标题: 刨根问底看范文之argument篇--第三集 school VS parkland?! [打印本页] 作者: bernina 时间: 2009-3-26 13:49:57 标题: 刨根问底看范文之argument篇--第三集 school VS parkland?!
本帖最后由 irvine666 于 2009-3-26 16:20 编辑
The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.?
"Five years ago, we residents of Morganton voted to keep the publicly owned piece of land known as Scott Woods in a natural, undeveloped state.-Our thinking was that, if no shopping centers or houses were built there, Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as a natural parkland.But now that our town planning committee wants to purchase the land and build a school there, we should reconsider this issue. If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there, and substantial acreage would probably be devoted to athletic fields. There would be no better use of land in our community than this, since a large majority of our children participate in sports, and Scott Woods would continue to benefit our community as natural parkland."
先说说题目吧，说实话刚开始我读这个题目的时候很茫然，不知道他要说什么，不知道大家有没有同感，直到我读到第二遍我才有些摸清楚这篇文章到底是干什什么的，我们现在来分析一下题目吧：
作者目的 ：这篇文章属于提建议型，他要给大家一个建议，就是把sw从parkland改成学校。
好了，这就是文章全部的逻辑思路，我们先来看看范文怎么说的：
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park. : 首段并没有将自己对文章的逻辑补充说出来，仅仅是将短文5年前大家为什么要保持sw为一个natural park 的原因，虽然并不符合范文开头的特点，但是大家发现没有，这个开头将一个中心点和一个基本点阐明了，就是我绿色标出来的，居民们仅仅考虑的是这块地方能不能让每个人受益，关于这个基本点我会在后文具体阐释，大家可以先自己想想~~
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community. 作者还是没有说他要进行质疑的地方，不过，他已经把短文的一个逻辑推理指出来了，看到我标出的also没？这就是短文的推理，也就是上面说的第四点。大家注意这里，作者在第二段还是没有说他的补充，这让阅卷老师很着急，后果很严重，特别在comments 里把这点拉出来批评了一下，说你这个作者太磨蹭，怎么还不说你的观点么~~不过鉴于你吧文章的漏洞已经看出来了，我就判你个死缓，让我再看看~~好了，看下段
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton. Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore . 哎~~真是千呼万唤始出来啊，作者的意思终于说出来了，大家看我用 绿色 标出来的这个，我觉得这个更像是首段，将自己的意见概括了一下下~ 精彩的是我用 浅橙色 标出来的，这句话直接质疑了短文最大的逻辑假设，也就是短文认为一个学校能造福整个社区，但是作者说的这两类人才是真正能受益的群体，也就是说一个学校根本不能让全部居民都享受到。这个下文我会详述。 蓝色 的是个好句子，因为短文是建议人他要让大家接受自己的建议，所以他一定是因此建议而受益的一方，所以他会忽略甚至故意躲避一些不利于他的因素，所以这句话非常之传神~大家体会
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland. " While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.What interest do they have in a new school? It only means higher taxes for them to pay.. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything. On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone. In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old , to reap the benefits . 开始详细论证了，这里还是在针对我上面写的第四点，也就是错误的认为school 和parkland效果一样，都能造福所有人， 绿色 的开头就直接把这点指出了。 浅橙 色是作者的观点，仅仅一小部分人才能因此而受益，给出了一个合理的他因，说建立学校要交税，而且最关键的是交税人都享受不到，而parkland 是每个人都能享受的而且不需要多交税。 最后两句话是作者的总结，看到 蓝色 的插入语，为什么要这么说？大家想想，学校啊，针对的是什么人？青少年吧，所以，蓝色的就是除了青少年外的人群，用这点来加强自己的观点，说学校只能造福一部分人。
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park. What about children who don't play sports ? Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.A playing field is a playing field.Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.4LThis is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about. 这段在 开头 就说，还有漏洞，那是什么呢？就是我用 茶色 标出来的也是我上面指出的第三点，并不是所有还在都喜欢在操场上做体育运动的 我用 蓝色 标出的这句话的原因是这句话说到了我的心坎里，我上初中的时候最讨厌的就是上体育课，我们那老师及其变态，每节课都体能测试，弄得我们（恩~扯远了，不好意思，我有点激动）说不定那阅卷老师也有同感，也激动了，忆当年了，所以把开头的事忘了。 这体现了作者思维的全面性，也就是说我们也要想一些稍微符合自己或自己身边人的情况，这样更有说服力 。
