1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by wunonomei——今天你很棒

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

对argument就应该这样写的一点思考。
arguement51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.

"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment“

这题的结论不仅和假设有关，也和对假设的论证内容有关，所以题目的逻辑关系是C->A, A+C->B：
楼主的抨击关注于->，承认A和C都对，但是A+C -X>B。推理过程不合理。
回复的抨击关注于AC：A, C不一定对。论据不合理
就是一个让步中先论证哪个的问题。
最终目的是论证结论是否合理。
论证中只要有一个不合理，结果都是不合理的。但是argument的文章要求是什么？才最终影响是否两者都需要进行论述。最好的方法是两者都进行论述，选取其中逻辑漏洞比较大的重点抨击。并不应该绝对的把哪一个作为抨击的重点。

其实这个题目里，我们要考虑原因和结果的逻辑关系，要考虑它是不是有隐含假设，我觉得大家都没有考虑这个隐含的假设就是使用抗生素对所有人都有益处，没有副作用。还有就是这么做的目的是使严重损伤的病人快速痊愈。要考虑到这些深层次的目的，意义等才能够使结论更接近于目标。所以即使浮于表面的思考了论证，思考深度还很重要。
我觉得上面我的理解会造成对自己假象观点的阐述、而产生离题，这一点一定要当心。隐含假设考虑不合理，就会成为自说自话，和题目无关了。

不能看到一个错误批一个，要找到主要矛盾再写。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

终于把第二次作业做完了，下面要做第四次作业了，哈哈
argument143
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1042020&extra=

看看觉得错误挺好找，写起来还真难，不过我的第一篇终于横空出世了。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

之前把awintro翻译个遍，范文也研究了，还是掌握不了argument的评分要素，因为完全不能理解评分规则里的什么观点深刻，拓展论证之类的意思。在我看来，大多数观点都很浅显，为什么还能得高分？而且之前的阅读能力也很差，很多都理解不了，十几天的作业做下来才稍微好点。

今天要做第四次作业，看argument写读后感，看了10篇，感觉模版化很严重，大家思维都是一个模式，就像工厂里出来的，但是更深度的评价论证如何，就不行了。于是把前一阵找到的好像是imong大侠的蒙蒙评范文拿来学习，感觉受益匪浅，终于了解到具体详细的含义和重要性，什么样才是好文章。

既然学了，就不能不练，于是自己学着重评了一下awintro中的6分和5分范文，的确有了进步。想当初，我还在想这6分范文哪里有评论的那么优秀，还是顶峰之作呢，今天看了的确如此。并且5分和它差了不是一个层次。下面把我的评论拿出来和大家共享。

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

Essay Response * – Score 6

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.连接得很自然，前两句讲作者观点，这种写法在这里好的原因是符合实际，的确是一眼看上去是对的，这不能哪都用。最后一句表明观点，指出这可能不是原因，可能有别的原因。

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear - preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists,具体指出others,并且两个副词显得很严谨。of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the "other" is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention.
更加具体化。 Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by another, the skater or some force of nature.
具体化。Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident.
更加具体化。 The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both.
详细描述，明确表达意思。These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.最后一句总结，点出TS，属于分总形式。

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. TS点明观点和大概内容。下面具体解释什么是inherent differences, It is at least likely副词的使用增强语气，很到位。 that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. 进一步解释：The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior.
具体化。It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself.进一步解释，结合题目。 Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.再将观点拓展到题目的其他方面，接着又详细解释了一下，再一次提升了观点的层次。

The statistic also goes not differentiate between severities of injuries. TS点出问题点所在。The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries.
This is certainly not the case.长短句结合。 Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors' offices are closed解释使意思更清晰), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.这一句对上一个短句的判断进行了详细的解释。总分格式。

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. TS提出观点。For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.描述具体有物，有力例证了观点。Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.最后将观点升华，提升层次。段落为总分总。

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits is needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.

Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6

This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.
The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ". . . inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws.
Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

• that preventive and protective gear are not the same
• that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
• that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
• that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical, and generally error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.

In sum, this response exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide.
If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the paper could still have received a 6.

学蒙蒙的分析方法来看之后，发现这真的是一篇极优秀的文章。一、全文每一个句子都言之有物，都有新的意思出现，绝对不累赘繁冗。二、大量的副词的准确修饰使得文章非常严谨。三、每一个观点的分析都具体详细有深度。四、段落组成方式多样、句式多样（长句为主，短句为辅）使得文章生动不单调。五、虽然其中三个观点都和数据缺乏有关，但是表达各异，绝不重复，完全值得学习。


Essay Response – Score 5

The argument presented is limited but useful. 观点简洁明确。It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries. 前两句引述题目内容，不是很必要。However, the conclusion that protective gear and reflective equipment would "greatly reduce risk of being severely injured" is premature. 正式提出第一个分论点，并在下面进行解释Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination of that population. 更具体的解释：It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations.对该观点有比较深入的发展，但不是很优秀。

Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries. 概述第二个分论点。The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to those injuries.前两句解释了分论点。For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurrences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures. 前面这一段都是在进行具体解释，给出了具体事例，并且根据程度进行了分类。叙述比较详细，但不够深刻。

Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 5

This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:

• What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?
• What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating roller skating- related injuries?
• What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?

The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as required for a 6 paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of 4. 总体文章深度不够insightfully，但是就观点给出了具体的分析，并且语言和结构还是清晰的。但是可以看出和6分文章的明显区别。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

