issue157 There is no such thing as purely objective observa

sdc1980818UID: 123625

5:10 - 5:55
issue157"There is no such thing as purely objective observation. All observation is subjective; it is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires."

The writer of the issue focuses his/her attention on the detail and extremely stares at the minutia, blinding to the main part of the problem. According to my feeling, the issue is ramshackle  to deliberate.

Following the author's logic that all observations are distorted by observer's expectations or desires, all things in the world are unsuitable for meanings that is endowed by human language. If so, can the clean water be called clean? If we fetch a drop of water from a cup of clean water and then observe it under a microscope, many kinds of impurity can be dectected; can a brave man be a real brave one? Sometimes, even the bravest general may get worried: he/she worries that his army maight be conquered by the rival, he/she worries about the situation of his/her country, he/she worries about his/her familily. If all languages should be as accurate to depict things in the world as the inicial appearence of them, there might be no language nowadays.

"Pure" and   "impure", "brave"and "craven", "clean" and "dirty", are just three pairs of relative conceptions. It is impossible to portray degree of the pure so accurate that completely the same with its original shape, as there is no absolute pure in the world at all. In the sense, those who are brave in some aspects may be not so brave, water that are clean in the sight of some people may be regarded as dirty. One who doesn't behave very well in the army but can exert his/her gift in research and holds the courage to clime to the pinnale of science, may be regared as craven in the army while considered as hero in science; water which is clean for drinking may not be clean enough for injection. In different places and for different people, definition of the same conception may be largely different.

However, the author of the issue considers that if there are observer's expectations or desires, observation is subjective. It means that if there is impurity in the pure, the pure things are impure. If the hero behaves quail under any circumstance, the hero is unsuitable for the coronal of "hero". We should concern more on the mainstream of an object, not the minor detail. Those who have been always brave or in his/her paticular fields embody a spirit that is lacked for others, they can be entitled with brave man too. In the same sense, those water that is clean for its utility, it is also clean water. Only impurities in the  water exceeds the standard, can we define it as "dirty water".

Unavoidable, observation is always guided by the observer's expectations or desires, however, we should discriminate objective observation and sujective observation. It is arbitrary to conclude that all observations are sujective, taking no background into accout. Observation that is guided by the observer's expectations or desires under the normal  lever is still the objective observation.

时间一紧, 就写得不好了.

wingshockerUID: 88089

你的文章写的还是不错的，理由和措辞都挺好的

但是，如果没有把握，不要用太多的GRE单词。词义把握不好是一个原因，第二个原因是——GRE单词用得多并不能说明文章的质量。既然论点已经给出来了，议论文的写作质量体现在论据的选择和论证的严密性。GRE单词很多是古代英语中才用的，试想一下，一篇中文的议论文，夹杂太多的古文，会是什么样子？

适当使用一些GRE单词提升文章深度和内涵就得了，不必用得太多。

beckyyeeUID: 8330

通读了一遍。

感觉非常special，也不知道这样写符不符合ETS的要求。

SDC你的语言，句子，结构各方面都是没有什么挑剔的，都很不错。但你的文章是就the title statement在驳斥，也就是说在驳斥句子本身，而没有像常规issue一样进行思想上的深入探讨，有点像argument了，但又比argument写的深入很多。不知道我这样分析对不对。你觉得呢？

sdc1980818UID: 123625

我看过孙远的一些范文，发现他有些文章也是采用这种方式，直接分析所给的issue。
我觉得要写出好的文章，一是要有独特新颖的见解，二是要有深刻的思维。即从原文引发自己的见解（derivation），或对原文的深刻理解或深入批判(support or reject)。
而且根据作文的要求：critical, insightful 所以要么要深，要么要精，无论是从哪个角度看，只要能围绕主题体现应该不算跑题。

至于GRE的单词，在ETS给出的6分范文中还是很常见的。我觉得好多词汇还是很有特色的，用了之后会感觉特别舒服。就像中国的成语，虽然是很早以前就有的，但现在用起来还是给人耳目一新的感觉。批卷的人如果总是对着那些普通单词肯定会很腻的，而要的就是体现出自己的特色。另外，相信批卷的人也是从GRE这条道上过来的，对这些单词也不陌生。不过用法方面确实要注意一下，我现在也还是很小心地在用这些词，尽量模仿ETS填空中的用法，谢谢你的提醒。

imongUID: 140258

我感觉，前两个body写得可以说很成功了，把相对的部分充分进行了说明。
但是很可惜，当body3提出we should focus on the mainstream of things的时候，这是一个全新的观点——对于判卷者，他不一定可以接受，这个时候就需要来说明，论证，比如说，这个相对主义（也许这样说并不恰当）的后果是什么？为什么它不适应我们的需要？等等。但是偏偏到了这里，claim的后边基本上没有support，更没有develop了。

我倒没有觉得有跑题，只要说清楚就好了。

考虑到熟练的语言使用，比较清晰的结构，以及body1和body2的中肯的论证，这篇文章还是值得学习一下的。