本帖最后由 comorain 于 2009-7-1 15:57 编辑
一、想明白——题目是复杂的,提纲要别致的
Comorain 原创作品,未经许可,不得转载
看到Issue题目,第一类同学往往绞尽脑汁,还是写不出什么内容;第二类同学则洋洋洒洒,但文章不过千篇一律。归根到底,还是没有“想明白”,尤其是对Issue题目的“复杂性(complexity)”认识不够。
以下文字引自官方指南(awintro):
Be sure to read the claim carefully and think about it from several points of view, considering the complexity of ideas associated with those perspectives.
Although it is important that you address the central issue, you are free to take any approach you wish. For example, you might
- agree absolutely with the claim, disagree completely, or agree with some parts and not others
首先,每一道Issue题目都经过ETS精心设计,目的是用来检验考生的批判性思维(critical thinking)能力和说服性写作(persuasive writing)能力。对每一道题目,考生既可以完全赞同,也可以完全反对,还可以部分赞同、部分反对。这就意味着它既不可能绝对正确——因而无法反驳原命题,也不可能绝对错误——因而无法支持原命题,这是所谓“复杂性”的表现之一。在这一点上,ETS一般是通过一些表示程度、大小等的限定词或解释性的插入结构、从句来实现的。
例1:Issue18 "Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea."
试想,如果去掉only和really,变成一道没有多少倾向的事实型题目,恐怕很难反驳它。
例2:Issue106 "All students should be required to take at least one course in ethics, even if taking the course means a decreased emphasis on academic subjects."
如果没有后面那句,完全反驳它似乎是很难的。
其次,“复杂性”的表现之二在于,题目往往蕴含一些“言外之意”或“未尽之言”,隐藏着出题人的意图。也就是说,尽管每道题都有很多种回应方式,但某种方式却是出题人最愿意看到的。在这一点上,ETS一般是通过一些表达倾向的连词或副词来实现的。
例3:Issue17 "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."
even more importantly暗示了出题人的倾向:题目重心在disobey and resist unjust laws。因此,将写作重心放在第一句或obey just laws尽管都是无可厚非的,但却并非出题人最喜欢的。
例4:Issue83 "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
even though也暗示了出题人的倾向:题目重点是后半句。如果你通篇都在大谈特谈前半句,而都后半句只字不提,那显然是跑题了。出题人希望你你回应的是:某些公有荒地极为偏远,因而只有极少数人才有机会进去(欣赏自然风光、呼吸新鲜空气等等),在这种情况下,政府是不是还应该将它们保护在自然状态?
此外,“复杂性”的表现之三是,有些题目暗示了一定的假定条件(assumption),需要找到它并理顺命题的逻辑链条。在这一点上,ETS的暗示很少,需要用心揣摩。
典型的例子是:
例5:Issue130 "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
孩子如何社会化(既可以理解为“适应社会”,也可以理解为“社会交往”)决定了社会的命运。然而,我们还不知道如何培养孩子,以使其有助于形成一个更好的社会。
这道题很绕,很多同学都理解成两句不怎么相干的话了,然后分别回应。这是错误的,unfortunately摆在那里放着,表明两句话之间有很强的逻辑关系。再看看“the destiny of society”和“a better society”,我们就会明白,实际上题目说的是:
孩子如何社会化决定了社会的命运,社会化好了社会就更好了。但是,我们还没有学会如何培养孩子让社会更好,即:我们还没有学会如何培养让孩子更好地社会化。(插一句,从上下文看,“社会化”的意思应该是“适应社会”:When people, especially children, are socialized, they are made to behave in a way which is acceptable in their culture or society.)
很明显,“社会化好了社会就更好了”就是假定条件。这个条件是否正确,完全是可以写的;如果你把它拎出来,然后评论一番,我想出题人会很兴奋。不过要注意,千万不要写成argument(例如:based on a false assumption that……)。
好了,“复杂性”就讲到这里了。下面说说如何破解“复杂性”,打造个性化的提纲。
按照ETS的建议,大家可以考虑下列问题:
Remember that this is a task in critical thinking and persuasive writing. Therefore, you might find it helpful to explore the complexity of a claim in one of the topics by asking yourself the following questions:
• What, precisely, is the central issue?
• Do I agree with all or with any part of the claim? Why or why not?
• Does the claim make certain assumptions? If so, are they reasonable?
• Is the claim valid only under certain conditions? If so, what are they?
• Do I need to explain how I interpret certain terms or concepts used in the claim?
• If I take a certain position on the issue, what reasons support my position?
