|
11.17 第三次作业AW intro的翻译，今晚完成了前半部分关于概论和ISSUE的。 GRE分析性写作部分指南
1、 观点陈述
2、 论证分析
分析性写作部分概述
分析性写作是2002年10月被纳入GRE考试范围的新题型，旨在检验考生的思辨能力和分析写作技巧。它评估你的清晰阐述并举证支持某一复杂思想、分析论证、展开方向明确条理清晰的讨论的能力，而并不考察具体领域的知识。
分析性写作部分包括两个独立计时的分析写作任务：
一份45分钟的“观点陈述”任务
一份30分钟的“论证分析”任务
你可以从两个话题中择取一个作为主题。论证分析任务与话题任务不同：它要求你提出理由，对给定的论证进行批评性分析。你需要考察的是论证的逻辑合理性，而非对论题表态。
这两个任务是互补的，一个要求你就某一话题表明自己的立场并提供论据支持己方观点，另一个则要求你评估对方给出的例子批判他的论证。
备考分析性写作部分
即便是最有经验、最自信的作者也应当在赴考前对分析性写作部分做些准备。好好查看它的考核对象、评分方式、评分指南、等级表述、样题举例、答卷举例和阅卷人点评是很重要的。
这一部分的主题涵盖面很广——从艺术、人道主义到社会学、物理学——但都不需要特别的深入知识。事实上，每个话题都经过了检查以保证包含如下几个特点：
1、 背景与兴趣各异的GRE考生都能简单、清楚地了解并讨论该话题；
2、 对该话题的讨论可以显示考生的综合思维及说服性写作的能力，这正是被研究生院高度重视的一点。
3、 对该话题的回应的内容和方式是多种多样的，取决于考生。
为了帮你备考GRE分析性写作部分，GRE部门公布了整个试题库，你的考试题目将从中抽取。事先查阅话题与论证题库可能会很有帮助，你可以在www.gre.org/pracmats.html在线查看，也可以写信向GRE部门索要副本，联系方式为：GRE Program, PO Box 6000, Princeton, NJ 08541-6000.
考场策略
规划时间非常重要。短短45分钟的话题任务里，你得有足够的时间选话题、审题、回应题目、谋篇布局。论证分析的30分钟里，你得分析论题、安排论证并组织回答。虽然GRE阅卷人明白你的处境并且会视这些作文为“初稿”，你还是会想在考试中尽量写篇好文章。
每篇任务的最后，留几分钟检查明显的错误。虽然偶尔的拼写或语法瑕疵没啥关系，严重又频发的错误就会影响到整体的精炼程度，拉低你的分数。
分析性写作部分之后，你有10分钟休息，其他考试部分的间隙则是一分钟。这正是补充草稿纸的好时候。
评分方式
每篇文章将按6分制依GRE分析性写作评分指南中公布的标准（27-28页）整体评分。整体评分意味着每篇文章是被完整看待的。阅卷人不会把它分成几部分比如思想、结构、句型、语言之类，给每部分分配分值。他们会把这几部分综合起来为文章打出一个整体分数。脉络明晰或者条理不清会给阅卷人留下印象，影响到你的分数，但结构条理这一项并没有固定的权重。
一般而言，GRE阅卷人都是大学或学院中经验丰富的教职人员，他们认为写作与批判性思维能力是非常重要的。所有的阅卷人都经过严格培训并且通过了GRE资格认证考试以保证打分的准确性。
为保证评分的公正性与客观性：
1、 阅卷人随机抽取答卷；
2、 阅卷人不会得到任何可辨识的考生身份信息；
3、 每份答卷由两名阅卷人批改；
4、 两名阅卷人彼此不知道彼此的给分；
5、 两名阅卷人应当给出相同或相近的分数才认为评分有效，否则将由第三人涉入为该答卷再次评分。
最终分数取为两份作文任务的平均得分，第29页的分数等级指出了如何解释各个分值代表的考生水平。分析性写作部分的首要重点在于批判性思维和分析写作能力。
