结论是什么。。。根据结论来寻找结论的前提。。。然后将所有的论据分类。。。明白什么是用来推出前提的论据。。。什么是用来证明中间的论证过程的。。
8 Z9 e# C) z( G5 W& w不知道这样对不对。。。+ S& B: S6 V/ B' v" |8 }; y+ D' P
3 w6 m8 z# x( Q4 n' z+ J+ ]
模板。。。依然在创建中。。。sigh。。。

银落

/ |, c' C2 o- }5 N" U

/ ^6 `6 U( y1 W8 M7 H6 M2 Y额。。。刚刚都快写完了。。。竟然一个按键不小心给全删了。。。晕死。。。  @* q' ?+ d2 A* [$ i4 p8 n
好吧。。。不愿意重新写了。。。把剩下的继续
) q3 a( M: @5 F: D( Mthere are several important features of the study that limit the results. First, this study is limited in a particular....., within specific..... and within particular.... Furthermore, in the analysis of .... the research found no evidence of differences between... and ... in .... Consequently, the study is particularly limited by the marginal nature of intervention. All of these factors constrain the generalizability of  the findings and certainly do not allow the author to make the general claim, as they do, that ...
  B7 Q- P/ Y$ `& R9 [0 t" _7 ?$ d; O* F. J% d: B( g' |4 e
How much more of a contribution could it make under these circumstances?' I1 N) }5 v9 R
0 h3 ^% w( ]1 M* V8 z
How do we make sense out of mixed results?
  R$ J( z. e3 g2 V! m2 g% N, J3 S: `' q# z6 q4 d0 j
We assume too often that technology is the answer without asking what the question was. Successful applications begin with a clear and difficult problem to solve instead of a vague assumption that technology will enhance teaching.

银落

# X: K6 K4 D% N5 h. A+ C7 Q5 z. ]- d, v
ON JANUARY 5th Steve Jobs, the revered and controversial boss of Apple, disclosed that “a hormone imbalance” had been “robbing” him of proteins all last year, which was why he has appeared so gaunt. He insisted that the cure would be “simple and straightforward” and declared defiantly that this was “all that I am going to say about this.”
8 }2 J9 \. ~+ E- \, [/ v
2 a) b$ ?- `; m) U/ nBut on Wednesday January 14th he had to say more: “I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought.” He announced that he was taking medical leave until June, during which time his number two, Tim Cook, would run Apple. “I look forward to seeing all of you this summer,” Mr Jobs ended his latest letter to his firm’s employees. But there is a real possibility that Mr Jobs, who had surgery for a rare form of pancreatic cancer in 2004, will not come back. % W- N( a6 w6 R( s1 g0 P7 [, _6 C
0 q( z5 l9 P/ ~5 @# [6 X8 P# E, x
And so the era of Steve Jobs at Apple may already have ended. Investors, customers, employees and fans have barely begun to absorb the consequences. No boss today embodies and defines his company as completely as Steve Jobs. “I don’t see an Apple, the way we would define the company, without Steve,” says Mark Anderson of Strategic News Service, a technology think-tank.
- M1 w! s+ r: g7 `0 A/////. f( J6 T& T3 J( y/ R3 r- V
Two separate dramas will now begin playing out. One is the unfolding of Mr Jobs’s personal story. He founded the company with a friend in the 1970s. He pioneered the era of the personal computer in the 1980s. He was thrown out of the company in a boardroom coup in 1985. He spent 12 years remaking himself, then returned to lead the then-struggling firm to its greatest triumphs: the iMac, which reinvigorated its computer business; the iPod, which has transformed music; and the iPhone, which has shaken up the mobile-phone industry.; _1 {/ M: w- [" M9 W# S4 w
/////
. v, o) |4 {/ r8 EThe other drama is the unfolding of Apple’s story. The closest to a successor that the company has is
& e  n0 Z( j$ T- BMr Cook, who is chief operating officer and briefly ran Apple while Mr Jobs was having his cancer surgery. Mr Cook keeps a very low profile, as Mr Jobs prefers his staff to do. He is single and a workaholic. He has a southern drawl and is as cool as Mr Jobs runs hot. He is the master of Apple’s operational minutiae. But not a single gesture by him or Mr Jobs has ever suggested that he might become the permanent chief executive.2 B; p% `. c* [/ Y/ w/ F, J
/////
. i" v* h, Q3 ]8 UTo take his own place on a stage this month, Mr Jobs instead chose Apple’s marketing boss, Philip Schiller. Mr Schiller put on a gamely performance, but in subtle ways the absence of Mr Jobs, a consummate showman, was felt throughout. Mr Jobs likes to tease audiences toward the end of speeches with “one more thing”; Mr Schiller, as though emphasising that he was not trying to replace Mr Jobs, turned it into “one last thing”.
- K  N  U" A/ x7 o3 Z3 P- O; v& D6 h8 n% e4 n( x& z
It is unknown whether Apple has a pipeline of innovative new products on the scale of the iPod or iPhone. A tablet-like device to contest Amazon in electronic-book readers, or an internet-capable television set, is possible. A new line of laptops has just been announced.
( t' q6 \. h, i! M! N' N, M3 I! P7 s6 p  k- b  \5 Z
But the real question for Apple is whether the person of Mr Jobs is the glue that holds the talent underneath him together. Apple’s magic is part design, part engineering, part logistics and part vision. Design is the domain of Jonathan Ive, a shy Briton; engineering is split into hardware and software; logistics is run by& Q5 M$ U3 z& {0 _
Mr Cook. And the vision thing belongs entirely to" j( A+ N( |' M+ w4 R7 k* F8 J
Mr Jobs. Without him, will all the other pieces, and the magic, come unglued?/ x( y0 H) w# e5 u. b' f' X  m

4 [5 |2 Z* j$ T9 `4 K* ?Boardroom 董事会
1 T  K; K- q  C6 \Coup 政策
% R2 s# E- P. q9 LRevered 尊敬的 venerable
" Q2 g/ @' l7 kAugust 尊严的 庄严的 有气势的
8 I" M# ~: t1 E' `Disclose 揭露* v( H5 ~  o  F3 P) P% X" J5 N
Gaunt 憔悴的 瘦削的
, \) n" g3 G* s6 X9 E8 w% P5 @Straightforward 简单明了的
3 W* t0 M7 @$ N7 C' A. rDefiantly 挑战的 挑衅的6 X: v4 K5 M$ e4 n
Leave 假期( a8 Z; M2 c& a* B; x/ v5 d) R
Pancreatic 胰腺的
. l! A# _: J5 L# T; }9 G7 N1 e2 a* c% qUnfolding 展开
" D5 a2 j" o0 W5 c7 w0 A# mReinvigorate 使再生活力
7 ~+ p0 N; Q: K9 {$ K' w* s) X5 sProfile 姿态
# G3 q. O5 T3 r" d( HWorkaholic 工作狂
& ]5 l2 V& h& @- S. Q' Z2 EDrawl 慢吞吞的说话方式. r& m  U4 z7 |
Minutiae 细枝末节 琐碎小事, L" _3 I# `, o6 i3 V% n
Gamely 勇敢地
( w4 p# Y* i3 p( eConsummate 完美的8 J8 a3 s6 h5 r/ B9 F3 X
Showman 做戏的人- A/ e& P7 K8 S- s
Pipeline 流水线 商品供应线/ |3 `8 F/ O: x/ P, j* f( c0 Z
Unglued拆开的
) s4 G) X0 I) @$ S / t# a+ }* d. m. g% `' O
从economist上摘抄下来的。。。写得很好。。。而且可以用作材料~。。。. [) R4 i# s4 C5 F1 j
好。。。今天从下午开始一直到晚上就直接述职到吃饭到ktv。。。拒不掉。。。毕竟最后一次。。。回来在寝室的音乐声中翻背了一篇new concept 1 R4 a0 i3 K0 ?2 i
恩。。摘抄好词好句~
) {) [6 ?0 q# t( n7 Uthere is a growing dislike of ...3 `# C& o0 Q  x
The tidy committee men regard them with horror, knowing that no pigeonholes can be found for them.* c) |# ^8 |- Q
We could do with(=need) a few original and creative men--if only to create some enthusiasm and release some energy--but where are they?
7 a3 i! k% N4 h; Z! _7 ^We were asked to select between various shades of the negative.
, [- P' K8 k, a0 eThe engine is falling to pieces...1 y. A. c1 U% _; o& e, I, E
Notice how these cold, colorless men without ideas and with no other passion but a craving for success, get on in our society, capturing one plum after another and taking all juice and taste out of them.
+ h5 S! ?* g% p
; B% w6 ?2 W4 l5 _好。。。 对于argu和issue待会奋战写。。。一定要写五篇。。。不然对不起自己。。。~

