ceciliayl
女, 25岁
北京 海淀区
上次登录：
2天前
 加为好友
|
|
2008-10-16 09:22
| Test |
Test Date |
Reading |
Listening |
Speaking |
Writing |
Total |
| TELXML |
September 28, 2008 |
29 |
28 |
24 |
28 |
109 |
| Reading Skills |
Level |
Your Performance |
| Reading |
High(22-30) |
Test takers who receive a score at the HIGH level, as you did, typically understand academic texts in English that require a wide range of reading abilities regardless of the difficulty of the texts.
Test takers who score at the HIGH level, typically
- have a very good command of academic vocabulary and grammatical structure;
- can understand and connect information, make appropriate inferences, and synthesize ideas, even when the text is conceptually dense and the language is complex;
- can recognize the expository organization of a text and the role that specific information serves within the larger text, even when the text is conceptually dense; and
- can abstract major ideas from a text, even when the text is conceptually dense and contains complex language.
|
| Listening Skills |
Level |
Your Performance |
| Listening |
High(22-30) |
Test takers who receive a score at the HIGH level, as you did, typically understand conversations and lectures in English that present a wide range of listening demands. These demands can include difficult vocabulary (uncommon terms, or colloquial or figurative language), complex grammatical structures, abstract or complex ideas, and/or making sense of unexpected or seemingly contradictory information.
When listening to lectures and conversations like these, test takers at the HIGH level typically can
- understand main ideas and important details, whether they are stated or implied;
- distinguish more important ideas from less important ones;
- understand how information is being used (for example, to provide evidence for a claim or describe a step in a complex process);
- recognize how pieces of information are connected (for example, in a cause-and-effect relationship);
- understand many different ways that speakers use language for purposes other than to give information (for example, to emphasize a point, express agreement or disagreement, or convey intentions indirectly); and
- synthesize information, even when it is not presented in sequence, and make correct inferences on the basis of that information.
|
| Speaking Skills |
Level |
Your Performance |
| Speaking about familiar topics |
Good(3.5 - 4.0) |
Your responses indicate an ability to communicate your personal experiences and opinions effectively in English. Overall, your speech is clear and fluent. Your use of vocabulary and grammar is effective with only minor errors. Your ideas are generally well developed and expressed coherently.
|
| Speaking about campus situations |
Good(3.5 - 4.0) |
Your responses indicate an ability to speak effectively in English about reading material and conversations typically encountered by university students. Overall, your responses are clear and coherent, with only occasional errors of pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary.
|
| Speaking about academic course content |
Fair(2.5 - 3.0) |
Your responses demonstrate that you are able to speak in English about academic reading and lecture material, with only minor communication problems. For the most part, your speech is clear and easy to understand. However, some problems with pronunciation and intonation may occasionally cause difficulty for the listener. Your use of grammar and vocabulary is adequate to talk about the topics, but some ideas are not fully developed or are inaccurate.
|
| Writing Skills |
Level |
Your Performance |
| Writing based on reading and listening |
Good(4.0 - 5.0) |
You responded well to the task, relating the lecture to the reading. Weaknesses, if you have any, might have to do with
- slight imprecision in your summary of some of the main points and/or
- use of English that is occasionally ungrammatical or unclear.
|
| Writing based on knowledge and experience |
Good(4.0 - 5.0) |
You responded with a well-organized and developed essay. Weaknesses, if you have any, might have to do with
- use of English that is occasionally ungrammatical, unclear, or unidiomatic and/or
- elaboration of ideas or connection of ideas that could have been stronger.