你的答卷将经历ETS论文相似性检测软件的检查，并在评分阶段由经验丰富的阅卷人检查。鉴于美国研究生院对独立思考能力的重视，ETS保留取消含有证据确凿的作弊行为的考生的分数的权力。作弊包括（但不限于）以下几点：
1、 答卷与一份或几份其他的GRE论文答卷十分相似；
2、 未经注明，擅自引用或转述他人语言或思想，无论其曾公开发行与否；
3、 将与他人共同合作的成功据为己有而隐去合作者；
4、 考生名下的答卷实际来自他人或者是由他人准备的。
当以上一项或几项情况发生时，ETS的专家评委们将认为你的论文答卷无法反映出该项考试要求的独立分析写作能力，无法对此给分。取消写作部分的给分后，整个GRE考试的分数也无法获得，因为写作部分是全程考试不可分割的部分。
分数被取消的考生的报名费视作罚款没收，下次报名参试时仍需支付全部GRE考试的费用。无论何种理由导致分数取消，该理由与分数取消的记录都不会带入寄送给校方的考生最终GRE成绩单。
观点陈述
理解观点任务
“观点陈述”任务考核你针对争议话题作出批判性思维并以书面形式清晰表述自己观点的能力。每个以引言形式提出的陈述都对某一事件发表了看法，考生可以从任何角度、对任何背景与条件展开论述。你的任务就是就该陈述的某个引人入胜的论点给出自己的见解。要确保你已经从各个方面仔细地阅读、思考过这一陈述，并考虑到了与这些方面相关的复杂性。随后记下你想要展开的方向，列出主要的支持理由和例证。
观点陈述天高凭鱼跃，虽然你得抓住中心问题，但抓取的方式随心所欲。例如，你可能：
1、 对其观点完全同意，完全不同意，部分同意部分不同意；
2、 质疑它隐含的假设；
3、 限定它提出的条目，尤其当你觉得重新定义或应用它对展开你的论述十分重要时；
4、 指出为何该观点适于某些情况而不适于另一些；
5、 评价与自己的看法抵触的观点；
6、 用好几个相关的例子或仅仅一个深入的例子支持自己的看法，展开论述。
阅卷人打分时并不寻找“正确”答案——事实上，也没有正确答案。他们考察的是你表述、发展、支持关于某话题的论点的能力。
理解写作环境：目的与读者
观点陈述任务是对思辨思维和说服性写作的练习。这项任务的目的是衡量你就某话题发展出优秀论证以支持己方观点，并以书面形式有效地将它传达给学术读者们的能力。你的读者包括大学与学院的教职工，他们都经过了GRE阅卷人培训并依据话题任务的评分指南（见27页）给分。
为了更清楚地了解阅卷人对实际答卷的评分标准，你应该浏览评分样例作文及阅卷人评点。样例作文，尤其是5分和6分作文，将向你展示一系列谋篇布局、展开论证、传达思想的技巧，比如举例、阐释与支持、组织、流利语言、精选用词。对每份答卷，阅卷人对极有说服力的亮点与拉低分数的缺点进行点评。
备考观点陈述任务
由于该任务意在考察你在多年学习过程中学到的说服性写作技巧，它并不需要任何特别的课程，也不存在因学过某门课而占优势的考生。
你可能会发现许多大学作文课本提及的说服性写作建议很有用，但对于该类任务，恐怕连这些建议都稍显理论而专门，你并不需要那么多。没人要求你掌握批判性思维或写作的术语或策略，与此对应，你应该运用各种理由、证据、例子来支持自己的观点。比如说，一个话题任务要求你考虑政府资助艺术馆的重要性。如果你的观点是政府资助很重要，你可以论证艺术的重要性，解释艺术馆是公众接触艺术的地方。如果你觉得政府不应该资助艺术馆，你可能支持财政资金有限，资助艺术馆不如资助其他更紧迫的项目。或者，如果你认为只有在有些情况下政府才应该资助艺术馆，你可能会关注艺术的标准、文化导向或者政治条件，这些因素将决定资助与否及资助方式。你的观点并不重要，重要的是在发展观点的过程中表现出的思辨能力。