银落

8 e( \8 N2 v5 ?1 S8 F+ Y8 ~
3 B; |9 n7 w# w4 r
再贴一段精华贴。。。关于例子的。。。部分摘抄~后面的几乎全摘了。。。很强大
( e/ v& X  A0 }5 f; @3 A4 U/ k2 Z! Thttp://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=253394&page=1&authorid=159645
& q  m, C. D# r. ]* {1 S( K' Q: `# Y3 z; p# g
1.理论支持和事实支持（example)的必要性! }& K. w# Z( t9 f. j0 i0 Z

1 l: E6 Z) r! _1 e- {8 x从评分标准里面我们就可以看出develop a position需要reasons和examples两个要素。reasons 可以说是对于论点的分析解释等内容，姑且称之为“理论支持”；而examples则是各种支持论点的例子，姑且称之为“事实支持”。相信大家都明白“理论支持”部分的重要性，issue看的就是你的说理，看你能否把道理论述清楚，如果缺少了这个“理论支持”的说理部分，只剩下光秃秃的论点，相信最多也只能达到2分的评判标准而已。这个问题不是此文的重点，所以这里就不展开了。
7 o( r$ i; b2 [0 w& t2 u我们的重点是例子，“事实支持”的部分，可以说这个部分和“理论支持”的部分是同等重要的。我们可以这么看，我们的论述要说服的对象是人，比如，判卷人，人们的思维中不只是有理性思维还有感性思维，而常常感性思维在判断中起到了很大的作用。所以，无论你的“理论支持”部分把道理分析的如何透彻，如果没有实例的支持，如果没有给人一个感性的概念，是很难取得他人完全的赞同的。' R: x5 S  R* |+ \5 y4 t$ w
比如说：我们要为“××钙”宣传，从理论上我们可以说，一，此钙比同类产品更易于被肠胃吸收，具体可以论述此钙为如何如何的离子形式，比其他钙如何如何好二，此钙无其他钙的毒副作用，具体可以论述此钙通过了什么什么验证做了什么什么实验，三，此钙的效果比其他钙要好的多，具体可以说对于儿童促进生长，对于中青年提高抵抗力，对于老年补充钙流失。如此这般blah blah了一堆，让人看得云里雾里的，半信半疑，效果不佳。但是，如果你举出了具体的例子，比如，著名影星张三就选择服用此钙，而且，著名歌星李四也对此钙也十分满意，另外，著名球星王五使用此钙后身高暴长，因此打入NBA等等，然后让这些人现身说法一下。通过这样的实例你要说服的对象对于你的观点的认同感会大大的加强。正所谓“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”，如果没有具体的实例的支持，任你把理论说的天花乱坠也不容易让别人同意你的看法，反而会因为纯理论性论述的枯燥乏味而让人反感。
& c2 P4 y( f" v* j. [总而言之，例子是论证过程中必要而关键的一环，没有例子会让你精彩的理论成为空话，降低影响力，而有了例子的锦上添花，会让你的论述更加完善，更有说服力。因此，我们对于例子的重要性不能不给予足够的重视。/ M/ F( c& U6 r' X2 B% {3 C9 Y

/ R8 u4 `8 c) u0 z3 _& y2. 例子可以消除假大空来填充具体内容，使理论可信度提升（化虚为实）2 F7 I9 n' X8 `
4 Y1 E0 X0 H: i
由于东西方文化和思维上面的差异，我们常常忽略理性思维的问题。我们习惯了“假大空”式的论述：国际形势一片大好，国内形势一片大好，所以×××问题也是一片大好；在×××精神的鼓舞下，在×××理论的指导下，在×××的带领下，×××问题一定会得到解决，×××方面一定会得到发展；在×××的制度下，在×××的社会中，任何问题都能克服，任何工作都能够完成…………说来说去看上去是论述了一堆，但是其实根本没有实质性的内容，问题如何解决，为什么能解决，什么时候能解决一点都没有说出来。很多时候我们不是用理性的思维去分析问题，只是依靠着情感上面的冲动来议论问题，常常说得自己热血澎湃，说得大家群情激昂，但是仔细考虑一下，对于问题的看法既无根据又无条理。不要认为这是传统的问题，文化的问题，与自己无关，其实很多同学的习作中已经暴露了这个问题：说不出条理说不出头绪，自己明白却无法让他人明白，说了一堆虚无飘渺的空话，具体内容一点没看到。可以看出我们的问题不只是出现在例子的使用上面，而是整体的论述上面的问题。希望能够引起大家注意。4 Q% ^) R" j7 ]+ P

9 ~; w$ T/ V* V. U, j3. 例子的好处$ b* T9 s" K$ c& A

) `4 {5 B3 @) s1 ?/ o7 f其实例子的使用对于我们的issue文章是有莫大的好处的。所以，即使我们不是为了上面论述的必要性，也要为了例子带来的好处而来注意例子及其使用的问题。6 C; m+ I* G# Z% ~) A  v, n

4 a+ v# ?" ~4 S; d  P8 ?# F9 d1 o0 f( F9 I# m; V' C6 u) V
1.1        论证方法的多样性1 `2 R! u/ S  O3 M' B. }
1 U) {+ ]1 o3 }# v5 [# D
AW不只是要求词汇和句式的多样性，对于论证方法也有同样的要求的。词汇的单调会显得语言贫乏，句式的单调会显得语言生硬，而论证方法的单一会显得思维死板。论证方法的单一，就像词句的单一一样，也会给你的文章带来负面的影响。所以，除了原因的分析理论的说明这样的纯说理式的论证方法之外我们一定要注意运用例证法。这样才能避免论证手段的单一，显示出文章论证方法的多样性。
1 B9 I  U: M) g, c* W8 M
" y) I: w8 w+ l9 x
  r$ e2 e: I) p4 N% k8 u4 t% m/ r! v' _a. 弥补理论不足6 H) ?& F! C& V6 F3 J" ]