|
|
2008-05-13 21:55
第三遍红宝书，还有不到一个月就考试了。
昨天起每天8个list的疯狂复习。准备把仍然不熟的词儿在这儿列出来。
PS 仍然没有收到准考证，刚刚给ETS发了邮件，等待回复中。
先列昨天前8个list的
amenable 愿服从的 善解人意的
animosity 憎恨
asperity
authorization 授权
aver
bale 大方木料 大灾害
blemish 玷污
blithe 快乐的
boisterous 喧闹的
brazen
bromide 溴化物 平庸的人或事
brunt 主要冲击力
buffoon 丑角
cabal
callow 未生羽毛的
calumniate 诽谤 中伤
caprice 其思怪想昂
caste 社会阶层
caveat
cessation 中止
charade 用动作表演文字意义的字谜游戏
chastice 斥责
clique
clog 障碍
cogent 有说服力的
comity 礼仪
commodious 宽敞的
compendium 概述 摘要
concatenate
concur 意见一致
congeal
congest
connive 默许 纵容 |
2008-04-10 19:25
做了新东方的第一套模拟题的verbal部分。因为没找到之前做诊断测试时的记录，所以不知道结果是否有点儿进步，印象中应该是有好了一点儿吧。不过也可能没什么可比性，因为那套ETS诊断测试是30题的，现在的verbal是38题的了。大致估算的标准化换算会因此出现一些偏差。
下面对这三十道题做题目分析。目标在于，1) 找到自己的弱项，然后提出针对性方案提高水平。2）总结技巧提高应试效率
总的测试结果是 22/38~470/800
1-7题 句子填空 正确5题 错2题
8-16题 类比 正确5题 错4题
17-27题 阅读 正确6题 错6题
28-38题 反义词 正确8题 错4题
这样看起来，句子填空和反义词正确率较高，阅读和类比较差。
以下逐题分析：
1 正确。题干有不熟词1个，选项无生词，句意明确，选项词义区别明显。理应做对。
2 正确。题干无生词，句意明确。选项10个词有生词2个，不熟词2个。正确项为1不熟词+1熟词。
3 正确。题干生词1个不熟词1个，选项生词2项。句意基本明确。正确项基本靠意义匹配直接获得。
4 错误。题干无生词 选项不熟词2个 错在句意理解偏差。
5 正确。题干生词3个 选项不熟词1个 句意不明。选项由语法要求得出。
6. 正确。题干无生词，句意基本明确 选项10个词有生词3个。基本是靠一个词确定选项。
7. 错误。题干无生词，句意明确 选项10个词生词2个。错在近义词不能辨析。
8 正确。题干无生词，关系明确。选项生词1个。其他关系基本明确。
9 错误。题干无生词，关系明确。选项无生词。 为什么错了至今不明白。
10正确。全题无生词，关系基本明确。
11正确。题干无生词，关系明确。选项生词2个，不在正确选项。
12正确。题干无生词，关系明确。选项生词3-4个。选择依据大部分是词性。
13正确。题干无生词，关系明确。选项爱那个生词2个。排除的。
14错误。题干无生词，关系明确。选项生词4个，但正确选项中无生词。错在词义掌握不全面。
15错误。题干无生词，关系明确。选项生词4个，正确选项无生词。选项关系理解有偏差。
16错误。题干1生词，选项1生词。错了活该。 |
2008-03-28 12:13
When I meditate on the relationship of giving instructions at universities and obtaining work experience in the non-academic world, the first thing that comes to me is the famous Marxist principle that practice is the major method to inspect and improve a theory, which is quite mainstream in China now. In my observation, teachings in college are mainly theories and work experience is a typical representative of "practice". And as a student myself, I have always been complaining that most professors gives only theries and principles, leaving us little chance to learn any practical knowledge and skills which may help us in later career development. I tend to believe that if instructors and lecturers have more up-to-date work experience in professions relevant to his field of study and the courses he teach, they will be much more capable to offer students practical experience and even career suggestions. Therefore I was really about to agree with the speaker that all instructors should be required of some outside-school work experience. Yet when I think it over for a second time I found some obvious flaw in this assertion and a serious question that, in my opinion, is worth discussing.
So my question is: what does practice mean and does it indicate narrowly off-campus work for all faculty members despite the various fields they are in? I'm afraid it's not so simple a question, otherwise the problem of practice definitely should not take up so much of Marx's writings. It must be somewhat complex. For faculty members in different fields and disciplines, practice means quite differently.
For computer science teachers, it's more likely that practice is to work outside campus in computer or Internet technology companies, maybe as programmers or designers or some other jobs closely related to their specialty. Without realistic work experience they probably will not be able to give much more information than textbooks, in which case an instructor will seem quite unnecessary, for by merely reading the textbook and practice what it teaches on a computer, students tend to grasp as much as when a teacher is explaining the texts. Quite differently, if the teacher embarces much up-to-date experience in the computer industry he will know much more than the textbook tells, since computer technology has been developing at so fast a pace that almost no textbook can catch up with it. First hand experience in the real working circumstance is more valuable than anything else in such classes.
However, the same seems not to be true for a professor in philosophy. The main subjects of philosophical study seems to be life itself. That means as long as one lives his life and he has a way of thinking quite philosophical, he will be able to provide first hand experience and thoughts. For example once I was deeply struck by one of the philosophy professors at my university when he was trying convey to us his thoughts about the significance of life while he was watching people infected with SARS struggling to stay alive. What makes a philosophy professor distinct from his students or other common people is his way of thinking and feeling of life. Life is his "prcatice". Allowing them the freedom to live their own lives is much more beneficial to their instructions in class than any requirements.
With these two examples, we can see that those instructors in fields that are more related to technology may benefit greatly from outside-campus work experience. Such fields may include, except for computer science, engeering, designing, arts(fine art, performing or the likes) and so on. While on the other hand, for those more theoretical fields such as mathimetics, theoretical physics, linguistics, socilogy, philosophy and so forth.