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable . The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space. If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone . The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.Using the land for a school does not accomplish this. 末段：直指短文的结尾，首句就可以看出来， 茶色 的是作者的观点，认为建立学校不仅会影响到M地的环境，而且还会影响谁将受益于这块地方，大家注意，这里的who would 就是指，要是保持parkland的话，大家都会受益，要是建立学校的话，仅仅有一小撮人能收益，而大部分人也就who would not 而能否让全社区人受益是大家所关心的, Less people than a shopping center would 这句指明了他怀疑作者的另一个假设，也就是我在上面提到的第一点，但是他没有展开说，只是他认为这是有可能呢 蓝色 的是这篇文章最重要说明的问题，说这并不能说服大家做出建立学校放弃parkland的选择，也就是说这篇文章失败了~~ 绿色 的有提到了大家到底投票选parkland还是school 取决于这个选择到底能否让全部人受益，他一直用这个基本点来提醒短文作者。
大家注意没，为什么要把shopping center扯出来？ 我们再想想当初大家为什么投parkland 不选shopping center ? 他们的差别是什么？1，不是每个人都能去，没钱购物的人去那干什么？逛逛？岂不是搞笑？你没事兜里一分钱都没有你去shopping center 逛逛？岂不是自找打击么？2，不是自然的环境，当然这个原因不是本文需要重点讨论的，别忘了我们的原则是让每个人受益而不是保护环境！作者仅仅轻描淡写的说了一嘴，也不错~
所以基于第一点五年前大家都把shopping center 判了死刑，你今天又弄出来个学校，你不觉得学校比shopping center 更不具有普遍性么？这就是作者最后说的一点，也就是我之前提到的第一点逻辑漏洞
关于我上面列的漏洞，是我想出来的，其中第二点是文章没有说到的，大家帮我想想这个成立不~~
好啦~~现在来看看comments 怎么说的~
表扬：1，Using a piece of land to bulid a school is not the same thing as it for natural parkland. 这是作者第一个看法，因为他后面给出了详细的论证，给出了理由，并且在那段的最后进行了一个递进，说 that using land for athletic fields “ rationalizes the destruction of the park ” . 这是被comments 拉出来表扬的，那么我们写作的时候是不是也需要在后面适当的把我们的观点再递进一下呢，阅卷人也开心下~
3 ， 词汇用的好，“Diction and syntax are varied and sophisticated”这个小气的ets 没有举例，我们不好抓，就自己体会吧，把自己不会的都抄到小本本上~
批评：这就说到了前面的开头问题，comments 用第一段就把这个问题批评了，所以见其严重性，到最后是在因为这篇文章论证的太好了，也就把前面的事情忽略了，这告诉我们千万不要写这样开头，不要想挑战一下ets，也不要想赌一把看看自己的论证够不够好，这样不太值，我们就学学之前那几篇被表扬的开头。学习这篇的final paragraph.
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state.
The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland.
The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there.
This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land.
The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields.
The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods.
The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton.
Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.
While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school.（第一个逻辑漏洞：benefit的局限，这导致的结果：很多人不能受“此益”，甚至反而增加负担；）
The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.
What interest do they have in a new school?
It only means higher taxes for them to pay.
They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.
On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness.
The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.
In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.（红字都是想说，建学校的利益面不如公园来的广泛）
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.
What about children who don't play sports?
（第二个逻辑漏洞：受益人局限。不是每个人都要或都能sport） Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.
A playing field is a playing field.
Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports.
There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports.
This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable.
The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the
ambience
of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space.
