1006G【无组】by 雪丫--迟来的追赶

雪丫UID：2719720

I need all kinds of colors~ Always remember to do something~


一直过得很Free，但是GRE不会对现在的我感冒。。。。所以，开始吧！

不说太多废话，来这里比较晚，我要尽快赶上大家！
2010.6.12 我要在这个可爱的小楼的最后画上漂亮的句号



决定每天读几篇economist,这段时间忙考试，但也要加油！

雪丫UID：2719720

Notes:
Translation for awintro

每个人，即使是最有经验和自信的作家，应该花的前到达考试中心一段时间的分析写作部分的准备工作。重要的是要检讨的技能来衡量，部分是如何取得的，分层次指导和评分说明，样本的主题，取得样本文章的反应，和读者评论。在分析写作部分的题目涉及的学科范围广泛，从美术和物理科学的社会和人文，但没有规定具体的内容主题的知识。事实上，每个主题已经进行了实地测试，以确保它具有几个重要特点，包括：•GRE考试考生，不论其研究或特殊利益的领域，都容易了解题目，很容易讨论。•话题引起复杂的思维和有说服力的书面种，大学教师考虑在研究生院取得成功的重要。•的答复是多方面的内容和方式的作家发展他们的意见。为了帮助您准备的普通考试的分析写作部分，GRE的计划已经公布了，从测试的议题将是整个池选定的主题。你可能会发现，帮助审查这一问题，并论证池。您可以查看在网络上发布的池在www.gre.org / pracmats.html或者您可以通过书面的GRE项目，邮政信箱6000，新泽西州普林斯顿08541-6000副本
GRE评分是整体性的，单纯的有好的组织文章水平或者观点很独特是不能拿到高分的。
写作时也要考虑到尊重他人的著作权，不经申明不能引用。
写作要考察的是你的思辨力而不是某些具体的专业知识，所以你可以表达任何你认为合理的观点，不存在正确答案，以下几个很有用的问题帮助思考：
.What, precisely, is the central issue?中心论题是什么
• Do I agree with all or with any part of the claim? Why or why not?我赞同全部还是部分，还是根本不
• Does the claim make certain assumptions? If so, are they reasonable?题目的论证是否引用合理的假设
• Is the claim valid only under certain conditions? If so, what are they?题目的观点是否只在某些情况下成立
• Do I need to explain how I interpret certain terms or concepts used in the claim?我需要陈述我对文章论证的理解吗
• If I take a certain position on the issue, what reasons support my position?我提出观点的理由是什么
• What examples—either real or hypothetical—could I use to illustrate those reasons and advance我的有利证据是什么
my point of view? Which examples are most compelling?我的最有说服力的理由是什么
以下是针对反对你的观点的问题：
• What reasons might someone use to refute or undermine my position?别人反驳我的观点的原因是什么
• How should I acknowledge or defend against those views in my essay?我怎样反驳他们
适量的练习是有助的，练习时可以列些提纲，熟练之后可以限时完成。同时，作文互改也是很有必要的。
选择题目时要很快，只有45Min.
不用特殊的写作技巧，评分者会考虑for example, some Issue responses at the 6 scorelevel that begin by briefly summarizing the writer's position on the issue and then explicitly announcing the
main points to be argued. They will see others that lead into the writer's position by making a prediction,
asking a series of questions, describing a scenario, or defining critical terms in the quotation. The readers
know that a writer can earn a high score by giving multiple examples or by presenting a single, extended
Example.清晰表达观点，引用例子或对一个例子深入讨论，或提出一些问题，营造一种环境。
关键是让你的文章有力！
例子
“In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists—people who can provide broad perspectives."我们需要通才而不是过分高估专家的价值
行文策略：What does it mean to be a generalist or a specialist, and what  value do they have for society? Does society actually need more generalists, and are specialists, in fact,  “highly overrated?”专家和通才的定义是什么，他们对社会的价值是什么，社会真的需要过多的通才吗？专家的价值被过分高估了吗