摆脱模版，重视表达：
1.
Argument作文文章大多模版化，不是整篇的模版，即使句式的模版，思维也被束缚在了模版内，没有什么拓展新意，比较枯燥。单纯的为了形式而形式不重要，和思维相应的形式才重要。
2.
不是说to begin with, first, second, finally不能用，但人人都用，就让人觉得厌烦，似乎没有很好的逻辑展开方式才这么写。绝大多数段落的论证方式都是总分总，完全没有新意。分有论述，但是不够深入，最后的总仅仅是前面的重复，完全没有升华。
3.
摆脱了模版的表达经常词不达意，句式表达、语法等要好好练习。不要为了使用长句而使用长句，显得很生硬、拗口。要先练习词汇和造句，不要乱用生词，看上去似乎深奥了，但是用错的可能性和害虫比不用都大得多。
4.
尽量不要在文中使用第一人称，看上去很不客观。
紧扣题目，围绕中心：
5.
写之前，要好好审题，理清题意，不要想当然，上手就写。
6.
无论多好的想法，和主题无关，都应删去。密切围绕中心是5/6分的要求。
关于找错误和写错误：
7.
argument不是数学论证，只要有一个原因能证明结果不存在或不对就可以的；它要的是对所有提出的原因进行分析，把不对的都列出来，有点类似于如何才能帮助作者得到正确的结论。所以一点两点是无效的，虽然篇幅所限，不能把所有的写出来，但至少要让阅卷者知道你能发现很多问题，而不是连分析发现的能力都没有。
8.
argument可以通过提问题来回答来找错误，并且理顺思维，将它们都一一列出有助于理解。并且不要对文中的内容想当然，这些文章都是看上去合理的，要对文中陈述的每一个陈述提问是否合理。而且要独立的提出这些问题，才有助于独特化。
9.
即使找到了很多错误，也没必要完全列出来，着重写你认为的重点，并且有理有据就行。如果一定要写，也可以先找到其中的共通点，以此为引子，再写，就更加体现了思维的深度了。
如何深入：
10.
观点要深入的一个做法是，一个观点里要包含几个内容，就要在结合上下功夫，并且要保证自己思路清晰，不要内容一多，自己都晕了。
11.
但是：不要以为某个观点简单。即使一个观点再简单，也把它说到透彻，就通过具体详细的分析来提升层次。
12.
argument分论点既要有深度，又要有拓展，就表明了分论点要具体，但是不要细节化。总论点为你和宴会不合拍，你可以说你的打扮不和时宜作为分论点，然后具体说化妆/穿衣/首饰等来支持论点；如果直接说化妆不合时宜，就不好拓展，并且显得浅薄。这仅仅是个例子。
13.
大家为了具体，经常无根据的假设，这样的例证是没有说服力的。用无根据假设来批作者的无根据假设，是说不通的。例子也不是瞎举的，要能合理解释自己的观点，最好还能使其上升一个档次。不实际、不可能、不能说服别人的例子是没有用的。常识不能乱用，你的常识有些是限于知识水平或专业领域的，不一定为常人所知。
最后：
14.
其实是在培养一种思维方式。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

Response to [REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][12.18] The sentence structure in this report is not hard to follow; however, the use of idioms is worth learning, which is my terribly weak point. I have mark the idioms in red and sentences I cannot comprehend in green. Please someone reads this help me with the green ones, thank you in advance. A special report on climate change and the carbon economy Getting warmer Dec 3rd 2009 From The Economist print edition So far the effort to tackle global warming has achieved little. Copenhagen offers the chance to do better, says Emma Duncan (interviewed here) Illustration by M. Morgenstern THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber. Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter. The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out in 2012, and implementing a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change. Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC. In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so. Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century. As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening. Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know. Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat. The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon. Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy. A hard sell It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done. The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent. The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones. That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them. Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles. The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year. To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14994872 Comment: The mountain bark beetles are breeding unconventionally, the global ice is melting to raise the sea level much faster than years ago, and the temperature is rising at abnormal speed compared to human history. And mankind makes the devastating progress with little concern of future. Countries have understood the urge of stopping the emission of greenhouse gases for decades; however, little has been taken under the pressure of economic advance. Though, the willing to proceed is worth a talk. The first try to protect as Tokyo protocol achieved little because too many specific greenhouse gases and too many countries were involved in the discussion. The conference in Copenhagen starts the second try of the whole world to avoid the climatic and environmental catastrophe. Even the agreement is achieved; the domestic effort to put it into effect is the key to fulfill the task.

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

【CASK EFFECT】阅读能力基础自测（速度、难度、深度、越障、真题、RAM）

[1]自己的实际情况（这几个的评分）；
3332144

	第一遍读完时间	读懂遍数	读懂时间	阅读过程中走神次数
GRE	3’23”	4	20'	2
GRE-2	10’37”	2	40'	2
LSAT	9’28”	2	30'	1
CET4	2’13”	1	2’13”	1
CET6	6’7”	1	6’7”	2
science	6’29	1	6’29	2
Godfather	9’40”	2	20'	0

[2]1中的标记；
It is in the place that tales occupied in the lives of the slaves and in the meaning slaves derived from them that the clearest resemblances to African tradition can be found.
with respect to language, delivery, details of characterization, and plot, slaves quickly made them their own.
but until recently commercial retrieval has been limited to underground hot water and/or steam recovery systems.
either sufficient permeability or bounded flow paths
But our making of history is itself formed and informed not only by the historical conditions we inherit from the past,
Excessive speed plays a major role in as much as one fifth of all fatal traffic accidents, according to the foundation.
Part of its mission would be to promote the risks and realities associated with being a grandparent.
They will take a call from a persistent parent, even if they’re loaded with works.
She can opt for constant monitoring hoping to catch any cancer early, while it’s still curable,
One way it does this is by helping cells repair DNA damage that might otherwise result in cancer-causing mutations.
总体分为以下几种情况：
连续几个句子都看不懂，就会开始走神。
断句过于严重，思维停顿，导致走神。
刚开始看一篇文章，还没有投入，比较容易受他人干扰。
过多的抽象词汇反应不过来。某些插入语或类似插入语的地方打断思维的连续性，会产生烦躁心里。

[3]心得总结；
1.
阅读时一个词一个词的往外蹦，词与词之间的联系都要想半天，所以造成其实句式并不复杂的句子我都要理解半天。主要原因是常用的词语搭配方式不熟悉，不能够形成意群来阅读，增加了难度又减慢了速度。理解了之后再读就是以意群为单位的了。原来熟悉的词或词组词形变化后理解慢了许多（例如，continuity with-continue with; dependent on-depend on）。
2.
词汇量小，反应不够迅速，导致对前面内容的理解和记忆在有问题的地方出现断层从而被忘记，最后导致即使每一句都认真理解了，但没和上下文连接，看完全文仍然不知所云。
3.
抽象词汇过多，不能在脑海中产生记忆，尤其是形象记忆，导致看和不看一个样。过多的抽象词汇反应不过来。某些插入语或类似插入语的地方打断思维的连续性。文科或不熟悉的领域的文章很难的原因就在于过多的抽象词汇减缓了反应，减弱了记忆。
4.
多义词在文中的解释不知道应该选择哪一种更合适。
5.
阅读时思考不够，没有积极用脑，放任其处于迷糊状态，反应不够灵敏。

[4]整体感受；
改进空间巨大，其实就是现在水平太弱，多看是王道。
词汇量：生词、熟词词组、抽象词汇、多义词；要大力提升。

[5]改进目标；
1006G前阅读所有项目达到5分水平。

[6]短期集中要突破的阅读项目；
难度和速度。

[7]以及对这个测试的意见建议
内容挺好，版面可以改进以便于阅读-段落间空行，能加上计时器就更方便了。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

comment [12/19]


The art market has suffered from the recession, but globalisation should help it recover, say Fiammetta Rocco (interviewed here) and Sarah
Thornton

Sothebys

THE longest bull run in a century of art-market history ended on a dramatic note音符 with a sale of 56 works by Damien Hirst, “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever”, at Sotheby’s
in London
on September 15th 2008 (see picture). All but two pieces sold, fetching more than £70m, a record for a sale by a single artist. It was a last hurrah. As the auctioneer called out bids, in New York one of the oldest banks on Wall Street, Lehman Brothers, filed for申请，诉之法律 bankruptcy.