: d1 }# l5 J6 ?3 s7 u! |$ K很多时候，纯说理的论述方法会有不足，这时例子的应用可以弥补一些说理的缺陷。
8 C: v$ t6 V' u6 @$ E
+ t2 c0 Q* \0 U* k6 yb. 说理枯燥乏味
+ h$ a5 K, e$ J/ _6 t- C' `: y1 o/ }' o$ s; l
理论性的内容总是缺乏吸引力的，而说理的内容过多会让读者感觉乏味和厌烦。这时适当的举出相关的实例可以吸引读者的注意力，让读者能够继续欣赏你的文章，分享你的想法。这一点正符合issue185的观点，scandal比speakers or reformers的手段更能吸引人们的注意。所以，至少是在吸引读者注意力方面，例子起到了很大的作用。
6 h; N# O9 T  @2 X8 J3 _3 X/ w) |5 @0 Y' Q  c4 w' }( P
c. 问题复杂不易说清
: U6 M$ S) L. L7 H! e4 K$ q
( j8 f0 B5 C1 }6 q" f3 X" A& Z0 l有些问题本身就是纠缠不清，难以表述清楚的。这样的时候继续苦苦的说理反而起到负面的效果，让自己的思路更乱，让读者更难理解。如果举出更为直观的便于理解的例子，这样的问题就能迎刃而解了。比如说，跟一个从没见过大象的人描述大象，说来说去可能他/她还是不能理解，不过如果你拿出一张大象的图片，他/她就会明白这到底是个什么样的生物了。
$ v* g& h& R: U4 f4 K3 K# }2 f
" z, l8 i2 @) _5 {8 j( r- Id. 理论无话可说
2 i- N1 N. J& ?0 u8 V$ b8 d  Y
/ N, a+ q! P- ~4 Y' Z* u8 L有时对于一个题目你提出了一个论点，但是却发现不知道如何表达，找不到合适的reasons。这种情况我一般的做法就是把论点用更长一点的句子解释一遍，然后用例子来弥补说理的不足。其实，这样的情况常出现在限时写作的时候，因为时间有限，想不出很好的理论内容来支持论点，那么不如找个好一点的例子，这样说理方面的缺失就能得到补足。
* W+ L' v* K5 [
% o  j+ _3 }7 e9 v" h* ~2 A! {3 @e. 字数问题8 v, e; U: f+ P* H
其实，不想这样说，但是，这确实也是存在的问题。例子在某种程度上面的确可以增加字数。有时，字数实在是太少的时候，用例子来补足也是没有办法的办法。但是，要注意，这样的方法不适用于所有水平的同学，比如，已经写了500多字还算合格的文章的同学，就不要在例子上面废话来把字数增加到600以上。而且，注意不要把例子写成全是废话，为了增加字数而增加字数
3 I8 a- u; }1 c) Z0 }8 g7 E) @1 {+ B8 Q% [" I6 C) P
4. 例子的选择
( ]5 _0 M+ c" Q" n+ R* A
- d% v3 o  o! y) L明确了例子的重要性和好处之后我们来看例子的使用问题。使用例子的第一步就是例子的选择问题，如何选择出最好最适合最支持论点的例子呢？请看下面的论述：
" U# A9 C( P& Y/ c3 @. O9 ]" d3 Z9 F
) K. [5 ^9 n! R% f
4.1          选择准确的例子
+ I  b: A& O) |) a0 N. Z# H% p9 g1 |1 M) f0 E# e; p/ T
首先一定要选择主流的媒体，权威的刊物上面的真实的，准确的，得到证实的资料。不要使用道听途说甚至歪曲窜改，胡编乱造的例子。记得我大一参加辩论会的时候，对方一个二辩竟然使用电视剧中的例子，说秦始皇为了阿房女建造阿房宫云云，让人哭笑不得。这样的例子只能让你的文章显得胡说八道。而某些没有办法的时候自己编造例子的情况（将在4.6中论述）先不算在内。
5 O7 ~. I; m! f: ?. r, g, x" d
' H/ A, z1 x8 L# Q8 @0 ?/ [4.2          选择有代表性的例子
3 Q' D4 {) s, v) V* q
3 `9 T8 v) I7 ^6 V3 H要选择重要的，有代表性的，有普遍意义的例子。不要选择那些不是很重要，没有足够的力度揭示问题的例子；不要选择那些没有代表性，不具备普遍意义的例子，比如很小概率的事件，很少数地方出现的事件。从argument的思路上面大家很容易可以分析出这样的例子的害处，这里不多说了。
# R, p+ ?3 V, C! ?9 S
$ O* U5 N' l3 g4.3          选择有时效性的例子: ~) ~1 U# t. P

% C7 s6 q! I4 }# H0 a9 b+ y要注意例子的时效性，一定要与你论述的问题相符合。比如说你要说明现代存在的问题，而你举出妇女裹脚的例子，这就是没有时效性，已经是失效的过时的例子了。反之亦然，对于过去问题的论述也不能选择现代的例子。因为时间的差异可以带来很多的变化和不同，会让你的例子难以支持你的论点。关于这点，同上面，可以用argument的思维来理解一下。3 ~6 C, Q4 Z+ G# M  p

) M' V( P9 y5 V0 I4.4          选择符合题目的例子% [( K  C+ v1 o- Y

$ N+ x0 ?% j9 v: t  |/ _我觉得例子是否合适“fit”首先要从大的方向上面看，也就是，是否符合你写的题目。比如说，上次同主题的题目issue185，本来说讨论丑闻scandal的问题，有的同学举的例子却是一些绯闻，隐私，甚至只是有关名人的一些故事；再比如issue130本来讲的是儿童的socialization*的问题，有的同学却举出了社会前进的例子。显然这样的例子从大的方向就已经“unfit”了，更不用说能否支持他/她的论点了。所以，例子的筛选要首先从大的方向开始，选择出符合题目的范围的例子来。
" S1 G7 Y2 F5 s2 d0 W2 v8 u  p; ~8 q3 v! Z8 X4 N9 }8 Y
* Socialization, process by which people, especially children, learn acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for a given environment.――from MSN ENCARTA8 g! t: p, V/ V$ Q
# b% A/ n. F. ]  R( D

4 h( |1 `0 `1 U  i3 J' r4.5          选择符合论点的例子
0 U9 K) C" Q( D! q7 K# U) s2 D" O! x; o0 W( H
例子最直接的作用是支持你的论点，所以，选择例子的下一步就是筛选出符合自己的论点的例子。而曾经见到一篇issue207，一个分论点是典礼和仪式可以帮助社会、人群定义自身。而举出的例子却是海外游子期待回国，对于论点明显是“unfit”的，无法有效的支持和证明所提出的论点。这样的例子举了还不如不举，反而影响了你的论点的正确性。所以，选择论点上面一定要注意符合你的观点。
( Z8 c8 X# w4 |$ H- {2 y2 r# Y6 q" {0 c/ S! H1 g* m. a/ B8 o
% g! o+ ]& U. n9 f! w+ v
4.6          选择有新意的例子
/ _; _) l7 q7 b8 D# [$ Y
) L' W3 s5 M" n2 P' i0 o6 Z+ [例子不仅仅是符合题目论点就算是可以的，还应该注意例子要有新意，需要creativity。很多同学为了省事，选择的例子都是被用滥了的例子，而又不能更有创意的表达出来，导致很多文章看起来是千篇一律的，这样被判雷同的可能性就大大增加。即使不被判做雷同，判卷人在看过千百个同样的例子后，对于你的例子会感到麻木和厌烦，以至于对于你的文章的印象也受到影响。所以，一定要注意在选择例子的过程找到新颖的属于自己的例子。
; j; v6 N" F) j4 R* V" {
3 t* B$ k; f3 V6 C5. ///4. 例子的使用1 W! S: ?, ], ?2 \2 Y. ~5 W

8 {8 t0 f" }/ G6 v; v1 `! F选择好合适的例子之后就是例子的使用问题了，有了好的例子不等于就能写出好的论证，更重要的还是要看你对于例子的使用。请看下文：9 a, n2 r) Y8 O. B
' d& C; N6 d6 `
+ Y& u9 a' E' v1 w  X8 R) I
4.1  例子使用的准确性
# J5 t: H4 k1 a$ q- s2 i
9 T9 D( |' r. d* F6 p: e  t0 ^这个是robinii在第一期的同主题中提到的问题，我认为这个问题可以分为两个方面：
9 \5 U. F1 K4 G7 Q8 p
/ i& F, E. D% k$ \3 Z% u8 E# W- W4 X' ]
4.1.1   名词的准确, d6 V1 d, S/ b

. |# V) O. [- K" m1 ]$ W引用的人名，地名，书名，时间等名词一定要准确。曾经在一篇习作中看到将Nostradamus拼成Notradamus，而且将Nostradamus预言的时间写错，另一篇习作将Jordan拼成Jordern。这样的问题比词汇的拼写错误问题更严重，因为一般你所举例中的人物都是为人们多熟知的人物，所以一旦在这样的地方出错会很容易让读者认为你的态度不认真，从而对整个文章的印象大打折扣。所以，对于这样的低级错误一定要避免。
9 V2 ^& U8 w* O/ s3 B0 ^+ b) [( M) b