• What are the main differences between specialists and generalists? What are the strong points of  each?分析专家与通才的不同与优劣势
• Do these differences always hold in various professions or situations? Could there be some  specialists, for example, who also need to have very broad knowledge and general abilities to  perform their work well?这些不同一直存在吗，有没有一些专家出于工作需要也有广博的知识面呢
• How do generalists and specialists function in your field?你了解的领域中专家与通才分别得作用是什么
• What value do you think society places on specialists and generalists? Are specialists overvalued？社会如何评估他们，有高估专家吗（某些情况）
in some situations, and not in others?
• Does society really need more generalists than it has? If so, what needs would they serve?社会需要更多的通才吗？他们能为社会做什么呢
Now you can organize your thoughts into two groups:
• Reasons and examples to support the claim正证
• Reasons and examples to support an opposing point of view反证
它山之石，可以攻玉
Essay Response * – Score 6
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.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
This is an outstanding analysis of the issue—insightful, well reasoned, and highly effective in its use of
language. The introductory paragraph announces the writer's position on the issue and provides the context
within which the writer will develop that position: "In this era of rapid social and technological change
leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement . . . ."
The argument itself has two parts. The first part presents a compelling case for specialization, primarily in
the field of medicine. The second part presents an equally compelling, well-organized case against
overspecialization based on three main reasons:
• logical (narrowly trained specialists often fail to understand the whole)
• moral (usually generalists understand what is needed for "the greater good")
• personal (specializing/pigeonholing too early can be psychologically damaging)
The argument's careful line of reasoning is further strengthened by the skillful use of expert testimony
(quotation from a prominent medical researcher) and vivid metaphor (to inspect only one's toenails is to
ignore the whole body).
It is not only the reasoning that distinguishes this response. The language is precise and often figurative
("bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload," "a pile of useless discoveries," and "specialists
drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field"). The
reader is constantly guided through the argument by transitional phrases and ideas that help organize the
ideas and move the argument forward. This is an exceptionally fine response to the topic


