[同主题写作] 0910AW SPECTACULAR之【同主题写作】第九期 ISSUE185 scandal, scan dos [复制链接]

185"Scandals—whether in politics, academia, or other areas—can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."



SPECIAL HINTS:
you may stop here to think about the task yourself before returning to get some more inspiration.

Part 1 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE TASK
【keywords】
Scandals
【constraints】
1. in all area
2. can be useful —— in ways to focus attention to problems
【comparison】
Reformer or speaker

PART 2 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE TASK
【Scandal】
A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society:
丑闻：带来不光彩或触犯社会道德标准的公开事件
FROM WIKI: A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both.

【in all area】
AREAS such as
1. Political scandal
Politicians engage in various illegal or unethical practices. A political scandal can involve the breaking of the nation's laws or plotting to do so. Some political scandals are sex scandals involving a politician.
2. Sex scandal
Sex scandals are often associated with movie stars and, and are often believed to be the result of great power and wealth leading to poor judgment or a belief that rules do not apply to them.
3. Academic scandals   Journalism scandals
4. Sporting scandals    e.g. Jim Thorpe

Scandals are everywhere. Why? This involves in many aspects.
Why these famous ones keep doing those immoral？
Why there are people enthusiastically finding and creating scandals?
Why the public focus that much on scandals?
……(still many questions in the topic, but you need to question it yourself, I here only open a gate for you to welcome your floods of ideas~)

【can be useful】
This indicate that the scandals can be useful as well as the disgrace it brings about. Useful things may not directly reflect from the scandal itself. There are some steps to make them useful. How can it become useful? This requires us to ponder on.

【comparison with reformers and speakers】
The task indicates that the effect of scandals and reformers have on society are different. Where the difference lies in? This is just what we should endeavor to identify.

PART3 ANALYSIS of the chain of reasoning in the task
Scandals—whether in politics, academia, or other areas—can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.

Scandals---focus us attention in other ways --- can be useful

原帖由 robinii 于 2005-3-5 21:16 发表
可以看出来这是一个很明显的因果关系逻辑：因为“Scandals focus our attention”所以“Scandals be useful”。
先说一下，反对这个观点的逻辑分析：（证明因果关系错误）
1.前提假设错误，“Scandals focus our attention”再现实社会中丑闻是不是真的能focus our attention on problems?
2.因果关系不充分：“Scandals focus our attention”是“can be useful”的充分条件还是必要条件？仅此一条我们就能称之为 useful? 丑闻还促使让我们拿出新的措施来改变现状了呢！和引起注意相比，明显这个更加重要。有些丑闻可以引起注意，但是仅此而已这样的丑闻呢？
3.因果关系倒置：很多丑闻在小报上一闪即逝，所以是不是因为有些Scandals can be useful，才会 focus our attention? 也即我们对于丑闻存在一个选择标准。
4。结论错误， be useful？丑闻的副作用呢？和引起注意相比那个更加重要？副作用比较小就可以被忽视？就算可是被忽视，但是也会对社会产生危害了!危害怎么办？
所以如果你对题目的论述持否定态度，你可以从很多方面入手来展开论述。

支持这个观点的逻辑分析，（证明因果关系正确），又很多种做法：
一个是归纳：政治方面,体育方面，etc，引起注意之后都是be useful的,结论成立。
另外一个是限定条件，题目陈述是在一定范围内正确，把前提条件设置更多的限制，比如只有在特定的领域的丑闻才be useful，或者pay attention之后和其他措施一起实行，然后才be useful。

ABSTRACT
Political scandals are a natural element of representative democracy. Breaking news about individual politicians’ alleged unauthorized, illegal, or immoral behavior routinely capture the attention of journalists, pundits, and mass publics. While the evolution of scandals is an interesting topic in itself (one that has received increasing scholarly attention) much of the impetus for the fascination with scandals lies with their alleged effects on the public’s attitudes and behavior. For this purpose, we combine Eurobarometer data with expert information on election scandals from 19 countries and three decades. There are three main findings. First, scandals elections have indeed become more common: in the late 1970s scandal elections of the major type measured here were very uncommon, whereas today around 40 percent or more of elections are marked by scandals that experts find worth mentioning in election analyses. Second, in contrast to what is suggested by past research we find scandal-ridden election contexts to be of little long-term importance to citizens’ satisfaction with how democracy works; specifically, there is no significant effect of recent scandal elections, nor of the number of accumulated past scandal elections. Third, we do find an interaction between the impact of a recent scandal election and the accumulated scandal election history. Right at the beginning of the covered period there was a negative scandal election effect, but as scandal elections accumulate—at different rates in different countries—the once negative scandal effect withers away.