In the final analysis, whether college faculty members should be required of non-academic work experience depends on their fields of study and teaching. For those in more practical fields, they should gain some realstic work experience in other to enhance the quality of their instructions, while for those engaged in theoretical disciplines, such requirement is not likely to benefit their teaching or even harm it due to the limitation of the teachers' freedom of life. |
2008-03-26 16:58
看了一些北美的argument范文，感觉还算不错。我觉得argument果然是一种好写的task。我认为从大的方面来说，我的argument或者是中国人写的其他一些比较不错的argument其实都不比北美的差多少，因为总的来看北美的argument范文也没有什么高级的词，或者复杂的句子，虽然也不完全都是简单句吧，但是它的语言水平完全在我们能够达到的范围内，而且并不难达到。但是在细节上我们还需要一些小的调整。我觉得主要有这么几点：
第一，在开头段复述原文观点的时候，不必过分的要求简练，也不必勉强的把整段内容都浓缩在一个句子里表达，组装结构复杂的长句永远都不是非母语者的强项，既然连母语者都没有这么做，我们又何必难为自己呢。虽然就我的argument练习来说，这一点并不是不可以做到，但是我们最多只能保证自己组装的句子语法正确，却不能判断是否让母语者读起来觉得顺当，过分的要求浓缩也许反而弄巧成拙。
范文里通常是用一个句子表达题目的结论，然后用下一个句子列举题目中的论据。通常这在表示论据的句子开头用 to support/justify this...来连接。
第二，我们应该避免千篇一律的用the speaker，the author 或者the arguer这样的词语来指代题目。在猴哥的书上，大部分范文都是这样写的，我也一直这样写。但是我发现北美范文没有一篇是这样写的，尤其在开头复述观点的时候。他们通常都是针对每一篇题目的给出的不同陈述来选择不同的方式指代作者或题目内容，并且选用recommendation，conclusion，argument等不同的词语来只题目中的结论。中国人写的东西似乎更倾向于一律用argument或一律用conclusion来表示。这跟上一条一样，使我们文章显得很“模板”，缺乏针对性。其实这种改变只是非常简单的事情，却能让我们写出来的东西更接近母语者作品，何乐而不为呢。
第三，我们不必担心千篇一律的 first，second，third显得没水平，因为北美范文大多也都是这么写的。也不必绞尽脑汁的想东西来替换 in conclusion，to sum up这些结束语，北美范文在这点上也同样单调无趣。最多，我们只需要简单的把我们单调的一二三当中的一个替换成 in the first place, a second problem is, to begin with 之类的词语就可以了，实际上它们并不比一二三复杂。当然，偶尔也可以在顺序性不是很强，或者几个漏洞在重要性等方面不属于同一层次的时候选用，besides，aside from，等不强调顺序性的词语来引导攻击题目的进程。
第四，在结论段当中，稍微加入一些比开头段稍高明一点儿的词。比如你开头说的是 to support this conclusion, 那么当你结尾想说如果作者想进一步证明他的结论他应该提供哪些信息的时候，就不妨换用to bolster，to strengthen，to better assess/evaluate 这些词其实也并不高明多少，只是一方面我们需要显示一下，我们并不只会用support这一个词而已，另一方面也可以借这种词汇上的变化强调出我们提出的这些建议如果做到，就能更好的支持作者的论点。我们不仅可以通过better，more，这样的词来表示我们的建议比作者的论证高明，同样也可以通过选用词义更强更确定的词结尾，比如support和bolster的对比表明这一点。 |
2008-03-26 14:33
Argument 157
14:03
The speaker asserts that they should start the ski resort program with no delay despite the opposition from environmentalists, because it would not only give a boost to the business companies that are involved in the program but also benifit the local community by propel its tourism. He also posed the fact that they have already got fund for the program from the bank. Yet I find his argument quite unconvincing due to the following several obvious fallacies.
First of all, the only reason the speaker gave for establishing the ski resort at the park is that a certain company proposed it. He fails to consider the feasibility of doing so in the first place. Some materials should be provide to convince us that the area he mentioned in the argument is indeed suitable for a ski resort. For example he should have offered the climate record of that area and the measures of the mountains and many other related data may also be needed to make a reliable evaluation of that to-be resort area.
Then, his neglection of oppositions from environmnentalists is also questionable.He overlooked the reasons why environmenalists opposed to the ski resort planning. Perhaps they have atually warned about the risk of avalanche or some other serious problems or even disasters that may be caused if people ski here. The speaker contends that the environmentalists do not even live at the local area, yet as we all know, environment is a global issue, experts do not need to live at a certain place to be albe to knwo the overall environmental situation there. They can instead get crucial datas in many other ways, reading satellite maps for instance. Thus their not living in local area should not be taken as a support for ruling out their concerns and suggestions.
Moreover, the speaker failed to give any reliable evidence that building this new ski resort will benefit the local tourism or gain profit for the engaged companies. Without showing data about the transportation, accomodation scenery and other related conditions in the area we have no reason to believe that people will come to the new resort for holiday and thus cannot take it for granted that it will be profitable. And also a survey of the potential customers the new resort aims at should be conducted to show whether they bear the will to go skiing at this new resort, otherwise the establishment will be even less likely to promise profits.
As for the fund from the bank, the speaker did not tell us anything about their applying process. Have they got it because the bank evaluation believes that this program is promising or have there been any other causes for the bank to trust them? Without an answer to this, we cannot give credit to the speaker's assertion simply because they have got funds.
