Issue185【米国有米】小组 第七次作业

laner023UID: 2223653

题目
185"Scandals—whether in politics, academia, or other areas—can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that NO speaker or reformer ever could."

提纲
topic(部分同意)：丑闻确实更能吸引人们的注意力，对促进问题的解决也有一定作用。但是不能过分夸大其作用。

1丑闻比发言人和改革家更容易吸引人们的注意力focus attention，而这是任何改革的第一步。
A 如对银行的期货贸易风险早有专家提出警告,但是直到巴林银行倒闭后,这已问题才引起了大家的注意
B 以前大多数人认为学术界是一块净土,是创新的源泉,但是一系列的剽窃丑闻发生,给人们敲响了警钟. Plagiarism

2丑闻在一定程度上反映了社会问题，有利于促进法制的健全。
举学术界为例。韩国黄禹锡(Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang)的克隆实验数据造假事件在一定程度上反映了当今学术界的造假问题。由此促进人们努力通过立法或法律的完善来制止一些类似的丑闻再次发生。

3过分夸大丑闻的作用没什么意义，可能还会带来危害
A 丑闻毕竟是不好的事情，他们只能起到提醒的作用。而我们的最终目的是建立完善的机制避免腐败，不让类似的事情再发生。而这些事情却是需要发言人和改革家引领人们去完成的。
B 过度夸大丑闻的作用最终还会使人们的利益受到损害。//科研，政治


正文
This statement consists of two claims: (1) since scandals can focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, (2) they are useful in politics, academia, or other areas. I strongly agree with the author with the first claim. As for the later claim, although I concede that scandals have certain function to reflect the problems of society, it is no necessarily even dangerous to over emphasize the effect of scandals.

To begin with, none can deny that scandals are far more effective than any speaker or reformer when it comes to attracting public attention in a short time. And the attention, however, is the first step of any effective reformation. An appropriate example is the shut-off of the Bahrein’s bank. Although economic experts had pointed out the risk of unduly time-bargain before that scandal, only after the scandal, this appeal began to attract public attention. Moreover, a more familiar example is in academic fields. People used to think academia as a pure land and the source of innovation. Nevertheless, recently a series of plagiarism scandals strike the whole world, which make people to scrutinize the credence of the researcher’s findings and papers more severely.

Consider the speaker's second claim, I concede that scandals to certain extent reflect the problems of society, and this function of scandals might contribute to improve the integrality of laws in relevant aspects. Returning to the academia mentioned above, Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang's scandal of forging experimental results, claiming new advances in clone, is the mirror of current condition of falsification in scientific research. This scandal is helpful for scientists’ self-examination, and the punishment of Dr. Hwang warns new comers as well. And the most important effect of the scandals is to promote the tendency to perfect relevant laws. For example, there is a tendency for countries all over the world to ensure the standardization of scientific research as well as the benefits of honest scientists through consummating censorship of project, emending the punishment of plagiarism, and so on.

However, overemphasizing the effect of scandals serves no useful purpose, and even be dangerous to our society. After all, scandals do not reflect the good side of our society, and none would be glad to see various scandals occur again and again. And the functions of scandals are limited to helping people realize and then focus attention on problems, and at most remind people to adjust relevant laws. Yet, this is only the first step of solving problems. And our final purpose is to prevent similar scandals from taking place again through practical action. This purpose, can not be finished by scandals themselves, instead, can only be done under the leading of speakers and reformers. Moreover, overemphasis of scandals might lead the public ignore more important matters, and finally threat the interest of the public as a result. For example, overemphasis of scandals in academic might make the public ignore the contribution of scientific research, and finally decrease the funds invested on scientific research, which is the footstone of the development of human civilization. In politic area, overemphasis of scandals about the personal life of any politician might bring an end to his political career; no matter how gifted he is in politics. Thus, overemphasis of scandals might cause stagnation in scientific research and losing wise leaders in politics, which would finally compromise the interest of public as a result.

In sum, scandals indeed have the ability to attract public attention as the speaker asserts, and contribute to improve our laws system. However, I have to point out that the function of scandals is limited, and it is unwise and even dangerous for people to overemphasize the effect of scandals.

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2006-12-30 20:19 编辑 ]

bluecathyUID: 2231215

This statement consists of two claims: (1) since scandals can focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, (2) they are useful in politics, academia, or other areas. I strongly agree with the author with the first claim. As for the later [latter] claim, although I concede that scandals have certain function to reflect the problems of society [social problems], it is no necessarily[not necessary] even dangerous to over emphasize the effect of scandals.

