Issue 24
"Such nonmainstream areas of inquiry as astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits play a vital role in society by satisfying human needs that are not addressed by mainstream science."
這個題目是講主流和非主流的關系，提的方面是科學領域內(nèi)。但是這個題目里面我自認為的一個問題是，speaker把astrology，fortune-telling，psychic,和paranormal pursuits也歸結為科學的范疇內(nèi)了，但這些都是我們通常成為的偽科學(pseudoscience)的幾個典型方面。
這個題目，目前我沒有想到什么好的方面來支持這個speaker的正確性。希望有持支持觀點的朋友來說說你自己的看法偽科學的相關釋義附在點評最后處
This statement actually consists of two claims: (1) that non-mainstream areas of inquiry are vital in satisfying human needs, and (2) that these areas are therefore vital to society. I concede that astrology, fortune- telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits respond to certain basic human needs.
干凈利索的分析了題目，但是個人認為還不是分析的很透徹。
However, in my view the potential harm they can inflict on their participants and on society far outweighs their psychological benefits.
自己觀點出來了，反對。是一個讓步的關系，先承認了是有此方面的作用，用了however來了個轉折給從更大的方面給否了。
Admittedly, these non-mainstream areas of inquiry address certain human needs, which mainstream science and other areas of intellectual inquiry inherently cannot.
開始駁斥了，首先肯定了其之作用。
One such need involves our common experience as humans that we freely make our own choices and decisions in life and therefore carry some responsibility for their consequences. Faced with infinite choices, we experience uncertainty, insecurity, and confusion; and we feel remorse, regret, and guilt when in retrospect our choices turn out be poor ones. Understandably, to prevent these bad feelings many people try to shift the burden of making difficult choices and decisions to some nebulous authority outside themselves--by relying on the stars or on a stack of tarot cards for guidance.
具體分析了這些種‘學科’產(chǎn)生的具體原因。
Two other such needs have to do with our awareness that we are mortal. This awareness brings a certain measure of pain that most people try to relieve by searching for evidence of an afterlife. Absent empirical proof that life extends beyond the grave, many people attempt to contact or otherwise connect with the so-called "other side" through paranormal and psychic pursuits. Another natural response to the prospect of being separated from our loved ones by death is to search for a deeper connection with others here on Earth and elsewhere, in the present as well as the past. This response manifests itself in people's enduring fascination with the paranormal search for extraterrestrial life, with so- called "past life" regression and "channeling," and the like.
這個部分的邏輯關系簡潔明了，寫的很利索。寫出了這些“science”存在和產(chǎn)生的理由。闡述的也可以說是比較的exclusive---這個單詞大家不要忽略，等我們開始分析ETS范文的時候你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)在滿分范文的評語中這個單詞會多次出現(xiàn)的。這個是對testee的邏輯思維的一個考量的方面。
While the sorts of pursuits which the speaker lists might be "vital" insofar as they help some people feel better about themselves and about their choices and circumstances, query whether these pursuits are otherwise useful to any individual or society.
開始了自己的質疑。
In the first place,用一個非常普通的用于連接的詞語開始了自己的列舉because these pursuits are not rooted in reason, they are favorite pastimes of charlatans—經(jīng)典，非常好的否定，hit home。and others who seek to prey on dupes—好，一個單詞就直截了當?shù)谋砻髯约旱南敕╠riven by the aforementioned psychological needs. And the dupes have no recourse. After all, it is impossible to assess the credibility of a tarot card that tells us how to proceed in life simply because we cannot know //where// the paths not taken would have led. Similarly, we cannot evaluate claims about the afterlife because these claims inherently defy empirical ?這個形容詞是經(jīng)常用來解釋pseuoscience的用詞，我后面會給大家附一個偽科學的解釋大家可以多次找到這個empirical這個詞--proof--or disproof.
