2019/01/11 17:47:24
       Write an essay in response to the passage below. You should discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the passage and explain your reasons for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the author's opinion might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.  
       You should write about 800 words. 



       打英辩的时候有一个思路:To prove your worst case better than the other side's best case. 这个思路在写这篇议论文时同样适用。即便使用题目中的手段取得了卓越的科学成果,造福了世人(best case),我们人类在这一过程中也失去了更为宝贵的东西——对生命的普遍尊重,以及“人性”这一词汇的深度。
       1)通过坚持这一立场,我想要达成什么样的效果?我是在默认人类的科学研究进度会因为这一禁令而停滞不前吗?科研成果的取得和实验对象的“赦免”真的是mutually exclusive吗?
       2)一切生灵皆平等。我借用了索绪尔的语言学理论论证共情的重要性,同时借用了William Blake的诗句突出人类对自然和世界缺乏敬畏性这一问题的历史性。
       Matthew Arnold曾用Sweetness and Light一文抨击维多利亚时期英国国民过于重视工业进步而导致精神世界荒芜的现象。作为这篇议论文的致意,我希望在当今社会人们追求科技进步的同时永远不要弱化自己内心的道德标尺。
       (为真实展示选手赛场上的写作风貌,文章为从iTEST 大学外语测试与训练系统中摘出的原生作品,仅供学习分享使用。)
Scientific Experiments Entail Justifiable Means
       Presentations of scientific outcomes are always mired in controversies. To whom the outcome mattars more than the process, it is a practice entailing fame and accolades. On the contrary, the justifiability of experimental methodologies can also arouse copious chatter. Exemplified by Harry Harlow's psychological experiments, certain scientific studies have proved their methodology unsettling. Scientists became embodiments of voracious, intuitive and presumptuous beings, and I share the same fear towards this issue. While the human society is seeking progress in scientific areas, the adoption of the edgiest technologies may born the risk of inflicting truma on the innocents. From my standpoint, I am firmly opposed to utilizing improper deeds to achieve research purposes.
       To prove the necessity and variety of maternal bonding, Harlow arbitrarily exercised his "prerogative" as to deprive a baby monkey of his mother's caress and tenderness, and under an international backdrop, this phenomenon is barely one in a million. The processing and advancement of this experiment shall be envisoned as gruesome in a vocarious way. As monkeys can not supersede human beings on the level of intelligence and emotional sentiments, an outcome of precision may require samples of more intelligent bodies. While some laud the achievements and accolades, I lament the innocent samples functioning as guinea pigs. The psychologist, Sigmund Freud, has long pointed out that the trauma inflicted on both human beings and animals can induce mental handicaps. He refers to the aftermath as "repetition" and "repression". Victims shall spend their life hindering a deluge of strong, stimulus reminiscence from dominating their sobriety. While some declare that animals are not as developed in their carnal fuctions as humans, I still deny the justifiability of this practice for their potential damage. Humanity shall cover the range of all beings alive, and the augmentation of this notion represents the advancement of our civilization.
