【写作】2018“外研社·国才杯”写作大赛亚军易文菲议论文展示

2019/01/11 17:47:24
       科学实验是否应看重结果,而非实验手段呢?这一问题素来受到争论,而这一充满争议的话题今年出现在了2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛的议论文赛题中,今天我们就一起来看看全国亚军对这一话题的解读吧。
 
真题分享
       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. 

议论文题目

 

选手破题思路
 
易文菲,东北大学(指导教师:董革非)
2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛亚军
 
       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。
 
       看完题目并确定立场之后(我反对科学家利用动物进行实验),我明晰了自己要论证的事情有三:
       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)为什么我会坚持所有生灵皆平等这一说法?有没有理论可以支撑这一立场?
       3)为什么会出现这样的题目?这个题目背后隐藏的社会普遍现象是什么?我和题目中的科学家Harlow对科学的目的和意义是不是有不一样的认知?
 
       我用第一段概括了题目中凸显的中心冲突,同时表明了自己反方的立场。
       第二段用来初步揭露这一手段的弊端:人类的贪婪和野心是无止境的;这样的实验会给动物带来严重的精神伤害(我用了弗洛伊德对trauma的分析佐证这一点);同时“人性”这一词汇所涵盖范围的扩展和人类文明的进步是划等号的。
        第三段,我回答了上文的三个问题:
       1)通过坚持这一立场,我不是默许科研进度的停滞,反之,我希望借这一契机推动虚拟实验技术的进步。我希望通过宣传这一立场,能够将科学家心中人性的标尺具象化,使人类在发展自身的同时对这个世界永远充满善意的敬畏。
       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。
       3)出现这道题目的原因与当今社会科学飞速发展的背景息息相关。如今人类对科学的重视达到了前所未有的程度,而对科技进步速度的追求也会促使人们淡化心中的道德标尺。而科学的终极目的是什么呢?是全体意义上的造福还是允许少数牺牲的造福?我认为是前者。既然我们发明创造的初心是造福世界上的每一个生灵,那么对于任何潜在的伤害我们都要三思,甚至要杜绝。通过自我反思,我认为本文存在一定的论述限制性。首先是有些词汇的拼写失误,其次通过张文忠教授的赛后指导,我认为此篇文章的论述过于单向。论辩型写作需要对于两个方向的解读和剖析,以及对于对方立场的宽容。
 
       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。
 
选手作品欣赏
       (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.
 
名师点评
 
祝捷,武汉大学外语学院副教授
2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛冠军指导教师
 
       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。
       初读此篇参赛作品的感受可以用“震撼”两个字形容,细细品味之后发现以下特点成就了这篇优秀的议论文。
 
        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。
       第二、三段经过正反两方面充分论证之后,分别在结尾处提出重要的分论点:
       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.
       作者综合运用举证、递进、因果分析、正反对照等手法充分论证主要论点,令读者印象深刻。
 
        2 . 结构严谨
       第一段立论之后,第二段进入驳论部分。针对Harlow的实验,作者主要从三方面提出批评:
       1)科学家利用自己的特权将幼猴与母猴分开是极其残忍的;
       2)引用弗洛伊德的理论,说明这种实验会对无辜的实验对象产生极大的心理伤害,沦为实验的牺牲品;
       3)不能因为动物不如人类高级就对它们为所欲为,从而在最后一句话提出本部分最重要的分论点:人性应该是普世的。
       第三段从三方面再次深入探讨论证主论点,并在第三点中提出另一重要分论点:科学发展的目的和作用在于减轻乃至消除痛苦。
       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。
       最后一段重申主要立场,并在最后一句提出建议:人类在追求科学进步的道路上应始终保持谨慎及对其他物种的尊重。以提出解决办法(solution)方式结束全文达到了篇章结构的完整。
       纵观全文,作者以“立论—驳论—再立论—结论”的思路构架论述过程,有立有驳、论证充分、逻辑清晰,整体结构一气呵成、浑然一体,值得称道。
 
        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。
       在有限的时间内能展现如此丰富的词汇量,以及如此灵活多变且符合文体要求的句型转换,可见作者具有很强的语言驾驭能力。
 
        4. 例证面广
       作者在本文中一共举例四次,分别涉及心理学(心理学家弗洛伊德)、语言学(语言学家索绪尔)、哲学(法兰克福学派)和文学(英国诗人威廉·布莱克)等领域,旁征博引,充分显示出作者的知识广度和视野维度,令人叹服。
       总之,作者在有限时间内通过阅读分析所提供的文献,确立态度鲜明的论点,以丰富多变的词汇、灵活得体的句型、立驳兼顾的论证、涉猎面广的举例、严谨完整的结构,出色地完成了论述任务,实属难能可贵,展现出不凡的写作实力和综合素质。
 
       百尺竿头,更进一步。本文如果能在以下几方面进一步打磨会更加完美:
       1)更精准恰当地使用高级词汇;
       2)在没有确凿证据之前,尽量避免使用激烈度较高的词汇和过于绝对的论断,以避免武断之嫌;
       3)举例可以更深入透彻,适当增加更具时代特色的例证。