潘小峰GRE写作系列 论点要有相关理由和证据支持(1).

　　反重力思考之潘小峰GRE写作系列 论点要有相关理由和证据支持(1)

　　本文为澳际培训原创潘小峰老师访谈，转载请注明出处和作者，违者必究!

　　潘SIR ：我们看看昨天的作业。大家看看社论和学术文章的差别。社论的观点一般比较模糊，而学术文章的观点很清晰，很明确，这是由于他们所面向的对象不同而造成的。

　　大家看到这篇学术文章(www.aoji.cn

　　看到第一页，它[该文章]的观点是什么?

　　学生甲：“Both to illustrate the argument and to demonstrate the nature of the actual situation, the quest has been for real-world examples of such dects.”

　　潘SIR ：翻到13页，“Contrary to ...”那段。大家说这一段的观点是什么?

　　学生甲：“But it is true that bees provide valuable pollination services for apples and other plants, and that many other plants do yield lucrative honey crop.”

　　潘SIR ：学生甲你说下这篇文章是属于生物学的还是经济学的?

　　学生甲：生物学的。

　　潘SIR ：看到标题。

　　学生甲：The fable of the bees: an economic investigation。 经济学的。

　　潘SIR ：好，那这段的观点是什么?

　　学生甲：最后一句，In any event，it will be shown that the observed pricing and contractual arrangements governing nectar and pollination services are consistent with ficient allocation.

　　潘SIR ：好，我们看到最后一页。Conclusion. 最后一段是做什么的?

　　学生甲：[总结全文，复述观点。]

　　潘SIR ：好，Conclusion中的论点是什么?

　　学生甲：But it is equally true that any government action can be justified on ficiency grounds by the simple expedient of hypothesizing high enough transaction costs in the marketplace and loe enough costs for government control.

　　潘SIR ：[好，大家现在大致明白了学术型文章的结构写法了吗?]。我们看看GRE考试中，它对写作部分是如何要求的。翻到官方指南写作部分，看到Understanding the Context for Writing: Purpose and Audience，学生乙你读一下第一段。

　　学生乙：“The Analyze an Issue task is an exercise in critical thinking and persuasive writing. The purpose of this task is to determine how well you can (1) develop a compelling argument supporting your own evaluation of an issue and (2) fectively communicate that argument in writing to an academic audience. Your audience consists of GRE readers who are carully trained to apply the scoring criteria identified in the Analyze an Issue scoring guide.”

　　潘SIR：大家看主要讲了哪两点?第一点 compelling argument supporting your own evaluation 第二点fectively communicate that argument in writing to an academic audience.

　　学生甲，你说一下，什么是fectively communicate?

　　学生甲：[简洁，清晰，条理清楚，没有废话。]

　　潘SIR：好，下面我们回到作业，看看新闻媒体的文章[USA TODAY上的一篇有关墨西哥湾石油泄露后相关公共政策讨论的文章:

　　www.aoji.cn

　　先看正方观点。学生乙你的正反双方观点弄反了。

　　学生甲：[正方观点：A year later, Gulf spill looks less disastrous]

　　Point：The Gulf is resilient and the news is good.

　　Support:

　　1.Most of the oil is gone, fishing has resumed, the beaches are clean with some exceptions, tourist bookings are up and Gulf seafood is safe to eat.

　　2.Major companies and federal regulators have responsibility for the disaster.

　　3.The illusion that the industry is infallible is dead.

　　4.In the future, we will use clean energy from the sun or wind.

　　[反方观点：We&aposve seen little progress.]

　　Point：Both the federal government and the oil industry has not taken sufficient action to ensure that such failings would not be taken place again.

　　Support:

　　1.We’ve seen little progress but we’re seeing retreat in Congress.

　　2.These drilling bills will only dig us deeper into the dangerous hole of oil addiction.

　　3.We’ve not successfully drilled our way out of our addiction for years.

　　4.One possible suggestion is through a host of practical clean energy solutions.

　　学生乙：这是正方观点：Our view--

　　Point: we’ve seen little progress

　　Support: 1.The Republican leadership in the house is pushing three bills that force hasty decisions

　　2. They’re doing the same kind of fatally flawed blowout preventer

　　3. New systems designed to kill a well remain untested

　　4. BP continues to tarnish the Gulf.

　　5. We have less than 2% of proven global oil reserves

　　这是反方观点：Opposing view--

　　Point: Gulf turned out to be surprisingly resilient and some others besides BP share the same responsibility

　　Support: 1.what’s still partially hobbled is the industry that caused the problem.

　　2. The major companies had the same comically inadequate oil spill response plans

　　3. Federal regulators are infective

　　4. The company still uses essentially the same blowout preventer that failed on the BP

　　潘SIR :学生乙和学生甲说一下，这篇文章大概说的是什么内容?

　　学生乙：这篇文章我看的不是很明白啊!

　　学生甲：我也不是很明白，讲的应该是墨西哥湾漏油事件之后，关于要不要继续开采石油的争论。

　　潘SIR :你们去看了这篇社论的背景没有?

　　学生乙，学生甲：没有。

　　潘SIR :布置作业的话不能只看作业，要看它的相关背景。不知道背景又怎么能理解好文章呢?

　　正方观点是最后一句 Until then, drilling in deep water will be essential for a nation that now crucial that we drill.

　　它说的很模糊，不过意思就是还要继续开采深海油田。有两条论据支持它。那两条?

　　学生甲：第一，Because rusing to drill in deep water isn’t an option, and because regulators will always be vulnerable to the manipulations of the industry they regulate.

　　说的是不开采油田的后果。讲这一政策如果不实施的话会带来不好的结果，以此来支持自己的论点。

　　第二，Some day, the roughly 250 million vehicles on U.S. highways might be able to run on clean energy from the sun and homes might be heated by wind.

　　说的是石油的消耗很大，而替代能源还没有。这样的话还是得继续使用石油直到替代能源的出现。从而支持自己的观点。

　　潘SIR ：好，再看正方观点。反方观点说的就比较明确了。

　　The real way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is through a host of practical clean energy solutions that could cut our oil imports by nearly half.

　　它说要降低对外国石油的依赖，给出了可行的建议，就是使用清洁能源。

　　正反观点是相互驳斥的。正方说要拒绝开采深海油田不是个选择，替代能源还没有。反方说降低对石油的依赖，寻找更清洁的能源。不管己方论点如何，都提供了相关、可靠、较有说服力的证据来支持、强化己方论点，有时也用证据来削弱对方论点。