• What examples—either real or hypothetical—could I use to illustrate those reasons and advance my point of view? Which examples are most compelling?
送大家“八字真言”:定义、本质、限定、反例。
呵呵,看起来似乎和imong的七个关键字(https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=130155&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D53)差不多,但实际上相差甚远。容我解释一下。
1、定义(definition)。不是指需要在作文中定义概念,而是指你要保证完全理解题目中每一个单词的意思,不懂的就好好查一查英英词典,专业名词、学术词汇可以查wikipedia(当然是英文版的)。
例6:Issue87 "In any field of inquiry, the beginner is morelikely than the expert to make important discoveries."
我看相当多的版友将inquiry理解为“调研”。天哪,这是一个多么严重的错误!inquiry在这里的意思是“(对知识、资料和真理的)探索”(a quest for knowledge, data, or truth; official investigation),可以理解为“研究,探索”(research,investigation)。版友们可能觉得我说的没有根据,好吧,如果是调研的话,前面的any field of作何解释?难不成连在一起要解释成“田野调查”?大家在google上搜一搜,scientific inquiry用的非常广泛,几乎等同于scientific research了。
ETS出的另外一道题也可以证明我的解释是正确的:
Issue41 "Such nonmainstream areas of inquiry as astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and paranormalpursuits play a vital role in society by satisfying human needs that are notaddressed by mainstream science."
显然,在这里解释为“调研”是不通的。
2、本质(central issue, essence or implications)。题目到底在讲什么?题目的各句子、分句或成分之间有什么逻辑关系?有什么明显的暗示吗?话题的本质问题是什么?出题人有什么目的和倾向?
3、限定(qualifications)。题目有哪些限定词?去掉这些限定词之后命题是否成立?命题的成立是否还依赖于某些假设?命题成立或不成立有何条件?
4、反例(counterexamples)。强调这一点是为了时刻提醒我们:不要简单地同意或反对,一定要想到命题有正反两个方面,对手也可以用反例来驳斥我们的立场。如果我持某一立场,反对我的人会提出什么反例?我如何承认或反驳这些反例?
这里我用Issue17举个例子:
"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."
1、定义:What are unjust laws? Where are they from?
Martin Luther King, Jr.: An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
“unjust laws”这一概念最早出自St. Augustine:An unjust law is no law at all. 马丁·路德·金在《从伯明翰市监狱发出的信 Letter from Birmingham City Jail》将其发扬光大,并给出了自己的判断标准。他认为,抵制不公正的法律,并自愿接受监禁的惩罚,以唤起民众对不公正的良心,本质上是在向法律表达最崇高的敬意。
怎么样,了解这段背景之后,你是否对题目的理解更深了?它并不是那么好反驳的!
So just or unjust is subjective and everyone may have his or her own opinion.
2、本质:Even so, are there “seemly unjust” laws? Where did they come from? How to react to these “seemly unjust” laws? Do nothing? Disobey and resist?
尽管“公正”、“不公正”非常主观,那现实生活中总有大多数人看起来都不公正的法律吧?在这种情况下,我们应该如何应对?
这里是“八字真言”的核心,也是出题人希望你去回答的:生活中总会遭遇不公,如果是你会怎么处理?所以这道题的本质是:如何在遵循法律和维护个人权利之间找到平衡。
所以,如果通篇都在谈just laws和unjust laws的标准问题,我觉得跑题了;如果通篇都在讲“应该遵守法律”,我觉得也跑题了,遵循法律是常识,没必要让你去证明;如果像北美那样写两点(法律不能这样划分、抵制是低效的方式),我觉得并没有回答核心问题:我们到底应该怎么做?
3、限制:every。如果第二点做好了,这一点是否认真地回应就无所谓了。
4、反例。如果支持这一观点,反例可以是无政府主义;如果反对这一观点,反例有美国、南非的种族隔离等。
提纲大家自己列吧,我考的就是这个,所以就不列了,免得雷同。其他5个例子,有兴趣的同学可以做做练习。
=============================================================================
Issue DIY四部曲系列 by comorain
一、想明白——Issue 思路
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-940385-1-1.html
二、写清楚——Issue 初稿(首段、段落结构、主题句、尾段)
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-941249-1-1.html
三、改漂亮——Issue 自改(语法、用词、句式变化、复杂句、举例、说理)
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-943741-1-1.html
编外:comorain的语法自查要点
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-943740-1-1.html
四、记准确——Issue 背诵+修改铺+珍藏资料
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-944004-1-1.html
五、谋周全——Issue 备考及写作建议+习作一篇
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-944669-1-1.html
=============================================================================
|