关于作文题目破题(ISSUE)

chenh1207UID: 182826

看了大家许多的文章,觉得大家的STANDARD ENGLISH和EXAMPLE都很不错,可是好像有几点觉得向大家商量一下:
1.文章的题目理解的深度不够,根据ETS的要求TEST TAKER因该"demostratte that you understand the complexities or implcations of the issue",所以这应该作为文章的开篇;
2.选择文章的立论方向,三者取齐一:
A:qualify it --- if it seems convincing only to a certain extent or in certain cases;
B:break it apart into two distinct claims ,either of wich you may or may not agree with;
C:apply it to various areas or examples that lend varying degrees of support to the statement.
3.所以,文章的开头我认为应有三部分组成:
对题目的理解--->个人的立场--->对文章结构的预测(显示文章的逻辑结构).
4.通过对例文和书的讲解,我个人认为开头不需要REPEAT THE TOPIC,而应尽量做到直入主题,毕竟ISSUE考察第一位的是文章结构而非语言文采.
5.最后,一定要注意题目中的KEY WORDS such as "and,only,must,all,should"等等,应为正是他们可以显示你对文章理解的深度和广度.

windpassmeUID: 153908

up下，搂住分析得不错啦。
“对文章结构的预测”我好像那个……
多谢

poohUID: 146994

分析得太好了！

每一条我都赞成！

poohUID: 146994

最近看到版上的作文开头都千篇一律，似乎都用了一个魔板，让我看了就发愁。
chenh的这篇文章还是好好研究一下，
chenh举几个例子分析一下吧

xiongyicnUID: 192745

RE，很不错
如果能更详细和形象地阐述一下，然后大家都来讨论，应该会很有收获。
楼主提到的对题目的理解，不知道具体为何意？用自己的语言把题目形象通俗地论述，还是对当中的key terminology作出解释，以便reader理解，从而自然地提出自己的立场。我刚开始准备，写第一篇issue时就自然而然地想对terminology做个解释，甚至definition,是不是没有这个必要啊？

chenh1207UID: 182826

从一篇文章中摘自关于complextations and implications of the topic:

Universal Intellectual Standards
by Linda Elder and Richard Paul

Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. To help students learn them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking, questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions which, through consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalized by students as questions they need to ask themselves.

The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice, which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards, the following are the most significant:

CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"

ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."

PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)

RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors?
A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement "Just say No" which is often used to discourage children and teens fro using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of...?
A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)

LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true?
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.

naiba369UID: 131655

怎么说呢，很好的想法，赞！！！

我觉得，现在大家的作文似乎受写法的影响很多，都是“一面倒”

我觉得，任何事物都是多元的，当你审视的角度不同，思考的前提、时间不同，它都会有像对应的结果，决不能一概而论！其实也就是要conditioning一下，但要分类详细、具体、没有重复。呵呵，就像高中做代数题一般。要“分类讨论”，不同的“定义域”对应着不用的“函数值，与相应的图像”

嘿嘿，有了宽带真好，呵呵，10M桌面，呵呵

:)