; k4 P+ [  O2 y$ Q4.1.2   翻译的准确性1 Q/ B& z, F' e0 I& O- A6 m

( s! d, a0 ]* G" G这个问题主要出现在一些中文例子的翻译上面出现的Chinglish的问题，比如说robinii提到的把黑哨翻成“black whistle”的错误。要注意我们的判卷人是老美，所以不要仅仅是让中国人能看懂你的例子就行了，主要是让老美能够理解你的例子。我觉得这个问题有两种解决办法，一是对于你的例子不要造词而是从意义上来解释，比如说把黑哨问题表达成“soccer scandal”“referee scandal”等，二是如果造词，后面一定要紧跟着详细的解释一下，让老外能够理解。这个问题还是很值得重视的，否则即使是很合适的例子，却让老美看的一头雾水，估计效果也不会好的。
  v1 U$ l6 T( v: f/ }4 c! }, ?
5 D$ Q5 ~3 Q2 E0 T2 S# r) O% B4 N2 ?
4.2        提出例子的时机
- ]$ l/ B/ f) N) M* L+ \6 S9 P
例子在文章中出现的位置，或者说例子提出的时机也是一个值得重视的问题。例子的不同位置给论证带来了不同的变化，而对于不同的论证过程，也应该随之选择适合的举例时机。一般来说，我认为例子的位置有三种：
/ Y8 n! Q) {. ]3 B
/ B3 r4 H# K1 t5 N- \$ M; V( W6 ^; f1 C! [
4.2.1        论点前
9 d: ^, l+ V$ H/ h8 h1 p1 t7 W4 P( j$ q7 F5 l
这样的方法比较少见，多用在文章的开头，以一个生动的例子引起读者的兴趣，或者让读者注意到例子中出现的问题，然后提出你的观点。记得新东方的老师就曾经讲过这样的开头方式，而我自己也曾经尝试过，效果还算是不错的。这样的方法毕竟新颖，让人感觉别具一格，但是有一定的风险，要注意两个问题，一个就是放在开头的例子一定要吸引人而又能明显的暴露出问题，这样才能达到吸引读者的目的。另一个问题就是这样的例子一定要简洁的表达出来，不要把开头弄的太长。
4 F$ `$ d% l3 M( c: T( k. Q8 O: G/ x2 {! l. t$ D$ U, F6 z9 M/ P

, C2 X$ I( e$ c& k7 S2 ^4.2.2        论点后论据前
6 _* k9 ~9 i; }% ^& {! c/ E) f1 n% d! U# O6 H9 [
一般来说，这样的用法也比较少，适用于比较难懂，不容易论述清楚的问题（比如抽象的题目）上面。先提出你的观点，然后以一个例子引出你的论述（观点，××××，下面我们先来看一个例子，××××，从这个例子可以看出××××，因为××××，所以××××）。这样做的好处如2.2.2所说，便于让人明白你所论述的问题，在读者对于你说的问题有了认识之后再提出你的论据就顺理成章了。但是要注意，一定要举有普遍意义的例子，不然会让你后面的论述显得以偏概全。而且，例子也是要简单易懂，引人注意的，如果你论述的问题本身就很抽象，而例子又是难懂的，这样的举例方法会适得其反的。  U7 t9 u" a$ K8 e
0 P- P' \) k* `5 v3 V, Y7 O0 a
4.2.3        论据后/ H7 l. w- e, y+ X* \6 f

$ W+ v7 @$ k3 k8 J2 V" _这是最常见也是最合理的举例方法。在你提出了论点，又用论据对论点进行了深入的分析和解释之后，提出具体的例子来深化你的论述。例子既可以直接支持论点，也可以用来证明你的论据。要将论点论据例子三者有效的结合起来达到最大的效果。
1 H/ ]  O! Z0 [: m' P0 b, ?, o  X* i6 l) Y' u: e; s( S
( S# u/ V* i+ [3 e. B2 c/ P) n- [
4.3        例子的表达; S9 n9 |1 p1 G: [, I9 q* n+ Z
. t" A/ D7 C  M* U4 l
知道了例子提出的位置，我们还要考虑例子的表达上面的问题。我觉得，例子的表达一定要简练而有效，这一点涉及到两个方面，内容的有效和语言的简练。
' z( L* }* ~$ W' L3 o
- V+ C7 d! J3 X) T5 \& b4.3.1   内容的有效0 x% K2 p" ^/ T0 B% K) |

+ n3 [+ O' e/ h+ C2 i1 ^5 G一个例子涉及到的方面一般很多，要选择例子中最符合论点的内容来论述，其他的内容就不要面面俱到的全部提出了。比如对于SARS的例子，有关的内容很多，如果你要证明的论点是流行病能够引起严重后果的话，你只需要交代死亡人数，金钱损失，影响范围等内容就可以；如果你要论述的是政府不应该隐瞒信息的问题，你只需要交代中国政府对于信息的隐瞒以及导致的后果等等；如果你要证明的是当今社会需要合作的问题，你只需要交代多个国家的实验室联手研究SARS的内容，依此类推。在今天这个信息爆炸的时代，敲几个字点几下鼠标你就可以找到无数相关的内容，而千万不能为了凑字数而把你找到的内容全都写出来，一来让人分不清头绪，到底哪个支持了你的论点？二来让人对你的写作态度，（懒，不加筛选）甚至整篇文章的印象不好（凑字数，写废话）。不加选择把大段的原文照搬的既是对你自己不负责任，也是对于判卷人不尊重的行为。所以，对于例子重点内容的筛选也是一个重要的问题。
0 M) y- i7 n4 y: P* @2 i. O4 ^
0 U! e: p$ ^0 f( \7 k5 M) n, V! Z: L2 z4 [8 E7 q7 s+ v  {$ z
4.3.2        语言的简练
: ^- J1 D# }7 g/ n, [' ~7 }$ P9 \8 [4 l; v' l& B
在3.3中曾经提出了例子某种程度上面可以增加字数的问题。这里要说的是不要为了增加字数而增加字数，在例子里面写废话的问题。比如说，一些著名的例子，已经家喻户晓了，不需要再仔细的介绍背景和人物的身份等内容，比如Watergate，Zippergate，没有必要再说，这是发生在什么国家什么年代什么历史背景下，主人公是多少多少任美国总统，这个总统以什么著称，有什么政绩等废话。就是说，语言的使用要讲究效率，浪费笔墨于无关内容只能降低整篇文章的效率，显得又臭又长，而不会让你的文章变得充实的。而且，对于关键的内容的陈述也要注意简练，不要一句话或者一个意思翻来覆去的说，能一句表达清楚的绝对不要用两句。举一个苏轼和他的学生的例子，一日苏轼及其学生看到一匹惊马把一条躺在路中间休息的黄狗踩死了，就此他让弟子们描述，大部分人都写得十分罗嗦，最终苏轼用了六个字就表达清楚了：逸马毙犬于道（这个例子也曾被安到欧阳修，王安石身上）。所以，我提倡大家把例子浓缩到一两句话的长度，然后多用笔墨来分析总结。& \# f& X& m+ H7 c

) S' b# b: M2 _3 b* D* i7 N5 \) Q  d: c; D7 H
4.4        对于例子的分析和总结
& g: S# \0 u) z2 J' y. B. N9 A8 _9 S7 ]: Z( ~; z- j7 v
例子不是简简单单的仍出来就可以了，要记得例子的作用是要支持和证明论点，所以对于例子一定要有分析：这个反应了什么问题？这个问题和我的论点有什么关系？对于这个问题我是怎么理解的等等。这样才真正达到了例子的目的和价值。如果只是把例子放到文章里面就不管了，让读者自己去想你要用例子表明什么，那么你的例子就白举了。所以，一定要对例子分析和总结，首先是要准确的分析出来例子告诉我们的问题是什么，比如说举出了冰山融化的例子，你就要分析，例子表明的问题是全球气温上升的问题。然后，要把问题联系到论点，提出你的看法，比如，对于上面的例子，你可能会论述，正因为这样的现象，我们应该努力于控制温室气体的排放，然后扣到你的论点，例如支持所有国家参与签订京都议定书。
1 D( F3 B1 v, E) L
+ P" b( I6 I3 P+ j( V5 n) Y9 D' \( e) m/ O( T0 s' k6 u; M
4.5   对于多个例子的组织
+ u$ z  x4 l7 h  D
; T3 t& ~; m& @; X) j对于一个论点你可能会举出不只一个例子。你可能会分角度分层次的举出多个例子。那么对于这些例子一定要有效的组织起来，形成一个有机的整体，而不要只是堆砌出很多事实而已。像我在最后给出的文章中所说的It is too easy simply to number them, but then our essay begins to sound like a mathematical exercise.我认为，首先，要明确例子的顺序和层次，比如说，从古到今，从大到小，从轻到重等等，或者是例子的逻辑顺序，比如你提出的一个例子是另一个例子的前提，那么就要把前提放在前面来写。然后，例子与例子之间一定要有过渡和衔接，比如说，“看完了经济领域，现在让我们看看教育领域的例子。。。”之类的语言。通过这两个步骤把所有的例子紧密的联系起来。6 U  s. }& P6 ]0 j0 q: D/ [+ @9 |
& M0 u# t/ j* M/ T
( A6 O) ?7 P8 h6 c5 t2 S4 T( ^
4.6         编造例子 ! G; w* }1 I5 q' b( ~. t
这个问题其实也是本不想讨论的，但是，一些情况下，这样的方法成为了没有办法的办法，所以还是交代一下比较好。因为考场的时间有限，很多时候我们无法迅速的回忆出自己所知的适合的例子，或者，自己根本就不知道相关的例子。那么怎么办呢？只好自己编造例子了。下面有几种方法：
1 w  e/ b3 k5 z1 j" m% u9 U
+ b+ m% e: _( u7 `
7 n" f6 K( o5 \" }* T4.6.1        编造自己的例子$ C( G% ?+ |7 V  T
  ?9 l8 }/ u$ ?, y
我觉得这个方法比较保险。其实我们以前中学的时候就经常使用，就是编造一些自己亲身经历的（当然，实际上是没有经历过的）例子。把可以证明论点的一些想法编成故事，安在自己身上。这样没有人可以去考证，所以也就不容易被人发现。所以，推荐这种方法。+ w- ^& G: @) l% |* w. X2 i$ Q