In the final analysis, if the speaker want his argument to be more convincing he should first prove to people that the chosen area is truly suitable for a new ski resort and that people are willing to go there after it is established, and still that it would be surely profitable and beneficial without any environmental risks. Only in this way can he persuade people to support this planning for the resort.
14:31 |
2008-03-26 11:28
Is it technologies that are determining our social customs and ethics as the speaker contends? At first thought, it is true that technology seems quite influential in contemporary society in that it is playing so important a role in most fields of our life that we can hardly go without it. However this does not lead to advocation of the speaker's assertion. In my opinion, although we must admit that technology may be one very important factor that is influencing our social customs and ethics nowadays, it is quite improper to thus conclude that technology determines our customs and ethics.
Perhaps one of the most significant technology that we apply now it computer and the Internet. They have indeed caused a lot of big changes in our lifestyle. For example, we use write letters to family and friends when we are not with them, yet as the Internet spreads around the world, we have turned to e-mails instead of handwritten letters. And similarly, we are holding less face-to-face meetings than before at work due to the convenience of netmeeting; and we write much less diaries for keeping a blog seems more interesting and fashionable than having a diary. Honestly, computer and Internet is posing great influence on or daily life both at work and back at home. And vehicles, and airplanes changed our way of travelling just as greatly comparing with the ancient time when we can merely walk or ride horses. Admitedly, our customs are deeply influenced by modern technologies.
However, I must point out here that no matter how great such influence or impact may be, technologies can never be the determinant forece of our customs ane especially our social ethics. No matter how convenient and efficient a netmeeting is, we are still holding face-to-face meetings and forums all the time, APEC leadings gather every few years, politicians pay visits to one another from time to time, business leaders meet to discuss about cooperations and university presidents hold forum every several years for communication about all issues that they concern...... Whether we meet online or face-to-face are simply a choice of ourselves. And people can still keep diaries for themselves or write letters with paper and pen as long as they would like to. Personally, I've been keeping both my blog online and my written diary for years and I get both e-mails and postcards from one same friend of mine. By these simple examples I mean to contend that as humans facilitate our daily activities with more and more advanced technology, we not actually just providing more possibilities and choices for ouselves. We can choose whatever way to acchieve our goals, be it to communicate with friends or to transact with business partners or whatever. Free will is always in the hand of humans rather than anything else. Thus we are not and never will give out the right to determine the customs and ethics of our society to anyone or anything else.
With the above I focus more on the custom aspect, and in this coming part let's turn to the ethics. This time let's take the cloning technology for example. The cloning technology has raised a rather heated dispute about whether it should be allowed to clone human beings, in which the main concern comes from the ethical aspect. We can say that by raising such a complicated question about our morality, the clone technology has definitely served as an impact on the traditional ethics of our society, otherwise this discussion would not have got so many people, experts or common people involved and have lasted for so long and remained so controversial. However, I tend not to believe that it is determining our ethical system. The reason why we have dispute and discussion over this human clone issue is that we are trying to get this new thing compatible to our current ethical system rahter that leaving the system to be disturbed and ruined by this new monster. Man ourselves is always the determinating power of the ethic system of our own society. If this new technology is incompatible to our system, we will be able to discard it or keep it under control just like we were able to create it.
To sum up, I concede that new technologies are having very significant influences on or social customs and ethics, yet I definitely can't agree with the speaker that they have the power or potential to be determinant. For they are created by humans at the first place and human power would always be the determining power.
11:45 |
2008-03-24 22:46
Argument 155
22:23
The speaker contends that elementary schools should be encouraged to buy audio books for their students, because audio books are an important alternative for those who don't read well, and that hearing stories told actully helps with the development of students' reading ability. This argument looks quite well-intended yet unconvincing in several ways.
First of all, the speaker gives no evidence to show that children turn away from school simply because they don't read well. There may be a number of other reasons to turn them away. For example, they may feel the activities offered by the shool too boring or they may find teachings there too easy and unchanllenging. In fact the speaker even haven't provide any material to ensure that students who turn away from shool are indeed bad readers.
And iit is not fully supported in the argument that schools reject audio books due to economic reasons. There is no account about the true causes of the absence of audio books in schools. This may instead be a result of the belief that hearing books actually hamper the development of reading ability which is essential to a student or that reading ability is far more important than knowing the content of the books or whatever else. Without a persuasive account of the true reasons, the assumption that economic cost makes schools refuse to buy audio books.
And there is no specific and detailed description of the studies mentioned by the speaker to collaborating the merits of letting children listen to books, which thus cannot lend sufficient credit to the speaker's conclusion. And moreover, he used the fact that hearing parents reading books helps to enhance the reading ability of children without either offering detailed information of the research leading to this point or proving that tape readings function exactly the same as parents reading. Thus this evidence does not serve its purpose well.
To sum up, The speaker failed to support his conclusion adequately because all the assumptions made in his argument seems more or less groundless and all the study results he cited are too vague to be reliable. Thus his recommodation of audio books is not attractive or convincing. If he is to argue for his point further, he would need to supply much more sound reasoning and detailed information about researches supporting his point.