备考观点任务的绝佳途径就是练习已公布的题库。没有“最好的”练习方法：有些人喜欢起先无视45分钟的时间限制；有些人喜欢一开始就尝试计时测验并一直这么练习。无论你用什么方法练习，你都该重温任务指南，然后
1、 仔细阅读题目的陈述，确保自己理解关联事项；如果有疑问，与老师或同学讨论；
2、 思考该题与你切身相关的方面，你的看法、经验、曾读过或见过的事例、认识的相关人士；以此为基础，你可以找出很有说服力的理由和事例以支持、否定、或限制其话题陈述；
3、 确定己方立场——你尽可以完全同意、反对、或部分同意它的观点；
4、 确定有说服力的证据（理由和事例）以支持己方观点。
记住这是个考核思辨思维和说服性写作的任务，所以探索问题的复杂性是很有用的，你可以问自己这些问题：
1、 关键问题到底是什么？
2、 我完全或者部分同意它的陈述吗？为什么？
3、 该陈述是否做出了某些假设？若是，它们合理吗？
4、 该陈述是否仅在特定条件下成立？若是，它们是什么？
5、 我需要对陈述中某些条目或概念做出自己的理解与解释吗？
6、 如果我采取了某一立场，该找什么理由支持？
7、 无论现实或假设，我能用哪些例子阐述理由、提出观点？哪一个是最有说服力的？
一旦选定立场，你应该考虑反对意见，问自己：
1、 别人会用什么理由反驳或削弱我的观点？
2、 我该怎么让步或辩护？
谋篇布局时，你可以简要归纳自己的观点与展开方式，审查笔记，确定文章结构，接着动笔阐述你对该话题的立场。即便不写完文章，你也会发现针对几个话题给出自己观点的练习时很有帮助的。如此这般练习一翻后，试试在45分钟内完成几篇答卷，以培养实际考试的时间感。
向教授批判性思维和写作的老师求教，或与同学就相同话题讨论、参照评分指南批改作文都将有所裨益。将自己的答卷和评分指南对照，能够帮你找出自己有待提高的地方。
选择题目
你可以从两道出自试题库的话题中选择一个，但从你见到那两道题的一刻，45分钟计时就开始，因此别在选题上花太多时间，尽快选个你准备得更充分的题目。
选题前，仔细阅读每道题，然后判断哪道更利于你展开有效而逻辑性强的论述。你可以这样问自己：
1、 我对哪题更感兴趣？
2、 哪题更靠近我的专业背景或个人经历？
3、 哪题有利于我清晰地解释并辩护自己的观点？
4、 哪题有利于我提出强有力的理由和例证以支持己方观点？
你的回答将帮助你做出选择。
答卷格式
只要认为能够有效表达观点，你尽可以以任何方式自由规划文章。你可以运用（但不一定非要用）英语作为或高级写作课上学到的写作技巧。GRE阅卷人对某种破题策略或写作风格并无偏好，相反，他们受训时浏览了数百份答卷，内容与形式多种多样，但都表现出相近水平的思辨与说服性写作能力。比如，同是6分级别，一篇答卷可能首先简单归纳作者的立场，然后明确指出各分论点。另一篇可能以作出预测、提出系列问题、描述场景或定义引言中的模糊条目引出作者观点。给出多个事例或一个深入阐述的例子均可获得高分。阅读样例话题答卷，特别是5分与6分答卷，欣赏作者是如何成功地展开并组织他们的文章的。
你尽可以依需要划分段落。比如，当你的讨论转向新的论点时，你大概得开始一个新的段落了。重要的不是例子的多少、分成几段、或者文章形式，而是你向学术读者传达观点时的说服力、清晰度和技巧。
样题举例
“In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists—people who can provide broad perspectives."