（下结论） If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision.
The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would.
The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land
as an asset for everyone. （for everyone,这是这篇A的核心，结尾强调这点，总结了自己的论证，看起来逻辑很清晰） The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.
Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.
我看题目的时候有点蒙，说实话题干里没有那种非常明确的逻辑链，或者说逻辑链不复杂反而让人觉得不知道怎么下手。分析以后我能想到的也就是前面说的两个大点。觉得这个文让自己的论证和文章结构严密、清晰才能够出彩。我就觉得范文的结尾很好，结论清晰，而且结论之后有把理由条条罗列，同时又点明了核心矛盾“benefit for everyone”，读起来非常明确 作者: winning1030 时间: 2009-3-27 00:30:30
先顶~等下补上偶的想法~作者: 草木也知愁 时间: 2009-3-27 10:45:51
This letter to the editor begins by stating the reasons the residents of Morganton voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state. The letter states that the entire community could benefit from an undeveloped parkland. The residents of the town wanted to ensure that no shopping centers or houses would be built there. This, in turn, would provide everyone in the community with a valuable resource, a natural park.
The letter then continues by addressing the issue of building a school on the land. The author reasons that this would also benefit the entire community as a natural parkland since much of the land would be devoted to athletic fields. The author of the letter comes to the conclusion that building a school on the land would be the best thing for everyone in the community.
This letter is a one-sided argument about the best use of the land known as Scott Woods. The author may be a parent whose child would benefit from a new school, a teacher who thinks a school would boost the community, or just a resident of Morganton.
Regardless of who the author is, there are many aspects of this plan that he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore.
Using a piece of land to build a school is not the same thing as using it for a natural parkland.
While all the members of the community could potentially benefit from a parkland, only a percentage of the population would realistically benefit from a new school. The author fails to recognize people like the senior citizens of the community.
What interest do they have in a new school?
It only means higher taxes for them to pay. They will likely never to and utilize the school for anything.
On the other hand, anyone can go to a park and enjoy the natural beauty and peacefulness. The use of the land for a school would destroy the benefit of a park for everyone.
In turn, it would supply a school only to groups of people in exactly the right age range, not too young or too old, to reap the benefits.
Another point the author stresses is that the use of the land for things like athletic fields somehow rationalizes the destruction of the park.
What about children who don't play sports?
Without the school, they could enjoy the land for anything.
A playing field is a playing field.
Children are not going to go out there unless they are into sports. There are many children in schools who are not interested in or are not able to play sports. This is yet another group who will be left out of the grand benefits of a school that the author talks about.
The author's conclusion that "there would be no better use of land in our community than this...""is easily arguable. The destruction of Scott Woods for the purpose of building a school would not only affect the ambience of Morganton, it would affect who would and would not be able to utilize the space.
If the residents as a whole voted to keep Scott Woods in an undeveloped state, this argument will not sway their decision. The use of the land for a school will probably benefit even less people than a shopping center would. The whole purpose of the vote was to keep the land as an asset for everyone. The only way to do this is to keep it in an undeveloped state.
Using the land for a school does not accomplish this.
