【寄托No.1】杀G小组 第6次作业 一起读OG~I

琼央UID：3236722

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

对"statement might or might not hold true"的剖析=即是对to which extent you agree or disagree=strong disagreement/strong approval/qualified agreement/disagreement

[score 6]

The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human

experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the

lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical

day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to

work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurences would have been inconceivable

at the turn of the 19th century.

开头第一句直接讲出了本文作者认为的文章的谬误点，清晰地提出了自己的看法，并从surely开始一直到each之前都是科技改变人们生活的例子，并以最后一句inconceivable强烈暗示了本文的观点：技术进步没有损害人们的思考能力。

The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the

ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate

methods of transport, information processing, and communication. Technology short

circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete.

第二段首先用自己的语言表达了文章标题隐含的意思，似乎是有同意技术进步有害论之嫌疑，如果没有下一段的话。而又正因为有了下面几段的阐述，这一段的存在就增加了文章的客观性，即是有针对的点出了什么使标题might not hold true.

However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity

that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for

convenience. The car, computer, and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for

themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but

may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the

proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global

scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming

becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise

dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation,

allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these

complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and

politicians.

这一段用了however开头，并用this reliance指代上一段的诸多例子，真正点出本文作者的观点：强烈反对技术进步有害论，并提出了支持中心论点的第一层观点：技术进步并没有使人们的创造力受损。（does not necessarily preclude the creativity）.并用人们熟知的例子进行详细的分析。

In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human

imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has

allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe.

这一段与上一段也有明显衔接（even）,提出了支撑中心观点的第二个论点：技术解放了人们的想象力。随后使用了一个极为生动的医学上的例子，使文章的论证显得很生动，很有说服力。

This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope

to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals

can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical

days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox

was systematically targeted and eradicated.

这一段的第一句话提出了第三个支撑论点：技术进步给人类带来了希望。这个论点乍听上去比较广阔，但随后作者用了smallpox的例子生动说明了提出这一论点的依据。

Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the

implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be

no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no

need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful

posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human

imagination.

文章最后再一次重申了中心观点：技术进步没有使人类思维退化，并提出了自己的美好愿景。

总的来说，这篇文章呈现一种strong disagreement的模式，并以总-分-总的结构论证了自己的观点，中心明确，论证合理有力，而且段与段之间的转折明确、连贯，实在是一篇好范文。但是我个人看的时候对于例子其实看得并不是很仔细，因为觉得文章太长了，例子有点重复（比如cars什么的），大概看一下例子合不合理而已，所以这篇文章是否算冗长呢？

【score 5】

Surely many of us have expressed the following sentiment, or some variation on it,

during our daily commutes to work: “People are getting so stupid these days!”

第一段用的是强烈口语化的开头，而最后一句people are getting so stupid these days则暗示了本文作者实质上是同意标题，技术使人们的思考能力变坏的观点。

Surrounded as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to

their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming

in their eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe that technology has isolated and infantilized

us, essentally transforming us into dependent, conformist morons best equipped to

sideswip one another in our SUV’s.

第二段用了大量生活中很常见的现象（尤其是便携式电子产品的泛滥）来支持第一段中people..的观点。

Furthermore, hanging around with the younger, pre-commute generation, whom

tech-savviness seems to have rendered lethal, is even less reassuring. With “Teen

People” style trends shooting through the air from tiger-striped PDA to zebra-striped

PDA, and with the latest starlet gossip zipping from juicy Blackberry to teeny, turbocharged cell phone, technology seems to support young people’s worst tendencies to follow the crowd. Indeed, they have seemingly evolved into intergalactic conformity

police. After all, today’s tech-aided teens are, courtesy of authentic, hands-on video

games, literally trained to kill; courtesy of chat and instant text messaging, they have

their own language; they even have tiny cameras to efficiently photodocument your

fashion ! Is this adolescence, or paparazzi terrorist training camp?