& X5 w: T8 D! @- I" ^
6 P' u! J; V: K% |- O5 l4.6.2        编造名言
" d. S& S! @* w2 A/ [% |. x9 ~9 i+ x& ^8 M% j
这种方法也是不错的。把自己要说的话安在别人的身上，而这个人可能是不存在的。比如说专才通才的范文中的写法，As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase)。。。这样的例子同样是无法考证的，因为你的学校是否有药理学专业，是否有这么个药理学的头头，他是否说了这样的话判卷人没有兴趣也不可能知道，所以，这种方法也是比较保险的。! m$ U) n; x) m  f9 l& i  u7 y

4 }3 E7 C+ r. A1 X: N+ x" o2 n
6 V2 L! t5 q7 m. Q4.6.3        编造人名
" h9 `" Y1 G4 s$ P% W& o! \! V/ y; s( j- b, b2 {
举出并不存在的一些权威的话来证明你的观点。一种方法就是刚刚说过的，说成是比较模糊的某某教授之类的。另一种就是举出具体的人名，这样可信度更高一点。关于这点，记得新东方的老师曾经教过，要编印度人阿拉伯人的名字，多用一些h啊j啊k啊等没用的字母来编名字，比较像一点。但是这种方法比较危险，对于一个纯西方人，当然不容易发现你说的名字的错误，不过，如果判卷人就是印度籍或者阿拉伯籍，那么你就撞在枪口上了。要我说，编中国人的名字比较好，呵呵。- d$ y$ \/ d; {  @/ ~% K6 M6 S5 n

/ G, b* `1 w+ S) S. N2 g% i! _: f  D/ t4 d
4.6.4        编造数据  R5 p) \: O- E6 M
7 x* M% A$ a  t6 |% E1 K8 V
对于一些问题你可能想要举出具体的数据，以增加可信度。对于这样的编造，同样是新东方老师的建议，一定要有零有整，精确到小数点后面两位。这个方法感觉理论上可行，当然，同样的，如果你举的数据正好是判卷人所了解的，你的编造是必败无疑了。
& j" F9 D9 m2 q( e8 T
! \' @5 z/ g# e8 P. w
% {/ C0 p: X- f1，2两种还是可以使用的，但是3，4两种风险比较大，需要谨慎使用。但是大家要注意的是，这种投机取巧的方法只是权宜之计，不要依靠这样的方法来进行你的论证，也不要对这样的方法抱有侥幸的心理。脚踏实地的准备和积累例子是最重要的。
# Q# |4 B  ~4 ~+ p7 d
+ R, ?: {& o; s* ^
+ i3 t6 y0 L" L, O  {3 E$ _( b4 l: l
最后的最后，本想总结一下，但是，感觉前面说的已经差不多了，那么就以一篇关于例子使用的文章来收尾吧。希望大家注意例子的重要性，学会正确有效的使用例子，写出成功的AW文章来。

银落

呼。。。又是深夜。。。这两天颓废。。。什么都没正经地干。。。
) H+ }' M# |1 `$ h& ]6 |% V又是一天过去了。。。专业。。。AW。。。
2 L( N, y4 R( z! @" b好吧。。。今天写了10篇argu的outline。。。除此之外看了篇economist。。。然后什么都没干。。。一样是吃散伙饭。。。上课。。。我对自己无语。。。

银落

- J( Z6 ~& o6 G% B" u% Z
+ \) S3 V" f! A5 l8 E9 b好好地审视了下过去的复习过程。。。发现自己安排得很不妥当。。。即心急。。。所以什么事情都想一口气做完。。。然后这样的急切也导致了内心的浮躁。。。反而把整个复习计划打乱。。。演变成糟糕的局面。。。再仔细地想了想。。。发现自己似乎不管什么事情都有一种很浮躁的心态。。。所以。。。从现在开始。。。打算好好地静下心来。。。安安静静地。。。脚踏实地地。。。走向目标。。。不停地审问。。。不停地修正。。。也许只有在这样的过程中才能真正地收获。。。不仅仅对于G。。。也对于我的一种人生态度。。。也许刚开始的确会比较难。。。但我还是相信可以一步一步地达到终点~。。。对于G。。。只要决定开始。。。就不算晚。。。; g5 d. ^' G/ \, K: [

: K, w3 Y6 ^0 P8 d$ r1 R3 J好。。。贴一篇今天看的economist。。。但是生词没有查。。。明天附上。。。
/ V. B8 z0 |/ k! F' K
& H9 ]# g- T, H3 Q# h5 OTwenty years after Tiananmen
2 y" P! m" l7 x+ j
7 B8 [0 w& f  J' Y3 M8 |Silence on the square2 F% ~3 z1 K+ i3 _" ?
May 28th 2009 | BEIJING! }7 k; a! O9 h" o5 ?3 C
From The Economist print edition, n$ s5 ?& }6 t( j4 i( G

# U9 l: C; j( G- l. {* [Outside the Communist Party, memories of the 1989 massacre get hazy; a7 d- @7 B) Y0 X/ [* D* S8 v
6 C/ s7 t; ^$ W: Z$ s
2 ]1 O! W8 U3 t5 I) t' Y
AMONG journalists at a Chinese newspaper, there has been some surprising talk of publishing a story to mark the 20th anniversary on June 3rd and 4th of the massacre of hundreds of Beijing citizens by Chinese soldiers. One journalist even told his colleagues he would be ready to go to jail for doing so. But such bravado, especially if it proves more than rhetoric, is likely to be rare. For many in China the nationwide pro-democracy protests of 1989 and their bloody end have become a muddled and half-forgotten tale.
! ?) l3 ]' p5 T$ ^$ s
8 F3 q( I9 h* S/ \  x1 JThis does not stop the Communist Party worrying about the issue. It fears that the efforts of even a small number of people to keep memories alive could be destabilising. The most senior official to serve jail time for his role in the Tiananmen Square unrest, Bao Tong, has been escorted by security officials from his Beijing home to a scenic spot in central China (far from muttering journalists) where he will spend the anniversary period. Mr Bao agreed to go, says a family member. But in China an invitation from the police can be awkward to refuse. Several other dissidents report heightened police surveillance.
% k! Z: E5 T, H" e- Q7 J$ S6 Y4 t5 ?* S' W5 X& }. w* M0 S8 `; S  H
This year’s anniversary has spurred a hardy few to pronounce on the massacre. A Beijing academic, Cui Weiping, told a gathering of intellectuals called to commemorate it that the party’s campaign to deter public discussion of Tiananmen, and public acquiescence to it, had damaged China’s “spirit and morality”. She posted her remarks on her blog. 5 p' v. K; H& k# V% U6 n
. O; c  M0 ~4 V8 v
Another source of official concern was the recent publication abroad of a book containing the damning contents of tapes secretly recorded by Mr Bao’s boss, the late former party chief, Zhao Ziyang, during his post-Tiananmen house arrest. The book portrays Mr Zhao as a victim of scheming hardliners and as a principled opponent of using force to crush the unrest (though he was not, until his house arrest, an admirer of Western-style democracy). A retired senior official has confessed that he and three others helped squirrel the tapes from Mr Zhao’s confinement. ; s0 K0 B1 e8 i7 h! R# L
' z* l0 V  p: {5 X, ]  n
The party has also tried to deflect attention from the army’s contribution to the slaughter. Twenty years ago the official media repeatedly sang the praises of dozens of soldiers killed during the “counterrevolutionary rebellion”—and posthumously considered “guardians of the republic”. Now they are all but forgotten. Meanwhile, public support for the armed forces, which was badly damaged in 1989, appears to have rebounded. The army’s rapid response to the deadly earthquake in Sichuan Province a year ago, a gift to party propagandists, played a part in this. When tanks roar through Tiananmen Square on October 1st in a grand parade to celebrate China’s national day (the second such display since 1989), they will be greeted with widespread approval from a nation hungry for symbols of China’s growing power.
) |& q5 c6 f$ m" R  V# _# y. v
Reuters
* n: C; {/ |- a- g& [- h) l, Z
1 [" D$ _7 F! F0 q5 yFaceless and faithful? But the party still betrays occasional signs of worry about the armed forces. Shortly before and after the mass killing in Beijing in 1989, there was widespread speculation that some in the army objected to it. Yet the prospect of serious dissent in the army proved largely unfounded. There is no hint in Mr Zhao’s tapes that he had the support of any top brass. Nonetheless, in recent months the official media have published several articles denouncing calls (from whom is not specified) for the armed forces to be removed from the party’s direct control. The party worries this would weaken its ability to count on them in the event of another Tiananmen-type crisis. The tone of these articles is oddly strident—perhaps suggesting this mooted reform has support within the armed forces. 6 z: S1 Q# B4 X
% L: O# @- z3 y3 k, E  }
The party’s control is not absolute. President Hu Jintao launched yet another campaign this month against “extravagance and waste” among senior officers. For all such efforts, corruption within the armed forces remains widespread. But so too is corruption within the party. Mr Hu may enjoy nothing like the kind of prestige that China’s late leader, Deng Xiaoping, had in the armed forces in 1989 when he ordered the troops into Tiananmen. But there are still few obvious signs of strain between the political and military leaderships. A rapid increase in the military budget in recent years has no doubt helped. # }0 Y  |  v3 s5 Y. s" P2 K  B8 ^  e- x5 e