The world art market had already been losing momentum for a while after rising vertiginously令人炫目的上升 since 2003. At its peak in 2007 it was worth some $65 billion, reckons猜想
Clare McAndrew, founder of Arts Economics, a research firm—double the figure five years earlier. Since then it may have come down to $50 billion. But the market generates interest far beyond its size because it brings together great wealth, enormous egos, greed, passion and controversy in a way matched by与相比，与一致 few other industries.

In the weeks and months that followed Mr Hirst’s sale, spending of any sort became deeply unfashionable, especially in New York, where the bail-out跳伞，以优先股发给股东作为红利的行为，紧急援助 of the banks coincided with the loss of thousands of jobs and the financial demise of many art-buying investors. In the art world that meant collectors stayed away from galleries and salerooms. Sales of contemporary art fell by two-thirds, and in the most overheated sector—for Chinese contemporary art—they were down by nearly 90% in the year to November 2008. Within weeks the world’s two biggest auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s, had to pay out nearly $200m in guarantees to clients who had placed works for sale with them这里怎么解释？.

The current downturn in the art market is the worst since the Japanese stopped buying Impressionists at the end of 1989, a move that started the most serious contraction in the market since the second world war. This time experts reckon that prices are about 40% down on their peak 前面是at这里为什么是on? on average, though some have been far more volatile. But Edward Dolman, Christie’s chief executive, says: “I’m pretty confident(be confident in/about/of/从句) we’re at the bottom.”

The best that can be said about the market at the moment is that it is holding its breath. But this special report will argue that it will bounce back, and that the key to its recovery lies in globalisation. The supply of the best works of art will always be limited, but in the longer run demand is bound to一定要 rise as wealth is spreading ever more widely across the globe.

The World Wealth Report, published by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch, charts the spending habits of the rich the world over. It includes art as one of a range of luxury items they like to buy. According to the report, in 2007 there were over 10m people with investible assets of $1m or more. Last year that number dropped to 8.6m and many rich people scaled按一定比例调节，调节 back their “investments of passion”—yachts, jets, cars, jewellery and so on. But the proportion of all luxury spending that went on art increased as investors looked for assets that would hold their value in the longer term.

The regional spread of buyers also changed significantly as some parts of the world became relatively richer. During the boom the number of wealthy people in Russia, India, China and the Middle East rose rapidly. In 2003 Sotheby’s biggest buyers—those who purchased lots costing at least $500,000—came from 36 countries. By 2007 they were spread（n.蔓延，分布） over 58 countries and their total number had tripled.
Auction records remain dominated by Impressionist and modern works (see table 2), but the biggest expansion in recent years has been in contemporary art. Prices of older works keep going up as more people have money to spend, but few such works become available because both collectors and museums tend to hold on to what they have. Old Master paintings, for example, have stuck at around 5% of both Sotheby’s and Christie’s sales for many years. By contrast, contemporary art, which in the early 1990s accounted for less than 10% of Sotheby’s revenues, grew to nearly 30% of greatly increased revenues by last year. Dealers and auction houses now sell more post-war and contemporary art than anything else. This report will concentrate on that part of the market, which accounts for about half the world’s art trade and most of the excitement.

Part of the extra demand has come from a large increase in the number of museums. Over the past 25 years more than 100 have been built, not only in America and Europe but also in the sheikhdoms酋长国 of the Persian波斯/伊朗 Gulf and the fast-growing cities in Asia; sometimes in partnership with Western institutions, such as the Guggenheim or the Louvre, sometimes on their own. Many of these institutions have made their mark by buying contemporary art.

Over the same period the number of wealthy private collectors has also increased many times over, and so has their diversity. The record price for one of Andy Warhol’s giant faces of Chairman Mao was $17.4m, paid by Joseph Lau, a Hong Kong property developer. It was the first major Warhol to go to the Far East. A month later the Qatar royal family bought a Hirst pill cabinet, entitled “Lullaby Spring”, for £9.7m, the first major Hirst bound for驶往(为什么用原形？) the Middle East. Everyone wants an iconic work, which helps explain the global demand for artists such as Warhol, Jeff Koons and Mr Hirst—and the eye-watering眼泪汪汪的 prices such work can command获得.

Masters of the art universe
Straddling横跨…的两边 all areas of the art market is a handful of individuals who have emerged as the key figures in the art world in recent years. Chief(为什么不加冠词) among them is François Pinault, a luxury-goods billionaire who is also a noted collector of contemporary art and the owner of Christie’s. Philippe Ségalot, his French-born adviser, was behind one of the biggest deals involving a single work of art, the private sale of Warhol’s 1963 painting, “Eight Elvises”, to an anonymous buyer for over $100m.

Mr Ségalot is also believed to be advising the royal family of Qatar, which in the past two years has spent large sums buying modern art at auction, including record-breaking works by Mark Rothko and Mr Hirst. Steven Cohen, an American hedge-fund避险基金 billionaire, also owns works by Warhol, Mr Hirst and Mr Koons. Mr Cohen used to be a sizeable shareholder of Sotheby’s and is still an important provider of liquidity资产流动性，流动资产(固定资产vs流动资金) to art buyers.

The popularity of blockbuster art exhibitions and the emergence of buyers with a different cultural history have helped change tastes. Artists such as Edvard Munch and Vasily Kandinsky rose sharply after solo shows in London and New York. Alexei von Jawlensky and Emil Nolde were regarded as specialist interests until Russian collectors began seeking them out. Zhao Wuji used to be just another Chinese painter-in-exile; now he is recognised as an Abstract Expressionist master influenced by Paul Klee and praised by both Joan Miró and Pablo Picasso.


How to sell it


Rising costs brought trouble to many old-fashioned fine-art(这里的连字符是怎样使用的？) dealer emporiums. In London Christopher Gibbs has sold his stock and Partridge is in administration. In Paris Galerie Segoura has closed, as has Salvatore Romano in Florence. Many dealers now prefer to take art works on consignment, matching配对、做媒 sellers to buyers for a commission佣金 rather than investing in stocks of art.

About half the market’s business, reckons Ms McAndrew of Arts Economics, is conducted at public auctions, with Christie’s and Sotheby’s taking the lion’s share. Smaller houses include Drouot in Paris, Bonhams, which is based in London but has several offices abroad, and Doyle in New York. The other half is generated by private dealers and galleries that are notoriously
secretive. One of the biggest private deals in recent years came to light only because the details were disclosed in an American court following the Bernard Madoff scandal. Last July ten paintings by Rothko and two sculptures by Alberto Giacometti were sold by a New York financier to help repay Mr Madoff’s investors. A mystery buyer spent $310m on the works. Two dealers earned $37.5m in fees.

