“Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years, the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more exclusively on economics and personal finance. She points to a recent survey of readers of general interest magazines that indicates greater reader interest in economic issues than in political ones. Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
版子里的廣大版友對這道題目有著很大的不理解，覺得此題有別于從前的argument出題形式，不再是某人的一言堂，出現(xiàn)了兩個當(dāng)事人，提出了兩種狀似意見相駁的觀點。
看了下題目，前半部分都沒有什么問題，說的是Newbeat這本雜志，3年來的銷售很低，所以需要整改。publisher提出了一個recommendation縮減政治板塊專門去從事財經(jīng)方面的報道。給出一個調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)，讀者對于財經(jīng)的興趣大于政治。談到此處，話鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，出現(xiàn)了另一位當(dāng)事人，“editor”，出現(xiàn)另一個人也沒什么問題，讓人受不了的是，此人像是來搗亂的，他的觀點是oppose the proposed shift in editorial policy的，頓時我們遁入了云里霧里，心中不禁大驚：“這是怎么一回事!!!!!Argument的套路不是這樣的呀!!!”，再看instruction，得不到任何安慰，instruction也很中規(guī)中矩，還是找不到頭緒，該文章的clue究竟在哪里???破題路在何方呀???
對于這道題目，我的看法是，ETS這個一肚子壞水的奸商又來使壞了。首先我們要明確一個問題，誰的話才是真正的recommendation。有板油可能會覺得既然有兩個意見，那么我就可以任選一個我喜歡的來寫。對于這樣的想法我的答案是否定的，題型雖然變化了，但題目并沒有變，Argument還是有其明確的目標(biāo)的。那么對于文章中得recommendation如何來確定呢?
先看題目：
Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years,the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more exclusively on economics and personal finance. She points to a recent survey of readers of general interest magazines that indicates greater reader interest in economic issues than in political ones. Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.”
我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，紅字部分有很明顯的指示publisher recommendsXXXXX，而editor 則是opposes the proposed shift，所以一目了然，真正的recommendation在文中只有一個，另一方雖然提出了完全相左的建議，但只是基于recommendation的一個反駁而已，并不能算作是題目要求中得recommendation來看待。
看完題目，我心中有個疑問：editor這段標(biāo)志異常鮮明的反對觀點真的是在反對publisher嗎?
Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.”
我對于這段話的理解是，雖然文章里說editor是反對的，但editor反對的理由卻是在支持publisher。各位仔細讀一讀這位editor的理由： very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore. 幾乎沒有任何一家雜志社再去廣泛報道政治新聞。言下之意：大家都在做publisher所作的事情，削減報道篇幅。這說明什么?說明可能是因為政治新聞不再受歡迎了，所以雜志社才會削減，這不是Newsbeat的經(jīng)營問題，而是氛圍問題。將此處“editor”這個人換掉，換成“publisher”同樣是成立的，“Meanwhile, Newsbeat's publisher also points out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” 那么這樣的話，我們就很容易理解。當(dāng)然，會有版友認(rèn)為，既然其他雜志社不做，我們做的話不是正好很有市場嗎?我的回答：“是!”確實有這個可能性，這點沒錯。但這說明不了問題，因為從有限的信息中你也不能否認(rèn)其消極的一面，不是嗎?我們攻擊的就是文章factors的模糊不清和認(rèn)識不足。
So，我覺得此處ETS和大家玩了個文字游戲，將原本正面的話，反過來說，讓大家掉進這個小陷阱....
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
版子里的廣大版友對這道題目有著很大的不理解，覺得此題有別于從前的argument出題形式，不再是某人的一言堂，出現(xiàn)了兩個當(dāng)事人，提出了兩種狀似意見相駁的觀點。
看了下題目，前半部分都沒有什么問題，說的是Newbeat這本雜志，3年來的銷售很低，所以需要整改。publisher提出了一個recommendation縮減政治板塊專門去從事財經(jīng)方面的報道。給出一個調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)，讀者對于財經(jīng)的興趣大于政治。談到此處，話鋒一轉(zhuǎn)，出現(xiàn)了另一位當(dāng)事人，“editor”，出現(xiàn)另一個人也沒什么問題，讓人受不了的是，此人像是來搗亂的，他的觀點是oppose the proposed shift in editorial policy的，頓時我們遁入了云里霧里，心中不禁大驚：“這是怎么一回事!!!!!Argument的套路不是這樣的呀!!!”，再看instruction，得不到任何安慰，instruction也很中規(guī)中矩，還是找不到頭緒，該文章的clue究竟在哪里???破題路在何方呀???
對于這道題目，我的看法是，ETS這個一肚子壞水的奸商又來使壞了。首先我們要明確一個問題，誰的話才是真正的recommendation。有板油可能會覺得既然有兩個意見，那么我就可以任選一個我喜歡的來寫。對于這樣的想法我的答案是否定的，題型雖然變化了，但題目并沒有變，Argument還是有其明確的目標(biāo)的。那么對于文章中得recommendation如何來確定呢?
先看題目：
Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years,the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more exclusively on economics and personal finance. She points to a recent survey of readers of general interest magazines that indicates greater reader interest in economic issues than in political ones. Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.”
我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，紅字部分有很明顯的指示publisher recommendsXXXXX，而editor 則是opposes the proposed shift，所以一目了然，真正的recommendation在文中只有一個，另一方雖然提出了完全相左的建議，但只是基于recommendation的一個反駁而已，并不能算作是題目要求中得recommendation來看待。
看完題目，我心中有個疑問：editor這段標(biāo)志異常鮮明的反對觀點真的是在反對publisher嗎?
Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.”
我對于這段話的理解是，雖然文章里說editor是反對的，但editor反對的理由卻是在支持publisher。各位仔細讀一讀這位editor的理由： very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore. 幾乎沒有任何一家雜志社再去廣泛報道政治新聞。言下之意：大家都在做publisher所作的事情，削減報道篇幅。這說明什么?說明可能是因為政治新聞不再受歡迎了，所以雜志社才會削減，這不是Newsbeat的經(jīng)營問題，而是氛圍問題。將此處“editor”這個人換掉，換成“publisher”同樣是成立的，“Meanwhile, Newsbeat's publisher also points out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” 那么這樣的話，我們就很容易理解。當(dāng)然，會有版友認(rèn)為，既然其他雜志社不做，我們做的話不是正好很有市場嗎?我的回答：“是!”確實有這個可能性，這點沒錯。但這說明不了問題，因為從有限的信息中你也不能否認(rèn)其消極的一面，不是嗎?我們攻擊的就是文章factors的模糊不清和認(rèn)識不足。
So，我覺得此處ETS和大家玩了個文字游戲，將原本正面的話，反過來說，讓大家掉進這個小陷阱....