* @0 c/ @7 U8 X" uAmong ordinary Beijing citizens, there is a generational divide on Tiananmen. Many who took part in or witnessed the unrest still grumble about the party’s brutal response. But younger folk are often confused about the details of it. Many say they accept the party’s line that the economic boom which followed has vindicated the armed forces’ bloody intervention.
, Z$ B# S* @; x" S' ?" v" d& V* b; _; M+ k$ S
But once they’ve seen Paree…
% ^/ c& c1 R6 b. F1 r+ h6 r0 v0 BYet the only place in China where Tiananmen remains a public issue is its richest, Hong Kong. Thousands are expected to attend commemorative events in the territory. Earlier this month its chief executive, Donald Tsang, apologised after an uproar over his seemingly innocuous suggestion that many Hong Kong citizens believed Tiananmen “took place a long time ago” and that China had made “remarkable achievements” since then. Many in Beijing would certainly agree with Mr Tsang. But unlike those in Hong Kong, they have not tasted democracy.6 J& y6 f1 |& v
4 Q, W! ^6 j5 |8 `+ n
new concept
+ d9 v" u0 @6 Q5 WIt is not too heavy a burden for industry to bear.
& `8 i/ v+ ^0 J( h+ ABut of what human import is all this skill, all this effort, and all this energy in production of effects when the story, and the representation of life is hollow, stupid, banal, and children?7 R' U6 K, z0 b; W
What characterizes the Hollywood films is inner emptiness.
$ g, }2 [) [# F4 n7 U6 D( bThis code doesnot disturb the profits of films, nor the entainment value.

银落

. S) F9 B2 Y- _4 k, {( n
) h& a+ U9 R$ H: l8 ?' j
因为今天一天都在家里。。。所以自然比学校里舒服许多。。。时间也可调控许多。。。不过本着养身体的原则。。。还是大部分以睡觉为主。。。不然到了学校里实在是要跨了。。。》《。。。很好的完成初定计划。。。并且。。。终于把放下了无数天的issue拾起来了。。。~。。。继续列提纲。。。
3 c7 V4 B; H7 e6 Q& r/ z9 z* a
1 G2 K5 B: c/ @7 ]补上昨天的economist的生词/ z3 X$ R; C  T' z4 G. p
Hazy 模糊的
* i6 \* i6 m- W$ ~8 ]Bravado 虚张声势1 K9 ~) ^2 d$ Y: M# a5 c
Rhetoric 花言巧语  浮夸的修饰; r& d/ S+ E& B; k
pro-democracy 民主派
  i, a0 o. j8 j" T2 N0 G% rmuddled 混乱的 一塌糊涂的: D7 l, X3 J' `# P- D9 I
destabilize 打破平衡 动摇) v( o, o3 l0 U
unrest 动乱
/ t2 W+ |; P# l% M& u4 J5 odissident 不同意见的 不同意见者
3 n( ?3 [: D+ n5 k" C* q3 yspur 刺激4 _4 @2 s- d, C- b. Y9 [' l
hardy 大胆的
4 N: Y' f% V8 Q  S+ F. `  spronounce on 对。。。表示意见' u. ?- j& G; v4 [# _! L7 T
damning 导致定罪的  认定。。。有罪的
7 {# [0 o; o( z  U! m) |2 z6 bhardliner 强硬分子& C9 t! O7 f$ u- g# |
principled 有原则的
1 i% T0 T8 I; ^( ksquirrel 储藏
* p& B( o, v6 Z, Hconfinement 限制 拘禁
4 A5 D. s0 ]5 F0 z0 C4 @posthumously 死后地
4 C2 Q  r- ~0 Vpropagandist 宣传者2 Q- m9 j9 E  [1 E" s& J- v' c
reuters 英国的路透社
9 \8 \; u2 P+ T9 kbetray 暴露 表现出. ]* o) b2 A# I9 I- U4 [" w% R
speculation 推测 沉思6 A" c# I9 x2 m) q; q
dissent 异议  M: a5 |. O6 r' Y5 B( O2 A+ w# c
top brass 高级军官 商业重要人物
" b3 T% N& {) J% T7 s# K: g7 rdenounce 告发 谴责. _! e" L9 H4 w2 t- K$ V
count on 依靠6 ?, U3 x% N+ t* z# ?
oddly 奇妙的 零碎的 额外的
" g+ A% {' D; R5 _" zstrident 刺耳的. H- r7 O6 T% p; k. G' m
mooted 有争议的 未决定的6 T3 G% C' ], A4 K: v5 [; T
strain 特征/ n9 w& ^' u: z$ q+ s& a4 @0 r
grumble 对。。。不满
, n7 E, c! O" x) N; lvindicate 维护 证明。。。是正确的
2 [' L/ i  q  j. W. Iintervention 介入
1 o$ ~% J1 D& i# d% z干涉3 S. N' g0 B' |) F0 a* l& ^" K
8 V* F* [7 ?2 h" N9 l' N. {
) e: |  Z7 a8 }# h) r
然后是NEW CONCEPT
* R7 ^: t& s( \; E1 O# E+ S( C3 X, S" n0 U) M$ B, q2 s

# ]* P$ ^* B7 u; M/ l* J3 wGreat lorries with double deck cargo of cars for export lumber past...
$ m, f/ a, O4 J% HLoads of motor-engine are hurried hither and thither, and the streets are thronged with a population which has no interest in learning and knows no studies beyond....
  @+ C: `# D% o) Y  \: @Theoretically the marriage of an old seat of learning and tradition with a new and wealthy industry can be expected to produce interesting children." h5 ]) p( B& y) G( f
, for at both Oxford and Cambridge college tends to live in an era which is certainly not of the twentieth century and upon a planet which bears little resemblance to the war-torn earth.3 A  r6 i/ L0 N$ w4 _3 I: K* v
Wherever faults lie the fact remains that it is theatre at Oxford not at Cambridge which is on the verge of extinction, and the only fruit of combination of industry and rarefied atmosphere of learning is dust on the streets and a pathetic sense of being lost which hangs over some of the colleges./ |" m9 V6 @- d) @" o! H) k

