对于上次版版贴出的6分大牛习作的疑惑~~

iq28UID: 2152875

看了那天版版贴出来的考场6分作文得主平时习作
第二篇越看越觉得有问题...
原帖链接在此
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-606903-1-1.html






Issue190
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money.

题目作者提出对于art的support是inappropriate是在as long as....跟other considerations....的情况下的,并没有否定art的在意义,关键之处应该在于public resources在题目假设物质无法保证的情况之下用于支持艺术是否得当的讨论,应该必须涉及到大量的material v.s. spiritual的讨论.

------正文------

Although nowadays the concept of art usually refers to visual art, the definition of art has changed over centuries. Perhaps the most concise definition of art is its broadest--art refers to all creative endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction. From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for various creations, out of which sprang all human pursuits and inspiration. Concerning the necessity of the arts, the speaker asserts that it is too luxurious and wasteful to use public resources to support art when people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive (下面unreasonable的前提), which, in my eyes, is fundamentally unreasonable except its emphasis on social pressing problems. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details. (后面终于提到了unreasonable了,这个应该是题目中真正的核心问题.)

To begin with, the arts, though unable to afford us material luxury like technological advancement and other human progresses, enriches culture, enlightens our spirit, and broadens our horizon, in other words, presents us with what is eternal and universal; the abundance and civilization of spiritual life, unlike a popular idea that denies the significance of spiritual enjoyment, is insurance and premise for material wealth. (不错,的确关联了material,而且说到了精神生活的充实和开明是物质生活的保证和前提,很棒的观念,期待下面的论证) As the famous scientist and philosopher Descartes once ardently proposed (and I paraphrased):" There are dual sides of a human: one is material, the other spiritual." (有点倒退.上面一句说spitit是material的前提和保证,而笛卡尔的话只是说人的两个sides分别是物质和精神,最多只能证明两者同等重要不能证明两者存在前提和保证的关系.一直到这一句我还指望着下面能有提到material跟spiritual之间的论证) True, Shakespeare, who achieved maturity and reached unparalleled success in literature by masterpieces such as <Romeo and Julia><Mac Beth>, etc, created the eternal and universal figure Hamlet, the moral dilemma of whom, as something inflicting all humans regardless of era, tells us the fate of all humans; the music genius Beethoven, brilliant, vigorous, and talented as he is, has been shocking audiences for centuries, international or domestic, professionals or amateurs, by his romantic style of creation after his death, with Pathetique and Moonlight being the most famous two. (admittedly,这些都是艺术带来的好处;however,没有提到基本生存得不到保证的前提,也就是没有提到物质,even连support都没有提到(针对题目中说到的support);therefore,如果划线部分是本段ts,后面的论证没有提供任何支持,连物质都没有提到;如果红字部分是ts,那本段ts对于整篇文章的ts,也就是在首段划线部分所说的条件下的作者对于题目提议是unreasonable的看法,没有什么帮助.) The two examples aptly show that the arts, with various incarnations such as music, painting, sculpture, literature, poem, drama, and architecture, etc, is a mirror as well as carrier for classic inspiration and innovations that provide pleasure. (段尾总结又说到了艺术是提供乐趣的经典灵感和发明的载体和反应者,still没有涉及到物质.)

In addition, besides merits directly related to our common lives, the arts is an indispensable component of culture, absent of which is a deteriorated sense of identity and a barbaric primitive state similar to other animals. In terms of biological structure, humans differ from other animals by our "second language system", which refers to human language, a unique capacity that other animals lack. Since art forms such as literature, music, drama, and the like, are its most significant carriers, it is not exaggerating to assert that the arts differ human from other animal and that humans without the enrichment of arts but material wealth, however abundant it may be, (终于再次出现了期待已久的material.1,如果本段有以abundant material为假设前提的充分阐述;2,如果上一段是论证了destitute material情况下的对于art投资的甚至只要是存在的必要性(其实support都不用提到). 上面我的两个假设要是都是事实,我觉得本文作者的思路将是非常棒的,这一段就会有一种argu里面让步到'如果只是有物质没有精神的坏处';nevertheless,作者并不是酱紫行文的|||在物质丰富的情况之下确实没有精神是很pernicious的,但是本文要论证的是在物质贫乏情况下对于支持艺术的的观念是unreasonable.这段的论证就算再修改一下至多至多也只能是一种补充的反面论证,就是说明物质贫乏的情况下如果只是支持物质发展放弃精神的art后果是abysmal的) are no more than animals in low and simply stage. In short, that we are humans, but not other barbaric creatures, is, at least partly, due to our ability to create and innovate the spiritually noble form--the arts. (这一段单纯用来论证艺术(及对于其的投资)的重要性个人感觉非常好~(再有个例子简直就perfect了),但是仍然没有针对前提中所说的物质匮乏甚至生存都有威胁的情况)

Admittedly, emphasis on social pressing problems, say, hunger, unemployment, diseases, war, etc, can never be understated, as the speaker holds. In order to understand this point, one only need to see how many Africa refugees are starving to death with every second passes, how many criminal actions and suicides are being committed due to the lose of job, how many people are being deprived of lives by AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Symptom) and cancers, and how many innocent citizens are being killed or injured ruthlessly by nuclear bombs and suicide bombs throughout mid-east countries. Surely, government should allocate a sufficient amount of funds as well as human resource support to these pressing problems, without, however, the arts being neglected. (看到这里蛮无语的.都承认了sufficient amount of funds as well as human resourece support是必须用于这些pressing problems的了,后面又来一句without, however, the arts being neglected.上文根本没有论证到在这些pressing problems存在的情况下对于arts的态度应该如何,这里直接来一句without.....什么什么的,只不过是对于第一段里面的总体观念的重复.)

