悟issue的真相

imongUID: 140258

近两天被issue郁闷得死去活来，晚上下楼逛了一圈，有所悟，so贴出来（用来给大家添加信心——原来天下还有这么白痴的人！！！）

刚刚发现issue题目可以分成两大类，一种是is的，纯粹的是非，另一种是should的，应该或者不该。should的，比如说，government should给儿童钱，可以写为什么，这样做的好处（consequence），注意事项。is的这样写好像就完了（is的好处？！is的注意事项？！！！）
也就是说，is只能写为什么?(暂时没有确定）
所以，被管卫东的书误导的我终于醒悟了。哈哈哈哈......狂笑ing（疯le）

还有，像我现在菜鸟菜得挤不出水来的，今天也找到一个tip
不要着急一上来就定position
理由：
定了position就会狂热支持，写完一个paragraph就gameover
比如说issue7还是8
It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public.
我一开始就想写support，结果就算加上concession也出不来多少
反而是一开始先问问自己为什么
  for government 有时候的确就需要这样干
  然后我想到反对时，很自然想到了mass
    于是讨论对mass这么干到底好不好
  （不用说，肯定是half/half）
  说到不好的那half的时候，就可以再过渡回到government上了
  因为对mass不好的时候往往mass起来吵架，于是government也没有好日子过
这样position也就差不多出来了
一会儿就写了好几个提纲

有时候只顾着自己的idea，就不容易从另一个角度看问题了
so,明天就照着这个方法写写看

天地无用UID: 112318

嗯,不错.

gteryyUID: 114434

呵呵，找到最适合自己的方法就好了。

不过，你对ISSUE的分类也忒简单了吧。。。但是能看出规律就说明你对ISSUE的理解和把握加深了，好事！

imongUID: 140258

从题材类别上分当然是一大堆
不过这么做的确澄清了一个事实
我上次还写了education involve the process of revising
一边头疼一边苦苦写着is之后的好处...
想起来我头就大...

angeikimUID: 4857

可是，写英文ESSAY的话，最特别的一个就是要有鲜明的观点

feier521UID: 109747

呵呵，加精！

angeikimUID: 4857

好啊，响应号召，一起讨论咯。

imongUID: 140258

我觉得鲜明观点是指有一个确定的position，而不一定是观点更偏向哪个方向
不急于定position是为了把position定得更准，废话更多
anyway, 今天写完了贴上来让大家改改
现在就去

imongUID: 140258

8. "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."

Starting with the author's claim, I believe political leaders have to withhold information from the public sometimes. Classifications are commonplace in both domestic and diplomatic affairs. Even business people tend to avoid any unnecessary declarations when they negotiate, and no wonder political leaders do the same. That only the heads have access to top secrets does not offend the common people. Actually, this is why Pearl Harbor was a tremendous success to the Japanese authority ------ I bet their success in intelligence security is also worth mentioning. And yet again, when Roosevelt decided to give back Tokyo a lesson, Americans were inspired by the triumph one year later but not by the decision at the moment. How could they have such a victory if anything was announced to the public?

When it is favorable for political figures to be silent, for the masses, however, whether it is desirable as well is not always certain. A case-by-case study is required in that the masses' attitude toward being ignorant has a significant effect on politics itself. Fortunately, such shut-up practice usually ensures the masses' interests, as the two examples presented above. Take the president as another example. We vote the one in whom we believe can meet our needs such as lower tax or better education. Presidency is designated along with responsibility, to decide at every very moment. So we can forgive, or even encourage, those concealments as long as he/she does good for the people and it turns out good also. That the mass media evade investigations too sensitive and speak on the behalf of the nation is excellent evidence. After all, the Iraq war was always depicted righteous at its beginning, by any US news agencies.

Yet the problem arise when political characters infuriate the masses by excuses of secrecy. There has been a Watergate for Nixon, a zipper gate for Clinton, and who knows if another Iraq gate for Bush. Their power enabled them to make profit for themselves at the cost of their people, and it is pitiful that they did so. How can the mass hold back their objections under such circumstances? Nixon went back home. Clinton went to the court. It is high time for them to learn a lesson, that their images are endangered, their morals are questioned, and their reputations are destructed, all on their own. And the public suffers. When tax is poured into these scandals but not public sanitation for example, the masses will inevitably fight for their right to know. Hard as they try to cover, their misuse of power cannot go unnoticed for long. The outcome never turns out desirable then.

In conclusion, I concede that political leaders sometimes should withhold information from the public if necessary as long as they stand on the behalf of the masses. This is no excuse, however, to preserve their skeleton in the cupboard. The public will punish those go to extremes.

blooming_leeUID: 135884

越写越慢！！！！！
才休息了几天而已，
今天再写，
45min才写了471个字！
难道真到要每天都写一篇？
=========
=========
8. "It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."
===========
===========

Politics is a kind of art to moderate the conflicts, if any, among the people and the government, and protect the people and the government from being attacked by other nations, and than the political leaders should be masters of this art. Thus, the criteria on whether a piece of information should be issued to the public or not falls on the debate of the consequence of publishing it. In order words, it is necessary, even desirable for political leaders to withhold information from the public.