22:46 |
2008-03-24 11:31
51 Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student.
10:43
The speaker asserts that education should meet individual needs and interests of each student otherwise it won't be truly effective. Concerning the effectiveness of education, I would like to first admit that it is crucial that individual interests and needs should be satisfied, yet I also have to emphasize that to meet individual needs is not everything about the effectiveness of education. Before discussing whether or not education should meet individual needs, we have to first come to the question of what is the individual need of a student and on what criteria do they figure out their true interest. In fact, I believe this is the first and more important task of education.
It's somewhat improper to say education as a whole when we are trying to argue about the purposes it is to serve, for at different stage of life and growth, education has different significance to an individual. So, let's divide it into two basic parts: fundamental schooling and further education. In most countries of the world, the first several years of schooling is considered compulsory, or at least strongly advocated and recommended by government. Though the time span of this compulsory education may vary, it is universal that some fundamental schooling is required for everyone. In my opinion, the purpose of this part of education is nothing but to enlighten. By enlighten I mean to arouse the hankering for knowledge and the willingness to learn. Only when a student has realized the hankering for knowledge and understanding of the world can he possibly discover what he needs to facilitate his inquiry into the unknown. Without such a threshold, there would be no need and no ground to talk about what he need or where his interest lies, and thus, it is obviously impossible to give so-called individualized education to students.
However, to enlighten embraces still a second meaning. That is to give every student some basic information of each main fields and subjects. This is vital to the process of enlightening, because if one does not first have a general idea of each main fields of study, he won't be able to compare them and in turn cannot reach a valid conclusion about what interest him most. A student may show great interest in mathematics when he has only courses of mathematics and literature, but he may turn to physics or chemistry when they come to know what they are about, or even he may show a greater interest in history when he is given the chance to have a glance at it. Therefore, it would be quite groudless to simply say that education should meet students' individual needs and interests without first enable them to uncover their own needs and intersts. And education itself is best tool to serve this purpose, for essentially, it serves to enlighten.
And only after education has completed its threshold task to enlighten people, that is at least to help them unveil their true needs and interests can we come to the question about whether higher degree of individualization will make education more effective. Here, I would like to express full support to the speaker's assertion that truly effective education is that which are highly-individualized. After enabling each student to see their own needs and interests, education should turn to offer as much as possible to meet all the possible needs of students so that everyone's talent and interest can be fully developed. This task is mainly shouldered by college education or other forms of education of generally the same level, which I would like to refer by the term further education which comes only when fundamental phase is completed. When entering college, student should definitely be presenting a wide selection of majors and courses to serve their own needs. And I would also like to propose that colleges and universities should provide not only wide range of selective course within and without a students major field of study but also more specified tutoring and consulting one a basis as small as possible, one-to-one is of course the best if possible.
In sum, education has a core function that is to enlighten, and to serve this purpose, it should first facilitate students to understand their own needs and intersts by arousing their hankering for knowledge and offering the very basic knowledge of all main fields of study, and then turn to offer as individualized as possible courses and tutorings to each student. Only in this way can education be effective and helpful to everyone in that it helps every individual to develop themselves in the way they choose for themselves.
11:30 |
2008-03-23 16:14
82"Government should never censor the artistic works or historical displays that a museum wishes to exhibit."
15:15
The speaker asserts that government should not censor artisitc works and historical displays of museums. I agree with the it insofar as these artistic and historic pieces are not to be censored as representatives of art or history. Yet things may be somewhat different if we consider this matter in regard to all the possible viewers of such exhibitions, which in my opinion, is more likely to be the government's standing point.
As artistic works, by this I mean fine art paintings or sculptures, everything should be allowed to be depicted in it, be it natural scenery, abstract geomeric shapes, or naked human body, for its value lies in the artistic side rather than anything else. In this sense, if the government it to give any censor to the works, it should aim at deciding whether a piece of work is excellent enough to be displayed. However, it's obvious that it's not the government's responsibility to make such decisions and that it also out of government officials' ability to do so.
As for historic displays, specifically those pieces that on display in historic museums, like those unearthed pottery, stones or coins and so forth, similarly, they are valued in the first place by their historical significance. Museum that are interested in exhibiting them take them purely as precious reflections of ancient society and the lifestyle of ancient people. Nothing else matters when museum consider what to put on display and what not to. In this perspective, that is, the pure artistic or historic way, I surely approve the speaker's claim that government should not censor anything that is to be exhibited. It is artistic and historic values that matter, and for such values government officials have neither the right nor the knowledge and ability to make censor them and make any judgement. Such tasks should be left to the experts and scholars in musuems with great freedom and liberty.
