[分享]每日一评！3.3！BALANCE的写法和切忌堆砌例子

imongUID: 140258

每日一评：balance的写法和切忌堆砌例子
Issue114
"Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence, and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."

Have technological innovations of the last century failed to bring about true progress for humanity, as the statement contends? Although I agree that technology cannot ultimately prevent us from harming one another, the statement fails to account for the significant positive impact that the modem-industrial and computer revolutions have had on the quality of life at least in the developed world. 开头表明论点

I agree with the statement insofar as there is no technological solution to the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature--such as aggression and greed. Although future advances in biochemistry might enable us to "engineer away" those undesirable aspects, in the meantime it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists--not our scientists and engineers—to mitigate these problems.从让步(也可以说是概念的分离)上起笔表明technology并非上述persistent problems的solution.

Admittedly, many technological developments during the last century have helped reduce human suffering. Consider, for instance, technology that enables computers to map Earth's geographical features from outer space. This technology allows us to locate lands that can be cultivated for feeding malnourished people in third-world countries. And, few would disagree that humanity is the beneficiary of the myriad of 20th-Century innovations in medicine and medical technology--from prostheses and organ transplants to vaccines and lasers.分别举了两个例子。

Yet, for every technological innovation helping to reduce human suffering is another that has served primarily to add to it. For example, while some might argue that nuclear weapons serve as invaluable "peace-keepers," this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts. More recently, the increasing use of chemical weapons for human slaughter points out that so-called "advances" in biochemistry can amount to net losses for humanity. 这两段分别从两个角度说明technological development对human suffering的影响，但是在同一个问题下彼此独立，缺乏总领性的分析，显得比较散。而其中的例证并不能达到一句话说明问题的程度，和前面曾经看到过的贴切的“一句话例子”感觉有比较大的差别。有堆砌例子逃避分析的嫌疑。

Notwithstanding technology's limitations in preventing war, poverty, and violence, 20th-Century technological innovation has enhanced the overall standard of living and comfort level of developed nations. The advent of steel production and assemble-line manufacturing created countless jobs, stimulated economic growth, and supplied a plethora of innovative conveniences. More recently, computers have helped free up our time by performing repetitive tasks; have aided in the design of safer and more attractive bridges, buildings, and vehicles; and have made possible universal access to information. 存在的问题和上一段基本一样。

Of course, such progress has not come without costs. One harmful byproduct of industrial progress is environmental pollution, and its threat to public health. Another is the alienation of assembly-line workers from their work. And, the Internet breeds information overload and steals our time and attention away from family, community, and coworkers. 在这里，行文松散这一点体现得很明显了。Nevertheless, on balance both the modern-industrial and computer revolutions have improved our standard of living and comfort level; and both constitute progress by any measure. 这一点恐怕问题比较大：在列举了两方面的例子之后为什么就Nevertheless one predominate another？ 对比在哪里？分析在哪里？这个claim的效力恐怕要打不少折扣。

In sum, enduring problems such as war, poverty, and violence ultimately spring from human nature, which no technological innovation short of genetic engineering can alter. Thus the statement is correct in this respect. However, if we define "progress" more narrowly--in terms of economic standard of living and comfort level--recent technological innovations have indeed brought about clear progress for humanity. 结尾重述论点。

这篇文章我认为在分析和论证上和原来点评过的5，6分文章差距不小，恐怕是拿不到5分的。作者的观点分为两部分：一部分是关于Technology与WAR/Violence，另外一部分则是Technology与“Narrowed definition of humanity”。前半部分花了三个段落去叙述，但是这三个段落中的后两个各说各话又不去统一起来，组织结构上显得很粗糙；而到了后面两个段落，也就是作者观点的第二部分，问题仍然没有得到改善。通篇都在堆砌一句话的例子，但是鲜有分析，“深入”更加无从谈起。在REASONING和ORGANIZATION上只能达到4分的benchmark，Examples介于pertinent和well-chosen之间，这样整篇文章就被拉下来了。

值得一提的是文章中两次出现论述两方面之后收尾不力的现象。特别要指出的是千万要杜绝两个角度各说各话最后扔着了事，肯定要出大问题的。最后的时候如果要收尾在A主导B，一定要有Contrast和analysis，把原因说清楚。哪怕是例子本身已经体现得很明显了（实际上我们举的例子往往不会符合这一点），也一定要亲自交待清楚最后结论的前因后果。如果收尾在AB打个平手，那就是更加需要交待和解释，例如采用两重的contrast，说明在事物的两个方面彼此有自身的advantage而缺一不可，或者同时分析两者的必要性，等等。像本文这样的例子一扔然后什么都不管的做法，是容易受到惩罚的。

so猫UID: 148633

感谢imongGG~~~~~~~~~~~