By comparison with that private world, Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction business looks like a model of transparency. Although buyers and sellers are rarely named, the auction price is public. Yet even here there are dark corners. The leading auctioneers offer inducements such as guaranteed prices to persuade sellers to part with their treasures, and generous terms of payment for buyers.

One thing that differentiates the two auction houses is their ownership structure. Sotheby’s is a quoted company（上市公司？） whereas Christie’s, once listed（上市？）, was taken private in 1999 by its current owner, Mr Pinault. Christie’s business has since expanded hugely, partly thanks to Mr Pinault’s pivotal position in the international art world. Even though the company can pick and choose what information it wants to reveal, it has in fact become more open over the past ten years.

Sotheby’s, for its part, is still smarting感到刺痛 from the public beating it received in America nearly a decade ago when its chairman, Alfred Taubman, and its chief executive, Diana Brooks, were found guilty of conspiring with Christie’s to fix commissions操纵市场？. Mr Taubman served ten months of a one-year prison sentence; Mrs Brooks was given six months’ house arrest, a $350,000 fine and 1,000 hours of community service. No one was charged at Christie’s, which had blown the whistle on the commission-fixing. Sotheby’s lives in fear of the regulators and discloses only as much financial information as it has to不理解什么意思.

In the decade since the scandal both auction houses have concentrated on expansion. Sotheby’s was the first auctioneer to become interested in Russia and remains bigger there than its rival. Christie’s, which has long been especially strong in the Far East, has put a lot of effort into China. Foreigners are not allowed to own auction houses there, but Christie’s has got around that by signing a licensing agreement with a leading Chinese auctioneer. Both houses have their eye on the Middle East. Christie’s holds regular auctions in Dubai, of which its art and jewellery sales are the most successful. Sotheby’s has opened an office in Qatar which is important for its relationship with the Qatar royal family, one of its biggest clients.

With a hugely expanded international client base, it was only a matter of time before both auctioneers started to muscle in on areas that had previously been the preserve of private dealers, matching buyers and sellers and selling new art rather than items that had already been in the market. Sotheby’s proved to be much the more ruthless of the two. All the lots in Mr Hirst’s September 2008 sale, for example, had been consigned to Sotheby’s directly from the artist’s workshop, which shocked dealers who had not previously thought of the auction houses as direct competitors.

In 2006 Sotheby’s paid $56.5m for Noortman Master Paintings, a leading dealer in Old Masters. Less than a year later Christie’s bought Haunch of Venison, another high-profile dealer set up in 2002, whose founders included a former director of Christie’s contemporary-art department. Noortman gave Sotheby’s an entry into the Maastricht Art Fair, the pre-eminent dealers’ fest, and Haunch of Venison helped make Christie’s Mr Pinault the biggest art trader in the market. Both galleries operate independently of the auction houses被后置了, but the relationships are close.

All things to all men
Both auction houses have also put a lot of effort into advising buyers on how to improve their collections. As Jussi Pylkkanen, Christie’s European president, says, “We’re much more than an auction house now.” The recession has made many collectors nervous about offering their treasures at auction, so they are selling them privately. In 2007 Christie’s chalked up private sales of $542m and Sotheby’s of $730m, which means the two auction houses are now among the world’s biggest private dealers. Both often get calls like the one Sotheby’s recently took from a Moscow collector with $2m to spend on an “optimistic” Chagall oil, “not too feminine” and no more than a metre in height. “We put out the word and immediately received several offers from our offices in London, Geneva and New York,” says Mikhail Kamensky, the firm’s head of CIS business.

In 2007 private deals accounted for 8.7% of Christie’s business. Mr Pylkkanen expects that figure to go up to 20% of its revenue within three years. That should put the wind up private dealers.


My comment:
Auction houses selling the works of art transparently offers more people with much enthusiasm in art, however not rich in money, chances to admire and/or to get inspired from the masters' works. This generous action of sharing enlarges the value of the works, thus benefits the world of art with flourishing ideas coming from the poor men. On the contrary, the private dealers sell these works secretly with few men appreciating them. Unfortunately, auction houses are expecting the private dealings to bring them higher revenue, which will gradually undermine the art's vitality with fewer communications among artists and the artworks.

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

现在明确了，我是一个短期计划爱好者，长期的计划会让我产生烦躁或是完全没有动力感。

其实早在7月份就开始准备考G了，那个时候还雄心壮志想把10G拿下，可是8月初就把8月底的作文推迟到了明年3月19号。之所以选这么晚是因为我还是很看重AW的，我认为这是一个综合实力的提升，短期内我是不可能实现5分的目标的。然后大致看了看别人的经验贴，也没有认真研究，看到的都是什么一个月准备，十几天速成，似乎无数的人都在说AW的准备只要1个月就够了，战线拉长了反而不是好事。于是，我心安理得的把计划安排成1月初开始准备AW，还认为这样有两个多月的时间，应该足够了。接着我就开始了红宝的艰难攻克路程。我的记忆力特别的差，这么多年都没有形成自己的好的记忆习惯，因为是理科生，到了大学就更是把背书抛至一边。在周围的人都为四六级背单词时，我感觉及格就行，最终也让我都及格了。现在想想自从高一开始就没有好好学习英语，这么多年其实都是吃老本，还真该感谢我初中英语老师。她那时的方法就是让我们课前死背单词，课后死背课文，超量的作业-那时英语的作业是所有课程里最多的。偏了，再拉回来，然后我又想怎么样才能提升背单词的效率呢，又是上网搜，这回看到了说听老俞的串讲，多听几遍自然就记住了，于是天天塞着耳机听，两个星期过去了，一头雾水。这时已经9月份了，我看不行，再上网搜，最后得出一个结论，不管听串讲是不是有用，那都是建立在自己已经背过单词，有了大概印象的基础上的，现在开始静下心来慢慢背了，选了17天，可是发现我背单词的进度实在是慢，方法上说一个list一小时，我第一遍都得2小时，这样按每天3个新的list下来，任务是天天都完成不了，于是就这么看过一个list划掉一个list，花了一个多月的时间把第一遍给熬下来了。终于有了零的突破，我是何等了欢欣鼓舞啊，接着就背逆序，前20页还很好，我很开心，有60%-70%的记忆率呢，然后越往后越差，有的10页，我只有30%的记忆率，而且背单词的速度仍然没有上升，和第一遍差不多。这样坚持了一半不到，又灰心了，开始想心思，于是又是网站。以前一直在taisha上看帖，虽然也知道gter，但我想只要一个论坛就够了，就是有点奇怪为什么大家把论坛捧得那么高，我考过G的同学都让我上这来，可是在taisha上，我就是有问题搜一搜回答，没有别的突破性的获得，可能也和我之前的懈怠状态有关，反正时间长得很。一次很偶然的机会，我到gter上看了看，对G综合版还没有什么感觉，可是进了作文版之后，看到了大片的活动，我喜欢上了这里，觉得这是一个提升自己的机会。尤其是看到了Reborn from the ashes组的活动，我决定在这里扎根，和别人一起做作业，作业要按时交，然后才可以进入最后的环节，这很吸引我。而且最重要的一点是这里会有人给你布置作业，你不用自己操心怎样安排进度才合适，至少当时我是这样想的。可是我还在背单词，每天我自己背单词的任务都完不成，又要做作业，平衡了几天后，又被几件事脱开身，又开始了我的偷懒过程，持续了有半个月吧，既没有背单词，也没有做作业，这时我和别人的差距拉大了。突然一天又回到这里，如五雷轰顶，我怎么能这样下去，何况我的目标还不是分数能看就行，是要优秀的。开始补作业，这才发现刚做时觉得应该不多的作业我花的时间都比草木给的多太多，可是水平所限，效率只能这么低，也只能黯然。接着就完全放弃了背单词，现在看看，背单词我已经停了有1个月了，都不敢回头看，怕那30%都记不起来了，不过这应该是理所当然的吧。可是最终还是没赶上最后的截止日期，试着把checklist给草木发过去，她指出来我的基础还太薄弱，完成作业的质和量都不够，不适合进这个组，我必须自己先提高。而就在昨天和草木的请教中才幡然悔悟，完成草木的作业仅仅是第一步，自己有意识的练习才更重要。