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.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
This is an outstanding analysis of the issue—insightful, well reasoned, and highly effective in its use of
language. The introductory paragraph announces the writer's position on the issue and provides the context
within which the writer will develop that position: "In this era of rapid social and technological change
leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement . . . ."
The argument itself has two parts. The first part presents a compelling case for specialization, primarily in
the field of medicine. The second part presents an equally compelling, well-organized case against
overspecialization based on three main reasons:
• logical (narrowly trained specialists often fail to understand the whole)
• moral (usually generalists understand what is needed for "the greater good")
• personal (specializing/pigeonholing too early can be psychologically damaging)
The argument's careful line of reasoning is further strengthened by the skillful use of expert testimony
(quotation from a prominent medical researcher) and vivid metaphor (to inspect only one's toenails is to
ignore the whole body).
It is not only the reasoning that distinguishes this response. The language is precise and often figurative
("bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload," "a pile of useless discoveries," and "specialists
drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field"). The
reader is constantly guided through the argument by transitional phrases and ideas that help organize the
ideas and move the argument forward. This is an exceptionally fine response to the topic
While the writer handles language and syntax well, several lapses in clarity keep this otherwise well-argued
response out of the 6 category. The problems vary from the lack of a pronoun referent ("When a sickness
progresses or becomes diagnosed, . . . he may be referred to a specialist") to an error in parallel structure
("how it begins, progresses and specified treatments"), to loose syntax and imprecise language
("Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for
the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects.")
Essay Response – Score 4
Specialists are just what their name says: people who specialize in one part of a very general scheme of
things. A person can't know everything there is to know about everything. This is why specialists are
helpful. You can take one general concept and divide it up three ways and have three fully developed
different concepts instead of one general concept that no one really knows about. Isn't it better to really
know something well, than to know everything half-way.
Take a special ed teacher compared to a general ed teacher. The general ed teacher knows how to deal with
most students. She knows how to teach a subject to a student that is on a normal level. But what would
happen to the child in the back of the room with dyslexia? She would be so lost in that general ed
classroom that she would not only not learn, but be frustrated and quite possibly, have low self-esteem and
hate school. If there is a special ed teacher there who specializes in children with learning disabilities, she
can teach the general ed teacher how to cope with this student as well as modify the curriculum so that the
student can learn along with the others. The special ed teacher can also take that child for a few hours each
day and work with her on her reading difficulty one-on-one, which a general ed teacher never would have
time to do.
A general ed teacher can't know what a special ed teacher knows and a special ed teacher can't know what a
general ed teacher knows. But the two of them working together and specializing in their own things can
really get a lot more accomplished. The special ed teacher is also trained to work on the child's self-esteem,
which has a big part in how successful this child will be. Every child in the United States of America has
the right to an equal education. How can a child with a learning disability receive the same equal education
as a general ed student if there was no specialist there to help both teacher and child?
Another thing to consider is how a committee is supposed to work together. Each person has a special task
to accomplish and when these people all come together, with their tasks finished, every aspect of the
community's work is completely covered. Nothing is left undone. In this case there are many different
specialists to meet the general goal of the committee.
When you take into account that a specialist contributes only a small part of the generalist aspect, it seems
ridiculous to say that specialists are overrated. The generalists looks to the specialists any time they need
help or clarification on their broad aspect. Specialists and generalists are part of the same system, so if a
specialist is overrated, then so is a generalist.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4
This is an adequate analysis of the issue. After a somewhat confusing attempt to define "specialists" in the
introductory paragraph, the writer presents a pertinent example (the special education teacher) to illustrate
the importance of specialists. The example dominates the response and contributes positively to the
overall score of 4.
The second example, how a committee works, is less persuasive. However, it does seem to help clarify thewriter's definition of "general" as an umbrella term meaning the total collection of what specialists know
about a topic.
Essay Response – Score 3
To quote the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none," would be my position on the statement. I feel
specialists in all areas of knowledge lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. Specializing in
different areas allows us to use each others talents to the highest level and maximize potential. As an
example, if a person required brain surgery, would they rather have a brain surgeon or a general practitioner
doing the work? Clearly a specialist would do the better job and give the patient a chance at a better life.
A university education starts by laying the groundwork for general knowledge but then narrows down to a
specific field. General knowledge and a broad prospective are important, but if there was no focus on
specific areas, our overall knowledge as a population would be seriously lessened.
Another example of specialists not being overated would be international trade. Not every nation can
provide for themselves. They need to get products and ideas from other parts of the world because they are
better at providing them. This allows for a growing economy if two different nations can provide each
other with two different products. If one country can produce oranges better than another, it should trade
the oranges for the fish that it can not produce. If generalizing was the normal thing to do and both
countries tried to produce all kinds of products, the countries would probably survive, but not have the
standard of living they presently have.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
The writer's position is clear: specialists are important and necessary. However, the position is not
adequately supported with reasons or logical examples.
Paragraph 1 presents an appropriate example of the brain surgeon versus the general practitioner.
However, the example of an increasingly narrow university education in paragraph 2, contains only two
sentences and is seriously undeveloped. It does little to advance the writer's position.
Paragraph 3 offers yet another example, the most developed of all. Unfortunately, this example is not
clearly logical. The writer tries to argue that the "specialist" country (one that is a better producer of
oranges) is superior to the "generalist" country (presumably one that produces oranges as well as other
products). This generalist country, the writer tells us, would be inferior to the other. This conclusion does
not emerge logically from the writer's argument, and it seems to be at odds with everyday reality.
Although language is used with some imprecision throughout the essay, the writer's meaning is not
obscured. The main reasons for the score of 3 are the lack of sufficient development and inappropriate use
of examples.
Essay Response – Score 2
In the situation of health I feel that specialists are very important. For example if a person has heart
problems, choose a heart specialist over a genral medicine Dr. However if a person is having a wide range
of syptoms, perhaps choose a Dr. with a wide range of experience might be more helpful.
It also depends on the type of problem you are having. For example I would not suggest taking a troubled
child to a theorpist who specializes in marriage problems. In some cases have a specialists helps to insure
that you are getting the best possibly treatment. On the other hand dealing with a person who has a wide
range of experience may be able to find different ways of dealing with a particular problem.
Since the quotation did not state exactely what type of specialist we are dealing with it is also hard to
determine the importance of having a specialist is. For example the could be health or problems with a car,
or basically anything else. I feel that this information should not have been left out. I guess the bottom line
is that I feel sometimes a specialist is very important.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
This is a seriously flawed analysis of the issue. The response argues in favor of specialists, but neither the
reasons nor the examples are persuasive. The example of not taking "a troubled child to see a theropist
who specializes in marriage problems" is both simplistic and off the mark since it differentiates between
two specialists, not between a generalist and a specialist.
The sentences are so poorly formed and phrased that the argument is at times hard to follow. Nevertheless,
this is not a 1 essay: the writer presents a position on the issue, develops that position with some very weak
analysis, and communicates some ideas clearly.
Essay Response – Score 1
I disagree with the statement about specialists, we need specialists who take individual areas and specialize.
A generalists can pinpoint a problem. He or she cannot determine the magnitude of the problem. A
specialist can find the root of the problem. When he or she has years working in that specific field. For
example, when i got sick i went to a doctor. He did blood work, x-ray, talk to me, ect. He prescribed me a
medicine. I got worst. So i decided to go another doctor. Now, i am doing great. A specialist knows the
facts right away. Otherwise, it will take longer or not at all.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 1
This response presents a fundamentally deficient discussion of the issue.
The first sentence states the writer's position in support of specialists, but that position is not followed by a
coherent argument. Some of the ideas seem contradictory (e.g., "generalists can pinpoint a problem") and
the example is confusing. If the essay explained that the first (unsuccessful) doctor was a generalist and the
second (successful) doctor was a specialist, the example would be useful. However, as written, the
example is unclear and even misleading. The concluding statement only adds to the confusion.
Since most of the sentences are short and choppy, the ideas they try to communicate are also choppy. The
writer needs to provide transitional phrases and ideas to bring logical cohesion to this response. Also, basic
errors in usage and grammar are pervasive, but it is primarily the lack of a coherent argument that makes