银落

今天写了篇ARGU。。。长久停笔以后的第一篇。。。似乎因为最近一直在列argu的提纲。。。所以写起来比以前舒服很多了。。。同时。。。也发现自己的模板句极其不过关。。还要继续补充！。。并且发现自己的单词量严重贫乏。。。4 R  T/ |6 A, u# z# V& F# j- r  R. o
- ?6 ?* j) ]. j: B: n  r+ T& v
concept只是翻了下，没有背。。0 P' S2 H' o% X2 K9 e2 i
看了草木的帖子。。。惊呆。。。足足有半个小时心慌意乱的。。。对自已的信心一下子被打击。。。die组真的是很强。。。不过。。。还是相信每个人的复习方法是不一样的。。。没有做到草木的也一定可以。。。
5 n1 E+ g9 t( S" Q  ?" C3 U/ t; q' @+ \
帖下economist吧4 U1 s" W2 m% w7 _" v
* C$ D! L- e/ ^; `3 e# a
Executive pay in America8 u1 y* W% m- o
. M% T5 A7 @% @$ ~* K
Principles, not pitchforks' q$ P* j1 x7 W" b0 l4 o
Jun 11th 2009 | SAN FRANCISCO
+ n" h' a# T. G4 w3 f' }' g1 aFrom The Economist print edition
0 `) s" s$ c" C& M( F0 W# N
5 u2 Z6 d* N' S# |, FSome sensible new proposals for curbing corporate greed in America* G. N/ h9 K+ N0 i
2 J: x% g7 G3 e5 z' Q* a+ y9 Y
Illustration by David Simonds. V" G4 M' P; V$ T; B9 \- s, y
ALTHOUGH the debate about excessive executive pay in America has been heated, cool heads prevailed when the time came to tackle the problem. On Wednesday June 10th Tim Geithner, America’s treasury secretary, said the government would not impose fierce restrictions such as caps on pay. Nor would it meddle in the detail of compensation packages. Instead, it wants companies to adopt a series of broad principles on pay and it intends to make it easier for shareholders to ensure that they do so.
& z! U* }* A6 ?+ o0 l1 E! X6 h* H
3 f3 K! ?6 i2 W# n5 l  E. ~This approach will infuriate pitchfork populists, who were hoping the Obama administration would impose a regulatory straitjacket on corporate pay after an outcry earlier this year over hefty bonuses dished out at firms rescued with taxpayers’ cash. But Mr Geithner warned that such an approach would ultimately be “counterproductive”. In practice only firms that have been bailed out will face stiff restrictions on bonuses and other forms of pay. Some will have to submit senior managers’ compensation for review by a new, government-appointed “special master”.
! z3 C* h! \; A* s9 N" O
, P7 s7 d+ w$ ^The rest of corporate America will escape such constraints, but the government still wants firms to take a fresh look at the way they reward staff. Among other things, Mr Geithner urged companies to avoid plans that offer big rewards for short-term risk-taking and called for a reconsideration of “golden parachutes”, which can produce payouts that would make Croesus blush for bosses ousted for poor performance. He also exhorted firms to be more open with investors about the logic behind their decisions on pay.0 Y1 \2 H$ E) Y4 w1 Z

9 t$ C3 o2 V4 [: u$ _Contrary to received wisdom, the process of linking pay to performance works reasonably well in America—witness the large number of bosses whose remuneration has plummeted during the recession. Nevertheless, several executives have made a mint even though their firms’ track records have been lousy. Some experts say this is because they have packed their firms’ remuneration committees with pals who are friendly to their cause. To address this issue, the government will push for legislation to give the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) powers to ensure that compensation committees are truly independent of management.
; e6 H3 S8 b, r; k. n! [
& o5 v7 h* P5 X( h2 b4 ZIt also wants the SEC to ensure that consultants who advise such committees on pay are independent as well. Some of these work for bigger firms that sell a variety of services, which may make them reluctant to attack a boss’s proposed pay package for fear of jeopardising other business. Consultancies say such concerns are groundless, but critics note that auditors said the same thing when they were pitching consulting services to audit clients. Yet the Sarbanes-Oxley act significantly restricted auditors’ ability to cross-sell other services in order to bolster their independence. Some experts think similar restrictions should now be imposed on compensation consultants, too.
( ]) ?* Z5 i) L : x, d2 Q  z9 H! p: }
Fixing executive pay will require more than just a few regulatory tweaks. Shareholders also need a chance to review and influence pay deals before they are inked. This week Mr Geithner said the government intends to give them one, by backing efforts in Congress that would require companies to submit their pay policies to an annual vote. Experience in Europe, where such ballots are common, has shown they encourage boards to consult more actively with shareholders on pay issues ahead of formal polls. That the current administration is so keen on “say on pay” is hardly surprising: the last time a measure proposing the process made it to the Senate, back in 2007, it was sponsored by a senator called Barack Obama.
+ t: b& E! R) R7 ]. B) y * A& E2 ?; b- a9 [' ?% m1 y

  r9 k! E: r5 C1 q3 G4 BPitchfork 干草叉1 ~$ v0 \3 q; ?5 A7 X+ Z
Prevail 战胜 流行 劝说
5 X( H- @7 j- X* Y% V# g$ iMeddle in 干扰
% m5 l' l8 J3 q0 fPopulist 人民党的5 T3 m8 G# R# ~0 r" k/ k- S
Straitjacket 束缚 紧身衣
5 F7 k5 L! T3 @: R# hOutcry 强烈反对
2 {1 v& y) j( ~$ F# @# EHefty 重的 大的
, f- v$ z0 ?0 n- W1 \0 ADish out 盛于盘中
8 K' {' |, X. ]Bail out 通过提供金钱的方法帮助某人解决困难6 x1 z) x7 ]+ M0 L* }
Submit 主张
0 S7 n. M8 O' L! vIn practice 实际上 in effect in fact# t% K- E8 U5 h# @" f% T: Z, T
Payout 支出款项
+ Q1 n7 J0 F" |: a( y  |Blush for 为。。。脸红
+ @2 X" j  L3 S( m- _4 Y. @  DRemuneration 报酬 compensation; X$ ~) z" E5 a' F
Plummet 垂直下落
4 k; g4 R# y; h* W- ]Mint 巨额 : k% m4 ?) S. l7 k: a# D/ Z
Lousy 差劲的' @$ O; i2 x' Z
Track record 业绩档案* t0 p8 W4 L0 b" U6 O3 `
Remuneration committee 报酬委员会! x, T) Y- m$ F( P2 ]4 T* k6 f
Pack
  v1 {6 }' P8 M$ U! J. @; _9 XA
+ L0 K" k/ B( R; uwith
  [+ {& U5 W2 n* L5 xB
6 v3 R& d0 D& f1 p7 E把B全都塞入A
4 w4 B7 I2 }- ?( VPush for 分区力争
$ x9 c" P5 s' {; v3 vPush for legislation 推动。。。法
: B5 j# r. h* L, l& s1 {) I5 zConsultancy 顾问0 D: x2 D  N- p: X
Pitch 摆摊 兜售 pitch sth to sb5 j: b5 S: ~% B; ]7 Y. {3 a
pitch sth as sth
7 x9 P; H' r: r7 N+ ?Tweak 妙计- J& W7 C- B) s" A, w: D
Ink 签署 sb ink deal
- M  @/ Z6 k; h/ C/ ~! ?+ `Backing 支持 担保6 @1 V% C$ G1 N- A/ q+ s7 \+ c( J
Ballot 无记名投票

