[每日一评] [分享]每日一评！2.20！体会6分benchmark：Express ideas CLEARLY and PRECISELY [复制链接]

imong
UID：140258

永久会员

Rank: 16

声望: 266
寄托币: 22475
注册时间: 2003-7-14
精华: 88
帖子: 188

楼主

发表于 2004-2-20 15:23:09 |只看该作者

[分享]每日一评！2.20！体会6分benchmark：Express ideas CLEARLY and PRECISELY

每日一评：体会6分benchmark：Express ideas CLEARLY and PRECISELY
Issue110
"When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

Are all historians essentially storytellers, for the reasons that the speaker cites? In asserting that we can never know the past directly, the speaker implies that we truly "know" only what we experience first-hand. Granting this premise, I agree that it is the proper and necessary role of historians to "construct" history by interpreting evidence. Nevertheless, the speaker's characterization of this role as "storytelling" carries certain unfair implications, which should be addressed. 仍然是精彩的分析，三句话把来龙去脉交待得清清楚楚，提纲挈领，准确的下手把骨架抓出来。看了这几篇文章之后我想大家应该能够感受到，我们在critical thinking上面和目标水平的差异，从某种角度来说，一定程度上就体现在这里。

One reason why I agree with the speaker's fundamental claim lies in the distinction between the role of historian and the roles of archivist and journalist. By "archivist" I refer generally to any person whose task is to document and preserve evidence of past events. And by "journalist" I mean any person whose task is to record, by writing, film, or some other media, factual events as they occur--for the purpose of creating evidence of those events. It is not the proper function of either the journalist or the archivist to tell a story. Rather, it is their function to provide evidence to the historian, who then pieces together the evidence to construct history, as the speaker suggests. In other words, unless we grant to the historian a license to "construct" history by interpreting evidence, we relegate the historian to the role of mere archivist or journalist.概念辨析的清晰透彻在这里体现得淋漓尽致，全部都围绕着中心词evidence，段落组织非常严谨。最后一句话用unless和relegate两个词联合，重述了作者的观点：Historians construct history. 看看6分文章的benchmark：express ideas clearly and precisely——说的就是这个样子。

Another reason why I agree with the speaker's characterization of the historian's proper function is that our understanding of history is richer and fuller as a result. By granting the historian license to interpret evidence--to "construct" history--we allow for differing viewpoints among historians. Based on the same essential evidence, two historians might disagree about such things as the contributing causes of a certain event, the extent of influence or impact of one event on subsequent events, the reasons and motives for the words and actions of important persons in history, and so forth. The inexorable result of disagreement, debate, and divergent interpretations among historians is a fuller and more incisive understanding of history.这一段作者提出的是another reason，但是个人认为整个段落的内容很难被称为well-chosen，最多只能是pertinent的水平。这个as a result在reasoning/example的贴切/到位程度上并不是很好，这种“因为结果所以原因”的写法现在看来很容易出问题（不排除个别case，这一点有待进一步的调研和考证），好在内容上还没有开始跑题。这一段的论证和前后相比是有比较明显差距的。

However, we should be careful not to confuse this license to interpret history, which is needed for any historian to contribute meaningfully to our understanding of it, with artistic license.进一步深入的概念辨析 The latter should be reserved for dramatists, novelists, and poets. It is one thing to attempt to explain historical evidence; it is quite another to invent evidence for the sake of creating a more interesting story or to bolster one's own point of view.相当精辟的对比，再次体现了上文提及的benchmark。 A recently released biography of Ronald Reagan demonstrates that the line which historians should not cross is a fine one indeed. Reagan's biographer invented a fictional character who provided commentary as a witness to key episodes during Reagan's life. Many critics charge that the biographer overstepped his bounds as historian; the biographer claims, however, that the accounts in the biography were otherwise entirely factual, and that the fictional narrator was merely a literary device to aid the reader in understanding and appreciating the historical Reagan.这一个实例可以说是相当的well-chosen，但是很遗憾后面没有进一步追击论证，因而难以达到insightful的程度。尽管在行文中已经提出了the latter should be reserved for dramatists…但是TS和结尾都没有提及或返回继续强调这一实质上最重要的内容，这一点是很遗憾的。

In sum, I strongly agree that the historian's proper function is to assemble evidence into plausible constructs of history, and that an element of interpretation and even creativity is properly involved in doing so. And if the speaker wishes to call these constructs "storytelling," that's fine. This does not mean, however, that historians can or should abandon scholarship for the sake of an interesting story. 结尾简单重述论点，和开头一样的清晰。

这篇文章值得我们学习的最大特色就是：express ideas clearly and precisely. 首先是第一个body的historian，archivist，journalist的分析，再者就是在第三个body关于interpret关键词的定义。贯穿全篇可以看出作者对这种关键词的掌握相当到位，在深入掌握骨架的基础上行文纵横有序，效果就很显著了。遗憾的是老外280的一贯作风导致这篇文章恐怕难以拿到6分，但是这种清晰的辨析水平是不可能拿不到5分的。

Rien de réel ne peut être menacé.
Rien d'irréel n'existe.

使用道具举报