Issure 分类学习   ------------方法类（摘自 本论坛    蓝色为我的小思考O(∩_∩)O~）

何谓进步，仔细想想，不是很容易能界定的，很大程度上取决于所用标准。。。
(137进步就是用一个问题代替另外一个问题) 但万一是“退”到更低层次的问题呢~
(138只有通过错误，才能取得进步)

(157观测总是主观的)   所以主观有时也是需要存在的，不要一味提倡客观
//哈勃望远镜。ATM原子力显微镜。
//自由落体实验。伽利略能够观测到别人观测不到的因素。
//Neptune的发现。
//Halley彗星的发现。

(173原创性不意味着思考过去没有思考过的；他意味着把旧的想法用新的思路来整理)有点道理

(187接受新发明和新思想很容易，但是不容易的是人们接受这种思想的应用)

(192各个领域的成功都来自机遇和危险而不是认真的计划)
//风险投资。开发一块没有人注意到的土地。
//bruno
//martin luther king
//Neptune的发现。Halley彗星的发现。
//不要把所有的鸡蛋放在同一个篮子里面。
//挑战珠穆朗玛峰。Mountain Everest
//clone有很大的风险。

(212如果目标是有价值的，那么就可以采取一切手段来实现。)   过程中也许会产生与目的相悖的行为，我们所谓的目的并不特指某个终点，这个过程中产生的不能完全恢复原状的影响都是结果。

justbegunUID：2746795

于是来顶雪丫酱的帖子~
同加油之~~~~~~~~~

gongyuxiang1990UID：2697832

还有地板可坐，LZ加油！无组胜有组！