本题策略
这一陈述提出了几个相关问题：什么是通才和专才？他们对社会的贡献是什么？社会真的需要更多通才吗？专才真的被高估了吗？
针对该话题，你可以采取以下基本立场：没错，社会需要更多通才，专才被高估了。不，恰恰相反。或，依情况而定。或，二者在今天的文化中都很重要，都没被高估。你的分析可以从某一特定领域、多个领域或各种情况中选取事例。你可以聚焦于通才和专才在通信、交通、政治、信息或技术领域中的角色。只要你能运用相关理由和事例支持自己的观点，上述各种方式都没有问题。
在你选定立场之前，花点时间重读题目，提出以下问题以助分析：
1、 专才和通才的区别是什么？他们各自的优势是什么？
2、 这种区别在各个领域和情况都存在吗？是否有可能有时一个专才也需要有非常广泛的知识和能力才能做好工作？
3、 在你的领域里，专才和通才是怎么工作的？
4、 你觉得社会对专才和通才的评价如何？是否专才在某些情况被高估，另一些情况没有？
5、 社会真的需要比现在更多的通才么？若是，他们有什么用？
现在你可以把思路归为两类：
1、 支持题给陈述的理由和事例；
2、 反对题给陈述的理由和事例。
如果你发现其中一个明显比另一个好写，就从这一方面入手。组织论证时，记住另一方的观点以辩驳它。
如果两方观点都很有说服力，就构想一个与题给条件不同，而更受限或更复杂的情况。随后你可以采用双方的理由和事例论证自己的观点。
答卷举例与阅卷人点评
6分答卷
*本文所有答卷均按原文摘录，原文错处与误拼等一并摘录。
In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists.
Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase):"I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon." This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us.
Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area.
On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow focii in which people can lose the larger picture.No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one's own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture.
Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universall issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focusses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all.
Finally, over-specialization in a people's daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focussed and generally pooprly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction.
Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are.
阅卷人评点——6分
这是一篇相当出众的话题分析——深刻、理由充足、语言运用十分高效。引入段指出了作者的立场，并且引出了作者即将展开论述的情境："In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement . . . ."
论证本身分两个部分。第一部分给出了关于专才的有说服力的例子，主要在医学领域。第二部分给出了同样有说服力、结构严整的事例以辩驳过于单一，其三个主要分论点是：
1、 逻辑方面（受训单一的专家们常不能着眼全局）
2、 道德方面（通才们常常能够理解获得‘大局的利益’需要哪些因素）
3、 个人方面（过早地专门化/类别化可能导致心理伤害）
随后，对专家确证(quotation from a prominent medical researcher)的技巧性运用，以及生动的比喻(to inspect only one's toenails is to ignore the whole body)加强了论证的严谨脉络。
让这篇文章出类拔萃的理由并不仅限于它的推理。文章的语言精确而形象("bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload," "a pile of useless discoveries," and "specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field") 过渡性短语和观点一直指引读者沿着文章摸清其思维结构，一路向前。这是一篇对该话题的杰出回应。
5分答卷
Specialists are not overrated today. More generalists may be needed, but not to overshadow the specialists. Generalists can provide a great deal of information on many topics of interest with a broad range of ideas. People who look at the overall view of things can help with some of the large problems our society faces today. But specialists are necessary to gain a better understanding of more in depth methods to solve problems or fixing things.
One good example of why specialists are not overrated is in the medical field. Doctors are necessary for people to live healthy lives. When a person is sick, he may go to a general practitioner to find out the cause of his problems. Usually, this kind of "generalized" doctor can help most ailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, though, a sickness may go beyond a family doctor's knowledge or the prescribed treatments don't work the way they should. When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more care than a family doctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. For instance, a person with constant breathing problems that require hospitalization may be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a family doctor has a great deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide when his methods are not effective and the patient needs to see someone who knows more about the specific problem; someone who knows how it begins, progresses, and specified treatments. This is an excellent example of how a generalied person may not be equipped enough to handle something as well as a specialized one can.
Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist involves teaching. In grammar school, children learn all the basic principles of reading, writing, and arithematic. But as children get older and progress in school, they gain a better understanding of the language and mathematical processes. As the years in school increase, they need to learn more and more specifics and details about various subjects. They start out by learning basic math concepts such as addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. A few years later, they are ready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They are also ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how all life is composed and how it functions. One teacher or professor can not provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as well as one who has learned the specifics and studied mainly to know everything that is currently known about one of these subjects. Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects and finding out new facts on the old ones.
These are only two examples of why specialists are not highly overrated and more generalists are not necessary to the point of overshadowing them. Generalists are needed to give the public a broad understanding of some things. But , specialists are important to help maintain the status, health, and safety of our society. Specialists are very necessary.
阅卷人点评——5分
作者展示了一篇发展得较好的文章，讨论了对专才与通才二者的需要以分析该话题的复杂性。
这篇文章基于两个延展的事例，两个例子都选的很好。第一个（第二段）首先讨论了医学通才（一般医务工作者）和专才的必要性，随后转入一个例子中的小例子（呼吸问题和对哮喘专家的需要）。下一段的事例也具备这种从一般到具体的延伸特点。它讨论了教育问题，从小学到高中，从初等运算到微积分。
其中，恰当的连接词："but," "usually," and "for instance," 有助于论述的流利展开。文章以重述作者主旨而结尾。
虽然作者较好地处理了语言和语法，几处本可清楚表述然而失之模糊的瑕疵让该文落于6分线以下。问题包括代名词缺少指示对象("When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed, . . . he may be referred to a specialist")、并列句型出错("how it begins, progresses and specified treatments")、语法松散语言不精确("Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects.")
4分答卷
Specialists are just what their name says: people who specialize in one part of a very general scheme of things. A person can't know everything there is to know about everything. This is why specialists are helpful. You can take one general concept and divide it up three ways and have three fully developed different concepts instead of one general concept that no one really knows about. Isn't it better to really know something well, than to know everything half-way.
Take a special ed teacher compared to a general ed teacher. The general ed teacher knows how to deal with most students. She knows how to teach a subject to a student that is on a normal level. But what would happen to the child in the back of the room with dyslexia? She would be so lost in that general ed classroom that she would not only not learn, but be frustrated and quite possibly, have low self-esteem and hate school. If there is a special ed teacher there who specializes in children with learning disabilities, she can teach the general ed teacher how to cope with this student as well as modify the curriculum so that the student can learn along with the others. The special ed teacher can also take that child for a few hours each day and work with her on her reading difficulty one-on-one, which a general ed teacher never would have time to do.
A general ed teacher can't know what a special ed teacher knows and a special ed teacher can't know what a general ed teacher knows. But the two of them working together and specializing in their own things can really get a lot more accomplished. The special ed teacher is also trained to work on the child's self-esteem, which has a big part in how successful this child will be. Every child in the United States of America has the right to an equal education. How can a child with a learning disability receive the same equal education as a general ed student if there was no specialist there to help both teacher and child?
Another thing to consider is how a committee is supposed to work together. Each person has a special task to accomplish and when these people all come together, with their tasks finished, every aspect of the community's work is completely covered. Nothing is left undone. In this case there are many different specialists to meet the general goal of the committee.
When you take into account that a specialist contributes only a small part of the generalist aspect, it seems ridiculous to say that specialists are overrated. The generalists looks to the specialists any time they need help or clarification on their broad aspect. Specialists and generalists are part of the same system, so if a specialist is overrated, then so is a generalist.