本来打算进R组的目标泡汤了，就思考着怎样才能尽快提升基础，今天花了一天的时间，希望能给自己今后的复习一个良好的安排。上午以练习为最主要的内容列了一个计划，主要内容是到12月底分析背诵范文，1月份每天一篇issue进行练习，在练笔过程中巩固基础，2月份列提纲，同时每天做阅读难度逻辑速度练习和economist comment。可纠结在是应该先练笔还是先列提纲，我把草木的帖子都翻了一遍，看到了当时10G dies in flame组的复习计划，于是我彻底迷糊了。在草木的要求里，初期要练的内容是：单词、难句、精华帖阅读、过题库、备考贴的更新、economist阅读写作分析 按理说应当是每天一篇、GRE NO题阅读写作分析 NO2全部、effective writting基础训练、bernina的范文分析、issue习作13篇。如果我希望把这些都练习下来而不加做之后草本布置的任务的话，一个月的时间根本不够，而且我的薄弱是全方面的，前一阵子发的关于跑题的帖还发现了我的academic writing和effective writing的基本理解都不够，单词，阅读，作文，每一部分的单个作业都要花去我很多时间，现在我就迷失在了时间安排的沼泽里。今天又看到了达芬奇睡眠法，说是一天一个半小时分段睡眠就可以了，似乎成了我的一个选项。可是我有一个很大的特点就是稳定性差，极易改变主意，做事都是有始无终，我就不能确定到底是死抱着提升效率呢，还是试着减少睡眠呢？先不管其它，先把我自己的弱点都列出来，再来思考如何安排吧。那最主要的问题就是太多的薄弱点，怎样安排优先级，把它们穿插着练习合适。

今天一天的感想就这些，似乎有些少，也许这又涉及到效率的问题了。明天把薄弱点补上，今天上午列的还不全面，还要继续修改。只能说，加油了！

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

问题总要找到解决方案才不枉我这一天的时间和这一段时间做作业所进行的自省。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

今天详细的总结了自己的缺陷、疑惑等，一一进行了思考，列出了解决方案。还没有总结好怎样穿插这些练习，但下面一个月的复习就按这个来了。

先把复习计划的素材放上来：
首先要克服心理障碍，因为我的一切能力都是可以锻炼提升的。
成功的道路有多条，我的精力也有限，不可能占全了，找一条路，坚持走下去是正道，也许会有疑惑或是走岔道的时候，可以自省，但不要随便换路，会迷失的。
先确保阅读中我的语法障碍只占到了5%-前期进行语法专项训练，或者说文章中顶多只有一句话我需要进行语法分析来理解，这就说明这种语法我不熟练，将其抽出单练。


阅读：
语法专项训练->阅读->阅读语法难点单练->阅读->生词/动词/介词/好句式专练->逻辑分析->effective writing分析->速度训练
中间需要打断重组的。
不同的文章有不同的训练要点，没必要一篇文章看全，要分类。
写作：基础的练习在阅读中已经完成，这里需要单独分析GRE要求。
Issue的破题和brainstorming，argument的找错和归类。
不能忘了一点，重复是最重要的，只看一遍就扔掉是没用的，和单词一样，要不停的重复。温故而知新。