To begin with, none can deny that scandals are far more effective than any speaker or reformer when it comes[是否应该改成they come,这个用法我一直也没掌握] to attracting public attention in a short time. And the attention, however, is the first step of any effective reformation. An appropriate example is the shut-off of the Bahrein’s bank. Although economic experts had pointed out the risk of unduly time-bargain before that scandal, only after the scandal, this appeal began to attract public attention. Moreover, a more familiar example is in academic fields. People used to think academia as a pure land and the source of innovation. Nevertheless, recently a series of plagiarism scandals strike the whole world, which make people to scrutinize the credence [credit] of the researcher’s findings and papers more severely.[最好有个总结句]

Consider the speaker's second claim, I concede that scandals to certain extent reflect the problems of society [social problems], and this function of scandals might contribute to improve the integrality of laws in relevant aspects. Returning to the academia mentioned above, Dr. Woo-Suk Hwang's scandal of forging experimental results, claiming new advances in clone, is the mirror of current condition of falsification in scientific research. This scandal is helpful for scientists’ self-examination, and the punishment of Dr. Hwang warns new comers as well. And the most important effect of the scandals is to promote the tendency to perfect relevant laws. For example, there is a tendency for countries all over the world to ensure the standardization of scientific research as well as the benefits of honest scientists through consummating censorship of project, emending the punishment of plagiarism, and so on.[最后这句看是看明白了，但是能否写得更简洁点，从there is开始到结束着同样一个38个词的句子，没有从句让人看到有点绕，并且，there is也不适合带这么长的一个句子，我把前面试着改下now there is a global tendency, which ensure the standardization of scientific research and the benefits of honest scientists by consummating censorship of project, emending the punishment of plagiarism, and so on改得也不好，只是提供另外一种可能性]

However, overemphasizing the effect of scandals serves[may serve 否则后面的be就错了] no useful purpose, and even be dangerous to our society. After all, scandals do not reflect the good side of our society, and none would be glad to see various scandals occur again and again. And the functions of scandals are limited to helping people realize and then focus attention on problems, and at most remind people to adjust relevant laws[这句话里and两个，前面的那个可去掉]. Yet, this is only the first step of solving problems. And our final purpose is to prevent similar scandals from taking place again through practical action. This purpose, can not be finished by scandals themselves, instead, can only be done under the leading of speakers and reformers. Moreover, overemphasis of scandals might lead the public [to] ignore more important matters, and finally threat[threaten] the interest of the public as a result. For example, overemphasis of scandals in academic[academia] might make the public ignore the contribution of scientific research, and finally decrease the funds invested on[donated to我个人理解是对科研的捐助，如果错了请谅解] scientific research, which is the footstone of the development of human civilization. In politic area, overemphasis of scandals about the personal life of any politician might bring an end to his political career; no matter how gifted he is in politics.[政治丑闻案并不一定都是个人原因的] Thus, overemphasis of scandals might cause stagnation in scientific research and losing[lose] wise leaders in politics, which would finally compromise the interest of public as a result.[which指代不明确][这段很好，例子举得非常棒，阐述得很详细，层层递进]

In sum, scandals indeed have the ability to attract public attention as the speaker asserts, and contribute to improve our laws system. However, I have to point out that the function of scandals is limited, and it is unwise and even dangerous for people to overemphasize the effect of scandals.

一篇很不错文章，论证得很好，例子举得很详细，可见作者非常用心。关于用词的问题上篇说过了，不再赘述。

可能是大家对雷同探测器心有余悸，都不愿和范文的提纲有任何重合。所以在写提纲的时候尽量与范文不同，但是，这也往往可能令我们这些对题目相关领域不甚熟悉的非母语写作者进入到一个剑走偏锋的境地。事实上，我也总在想这个问题。范文的提纲对题目确实是对题目最不跑题的解释，如果一味追求不同，我们会不会有可能就多少有点偏离了，虽然issue是比较活的立论文。看了队长两篇文章，有感而发。

laner023UID: 2223653

谢谢，你改得好仔细呀。
我会多多注意语言上的问题的。:)