银落

; g7 e1 s, C. f5 e7 O3 d5 P4 n7 Q+ _
9 l% \- @! }4 s5 L
现在提纲似乎不是特别成问题了，但是一句句子没有好的词来填充，一篇文章没有好的例子来填充成为了我的难题。。。哎。。。, g- b' x1 d! o4 @7 ?- T
明天竟然英语口试有题目是technology的advantage and disadvantage。。。真是熟悉到了感动得不行的地步。。。虽说没有写过一篇关于technology的issue。。。但是当初列第一篇提纲就是这类题。。。激动的
9 n7 |, v* L" o% r好了。。。贴concept的句子 今天背到一句极好的句子。。。以后改改。。。用在issue里~
$ H4 K6 a6 r5 d- h$ P1 c6 VThere is a justification for such feeling.$ H6 M' `2 R) D* o- {8 T
Young people who have reason to fear that they will be killed in battle may justifiably feel bitter in the thought that they are cheated of the best things life is to offer.4 D  a) Q" V2 k4 Y& u5 Q$ B
The best way to overcome it --so at least it seems to me--is to make your interests gradually wider and more impersonal, until bit by bit the walls of ego recede and your life becomes increasingly merged in the universal life.1 Q& Y2 G6 \! M% l% i  P8 h& z
An individual human existence should be like a river--small at first, contained narrowly within its banks, and rushing passionately past boulders and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly; and in the end, without any visible break, merged in the sea and painlessly lose individual beings.1 R; ~, P/ v$ e( m" G
And if, with the decay of vitality, weariness increases, thought of rest will be not unwelcome.
0 }/ N4 t8 g* N8 LI should wish to die while still at work, knowing that others will carry on what I can no longer do, and content in the thought that what is possible has been done.6 g" N; G7 A- D7 `4 H3 J
3 x3 a1 f, h( Z8 L
economist/ x, m) d' a* _  h7 J% b
Coca-Cola in China 1 C8 C8 x) i* ^7 n
Squeezed out（拒之门外） --issue 的态度
3 I: P2 W7 K$ v! y8 h* r2 HMar 18th 2009 | HONG KONG! v5 A' h1 k' a+ h) X1 j9 S
From The Economist print edition 5 z  b6 [% n! v& W9 u) [
China indicates the real targets of its anti-monopoly law: outsiders
& U1 D5 e, |4 b8 E6 D 5 R) C7 n0 K- [5 L! n3 S
LAST August, after 14 years of debate, the Chinese government at last imposed what was informally referred to as its “economic constitution”, a broad anti-monopoly law for a country rife with state-imposed monopolies. In the subsequent months, people have wondered how the law would be applied（用在argu里，建议可行性的不高), and whether it would advance China’s transformation into a market economy, or serve as an impediment to genuine competition. On Wednesday March 18th an answer emerged with the rejection of the largest outright acquisition by a foreign company, a $2.4 billion offer by Coca-Cola for China Huiyuan, the country’s largest juice company. ! N; v$ r* U" k7 {- h$ Y3 D
When the deal was announced last September, it was at a price three times Huiyuan’s valuation at the time. Since then, as global markets have collapsed, it has only become more appealing. Huiyuan is a private company and juice had previously been free of government control（issue的政府干涉）, so theoretically it should have been available for purchase. “It is a very unfortunate outcome in an industry that has no economic or national-security significance,” says Lester Ross of WilmerHale, a law firm, in Beijing.4 _, @' j" g0 ?! |  R8 r/ y
The most benign interpretation of the rejection being bandied about by lawyers and bankers is that it reflects a political response to critical comments by America’s new administration—a warning, of sorts, that could dissipate quickly if the economic relationship between China and America can find a firm footing. The more dire interpretation is that even as China publicly urges other countries to commit to（致力于） opening their markets to Chinese investment and trade, it is imposing yet another barrier to outsiders. Worse still, the barriers are in its domestic consumer sector, one of the rare global economic bright spots.
4 }; g8 p+ c. s" D; S( q! I+ xAdding irony to the decision, it comes just as the Chinese government is indicating that it is actively encouraging, if not forcing（政府应采取的行为—issue）, consolidation and greater market concentration in a number of areas, including steel, cars and airlines, and just after it imposed a new oligopoly in telecommunications. No domestic Chinese transaction has fallen foul of the new monopoly law.   }$ O# x1 J8 k# v% V2 J0 G
Signs that foreign companies might be the primary targets of the law began to emerge in
( w- v$ }! J+ @) J# KNovember, when a merger between two brewers, America’s Anheuser-Busch and Belgium’s InBev, was endorsed by Chinese regulators only on the condition that the combined firm’s existing interest in several domestic breweries be frozen. In particular, Anheuser-Busch’s non-controlling 27% stake（股份） in Tsingtao, a leading Chinese brewer, was largely liquidated in January after what is presumed to be pressure from the government.
8 M2 G" L  }+ [: f' [! @" KThe Coca-Cola Company holds as much as half of the domestic Chinese market for carbonated beverages, but the juice business is highly fragmented. Estimates are not particularly reliable, but various accounts suggest the two companies would control more than of 20% of the juice business. In a brief statement, China’s ministry of commerce said Coke’s “dominant status” might “imperil” small competitors and force consumers to face higher prices and less choice. ' v) |: k, I" n6 @$ _( @
After the decision was announced, investment banks were left wondering, in the words of one employee, whether “a key plank in their business had just blown up.” Coke has spent years developing its presence in China, and has invested heavily, presumably making it one of the world’s more acceptable buyers. It is also one of the few companies able to finance a big deal in today’s difficult circumstances. If Coke was not acceptable to the Chinese authorities, then who is? The rejection will inevitably be used as evidence of non-reciprocity, and the collusion between the country’s state and private sectors, by anyone opposed to China’s recent efforts to buy companies abroad.
& p4 l1 \! D* S5 E/ BDeepening the gloom, another new Chinese law comes into effect on May 1st, subjecting any transfer of a state-controlled asset to yet another layer of review, this time by a local commission. Theoretically this is not aimed at any particular kind of acquirer, and would not block well-conceived deals, but that, of course, was said about the monopoly law as well. The new law had not received much attention. It will now.
2 s# p% G  y# `+ @/ _2 ^ ( s, r2 N; K6 _; U! |$ A& d" e
Squeeze out 拒之门外
$ w! x7 M0 }, x: ]# J' ^Be referred to as 被称为
. r9 T& B- n% j' l2 v9 ^Economic constitution 经济结构
: Q/ j0 s; X. uRife with 充满了
. B; g+ v7 \# L) ]Outright完全的 彻底的* I. H  I; S1 |
Bandy 讨论
+ \, u  |+ f+ S% V0 BDissipate 驱散 浪费
! B: e: [+ q7 z% h/ ^0 zFooting 关系 状态
$ P, r  A' V' G, JSector 部分 战线
* C# \! Q+ [# @. }5 B' K8 QIrony 讽刺" R( f, v( v$ y
Oligopoly 求过于供的市场情况下少数制造商对市场的控制
5 F" Z  N" t- sFall foul of 与。。冲突3 @. j+ H0 E3 Z' v. T0 H& A" h
Merger 吞并组织7 m5 A0 g" V3 R1 Q' e; M( r
Brewer 酿酒商
  z( a6 B9 k# K+ BLiquidate 清偿债务
% M7 N3 T1 d) \8 x+ M% u6 [0 @Fragment* V4 I! [& n5 a6 ]# H+ A: K6 Z
n. 碎片
' H, ]+ h3 v! A/ q0 Y# c3 cImperil 危险$ j/ _4 b7 f9 e, x
Plank 政策要点0 Z* Q  t5 Q2 }2 |; D, }' I
Presumably 可能地
) {4 Q3 G: e5 Q/ J$ lReciprocity 互惠性
4 t( C& `1 k: z9 t( h% ?9 d- MSubject 使。。。受到

银落

0 A8 W% W4 _6 Y! s) E; j/ C) ?
4 |5 J1 X; `! |- @* T& ?! ?看了米饭的话。。。觉得好开心啊。。。真的吗》《。。。不过现在开始就没有精力做了。。。期末考试进入倒数两星期。。。N门专业课在向我招手啊。。。估计想死我了。。。TT。。。只能在期末以后继续进行。。。争取有空闲就继续做吧~。。。其实个人感觉debate更加有效果~  ]# _. x& K* A+ r  H6 G
( Q6 X$ _9 ?1 ~; [' f( P1 ^( w
然后。。。讲今天
. H% K  g6 p( X3 V+ O本来好好的。。。一切都按计划进行。。。可是晚上开始写issue提纲的时候。。人崩溃了。。。主观和客观。。。我的天。。。facts are stubborn things...there is no such things as purly objective observation.....崩溃。。。然后跑去看同主题。。。哇塞。。666的分析真的是精辟。。。于是。。。赶快再自己思考。。。哲学是强大的东西。。。- e1 {' l/ u6 K9 R/ O

" c1 [& V" E' ]fact本身是objective的。。。但是when the objectivity of the facts turns into our personal perception, as a result，they transform their characteristic from objectivity to subjectivity.太强大的分析了。。。我这样翻成英语还不一定对呢。。