- 最后登录
- 2021-6-18
- 在线时间
- 4685 小时
- 寄托币
- 6214
- 声望
- 912
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-26
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 2367
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 8271
- UID
- 2191404
- 声望
- 912
- 寄托币
- 6214
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-26
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 2367
|
发表于 2015-10-27 15:00:00
|显示全部楼层
issue 130/150 官方范文详解
突然发现issue 130和150竟然是完全一样的。
Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as much money as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
这里和大家一起学习一下OG上的官方范文。
It is not uncommon for some to argue that, in the world in which we live, corporations have a responsibility to society and to the environment in which they operate. 第一句先概述其中一边的观点 Proponents of this view would argue that major environmental catastrophes (e.g., the oil spill in the Gulf) are key examples of the damage that can be wrought when corporations are allowed to operate unchecked. 然后引一个例子来解释这个观点 Yet within that very statement lies a contradiction that undermines this kind of thinking — it is necessary for outside forces to check the behaviour of corporations, because we do not expect corporations to behave in such a manner. 对这个观点进行批判指出其内在的矛盾 In fact, the expectation is simply that corporations will follow the law, and in the course of doing so, engage in every possible tactic to their advantage in the pursuit of more and greater profit. 提出自己的观点 To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure. 指出与自己观点相反的想法的不足之处
不得不说这个开头是写得很漂亮的 先描述自己不同意的观点 为自己的论述设了一个靶子 然后指出其中的矛盾之处
提出自己的观点时用了expectation这个词 这个词属于signalling noun 我的导师专门出过一本书讲这个
Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. (2015). Signalling nouns in English: A corpus-based discourse approach. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
先总结一个动作循环(move cycle)
1. 提出对方观点
2. 举例说明该观点
3. 指出这个观点内在的矛盾
说实话这样写是很难的 尤其是指出内在矛盾 因此我并不推荐
接下来的动作包括
4. 有矛盾提出自己的观点
5. 给反对自己的观点定性 指出为什么是错的 To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure
这里的第5步是值得学习的。也就是说我们不仅要学会提出自己的观点，还要能主动出击去攻击反对的意见。更重要的是，这里的攻击其实引用了新的概念即公司的purpose和structure。我觉得这里对公司理念的认识其实涉及到一些经济学的原理。公司制度的本质其实是将企业的所有权和经营权分开，让具备专业技能的经理来管理公司，而让拥有资本和投资眼光的人来做老板，这其实也是一种社会分工。
The corporation arose as a model of business in which capital could be raised through the contributions of stockholders; investors purchases shares in a company, and their money is then used as the operating capital for the company. 描述公司制度模型中投资人与公司的互动关系 Shareholders buy stock not because they are hoping to better make the world a better place or because they have a desire to improve the quality of life but because they expect to see a return in their investment in this company. 指出投资人的目的不是什么而是什么 The company may itself have generally altruistic goals (perhaps it is a think tank that advises the government on how to improve relations with the Middle East, or perhaps it is a company built around finding alternative forms of energy), but the immediate expectation of the investor is that he himself will see dividends, or profits, from the investment he has made. 先承认公司可能有无私的目的并举例说明 然后指出即时的预期是盈利 This is even more true in the case of companies that are purely profit driven and which do not have goals that are particularly directed toward social improvement—a description that applies to the vast majority of corporations. 强调大部分公司是纯粹逐利，实际上削弱了前面所承认的内容
这一段其实就是对上段结束部分的观点进行的演绎。学习这段范文要注意几点：
1. yes...but...模型 也可称为让步模型。作者先承认有些公司是有无私目标的并举例说明，然后转折指出作者所强调的点及公司其实是逐利的 这种让步模型可谓随处可见。前面的让步，甚至举例说明让步内容都只是铺垫，重点在后面。但是前面必须写，因为写了前面可以让读者觉得你考虑的比较周详不那么武断，同时也可以凑字数（呵呵呵）。
2. 限定情况讨论。其实分情况讨论是1+3模型的核心所在。尽管本文没有形成1+3的结构 但是这里 in the case of companies that are实际就是对要讨论的个案进行限制，指出某种具体的情况，这样一来作者提出的观点的适用范围就变得比较具体，也显得比较严谨。