关于《北美范文》，我想说几句。个人觉得这本书还不错，尤其是里面那些原汁原味的语句。我倒没有刻意追求与范文不同。有些思路可以直接用，有的很有启发。
另有一些文章，我不想模仿范文的写法，主要原因有二：
第一，个别文章里的观点我不认同，或者有的论证有些牵强。照着这个提纲，平时练习的时候，也许能照着范文写出个样子来，但我一直觉得只有经过自己思考的东西才能记得牢，并且有话可说。如果平时练习都用得是自己都不同意的观点，考试的时候很难发挥出来。
第二，雷同探测器还是有一定威慑力的。从范文那获得思路，并稍作修改，写出来的文章是很有可能相似的。比如，issue17，一开始我也和你一样，直接把范文的思路改了改。后来，我发现，我第一次列的提纲和你的提纲惊人的相似。我们甚至不约而同地把范文中的“堕胎”换成了“安乐死”。为什么？因为中国考生有着相似的教育背景，而其都用了同样的参考资料。这样的人一定大有人在。如果这样的两篇文章，送到ETS那，不是雷同是什么？在GRE综合论坛中，很多报分的人，verbal都好高好高，可是作文只有1分，2分。而且不少人都是说作文时写过的高频，考完作文感觉特别好。这种情况，一般是被判雷同了。

不过，这并不是说范文不能模仿的，只要别通篇都用人家的观点就行。

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

就算不雷同相似文章也会减低印象分的

有关雷同探测器的讨论以前说过，主要还是看是否独立思考吧，所以我觉得背北美范文换例子的写法不可行，背北美范文的好处是背下句式考试的时候表达方便，其它的最好还是发展自己的提纲，观点和破题手段，这样才能有独立的文章套路。

有些北美范文写的也不怎么样，堆砌例子没有深入讨论，离6分GRE作文的标准查很远，但语言确实是很地道，这玩意酌情用就是了。我开始写习作以后就再没看过北美范文了，但经常用些背过的句势，感觉还是挺顺的。

laner023UID: 2223653

原帖由 lastangel 于 2006-12-31 15:29 发表
就算不雷同相似文章也会减低印象分的

有关雷同探测器的讨论以前说过，主要还是看是否独立思考吧，所以我觉得背北美范文换例子的写法不可行，背北美范文的好处是背下句式考试的时候表达方便，其它的最好还是发 ...

同意，目标是4分以上的话，最好不要和范文太相似。

bluecathyUID: 2231215

怎么说呢，单就issue17这个论题来说，北美范文的破题是非常地道的。他先从法律是否应该分成公平与公平两类破题，然后是破题人们应该遵守公正的，然后论述有关人们应该不遵守甚至抵制不公正的。可以说是把整个论题的每个语句都照顾到，分析到，论述到了。因此我在看到这篇文章的时候，暗自觉得自己以前的文章没有论述到issue的所有破题点。

      并且就是有些时候我们想说的汉语内容并不一定就会很完整地用英语表达出来。比如最开始，我想说的是在现代社会中，任何自由都是在法律范围内限制的，任何公正也都是法律范围限制的。但是我发现我表达出来后完全不是我的初衷，所以这个也会给我们的作文打一个折扣吧。

      还有就是，我们都不是学法律的，反正我不是，我会觉得我们确实不了解这个东西，自然能说的话也就少。写完这个issue，我和很多人讨论过这个话题，大家用中文还都能说上两句，但是都觉得用英文很难表达。其中一个朋友的见解给了我很大的启发。他说，法律根本就没有公正不公正的分类，如果实在要分类可以分成合理不合理。公正，是建立在它是否对所有人都是一视同仁，也就是中国人所说的王子犯法与庶民同罪。而合理，才更像是我们的题目所谈的内容。他还特别问了我题目到底是just还是reasonable。所以，其实你看，汉语和英语的表达是多么地不同。

      那么就issue17，难道是我们的破题全都错了。我想也不尽然。毕竟我不是学法律的，太多相关概念我还是分不清楚。

      独立思考，如果我的思考和范文思考的一样，就不是独立思考了吗？可以说，我最初列的issue17的大纲和北美范文一模一样，那我到底该怎么办？这真是个问题啊！

[ 本帖最后由 bluecathy 于 2007-1-1 12:13 编辑 ]

ernest81888UID: 2247639

两位都好认真的,一定能取得不错的成绩,要向两位学习了

laner023UID: 2223653

原帖由 bluecathy 于 2007-1-1 12:12 发表
怎么说呢，单就issue17这个论题来说，北美范文的破题是非常地道的。他先从法律是否应该分成公平与公平两类破题，然后是破题人们应该遵守公正的，然后论述有关人们应该不遵守甚至抵制不公正的。可以说是把整个论 ...

关于Issue17，我承认，那篇范文确实分析得很到位，似乎再也找不出更无懈可击的写法了。