下面把上午想到的难点进行分析解决方案，最后综合到上面的连续流程中去，下一步就是执行。
问，答
1.
阅读别人作文时，结构把握不了，不能够判断是否论证充分和合理了。对深度也没有很好的理解。
先分析学习范文，能把范文理解了3遍之后，1如果能理解并awintro的要求了，就来看菜鸟的文章，防止自己发生同样的错误，2如果仍然不能，再来看论坛中牛人的作文，继续学习。
范文3遍->牛文/菜文。
2.
前期基础训练时，应该是以issue为主吧，argu是并行呢，还是后期再练？argu需要现在就开始逻辑分析训练么？
Issue和argu的共同点是论证要充分深入，结构（哪个分论点在前，哪个在后，段落中的格式是总分总，分总，还是总分）要好，过渡衔接（逻辑顺序标志词、句子间的连接和思维的连接）要好，语句词汇要丰富多样没有错误。不同点是issue需要自己对题目进行思考，审题20问，brainstorming，论证有事例；而argument是找出议论文的主要错误。所以前期主要练习语言、结构、过渡和什么叫充分深入的论证，并练习brainstorming和找错，再把语言的学习融入到写作中去。就是说应该是并行的。
3.
前面的语法系列怎么练习？
草木的语法系列定期回顾，介词动词使用在阅读时练习，其余所有不会的语法积攒，每2-3天提问学习一次。最后是习作自己修改总结和他人修改总结。
4.
阅读只看一篇英文文章，和将它们用文字翻译出来的理解差很多。因此，我的英文直接阅读理解的能力在哪个方面有缺陷？看的时候是感觉自己理解了的。
翻译的时候因为都是中文，逻辑比较跟得上，所以翻到哪里就理解到哪里，完全不需要回头再阅读，这说明我的理解能力还是没有问题的，差距在英文的理解力和逻辑思维能力比中文差很多，不能做到形象思维，就造成了理解差很多的情况。因为前后没有联系，所以会自己随便想象，不按照事实来，造成明明每一句都懂了，感觉自己理解了，但实际不是这样。这和后面会提到的阅读时没有进行逻辑思维分析记忆是一个原因，差距就在于两者的程度不同，轻的像这样，严重的就是不理解。
5.
语法是否需要单独训练，如果不怎样融入到阅读和写作中去？
前面已经给出了答案，单独复习回顾是需要的，但其它方面则要在实际练习中发现问题再有针对性的弥补漏洞。
6.
我现在有一个很大的问题就是，阅读文章时努力搞懂了每一句的意思，可是前面的内容全忘记了，到最后文章说了什么完全没概念，要极力避免这个问题。这样做就本质上排除了自己对逻辑思考的训练。
根本原因待究：和没有思考的习惯有关，和基础不扎实有关；后者已经有了解决方法，前者需要练习注意力集中和思考，先像中文一样能够对每句描述有自然的感情的反应再说。
7.
语法中的从句专练，虚拟语气专练怎么练？
把阅读中所有遇到的难句除了按每周的解决计划外，再专门总结到一起，不时看看。所以要有一个专门的“错题本”。
8.
阅读的逻辑和速度问题也待解决。
逻辑要通过来两方面，阅读基础和专门练习。
9.
的确需要背诵，但是背诵哪些内容是个问题，可以背诵范文，可以背诵长难句，可以背诵economist，可以背诵新概念4。
背长难句是最直接的语感的练习，背文章则是全方面的练习。我已经有了全方面的基础分析练习，可以先练语感，因为我语法做不到单项专练，所以要多背。再背全文进行全方面的强化。
10.
GRE NO2题的阅读写作分析，同economist。
精力有限，先把economist进度赶上，再看其他的。
11.
阅读速度练习，前提是要阅读基础扎实
要同时练习，这是很有益的。即使只是调节学习注意力、心情等都很好。
12.
可以认为背诵是后期的方法，前期是语法、动词、介词的使用练习,还包括使用effective writing对文章进行分析，还包括自己多些几篇，把握好自己的习惯-优缺点各在哪里，这样后期背诵的时候才有对比，才更有使用效率。
同9，背诵全文是后期的方法，前期先不管。

第一步是真正把握什么样的是好作文，拿effective writing的内容来学习所有6分范文。

brainstorming的前提是自己先提出所能想到的所有问题，再回答，如果回答之后发现思路狭窄，就表明回答不够或问题很窄，就要和别人Bs

先是要进行阅读记忆的练习。然后在阅读别人的文章时的自我思考，这篇文章哪里比我的好，如果是我会怎么写。

学习过程中的语法问题收集一段时间在论坛上发帖。大概每星期一次，这样就可以保证有问题就解决，否则问题还是问题。

再一次阅读分析awintro评分标准。再分析范文时或其他文章是使用，是第一优先级。

effective writing的基础训练，可以找到一套文章issue，每套文章每天都单项训练

issue&argu试水，每周1-2篇

peter的argu官方范文分析，可以在我分析了官方范文后进行比对，查找思维漏洞。一篇一对比。不只是peter的，所有的官方范文自己先分析，然后上论坛，和别人的分析进行比照学习。

长难句的阅读，理解，学习和摹写是阅读和写作基础的第二步。（第一步是语法训练）

刚想到一种方法，把选定的文中的所有介词隐藏，自己来填空，只有自己做，才是最快的提升方法。
同样的方法可以使用在动词上，只是动词比较难以解决，先一个一个来吧。
再，同样的方法适用于economist阅读后的好词好句摘抄，这样比较集中有针对性的练习。

明天上午就把丢了许久的单词拾起来，赶快赶快。中午再把这些最后理一遍。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