Is it a bad thing to have a corporation negatively affect the environment (and by extentsion, its inhabitants)? 以问题形式提出本段重点-公司行为的外部性问题To pump noxious fumes into the atmosphere as a by-product of its manufacturing processes? 具体举例说明 Of course, and this is why agencies such as the EPA were established and why governments—federal, state, and local—are expected to monitor such companies to ensure that such practices fall within the boundaries of legal expectations. 跟进上面的例子，指出政府干预的必要性 Any and all corporations should be expected to temper their pursuit of profit with the necessity of following those safeguards that have been legislated as protections. 对上句的例子进行概括，指出一般性的原理 But the assumption that corporations have an inherent obligation or responsibility to go above and beyond that to actively PROMOTE the environment and the well-being of society is absurd. 回到本文的主题，重新强调作者的观点
上段主要通过解释公司制度来指出公司逐利的本质，这段重点讨论公司恶行如何处理。这段的论述中也涉及到一个经济学的概念-外部性。所谓外部性，就是A的行为对B造成的影响，而B却不能把A怎么样。这样一来A的行为就得不到合理的反馈了，B要么收益要么受损，也就是正外部性或负外部性。生活中有很多这样的例子。比如汽车排出的尾气对路人乃至城市居民就是一种负外部性，而地铁站的修建对周边房价的刺激对于业主来说就是正外部性。解决外部性问题的方法包括政府的干预和对产权进行界定。比如政府可以向汽车司机征税来让他们为负外部性买单，这样他们释放尾气的量就能反映市场最优水平。比如香港的地铁可以以较低价格获得地铁站周边的土地从而补贴建设成本，这就是通过对产权的界定对正外部性的内化。
虽然原文作者并没有正式引出外部性的概念，但是理解这个概念能帮助我们更好的分析这里的问题。
学习这段话时我们还应该注意举例的技巧。我们都知道举例说明在论述中的重要性，但是很多同学写文章时举例说明的效果却不太好。这里的关键问题在于要弄清楚例子和道理之间的关系。其实举例的本质是一种实证主义的科学精神，也就是要用数据来支持理论。因此，举例之前首先要搞清楚你想说明什么道理。然后在举例之后，要解释为什么这个例子能说明这个道理。最后还要再强调一遍你要支持和论述的道理。所以说，举例说理其实包括几个步骤
1. 提出要说明的道理
2. 提出例子
3. 解释为什么这个例子能说明这个道理
4. 再说一遍这个道理
大家不妨对照这个步骤循环看看自己写的中间段是否做到这些动作。而范文的这一段，第一句是在一个抽象的层面讨论问题-公司对环境造成负面影响-第二句就是具体的例子汽车排放尾气。很明显后一句是前一句的具体例子。接下来的一句提到EPA实际上是在具体层面上的讨论，EPA就是具体的例子。而接下来的一句则是从这个具体例子中提炼出道理Any and all corporations should be expected to temper their pursuit of profit with the necessity of following those safeguards that have been legislated as protections。由此可见，举例说明需要我们在两个不同的层面上展开讨论，一个是道理（理论）的层面，一个是例子（数据）的层面。
Engaging in practices to adhere to legal expectations to protect society and the environment is costly to corporations. If the very purpose of a corporation is to generate profits, and the obligation to adhere to safety expectations established by law cuts into those profits, then to expect corporations to embrace such practices beyond what is required is to presume that they willingly engage in an inherently self- destructive process: the unnecessary lowering of profits. This is antithetical to the very concept of the corporation. Treehuggers everywhere should be pleased that environmental protections exist, but to expect corporations to “make the world a better place” is to embrace altruism to the point that it becomes delusion.
这一段延续上段的经济学分析，引入了一个新的概念-成本。其实政府处理外部性的主要手段就是将外部性内化，本来释放尾气是没有后果的，通过征税变为有一定的成本。而成本则会导致公司的盈利减少，这又回到了公司逐利的本质上来。因此这段的论述的核心还是公司的目的，并由此推导出超出政府要求的善行其实不符合逐利本质。讲完这个道理，作者还用antithetical这个词做了总结，并附上一个例子和对观点进行总结。最后一句也是可圈可点- to expect corporations to “make the world a better place” is to embrace altruism to the point that it becomes delusion和前面的To expect otherwise from corporations is to fail to understand their purpose and their very structure 有异曲同工之妙，都是对某个具体行为进行定性描述。
This is not to say that we should reject efforts to hold corporations accountable. In fact, the opposite is true — we should be vigilant with the business world and maintain our expectations that corporations do not make their profits at the EXPENSE of the well-being of society. But that role must be fulfilled by a watchdog, not the corporation itself, and those expectations must be imposed UPON the corporations, not expected FROM them.
最后一段的总结，通过对比将两种观点清晰的概述，我们是希望公司自觉履行社会责任，还是通过法治来迫使其不作恶。这里用到的模式是not ... but... 先否定某种读者可能的误解，然后再澄清作者的立场。
这篇文章的精彩之处不仅仅在于其行文与结构，更在于其思想。这里的思想就是对现实的敬畏和对法治的推崇。现实就是公司的本质在于逐利，而解决公司作恶的工具就是法律制度和政府的干预。好的制度把坏人变好，坏的制度把好人变坏，大概就是说的这个道理。也许懂得这个道理之后，再看谷歌的不作恶的口号，就显得有些图样图森破了。
|
|
楼主: tesolchina
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
