issue10 附题目和提纲 谢谢各位大虾拍砖

mkb57288UID: 2105771

issue 处女篇 附题目和提纲 谢谢各位大虾拍砖

题目
Government must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in the cities that a nation's cultural tranditions are preserved and generated.

提纲：（基本全部反对）
传统文化并非主要在城市发展，支持城市往往破坏传统文化
支持文化发展并非政府的必要职责
政府的资助往往低效率

The author claims that governments must fund the major cities’ development, because the culture of a nation is primarily preserved there. I strongly disagree with this view, which is typically threefold: The culture is preserved and thrives in major cities; the governments should provide financial aid to backup the development of culture, and the official support does ensure the development efficaciously.
     First of all, the hypothesis that the national culture is primarily preserved in major cities is intrinsically flawed, and the author gives no persuasive evidence to support this assumption, instead, the culture of a nation, such as fiestas, traditions and so on, maybe thrives in the rural districts rather than in urban ones. Globalization has made the cosmopolites across the world homogenized, and the culture of a nation is being superseded by a hodgepodge of so called international culture. Further more, the impact of urbanization is destroying the cradle of true national culture; in this situation, the exertion to preserve the national culture by funding the cosmopolites seems on a slippery slope, and even a backfire.
     Secondly, by all means, funding the development of culture is not an obligation of governments, which should dedicate more effort to address the impending problems, such as property, violence, etc. When there are still individuals in our society suffering from these, using public resources to patronage culture is unjustified and even cruel. The further problems exist that it is hard to discriminate what is the culture characterizing the nation, so the preservation can not be easily done. The aid may be distributed only according to the preference of officials of little sensitiveness and insight in the field of culture and art.
    Thirdly, admittedly funding the culture is an appropriate function of governments; however it does not necessarily mean that the policy will work efficiently. The lack of private support may justify the aid from government; nevertheless, considering the culture of our society is getting prosperous on the patronage from private philanthropists, the fanatical support from governments seems otiose. Furthermore, the support for the major cities does not necessarily foster the culture, the fund invested in cities may be abused in rampant urbanization, which can be counterproductive for the preservation and strive of national culture. Nurturing the culture is a systematic and complicated goal which will not be achieved by mere financial aid. Only by the collaboration from the public and government, especially the higher emphasis put on the preservation in our mind, can a national culture strive in the country.
     All in all, on the close examination, the claim that the financial support from government will be conductive to the development of a national culture is untenable. For it mistakes cosmopolites as cradle of a national culture, and taking culture protect as a duty of governments inappropriately, and the author simplistically regards funding the major cities is a pivotal action in the contrive of preserving national culture, which in fact can not contribute to the preservation without cultural sensitiveness and insight.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-6-25 at 13:28 ]

if_lotusUID: 175616

先说说格式吧：每行顶格写，不要空两格；段间空一行。
另外，语言方面我不作重点修改，只是从论点和逻辑方面提一些个人意见。

The author claims that governments must fund the major cities’ development, because the culture of a nation is primarily preserved there. I strongly disagree with this view, which is typically threefold: The culture is preserved and thrives in major cities; the governments should provide financial aid to backup the development of culture, and the official support does ensure the development efficaciously.[最好写出你反驳的3个层面,而不是阐述原题的几个点.]

First of all, the hypothesis that the national culture is primarily preserved in major cities is intrinsically flawed, and the author gives no persuasive evidence to support this assumption[TS写的像argument], instead, the culture of a nation, such as fiestas, traditions and so on[不要再用'and so on'了，很不专业。改为and other related factors。], maybe thrives in the rural districts rather than in urban ones. [后面的论述作为这个论点的原因分析？那么最好加上because这样的过度词。号称现在都是E-RATER判卷，有过渡性的信号词会显得逻辑清晰。兵来将挡，水来土掩~]Globalization has made the cosmopolites across the world homogenized, and the culture of a nation is being superseded by a hodgepodge of so called international culture. Further more, the impact of urbanization is destroying the cradle of true national culture[culture的cradle是什么？已经默认小城市/农村是cradle了吗？此处要交待清楚。题目写城市generate了culture，根据你的论点，此处是写小城市/农村generate culture的好机会]; in this situation, the exertion to preserve the national culture by funding the cosmopolites seems on a slippery slope, and even a backfire.
[感觉B1主要是驳论；那么小城市/农村就一定能preserve好culture吗？]

Secondly, by all means, funding the development of culture is not an obligation of governments, which should dedicate more effort to address the impending problems, such as property, violence, etc. When there are still individuals in our society suffering from these, using public resources to patronage culture is unjustified and even cruel. The further problems exist that it is hard to discriminate what is the culture characterizing the nation, so the preservation can not be easily done. The aid may be distributed only according to the preference of officials of little sensitiveness and insight in the field of culture and art.
[对这段的论点持保留意见，呵呵，不知道有没有跑题。是不是这样更合理：由于还有很多其他社会问题，故政府不应……]

Thirdly, admittedly funding the culture is an appropriate function of governments; however it does not necessarily mean that the policy will work efficiently. The lack of private support may justify the aid from government; nevertheless, considering the culture of our society is getting prosperous on the patronage from private philanthropists, the fanatical support from governments seems otiose. Furthermore, the support for the major cities does not necessarily foster the culture, the fund invested in cities may be abused in rampant urbanization, which can be counterproductive for the preservation and strive of national culture. Nurturing the culture is a systematic and complicated goal which will not be achieved by mere financial aid. Only by the collaboration from the public and government, especially the higher emphasis put on the preservation in our mind, can a national culture strive in the country.
[B3和B2联系倒是紧密。不过感觉还是像argument，呵呵]

All in all, on the close examination, the claim that the financial support from government will be conductive to the development of a national culture is untenable. For it mistakes cosmopolites as cradle of a national culture, and taking culture protect as a duty of governments inappropriately, and the author simplistically regards funding the major cities is a pivotal action in the contrive of preserving national culture, which in fact can not contribute to the preservation without cultural sensitiveness and insight.
[结尾也像argument，嘻嘻]


文章的B2、B3论点还是挺有新意的，就是不知道有没有偏题。可以参考一下前辈们的"同主题写作"开阔开阔思路:
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;highlight=issue10

if_lotusUID: 175616

有空多多互改吧!加油!

我的文章，多多指教：
issue136—第二篇
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

issue121—第一篇
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

[ Last edited by if_lotus on 2005-6-25 at 14:44 ]

fhxyweiUID: 157384

to receivie the financial support from the government不一定是必须用来perserve and develop traditional cuture in the cities. 只是为了 make the cities thrive, 所以我觉得第二个论点有点偏离题目本意

mkb57288UID: 2105771

:)

shanekunUID: 2104358

不好意思来迟了。。。

感觉你的论证比较连贯，只是怎么issue写的好像argue阿:)不过可能和题目也有关，
题目说financial support是用来使city thrive，因为city有文化生产和维持的责任，那么重点我想就应该就事论事的谈cluture，而这是不是政府的primary responsiblity倒不是论述点，
b2写的很好，不妨就全球化和流行文化的例子和题目强调的传统作强对比，这里的例子比比皆是，民歌，戏曲，娱乐活动，传统节日。。。。。。。

不知道Issue和Argue的写法上有没有本质的区别，至少我觉得Issue应该有破有立吧，这里立的少了一点。。 不妨从例子入手，

这是我的看法，欢迎指正！

mkb57288UID: 2105771

顶

bnugirlUID: 2103958

与北美范文相同不会出问题吗？