[comment][12.23]&[12.24] key points - questions Executive pay This house believes that on the whole, senior executives are worth what they are paid About this debate Over the past few decades executive pay has risen dramatically. Bosses who were once paid ten times as much as shopfloor workers are now sometimes paid as much as 300 times as much. This trend was never popular, even during good times. But today it is becoming radioactive, as governments step in to rescue failing companies and ordinary people are forced to tighten their belts. Is the anger justified? Some argue that executive pay is a long-standing disgrace. Pay is often not tethered to performance. Huge rewards for the few demotivate the rest of the workforce. Others are more sanguine. Successful executives, such as Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, can add hugely to a firm's profitability, benefiting workers, managers and shareholders alike. The growing pay of executives has to be balanced against the growing difficulty of their jobs, particularly as turnover职工流动 in the boardroom increases. Opening statements Defending the motion Steven N. Kaplan Neubauer Family Prof. of Entrepreneurship & Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business In the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, CEOs are routinely老一套，令人厌烦的 criticised for being overpaid. Against the motion Nell  Minow Editor and Co-founder, The Corporate Library Excessive executive compensation of the past decade is both a symptom and a cause of the current economic mess. The moderator's opening remarks Oct 20th 2009 |   Adrian  Wooldridge One of the few things that anti-globalisation campaigners and stockmarket investors agree upon is that executive pay is out of control. It is not hard to understand this shared outrage: executive pay has exploded since the 1980s. For most of the postwar era executives earned a few multiples of the median pay. But thereafter, starting in America and slowly spreading to the rest of the world, the multiples increased exponentially. Today many American workers earn in a year what their boss takes home in an evening. Isn't this a disgrace? Critics of executive pay worry that even mediocre bosses are given outsized rewards. Robert Nardelli received a $20m pay-off when he left Home Depot even though the share price had fallen during his six-year tenure. Carly Fiorina was $180m better off语法理解不通 when she left Hewlett-Packard despite a lacklustre tenure. Defenders of executive pay argue that great bosses such as Louis Gerstner, the former boss of IBM, and Jack Welch, the former boss of General Electric, are worth every penny because they create huge amounts of wealth for both shareholders and employees. The debate about executive pay, though never cool, is particularly hot at the moment. Workers have been squeezed by the recession. Unemployment is approaching 10% in the United States and much higher numbers in many other countries. Numerous governments are planning to deal with their rising deficits by freezing public-sector pay. And yet many bosses and bankers continue to make out开支票 like bandits—or so lots of people think（so）. We are lucky to have two of the best people in the business to debate this subject. Steven Kaplan, who proposes the motion, teaches at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. Nell Minow, who opposes it, is a long-time shareholder activist and chairwoman of the Corporate Library, a research company. (For people who want to know more about her she is also the subject of a profile in a recent issue of the New Yorker.) Mr Kaplan starts off by making two fundamental points. CEO pay has not gone up in recent years; indeed, it has been dropping since 2000, particularly in relation to other well-paid groups, such as hedge fund managers, lawyers, consultants and professional athletes. Nor is CEO pay unrelated to performance. Boards are increasingly willing to fire CEOs for poor performance. Ms Minow focuses heavily on the relationship between pay and the recent credit crunch. She points out that executive pay helped to create the mess in the first place: Countrywide's CEO, Angelo Mozillo, made more than $550m during his time in office执政. She also points out that the fact that many companies that were bailed out by the government continue to pay their CEOs huge salaries and bonuses is damaging the credibility of the system. Such bold opening statements raise questions galore. Is Mr Kaplan justified in starting his account in 2000 rather than 1980, when executive pay exploded. And is Ms Minow right to concentrate so heavily on the financial sector? These are only a couple of the questions that we need to thrash out研究解决 in the coming days. The proposer's opening remarks Oct 20th 2009 |   Steven N. Kaplan In the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, CEOs are routinely criticised for being overpaid. Critics argue that boards do not respond to market forces, but, instead, are dominated by or are over-generous为什么要用连字符 to their CEOs. Boards are criticised for not tying CEOs' pay to performance. These criticisms have been exacerbated by the financial crisis and the desire to find scapegoats. I argue below that the critics are wrong and that there are many misperceptions of CEO pay. While CEO pay practices are not perfect, they are driven by market forces and performance. Contrary to public perception, CEO pay has not gone up in recent years. In fact, the average CEO pay (adjusted for inflation) has dropped since 2000, while the pay of other groups has increased substantially. Similarly, the view that CEOs are not paid for performance is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true and boards increasingly fire them for poor performance. And, most recently, consistent with market forces driving pay, the US and UK governments each hired a new CEO (of AIG and the Royal Bank of Scotland) for以多少钱的以用for表示? pay exceeding that of the median large company CEO. It is useful to understand how CEO pay is measured. It includes three components: salary, bonus and stock-based pay. It is usually measured in two ways. The first is the sum of salary, bonus, restricted stock and the expected value of stock options. I call this expected pay. Expected pay measures what boards believe they awarded the CEO. This is the best measure of what a CEO is paid each year. Note that the CEO does not actually walk away with this money. The second measure replaces expected stock option values with values actually realized and realised pay measures what CEOs walk away with. The first graph shows average and median expected CEO pay for S&P 500 CEOs since 1994 (adjusted for inflation). It shows that median CEO pay has been stable since 2001; it has not increased. And average pay has declined substantially. In fact, average CEO pay in 2008 is below the average in 1998. While average CEO pay has declined, the pay of other highly paid groups has increased. The second graph shows S&P 500 CEO pay relative to the income of the top 1% of US taxpayers. Relative to those other groups, CEOs are no better off in 2008 than in 1994. Strikingly, relative CEO pay is a half of what it was in 2001, a huge decline. Which are those groups that have earned increasingly high compensation? Hedge fund, private equity and venture capital investors have increased their assets and fees substantially, translating into high pay. By one estimate, the top three hedge fund managers earned more in 2007 than all 500 S&P 500 CEOs combined. Professional athletes, investment bankers, consultants and lawyers also have benefited greatly. For example, from 2004 to 2008, the inflation-adjusted pay of partners at the top 20 law firms increased by 12% while that of S&P 500 CEOs dropped 12%. Those law firms had over 3,000 partners making an average of $2.4m each. One can look at the Obama administration for other examples. Larry Summers made $8m (more than the median S&P 500 CEO) giving speeches and working part-time for a hedge fund. Eric Holder made $3.5m as a law partner. So, while CEOs earn a lot, they are not unique. The pay of people in the other groups has undoubtedly been driven by market forces; all are compensated in arm's-length markets, not by cronies. Technology, globalisation and scale appear to have increased the market value of these groups. CEOs have not done better and, by some measures, have done worse. Those who argue CEOs are overpaid have to explain how CEOs can be overpaid and not subject to market forces, when the other groups are paid at least as well and are subject to market forces. Why is the pay of these other groups relevant for CEOs? Top executives regularly leave to work for private equity firms and hedge funds. Law partners and consultants leave to work for public companies as general counsels and executives. Relative pay matters and all these groups are paid according to market demand. Markets are the driving force for senior executives in all these industries and talented people jump across industries, based on market perceptions of their worth. Critics also argue that CEO pay is not tied to stock performance. Again, that is not true. Looking at what CEOs actually receive—realised pay—Josh Rauh and I found that firms with CEOs in the top decile of realised pay earned stock what省去了？ returns 90% above those of other firms in their industries over the previous five years. Firms with CEOs in the bottom decile of realised pay underperformed by almost 40%. The typical CEO is paid for performance. This was reinforced in 2008, when average realised CEO pay declined by 25% (according to S&P's Execucomp). And Equilar, another provider of CEO pay data, estimated that the typical CEO experienced a net worth decline of over 40%. The final myth to bust打破、打碎 is that CEOs control their boards and earn high pay through this control and not performance. In fact, CEO tenure has declined, from ten years in the 1970s to six years today, and boards have got tougher on their executives when they do not perform. In sum, market forces govern CEO compensation. CEOs are paid what they are worth. Talented individuals, who are perceived to be valuable, can move between industries to be compensated well. The clearest example of this is that even governments have to pay highly for talented executives. Recently, the Royal Bank of Scotland (under UK government control) hired a CEO with a package worth up to $16m; AIG (under US government control) hired a CEO with a package worth up to $10.5m. For these critical jobs, both of these executives received compensation exceeding the pay of the median S&P 500 CEO. The opposition's opening remarks Oct 20th 2009 | Nell  Minow Excessive executive compensation of the past decade is both a symptom and a cause of the current economic mess. And the post-meltdown彻底垮台 awards are all but guaranteed to continue to create perverse荒谬的 incentives诱因 that will reward management and further damage the interests of shareholders and every other participant in the economy. Incentive compensation奖金 rewarded executives for the quantity of transactions rather than the quality of transactions. It inevitably led to failures like the subprime disaster and the dominoes it toppled as it took the economy down with it. Worst of all, the avalanche of post-bailout bonuses and departure packages like the $53m Ken Lewis got from Bank of America have severely damaged the credibility of Wall Street and the American financial markets as a whole. The billions of dollars of losses do not come close to the reputational hit to American capitalism, which will increase the cost of capital for all US companies. Panglossian observers will always be able to find some metric to justify any level of pay. But the results speak for themselves. The decisions that led to the meltdown were made by executives who knew that they would be paid tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how successful the consequences of those decisions. Let us look at ground zero of the subprime mess, Countrywide, where Angelo Mozilo made more than $550m during his time as CEO. When the compensation committee tried to object to his pay levels, he hired another compensation consultant, paid for by the shareholders, to push them into giving him more. He also pushed for, and was given, shareholder subsidies, not just for his wife's travel on the corporate jet but for the taxes on the imputed income from that travel. Instead of telling Mr Mozilo that he had no business asking the shareholders to subsidise his taxes, the board meekly signed off on it, making it clear to everyone in the executive suite that the pay-performance link was not a priority. By the end of 2007, when Countrywide finally revealed the losses it had previously obscured, shareholders lost more than 78% of their investment value. Meanwhile, in early 2007 Mr Mozilo sold over $127m in exercised stock options before July 24th 2007, when he announced a $388m write-down账面价值的故意降低 on profits. Before the bailout, Countrywide narrowly avoided bankruptcy by taking out an emergency loan of $11 billion from a group of banks. Mr Mozilo continued to sell off廉价销售 shares, and by the end of 2007 he had sold an additional $30m in exercised stock options. There is the definition of outrageously excessive compensation. Countrywide responded to a shareholder proposal that year asking for a non-binding advisory vote on its pay plan by urging shareholders to oppose it because "Countrywide has been an outstanding performer" and because "The Board's Compensation Committee has access to the best information on compensation practices and has a thorough process in place合适的 to determine appropriate executive pay." They could hardly have done worse.could have应该是虚拟语气吧，可是我不理解。 And it is likely that some market feedback on the structure of the pay plan could have given compensation committee members Harley W. Snyder (chair), Robert J. Donato, Michael E. Dougherty and Oscar P. Robertson worthwhile guidance. Michelle Leder of the indispensable Footnoted.org website discovered that Frank A. Keating, Charles T. Maxwell and Frederick B. Whittemore, the compensation committee at Chesapeake Energy, not only paid the CEO, Aubrey McClendon, $100m, a 500% increase as the stock dropped 60% and the profits went down 50%, they spent $4.6m of the shareholders' money to sponsor a basketball team of which Mr McClendon owns a 19% stake, they purchased catering services from a restaurant which he owns just under a half of, and they took his collection of antique maps off his hands for $12.1m of the shareholders' money, based on a valuation from the consultant who advised Mr McClendon on assembling the collection. The board justified this by referring to Mr McClendon's having to sell more than $1 billion worth of stock due to margin calls, his having concluded four important deals and the benefit to employee morale from having the maps on display in the office. A market-based response would be: (1) that was his risk and it is inappropriate to the point of misappropriation to force the other shareholders, already substantially相当多的 out of pocket赔钱的 with their own losses due to his poor leadership of the organisation, make up for his losses (2) if the deals are good ones, he will be adequately rewarded when the benefit of those deals is reflected in the stock price; and (3) you have got to be kidding. If this is pay for performance, what exactly is the performance we are paying for? These may be anecdotes, but they are illuminating ones. The numbers and details may be at the extreme, but the underlying approaches处理事情的方法 are representative. Even as outliers, they still demonstrate the failure of the system to ensure a vigorous, arm's-length system for determining pay and the inability of the system to require an effective incentive programme with a genuine downside as well as an upside. In my comments, I will discuss the seven deadliest sins of executive compensation, the two key elements that are essential for any plan that merits support from investors and the only metric that matters in looking at pay. Pay off: 1 a : to give all due wages to; especially : to pay in full and discharge (an employee) b : to pay (a debt or a creditor) in full c : BRIBE 2 : to inflict retribution on 3 : to allow (a thread or rope) to run off a spool or drum My comment: Not only the CEOs but also the top level of the economic market are is就近原则 overpaid. The opposition's remarks prove that there areis indeed excessive pay going to CEOs, and the proposer's substantiate that executive pay declines in recent years in relation to the whole top class. CEOs are part of the top class, and they are to blame to mess up the economic market and cause the recession; however, "they are not unique," as the proposer says, others in the top class are even more voracious. As to talk about the classes, the capitalism is behind the curtain, maybe going over its life.