阅卷人评点——4分
本文对话题作出了足够分析。在引入段落有些混乱地尝试定义“专才”后，作者提出了一个切题的事例（专门教育的老师）以表明专才的重要性。这个例子主导了本篇，为整体的4分做出了积极贡献。
第二个关于委员会工作的例子稍欠说服力。不过它似乎有助于表明作者关于“通才”的定义，即指称所有专才对某一主题的知识的集合。
虽然作者关于专才与通才的关系的见解与众不同，但这在文中结尾表述得很清楚。然而，这些观点在正文中并没有得到足够深入的发展，逻辑控制亦欠缺，难以获得4分以上的分数。
大体上该文没有错误。虽然语句有时不精确、冗长，但基本没有句型、语法和用法错误。整体而言，这篇文章表现了对书面英文各要素的清楚而足够的掌握。
Essay Response – Score 3
To quote the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none," would be my position on the statement. I feel specialists in all areas of knowledge lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. Specializing in different areas allows us to use each others talents to the highest level and maximize potential. As an example, if a person required brain surgery, would they rather have a brain surgeon or a general practitioner doing the work? Clearly a specialist would do the better job and give the patient a chance at a better life.
A university education starts by laying the groundwork for general knowledge but then narrows down to a specific field. General knowledge and a broad prospective are important, but if there was no focus on specific areas, our overall knowledge as a population would be seriously lessened.
Another example of specialists not being overated would be international trade. Not every nation can provide for themselves. They need to get products and ideas from other parts of the world because they are better at providing them. This allows for a growing economy if two different nations can provide each other with two different products. If one country can produce oranges better than another, it should trade the oranges for the fish that it can not produce. If generalizing was the normal thing to do and both countries tried to produce all kinds of products, the countries would probably survive, but not have the standard of living they presently have.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
The writer's position is clear: specialists are important and necessary. However, the position is not adequately supported with reasons or logical examples.
Paragraph 1 presents an appropriate example of the brain surgeon versus the general practitioner. However, the example of an increasingly narrow university education in paragraph 2, contains only two sentences and is seriously undeveloped. It does little to advance the writer's position.
Paragraph 3 offers yet another example, the most developed of all. Unfortunately, this example is not clearly logical. The writer tries to argue that the "specialist" country (one that is a better producer of oranges) is superior to the "generalist" country (presumably one that produces oranges as well as other products). This generalist country, the writer tells us, would be inferior to the other. This conclusion does not emerge logically from the writer's argument, and it seems to be at odds with everyday reality.
Although language is used with some imprecision throughout the essay, the writer's meaning is not obscured. The main reasons for the score of 3 are the lack of sufficient development and inappropriate use of examples.
Essay Response – Score 2
In the situation of health I feel that specialists are very important. For example if a person has heart problems, choose a heart specialist over a genral medicine Dr. However if a person is having a wide range of syptoms, perhaps choose a Dr. with a wide range of experience might be more helpful.
It also depends on the type of problem you are having. For example I would not suggest taking a troubled child to a theorpist who specializes in marriage problems. In some cases have a specialists helps to insure that you are getting the best possibly treatment. On the other hand dealing with a person who has a wide range of experience may be able to find different ways of dealing with a particular problem.
Since the quotation did not state exactely what type of specialist we are dealing with it is also hard to determine the importance of having a specialist is. For example the could be health or problems with a car, or basically anything else. I feel that this information should not have been left out. I guess the bottom line is that I feel sometimes a specialist is very important.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
This is a seriously flawed analysis of the issue. The response argues in favor of specialists, but neither the reasons nor the examples are persuasive. The example of not taking "a troubled child to see a theropist who specializes in marriage problems" is both simplistic and off the mark since it differentiates between two specialists, not between a generalist and a specialist.
The sentences are so poorly formed and phrased that the argument is at times hard to follow. Nevertheless, this is not a 1 essay: the writer presents a position on the issue, develops that position with some very weak analysis, and communicates some ideas clearly.
Essay Response – Score 1
I disagree with the statement about specialists, we need specialists who take individual areas and specialize. A generalists can pinpoint a problem. He or she cannot determine the magnitude of the problem. A specialist can find the root of the problem. When he or she has years working in that specific field. For example, when i got sick i went to a doctor. He did blood work, x-ray, talk to me, ect. He prescribed me a medicine. I got worst. So i decided to go another doctor. Now, i am doing great. A specialist knows the facts right away. Otherwise, it will take longer or not at all.
|
GO
楼主: pluka
发表于 2009-11-11 16:01:12
0
转发