10min pause
Yet, Given that any citizens, including young children, senior citizens and people with different religious belief and so on can be viewer and visitors to every museum exhibition, and that people may be interested in any display in spite of their knowledge and understanding of the displayed pieces, I would like to propose that it is worth considering that government should have a glance of the pieces of exhibitions in order to provide basic information for the public to avoid any unnecessary disputes and harm to some of the potential visitors. For example, parents may be interested in taking their children to museums thinking that visiting art or historic exhibition may enhance their children's experience and develop interest in relevant fields. Yet, if the parents themselves are not well-educated enough, it possible that they will mislead their children in some cases. I had an experience that will help to illustrate this point. Once I visited an art gallery where at that time had some paintings of naked bodies were on display, and there I met an old woman and a very little boy. As I passed them, I heard the old woman warning the boy that he must not look at these paintings of naked women for they are "no good". I was wondering if she thought it no good why she has taken the little boy to visit this gallery. I suppose, that woman hadn'd know what was on display and simply thinks it good to show young children some fine arts without understanding what fine arts really means herself. Yet I'm afraid such a gallery visit actually amount to nothing helpful for that little boy, he may remember nothing but "no good" and the old woman may ban him from going to any other art exhibition later on, thinking that fine arts means naked woman which is "no good".
By this example, I mean to argue that although censors are not proper to be imposed on arts and historic pieces for that will be taken as a kind of hampering for their real value to be shown to the public, measures should be taken in one way or another to help those less-educated people to know whether an exhibition is proper to visit, I mean in their own perspective. Otherwise, museums, though they actually aim at providing more chance for common people to learn and appreciate art and history, may turn out instead, to hamper an appropriate understanding for some people. If government can have a glance over the works beforehand, they may be able to warn the public about content so that people can judge whether they want to pay a visit or whether they think it proper to take their children there. The same may be needed for some religiously nonmainstream groups, for example if a certain historic exhibition shows scenes reconstructed by researchers on how ancient people raise pigs, it would surely be offensive to muslims if they are not warned about such content of the exhibition beforehand.
In sum, It's true that government should have no intervention to art and historic exhibitions concerning what the museums will display, yet in some extreme cases, it is worth considering that government should have a look and for the potential viewers' convenience, to give some warning or precaution to the pubilic.
16:12 |
2008-03-22 16:01
33"Creating an appealing image has become more important in contemporary society than is the reality or truth behind that image."
It seems to be true that an appealing image is growing more and more important nowadays. Politicians get elected by showing up with attractive appearance and alluring policy promises; goods in supermarkets get purchased due to their shining, eye-catching package; pop stars get supported by more people if they have a more beautiful face or a better-shaped body. But is it really the case that image is more important than the truth? I'm afraid not.
For a politician, the greatest success may be becoming president of his nation, and it's true that he needs to have a neat appearance and an attractive proposals to get more people vote for him. Yet merely getting elected does not promise a successful career as president. He will also have to adhere to his promises after he's elected and keep his nice appearance throughout his career, if he abandoned what he had promised during the campaign, citizens tend to oppose him or even get him impeached and resigned. In that case, he will finally be a notorious politician rather than a achievious one.
If you are a businessman, you certainly need to create an attractive image for your products or services if want people to pay you for them. And it's natural that good-looking products tend to attract more people to try them for the first time, because a nice appearance is likely to make people suppose that it is of good quality. However, a bussinessman will not win his battle in the market simply by getting most consumers to buy his products once and no more. If want to succeed, he will need to gain a stable profit which requires that his product is attractive not only for first time but also for quite a while afterwards. To achive this, an appealing image is obviously inadequate. One will also have to prove that his products is of good quality and worth buying a next and next next time. An appealing appearance will earn you a considerable profit for one time, while a worthwhile reality or "truth" behind it will bring you similar profits for hundreds or even thousands of times. Thus, there is no need to point out which is the better way.
And for stars, no matter which field they are in, appealling image may seem more important than any other people, for they are stars they must be shining and fashionalbe. Surely they need that, but in the mean time stars are humans they will grow and pine away however pretty they once was. Yet there are stars who catches attention and wins support all through their lives although they may not be as young and shining as the new hits. So why is that? I believe what makes them big stars despite of their age and appearance is their "truth", for singers the truth is their singing skills, those who can really sings well, like Whitney Houston, or Mariah Carey, fans are always with them though they are no longer young and not as beautiful. For movie stars the truth is their acting ability, they may not be really pretty but as long as they can create successful figures they will enjoy applause from the audience.
One field that requires least attractiveness in appearance and most "truth" must be scientific research. No one cares how a space shuttle looks, it is great in all respect as long as it can send us onto other planets. And no one will argue if e=mc2 looks pretty as long as it can be utilized to solve real problems and enhance our understanding of the world. Science is our probe into the unknown and serves to meet man's basic curiosity about this world, in which an appealing image is of no value at all compraring to the truth it offers.
With the above i'm contending that though attractive images may be of great value at first sight and for a very short perioud, what really matters is always the truth and reality behind that image, for that is the long-term and ultimate attraction.
679 words |
2008-03-19 16:54
48"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
16:16
The speaker suggests that historians are putting too much emphasis on famous historic figures in their study and consequently overlooking the significance of groups of common people who have made equally important, or even more crucial contribution the development of human history. Yet I tend not to agree with this point of view. My reasons concerns both the nature of history study and the significance of underscoring the contribution of common people.