In summary, from the above discussion, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author is reasonable in pointing out the necessity to solve social pressing problems. However, he/she fails to take into account the benefits of the arts: one is the source of human pleasure, the other indispensable part of human civilization that differs from animals and barbaric state. (完了|||我现在已经有一种看argu材料的感觉了....Issue材料的作者只是说了在物质匮乏情况下对于艺术的态度应该如何,本文作者将物质与精神的art基本是分裂开来论述的,逃避了它们之间在某些状况下面的冲突关系,所以he/she fails to take into account the benefits of the arts这句话看了我感觉非常mmqm....本文作者也只是说了在没有物质担忧情况下arts的意义,凭什么说issue题目作者对在物质不能保证的情况下投资art的否定态度是unreasonable的呢??)


终于说完了||||
反正我就是觉得这篇文章有问题~~呵呵~虽然她的语言很强...
原本应该重点放在一起讨论的艺术和物质被作者几乎全部分裂开来讨论了
题目的原意应该是想让我们论证spirit v.s. material吧~~
结果在这篇文章里面两者没有正面交锋....
不但没有提及到物质的缺乏情况下支持arts的意义,甚至连物质本身在前两段都没有涉及太多,如何论证出首段主题既在绿色字前提下issue题目作者的论断的unreasonable??
可能我的想法有点小题大作||||
偶看法都在这里啦

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-3-1 02:09 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

字太小了，重新编辑了一下。
欢迎积极讨论

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

呵呵，能批评性的去看文章很好，这几天我看官方范文还一肚子火呢 -_,-

比较同意楼主的观点，这道题对于艺术的讨论应该建立在与紧迫社会问题解决的权衡之上的，因此花过多功夫强调艺术的重要性是不妥当的，可能是作者用了别的艺术类题目中的思路，或者是一开始写艺术作用的时候陷太深了最后想往回搬已经没时间了吧。这篇出点问题也不代表作者在考试的时候也出了问题，不是满分作者写哪篇文章都是满分的，除非象李笑来那样把几百道题目全都写一遍

另外就是AW始终是找亮点的考试，不可能哪个人的文章都做到尽善尽美，每句话都是辨证的，每个论点也都有自己的存在原因，只是是否合理罢了。

iq28UID: 2152875

这么大够么...

iq28UID: 2152875

嗯~同意呢
只是看了这篇文章觉得问题有点大....而且又是出自加了精华的帖子~...所有就忍不住想说了呵呵

iq28UID: 2152875

现在看感觉又不同了.....
~似乎蛮傻的||
小题大作了||||
sigh.....

welcomebsUID: 2235250

看了过后极度觉得
ISSUE很难写,一个题目要完整表达自己的意思,可以写出N多字-时间不够
想要写全面-但是又始终做不到...
最终仅仅是个自圆其说而已......
SIGH..

welcomebsUID: 2235250

不过第一次读的时候在听dustin的piano solo,彻底走神的说。。半天看不懂。不过后来取掉耳机脑袋算是清醒了
其实觉得这篇文章写得真的很好。语言是霸道的。那词汇量啊。。。。
ｓｉｇｈ一下。。。
iq同学把此文argu得真不多，敢于挑战权威！赞一个！
不过我觉得这篇文章在思路上还是没有错的，想法也没错的，unresonable这个也证明了。
it is not exaggerating to assert that the arts differ human from other animal and that humans without the enrichment of arts but material wealth, however abundant it may be,are no more than animals in low and simply stage.既然说没有艺术，人根本就不能称为人了，所以艺术有相当大的权威。不论是什么为理有都不能说不赞助支持艺术.material也不例外。而且我觉得把艺术说成是区分人和动物的一个关键东东也是非常有创意的思想。赞
但是，这篇没有把这个思想升华充足。第三个body相对来说平凡了些，而且削弱了这个亮点。如果把第三个body提到第一个body来说，最后一个body提出这个思想，读完这篇文章会觉得非常舒服。

ps:本人ＩＳＳＵＥ写得很烂，在这乱说冒泡了。。
如有说错。。。
表打我

[ 本帖最后由 welcomebs 于 2007-3-1 14:23 编辑 ]

pippo1983UID: 172110

研究了一下，发现这类文章本身确实可以当成argu来写
但这篇感觉确实非6分的佳作，特别是最后一段简直就在强调物质是精神的前提，作者应该在考场上写的不是这篇吧，如果这篇得6分那么看来把issue写成散文形式也未尝不可了~~
继续研究中。。。