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

我总是偷懒，然后一次又一次的把掉落的勤奋拾起来，但是还是需要的，就从今天开始吧。
今天其实也没做什么，单词复习了9个list，熟练度堪忧啊，不过终于开始试用软件背了，似乎的确比看书效率要高些，用软件我可以一个半小时过3个list，看书估计要3个小时，还是不错的。最终如何，还是等一轮下来才能下定论。

wunonomeiUID: 2717257

第二次作业
130."How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
今天孩子的社会化方式决定了社会的明天。遗憾的是，我们还不知道如何去培养这些能有助于带来一个更好社会的孩子们。

Syllabus
1.
社会的明天是由今天的孩子创造的，这是公认的，但是在中国，人们对更好的社会就是物质生活更加丰富的错误理解造成了人们实际上并不懂得如何培养孩子。
2.
教育的重心却放在了知识上，缺少了对孩子的心理的辅导。使得孩子目光短浅，心理脆弱。
3.
对知识的偏重也使人们忽视了孩子个人特质的发展，造成资源的浪费。
4.
社会是包括物质和精神两方面的，缺一不可，只有在重视知识教育的同时注重实践，并且顺应个人特性，才能使孩子的能力最大化，创建更好的社会。

WORDS: 373
TIME: 01:30:00

Children today build up society tomorrow. A good society in Chinese understanding now is a society full of material which can serve better physical lives to all; while, it really serves both physical and psychological functions. In such sense, people actually do not know how to raise children for a better society.

People's pursue of economic progressing devotes to children's psychological displacement. Since people enjoy the fruit of technology progress, they admire knowledge better than ever before, thus concentrating education on the information transmitting instead of balancing knowledge with using. Now in China, most children can tell housework is part of life, while they do not do any housework. When these children enter the society to build their own families, they hold huge pressure during daily lives such as tidying the room, cooking, washing clothes, even calling for reparation help. Also when children keep studying in classrooms without connection to the outer world, they remain isolated emotionally. They cannot deal with relationship with colleagues, feel lonely most time. One of my work team member always finish his part quickly but not well with the whole job, then every time he needs more time to make the adjustment. He could do better if he have communicated with us more often, but he is too shy to do this. The society requires people who know technology and how to use as well.

And education today tries to make every person an engineer, which loses a lot of energy during fighting against human nature. People all see that engineers earn much and are so-called white-collars, glorious when talked about. Parents decide the future of their children, neglecting what they suits. It is common phenomenon that someone studies one class instead of his interest and doodles the college years, finally gain nothing. Years later, some still bear the uncomfortable classes, some give up to find their real interest. For the former group, we can expect them unnoticeable career lives; and for the next group, we can expect them struggling for long during the changing process.

A society is formed to interconnect people with material, information and emotion. Only people concentrate education on information, practice, and obeying human nature, can maximize children's abilities to build a better society.

我关于社会化的理解是广义的，将社会化等同于广义的教育，过于宽泛，如果在文中给出定义，那么是可以写，不算跑题，但是论证难度太大。而事实上，写作过程中，我自己就丧失了逻辑，说理模糊，举例不具有典型性，各种论证的缺陷都出现了。所以要从一个相对狭小的理解或领域来写，比较好把握，也不会过于空洞。