History study, in my observation, is a discipline that have both some feature of science studies and those of arts. When we study history, the first matter is to identify historic facts. Historians delve into archives and archaeological discoveries to ensure that a certain event did happened or a certain figure did live in history and this requires some methods and attitudes similar to scientific research for its main focus is no the precision and reliability of materials and facts. While on the other hand, historians also exerts their imagination and creativity to make up what substantial materials cannot provide sufficient evidence to support so as to approach the possible truth of history although our ancestors may not have left us adequate information to know. Given such a special nature of history study, we have to admit that they way we research into history depends more on what archaeology and other relevant studies provide us than what we suppose a research or study should be like. Specifically, it may be true that common people or some groups of people calls for more attention, yet the problem actually is not that historians do not want to give them more stake, but that ancestors did not leave more evidence for us to uncover the mystery of those less famous people who have disappeared from this world without leaving much record about them hundreds or even thousands of year ago.
The truth is that probably people of all ages tend to pay more attention to those who are mor famous in the society of their time. Actually we can see this by simply observing our contemporary society. So many books and documentation are made to describe the life of the famous, successful persons and their feats, while so little is written to tell our descendants what the common people have done. For example, when people write articles and books to show how a company or enterprise has succeeded in the business world, they will definitely emphasize how wise the CEO is, and what kind of great desicion he has made to lead his company to success. Little would be mentioned how hard his employees worked for him to make possible the company's big hit. And such description tend to constitute the may record of our society that we will leave to later generations. And similarly, what we have received from earlier generations is also mainly accounts of prominent figures, which makes it natural that more research into famous persons are done by history study that that concerning less important groups of people.
And for the comtemporary world the most important signicance of history study lies in what benefit it can bring to contemporary people. And honestly, to common people accounts of famous historic figures are far more attractive than accounts of trivial historic facts concerning ordinary groups of people. realistically, most people wish to succeed and be of some significance rather than stay ordinary and trivial for all their lives. Thus what intersts us more is why and how those famous figure in history have suceeded and what lesson we can learn from their experience. This trend of public interest also drive history study towards the famous-heads-first direction.
With the reasons stated above, I would like to conclude that it is natural and reasonable for history study to give more emphasis to the famous few and that such a preference of history study is also more likely to benefic comtemporary people. Although we should not entirely overlook the contribution that common people have made to bring us here throughout history, we also have to admit that emphsis on famous figures is justifiable and inevitable.
16:53
683 words
自我感觉比前几篇稍微有逻辑了一点，不过篇幅上又太不平衡了，第一点说太多，第二点太单薄了。不过一方面我不知道怎么能缩短第一点的篇幅，另一方面实际上也不允许再多写了。所以比较麻烦。吃饭去了。 |
2008-03-19 11:20
我得去吃饭先，不细说它了。这篇的结论是
第一，坚决不能回避概念定义。
第二，要进一步认真分析题干。
作者把一个题干拆成三个statement分别论述。最后的结论就是，看你怎样定义superiority，如果你这么定义，这个观点就正确，如果你那么定义，它就不正确。
感觉上，这是一个不错的论证方式，至少是切入方式。不过不知道我能不能学的来呢。有空练一下试试。 |
2008-03-18 22:46
我决定认真重读几篇ETS的issue范文，也许这个范围稍后会扩大到arguement 不详。
第一篇，随便翻的，212。意思是说，为了达到一个值得的目的，可以不择手段。
范文的基本观点是完全彻底的反对，他说 “In my view this extreme position misses the point entirely." 他的基本观点是，这个问题必须具体情况具体分析。然后他列出了四个具体情况，证明即使目的很值得，不择手段也是不能接受的。
第一个例子是说为了赢得一场马拉松比赛，是否可以不计较丢掉工作和严重受伤，去拼命训练。他说如果我是一个普通人，这样做可能就不能接受。而如果我是一个特别喜欢身体上的挑战的人，也许这就是可以接受的，因为赢得比赛对我来说可能是很重要的自我满足，并且可能带来很好的社会效益，我的拼搏精神能够鼓舞其他的人。
第二个例子说，以为一个无辜的儿童提供食物和住所为目的，这听起来似乎是一个很好很正当的目的，但是如果为了达到这个目的就去偷别人的，或者放弃对这个孩子的教育而雇用他做工，那么对这个事情的接受程度就因人而异了，这涉及到个人的道德观念和价值体系的问题。