In the first please, withholding some information backs up the stability of the nation, especially on domestic affairs. For example, several years ago, the great old man, head of the commissioner of the Fed, Greenspan, had a short private conversation with a newsman; and days later, the newsman gave a hint of their talking on an editorial and the Dow-Jones Average fluctuated dramatically that day and the days following. As demonstrated through the example of the deteriorative affect of Greenspan's little talking on the national, even worldwide, stock market, it is obvious that the people some times lack the insights to tell useful information form junk ones, and most of the time, especially when promising a deadly vital consequence, they are easily influenced by so-called experts, or even simply by the trends of the other people. It could be a nightmare for the government and would cost much to have the nightmare settled. Thus the best way to avoid this kind of blind rush, the political leaders should withhold some unsettled issues. And at the time publishing it, the leader should have well prepared to answer the questions from the people and to make sound explanations, thus reassure the people. And consequently, the people and the government both benefit from this kind of withholding.

What's more, it is very foolish to publish whatever information of the political issues, especially referring to the safety of the country. As we all know that there is a world famous agency called CIA in Washington, while no body know exactly every thing going on out there, even President of United States. In fact, every nation has a resembling agency function like CIA, and they are so eager to know the daily affairs, debates, proposals and plans running in the institutions of other nations. It is of immense importance to withhold the information, which is called the national classified information, from the public, even its own people. These kinds of information include the location of nuclear bases or the military researches on missiles, and so forth.

In conclusion, some times it is advisable to withhold information from the public for the sake of the stability of the society and the safety of the nation.

gteryyUID: 114434

1.

我觉得鲜明观点是指有一个确定的position，而不一定是观点更偏向哪个方向

你能具体说说这确定的position和观点偏向有什么具体区别吗？如果你说A可以，B可以，C也可以，你认为这是确定的观点吗？恐怕不是吧，可事实上选择确实是多样性的。所以，如果要观点鲜明，最好还是偏向+/-当中的某一方。或者你可以把你的想法更具体一点跟我们阐述一下。

2.看了你的文章，你驾御语言的能力是相当不错的。思想也有一定深度。不过你说理的内容不多，你列举了不少例子可是却没有归纳说明这些例子说明了什么，为什么。还有，仅仅从军事机密的角度支持论点和从滥用权利道德败坏的角度来反驳论点未免片面了些。再说，克林吨的例子有点。。。怎么说呢，不合适。你用它来说明政治领导不该隐瞒信息，可是如果他向人公布“我和XXX有过性关系”是不是更糟糕呢？而且换做任何一个思想正常的普通人，这种信息都是要隐瞒的。

从论述过程看，你好象是折中的观点；从结尾看，又好象是反对论题的。按我个人观点，认为你就是观点不鲜明。一般如果要折中的论述，就应该考虑到各个方面，非常全面地考虑。所以一般是考虑那点时间是不够的。当然，这是我个人观点，仅供参考。

imongUID: 140258

引用
“你能具体说说这确定的position和观点偏向有什么具体区别吗？如果你说A可以，B可以，C也可以，你认为这是确定的观点吗？恐怕不是吧，可事实上选择确实是多样性的。所以，如果要观点鲜明，最好还是偏向+/-当中的某一方。或者你可以把你的想法更具体一点跟我们阐述一下。”

我觉得还是有区别的.怎么说呢,首先issue的立足点无非是在一条直线上决定0还是100。0和100都是毫无疑问的鲜明，但是50也未尝不可。当然，纸上谈兵，真写出来各有各的困难。

另外，我又想到了ETS评语中的in-depth analysis这句话。我觉得我目前就是缺乏对题目的把握，好比让我耍杂技扔3个苹果一样，拿不住，一不小心就都砸到地上。说理内容不多与此很有关系，缺乏对例子的generalization也是一样，事实上往往连例子都想不出来。这样一来，就算自己的position再确定（亲身经历痛有感受e.g.），写不好，一切玩完。所以难怪结尾就收不住了，升华就更没戏。

其实我觉得很有必要细细回顾一下我们的思维过程。有时候跳步跳得太厉害，有时候太局限，包括广而不深的情况，都是有关系的。

By the way, Clinton的确是thoughtless胡扯了。我想我这两天再体会体会吧。多谢你的评语。看来和大牛交谈会让我们学到更多----写一篇:)

red98UID: 136466

我也似有所悟

还有一点不清楚  以前 我老反驳 题目  现在却 死命的支持， 思维坏了  估计

到底走中间路线好不好？

feier521UID: 109747

总体来说：还是要具体问题具体对待！
一、有的十分正确，就要agree，数目好像比较少
二、有的错误，就要diagree。
三、大多数是有争议的（比如说A，B两个观点），这就要倾向于自己认为好写的方面（比如B）：
1 承认 A 的好处，论证；
2 然而 B 更好，论证；
3 比较而言确实B 比A 好（或者3 A 和 B 结合一下更好）

ken0405UID: 124994

我认为还是要
鲜明的position的
否则别人回看的一头雾水