今天时间有限，就不花大量篇幅来仔细分析这篇文了，只有大概说下我的看法，与B相同的就不赘述了。
关于题干的逻辑，我是这样看的：
目的: the public owned SW should reconsider the issue for building a school
理由：建学校1、能跟以前一样造福大众，２、能够更好的利用这块地。
怎么就能跟以前一样造福大众呢？因为建了学校就不能建商场或者房子了，这个跟以前是一致的，符合public之前决议里的内容。（我觉得我们应该想想，为什么public最介意的是不能建商场和房子，尝试抓住他们的这个心理做文章。关于这点，我觉得Bernina分析得很好，大家可以借鉴之）
怎样更好的利用这块地呢？因为学校可以将其发展成体育场 （其实我开始很想攻击这里，建学校不一定会发展成体育场啊，万一他们校长不热爱体育云云就不建体育场呢。。。后来转念一想，这样是不对滴，文中已经用了would probably的字眼，从这点去攻击未免太牵强太较真儿。不知道为什么从这道题联想起了“argument就该这样写”那篇文里作者对收垃圾那道题的分析。后来看范文证实了这点，作者果然没有在这个问题上纠缠，而是把其当成一种默认了的背景对待，我们应该学习之。）为什么体育场就好呢，因为大部分孩子可以在这里参加体育活动。
其实这样，文章的逻辑漏洞就很清晰了。一个是我们要说明建了学校不能跟以前一样造福大众呢。另一个是说明建学校明显没有更好的利用这块地。另外一个作者忽略了建学校可能带来的危害。范文的思路大致是这样。
至于B的第二点，我觉得蛮有问题，我们怎么知道SW有多大呢？我们又怎么知道建学校的体育场到底需要多少地才够建呢？倒不如着重扩展一下建了学校可能对环境和人们的生活造成影响，比如学校里的噪音（我只知道中国的学校是这样滴，比如下课时候喧闹的场面，不晓得米国的学校是不是也是这样滴），对环境的污染，绿地面积的减少，甚至开车来这里上班上学，接送孩子的人增多造成的污染等等。。。
另外老大提到的关于T字头大量使用的问题，我不明白，作者是故意为之的么?不太明白为什么。
此外一些好词好句还有TC, Bernina总结得很好了，我照单收下咯～大家可以对我的逻辑分析继续brainstorming～作者: cjlu 时间: 2009-3-28 18:42:12
首先，自然还是要赞Bernina的分析^o^（这是每次看完分析后总会有的感想~）
这篇文章给我最大的感受就是作者看似不经意的点染，有种举重若轻的感觉。语言并不复杂，可是恰到好处。挺受益的一篇文章~因为开始的时候我想歪了，想到保护环境去了……的确，建立公园让所有人受益才是最大的目的，攻击目的这一点真的是豁然开朗。
这篇文章的感觉似乎是作者说说笑笑写下来的，因此开头写得很随意，大有逗考官玩引起他们好奇心的感觉（相当危险呐~）……但是后来论证的时候却又很锋利，步步紧逼的样子。作者也不断地扣住让多少人受益的问题，整体来说逻辑关系很紧密。
建议性的文章主要目的就是比较两个选择中哪个更好一些。而作者主要是从两者哪一个能让更多人受益来说的。可是，就像Bernina说的，感觉他不全面的地方就是：整个题目比较的其实是三个方案①公园 ②购物广场 ③学校和体育馆。而作者实际比较的只是公园和学校。而题目中却多次提到了购物广场~可以说是一个三者的三角结构而作者只论述了其中两者的关系。因此在我看来，作者应该对三个点之间的关系线都展开批评，而重点质疑①③和②③的关系（因为文章提到居民在五年前就在①②比较中选择了前者，因此只要提提就好）
对于①③来说，作者批驳的很全面了，受益群体更大化确实是一个非常不错的切入点。
而对于②③，我想可以从“If the land becomes a school site, no shopping centers or houses can be built there”这句话引申出来，题目显然还是在纠缠②和③的关系。可是我们可以这样想，如果要建立学校和体育场，人们势必得考虑到吃饭、休闲、买东西的要求。一旦建成学校和体育馆，一定会带动周边地区的消费。公园的话其实还好，随便带点东西边玩边吃就好了，可是在体育馆运动一天能不买东西吗？在学校长期上学如果出门发现一个商店都没有那是多么可怕的事情……（P.S在新东方住宿班深有体会-_-!）而对于不住在附近的没有车的人家来说，送孩子上学也是件相当麻烦的事情。人类总是喜欢把事情往自己觉得舒服的方向做，所以如果建立了学校和体育馆，建设商店和住宿区也就是迟早的事情。
当然，如果讨论这个方向的话那又是很大一块内容了。不知道这样想可不可以~请Bernina和大家指正了^^作者: yyx017 时间: 2009-3-29 12:44:02