第三个例子上升到社会层面，说如果我们说我们需要减少环境污染，这似乎是一个大家普遍接受的好的目的，但是如果为此我们让所有的工厂停产，造成大批失业甚至面临经济整体瘫痪，那就无法接受了。
第四个例子说的是美国介入两伊战争的事儿，他说虽然介入这场战争保证了西方世界的石油供应，并且减少了对世界和平的潜在威胁，但是这并不能保证为此付出本来可以用于本国建设或者其他一些更productive的用途的资源被这件事儿占用了就是可以接受的。
最后的总结段也很简练，有一句很两眼的句子，说In sum, the speaker begs the question.我不是很理解这个beg的用法，看下面的翻译，说是“演讲人以假定为论据进行讨论。”我觉得这个翻译似乎不太好，因为其实给出这个观点的人并没有“讨论”这个问题，也没有什么“假定”之说，感觉上，似乎这个beg的意思大致是说，这个题目只是凭空提出这么一个观点来，只要放到具体的事情上一衡量，就明显是站不住脚的。
这篇可能是ETS范文里面篇幅最短，语言最简单的之一了吧。但是的确有很多值得研究的地方。
比如，大概所有人都能想到设置具体的事件来反驳这个观点，其实我在做这个提的时候也举到了维持基本生存和偷东西那个例子。但是显然就很粗浅。他的好处在于，它能够举出多个例子，并且不是简单的堆砌例子。而且他在举例子的时候能够说的很到位。比如他会说，目的是给一个无辜的孩子提供食物和住所，这就能事这个目的看起来更加高尚或者至少无可厚非，而我只想到了维持一个人的基本生存，尊重起码的生命权，就没有作者的这个说法显得那么有力。而且还需要浪费篇幅去解释说人的生存权是多么基本和不可侵犯，还实际上给自己留下了明显的漏洞，比如如果这个人就是个杀人犯，这件事儿显然就不成立了。一个“无辜的孩子”就把这些问题全解决了。很经典吧。
而且作者还可以条理的在“个人”和“社会”两个层面上各给两个例子，这就比简单的罗列要强百倍了。这就是逻辑思维，条理化结构化的力量。我们未必想不到“大”“小”两种例子，只是我们没有能力想到把他们清楚的划分开，并且扣上“个人”“社会”这两个冠冕堂皇的帽子。而这个文章还有一个牛的地方，就在于他最后的一个例子是一个实际出现的情况，并且是在美国国内长期引起公愤的事儿。这就很容易赢得读者，也就是考官，感情上的支持。而做到这一点对于我们这些外人来说恐怕很有难度，我们恐怕很难理解那些事情给美国本身带来的是一种怎样的影响，以及美国人自己，对一些事件比较普遍的看法是怎样的。并且，我们可能也不容易想到拿那些事情来做例子，因为他们离我们生活毕竟要遥远的多。
这篇文章里得到的启发就是，你并不一定需要用若干个理由来支持自己的观点，但是如果你只用一个观点，你就必须给他足够多并且足够有力有条理的证据去支持。并且要在选择证据的时候很精心，让每个例子都足够有说服力和没有漏洞。说来容易，要写出这样的论据来很难很难。 |
2008-03-18 17:09
141The following appeared in a newsletter distributed at a recent political rally.
"Over the past year, the Consolidated Copper Company (CCC) has purchased over one million square miles of land in the tropical nation of West Fredonia. Mining copper on this land will inevitably result in pollution and environmental disaster, since West Fredonia is home to several endangered animal species. But such disaster can be prevented if consumers simply refuse to purchase products that are made with CCC's copper until the company abandons its mining plans."
16:43
The speaker contends that consumers should refuse to buy products produced with CCC's copper, for by doing so we will be able to force CCC to give up its mine in Fredonia and thus prevent an environmental disaster it may cause. I do appreciate the speaker's good intention in posing such a problem and its solution, yet his argument obviously fails to persuade people to follow his suggetion.
In the first place, the speaker gave no sufficient evidence to prove that the mining of copper in Fredonia will surely lead to an environmental disaster. Although the mine may be located at the natural habitat of several endangered species, he failed to offer further materials in support of the assumption that mining at those places will have vital influence of the species living there. It's possible that we can mine copper without actually doing much harm to the environment, and in that case disaster will not be resulted.
Even if it's true that copper mining will bring a disaster to the species living in Fredonia it may not trigger an environmental disaster as the speaker expected. He didn't provide accounts for the effect that will be caused by the decrease of animal population in Fredonia.
What's more, even if we suppose that a disaster will be inevitable once the copper mine is established, it's still doubtful wheter the suggested action will effectively prevent the coming trouble.The speaker concluded that if we do not purchase the products that are made of copper from CCC, they will abandon the copper mine at Fredonia. Yet nothing actually actually guarantees this assumption. We even don't know whether CCC sells its products to the local market, we definitely won't be able to make sure whether such refusal will work. If local consumers stop buying CCC's products, they may sell them to other places. Even if we can persuade consumers nationwide to refuse buying CCC products, they may still sell them abroad. Thus it's quite uncertain whether cosumers refusal will have any significant influence on the mines.
Let's just take the chance that they really will be foreced to give up the mine at Fredonia, it's still suspicious whether the impact on the environment will then be eliminated. Perhaps by the time they abandon the mine, the environment at Fredonia is already damaged to an extent that is unrecoverable. In that case, our effort as the speaker recommended, will not do any good.
To sum up, the speaker's reccomendation is quite unconvincing due to his failure to provide adequate supporting materials and his neglection of many other possibilites. If we want to prevent the possible environmental disaster, much more scientific investigation and effective measures need to be taken.
|
|
送她礼物
发送消息