第三段在第二段的基础上，集中描述了现实青少年使用数码产品的现象，是对第二段的补充描述，加深了论述现代技术对人们生活的影响的深度。把人群限定在青少年中，不仅更符合实际，也使论理更有说服力。

（With all this evidence, it’s easy to believe that tech trends and the incorporation of technological wizardry into our everyday lives have served mostly to enforce conformity, promote dependence, heighten comsumerism and materialism, and generally create a culture that values self-absorption and personal entitlement over cooperation and collaboration）. However, I argue that we are merely in the inchoate stages of learning to live with technology while still loving one another. After all, even given the examples provided earlier in this essay, it seems clear that technology hasn’t impaired our thinking and problem-solving capacities. Certainly it has incapacitated our behavior and manners; certainly our values have taken a severe blow. However, we are inarguably more efficient in our badness these days. We’re effective worker bees of
ineffectiveness!
第四段的第一句看着像这一段的论点，但其实论点在however之后，作者这里明确提出it seems clear that ..capacities.

If technology has so increased our senses of self-efficacy that we can become veritable agents of the awful, virtual CEO’s of selfishness, certainly it can be beneficial. Harnessed correctly, technology can improve our ability to think and act for ourselves. The first challenge is to figure out how to provide technology users with some direly needed directions.
文章最后一段的头一句话点出了作则的中心观点：技术进步对人们是有利的，在使人们变得自私的层面上。并提出了自己的建议。
综合全文，其实从一开头就开出来，本文作者的写作风格是戏谑的、讽刺的，从头到尾都在用反语的手法来阐述自己的观点，几乎文中的每一句话都要反着理解才能真正领会作者本人的真实意图。说到底，本文写的仍然是strong disagreement，但是使用另类的手法表达自己的意图。所以从这一点上说，本文的段与段之间的逻辑不是依靠句首或转折句建立的，而是在统一中心论点的统领下以每一段例子的本后的含义为连接的，这样的行文十分特别，而且逻辑上也很连贯。

而根据og的评论，我想说，我看不出来这是不肯定不否定的论证= =“The language of this essay clearly illustrates both its strengths and weaknesses（没看出来strength在哪）. The flowery and sometimes uncannily keen descriptions are often used to powerful effect, but at other times, this descriptive language results in errors in syntax（这个我赞同，这篇范文有些地方写得让人看得糊里糊涂的）. See, for example, the problems of parallelism in the second to last sentence of paragraph 2 (“After all, today’s tech-aided teens . . . ”).

There is consistent evidence of facility with syntax and complex vocabulary (“Surrounded

as we are by striding and strident automatons with cell phones glued to their ears, PDA’s gripped in their palms, and omniscient, omnipresent CNN gleaming in their

eyeballs, it’s tempting to believe . . . ”). Such lucid prose, however, is often countered

with an over-reliance upon abstractions and tangential reasoning （我也认同，这篇文章虽有不少例子，但很多例子都缺乏深度，作者也许想通过大量生活中的例子来“自然”证明依赖性这个问题，可是缺乏详细的分析使文章看上去稍有空洞）what does the fact

that video games “literally train [teens] to kill” have to do with the use or deterioration

of thinking abilities, for example?).

Because this essay takes a complex approach to the issue (arguing, in effect, that

technology neither enhances nor reduces our ability to think for ourselves, but can be

used to do one or the other depending on the user) and because the author makes use

of “appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety” (see Issue Scoring Guide, pages

37–38), a score of 5 is appropriate.(这是官方的给分点，可是我觉得要我给的话最多4分，以为有些地方的表达实在是太不清晰了，观点模棱两可，看着闹心= =)

对比6分和5分的两篇范文，我觉得6分的明显的比较正统，中心突出，有理有据，看着舒心，论证层次感强，一看就是可以给高分的；可是5分的从文风到论证到用词都有争议，而且中心论点不够清晰（也许是选取的论证角度比较特别？），这样的文章在考场上可能还是不写为妙。