       Three arguments can be enlisted in order to strengthen my motion. On the outset, by universally defying scientists' intuitive utilization of animal samples, we are preventing tragedies from being ubiquitous. On the contrary of hindering scientific advancements and delivering assailant comments, we are, in essence, promoting the deveopment of edgy technologies. By reinforcing the idea that scientists can only resort to using the given methods in a terrible predicament, we can provide incentives and momentums for the publishing of virtual experiments. Author of the given paragraph stand unfazed towards the jeopardy for he subconsciously neglected the tentativeness underling those experiments. Doubts are prevalent. Sagacity and meticulousness are required. Inflicting ethical burden on scientists can reduce spiritual damage considerably. Second, all beings enjoy equal rights in terms of mental well-being. Empathy is a necessity. The renowned scholar, Saussure, has long pointed out its significance from the prospective of linguistics by claiming that there exists a certain arbitrariness between the signifier and the signified, while the school of Frankfurt reinforced that idea by manifesting it from an augmented prospective. Human beings are born with a lofty sense of prerogative, and evaluate the ranking of other lives without bona fides. Poet William Blake has stated this issue in a sarcastic way by reaffirming human authority overtaking god's will in his Song of Innocence. By granting a license on scientists' reverie instead of solacing it with due respect, we shall witness drastic exasperation in the near future. Finally, the contention between me and the given author derives from our distinguished definitions on the function and purpose of scientific development. He intends that science shall serve better on the basis of accumulated sacrifices, while I belive the very existence of science fuctions as an effective tool to alleviate suffering and eradicate every possibility of its proliferation. An outrageous methodology of presenting scientific experiments is only a facade of human beings' insatiable demand for development and the insufferable methods they are willing to adopt to fulfill this purpose. The burgeoning intelligence of human is unsettling, for it exacerbates the corruption of our mentality as voracious, presumptuous and intuitive. While human lives are ephemeral, our ambitions everlasts in their pampering of every penchants, even in the name of science, which automatically serves as a potential threat. Once we are exposed to it, our curiosity is bombarded with a myriad of outrageous methods, which are doubtful both in their utility and their legitimacy. Lives are too essential to be harmed by human whims. Astute, tenacious and vigilent as lives are, they shall enjoy due respect and even an ethical asylum to prevent them from future calamity.
       By berating and reprimanding the scientists' audacious behaviour, we are literaly rendering them momentums to make asssiduous efforts to simulate experimentation while respecting lives, instead of defying the general experimental mechanism. The given paragraph manifests a prevalent phenomenon in the status quo that the burgeoning scientific progress may incur deviation from our moral criteria. I hope the castigation above shall serve as a siren towards human beings' insatiable ambition in scientific areas, and assist us to seek progress with due prudence and respect.
       本届议论文赛题以美国心理学家Harry Harlow著名的猴子母爱实验为案例,提出一个观点:只要科学实验的结果对人类有利,实验手段是否合理可以忽略不计。参赛选手需要表明态度是否赞同此观点,并进行论证。
        1. 立论有力
       首先作者用一个完整句作为标题明确提出自己的观点:“Scientific Experiments Entail Justifiable Means”,寥寥五个单词既开门见山、言简意赅地表明立场,又囊括几乎所有关键词,起到点题点睛的作用,堪称精彩巧妙。
       第一段介绍人们对科学实验手段的对立看法后,层层递进,在结尾处重申个人立场:坚决反对通过不正当手段达到科学目的(I am firmly opposed to utilizing improper deeds to achieve research purposes.),成功达到了立论的目的。
       1) Humanity shall cover the range of all beings alive;
       2)I believe the very existence of science functions as an effective tool to alleviate suffering and eradicate every possibility of its proliferation.
        2 . 结构严谨
       值得一提的是,这一段虽然篇幅长,内容多,但并不显冗赘,得益于有效的组织连接。第一句简单交代本部分包含三条论据,并精炼地使用“on the outset”(注:正确搭配应为at/from the outset), “second” 和“finally”实现了自然过度,层次分明、逻辑清晰。
        3 . 文风独特
       语言运用是本文另一大亮点,高级词汇丰富,信手拈来,且专业性强。句型灵活多变,简单句、并列句、各种复合句转换自如。以第三段为例:在第一部分中,作者没有一味使用主复合句,而是以“by”、“on the contrary of”等介词(短语)引导分词短语组成难度较大的单句,并使用插入语等给严肃正式的语言平添几分变化,增强了阅读愉悦感。同时,短句(如:Doubts are prevalent; Sagacity and meticulousness are required.)与长句的结合也丰富了语言的节奏感和力量感。
       第二部分的前两句(all beings enjoy equal rights in terms of mental well-being. Empathy is a necessity.)短小精悍,直击论点,后一句则改用以“while”连接的并列句清楚明了地列举了两个例证,显示出很强的造句能力。
        4. 例证面广