這個部分反駁的是這些所謂‘科學‘存在的理由以及可信度。駁斥的干凈利索，一點也不拖泥帶水，最后幾個figurative expressions完全表達出了作者的意思。干凈漂亮！
In the second place,銜接上面一段的陳述without any sure way to evaluate the legitimacy of these avenues of inquiry, participants become vulnerable to self-deception, false hopes, fantastic ideas, and even delusions.開始陳述這些所謂的科學的害處了。首先來的是對個人的害處。In turn, so-called "insights" gained from these pursuits can too easily serve as convenient excuses for irrational and unreasonable actions that harm others.引申到了對他人的害處。On a personal level, stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of reason and empirical evidence can lead to self-righteous arrogance, intolerance, anti-social behavior, and even hatred. Moreover, on a societal level these traits have led all too often to holy wars, and to such other atrocities as genocide and mass persecution.最后擴展到了整個社會的深度上來
In sum,開始結尾陳述了。I concede—承認部分的advantages，一看這個詞concede就知道后面要出來轉折-- that the non-mainstream pursuits that the speaker lists are legitimate insofar as they afford many people psychological solace in life. However,出來轉折了，意料之中，開始陳述反對意見的總結陳詞咯when such pursuits serve as substitutes for reason and logic, and for honest intellectual inquiry, participants begin to distrust intellect as an impediment to enlightenment. In doing so, they risk making ill-conceived choices for themselves and unfair judgments about others--a risk that in my view outweighs the psychological rewards of those pursuits.說明從整體的角度來看還是害處要多于好處。
這篇文章邏輯層次非常鮮明，而且行文過程中運用了figurative expressions的修辭手法，顯示了作者對語言的駕御能力，屬于一篇寫的非常漂亮的文章。尤其是作者的邏輯非常嚴謹，幾乎挑不出來什么過失?？紤]到testing time，這個文章絕對可以拿到5。5---6分的好成績。
說到這個文章中的邏輯，其實，個人認為，ISSUE和ARGUMENT的文章是相輔相成的。你在分析I部分的文章的時候肯定也要運用到邏輯方面的一些基本的表達方式。如果邏輯思維在文章中表達的不夠清晰，文章脈絡也就不能夠被非常好的表達出來，也就相應的影響到你最后的一個分數(shù)。而在練習I部分的時候的表達了，語言了等等，對A部分的寫作也是大有益處的。就算說是A部分最注重的還是邏輯但是如果沒有掌握一定層次的語言表達能力如何能夠干凈漂亮的向reader表達出自己的邏輯思維來？
最近聽到很多朋友都說A部分就是摸版了，只要掌握規(guī)律就可以了，類似的說法。但是，實際上A還是需要你一定的語言能力的支持的。雖然相對于ISSUE要比較容易拿個好分數(shù)，但要滿分也相當困難。也需要精彩的表達和出色的寫作能力的。希望大家不要顧此失彼。這個題目，我也只想到了如何反駁，但是還沒有好的方法來個支持方面的論點和觀點，大家可以討論討論看看是不是可以從支持的角度來寫這個文章呢？這是一個比較challenging了。
這個題目中涉及到了偽科學的含義，我暫且列在這篇小評的結尾處給大家做一個參考。
pseudoscience
A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterized by such things as
(a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text;
(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;
(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory;
(d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts;
(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs;
(f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and
(g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world.
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe, e.g. orgone energy.
Some can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory.
Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory, e.g., the enneagram, iridology, the theory of multiple personality disorder, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? the theories behind many New Age psychotherapies, and reflexology.
Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them, e.g., astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP. Yet, despite seemingly insurmountable evidence contrary to the theories, adherents won't give them up.
Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when their interpretations of those legends either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von D?iken's, and Sitchen's theories.
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances, e.g., anthropometry, aromatherapy, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, and physiognomy.
Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, e.g., the theories of acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, rolfing, therapeutic touch, and Ayurvedic medicine.
Some pseudoscientific theories not only confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory which is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957, 118).
See related entries on ad hoc hypothesis, cold reading, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, control study, Occam's razor, pathological science, the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy, pseudohistory, science, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, and testimonials.
"Such nonmainstream areas of inquiry as astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits play a vital role in society by satisfying human needs that are not addressed by mainstream science."
這個題目是講主流和非主流的關系，提的方面是科學領域內(nèi)。但是這個題目里面我自認為的一個問題是，speaker把astrology，fortune-telling，psychic,和paranormal pursuits也歸結為科學的范疇內(nèi)了，但這些都是我們通常成為的偽科學(pseudoscience)的幾個典型方面。
這個題目，目前我沒有想到什么好的方面來支持這個speaker的正確性。希望有持支持觀點的朋友來說說你自己的看法偽科學的相關釋義附在點評最后處
This statement actually consists of two claims: (1) that non-mainstream areas of inquiry are vital in satisfying human needs, and (2) that these areas are therefore vital to society. I concede that astrology, fortune- telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits respond to certain basic human needs.
干凈利索的分析了題目，但是個人認為還不是分析的很透徹。
However, in my view the potential harm they can inflict on their participants and on society far outweighs their psychological benefits.
自己觀點出來了，反對。是一個讓步的關系，先承認了是有此方面的作用，用了however來了個轉折給從更大的方面給否了。
Admittedly, these non-mainstream areas of inquiry address certain human needs, which mainstream science and other areas of intellectual inquiry inherently cannot.
開始駁斥了，首先肯定了其之作用。
One such need involves our common experience as humans that we freely make our own choices and decisions in life and therefore carry some responsibility for their consequences. Faced with infinite choices, we experience uncertainty, insecurity, and confusion; and we feel remorse, regret, and guilt when in retrospect our choices turn out be poor ones. Understandably, to prevent these bad feelings many people try to shift the burden of making difficult choices and decisions to some nebulous authority outside themselves--by relying on the stars or on a stack of tarot cards for guidance.
具體分析了這些種‘學科’產(chǎn)生的具體原因。
Two other such needs have to do with our awareness that we are mortal. This awareness brings a certain measure of pain that most people try to relieve by searching for evidence of an afterlife. Absent empirical proof that life extends beyond the grave, many people attempt to contact or otherwise connect with the so-called "other side" through paranormal and psychic pursuits. Another natural response to the prospect of being separated from our loved ones by death is to search for a deeper connection with others here on Earth and elsewhere, in the present as well as the past. This response manifests itself in people's enduring fascination with the paranormal search for extraterrestrial life, with so- called "past life" regression and "channeling," and the like.
這個部分的邏輯關系簡潔明了，寫的很利索。寫出了這些“science”存在和產(chǎn)生的理由。闡述的也可以說是比較的exclusive---這個單詞大家不要忽略，等我們開始分析ETS范文的時候你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)在滿分范文的評語中這個單詞會多次出現(xiàn)的。這個是對testee的邏輯思維的一個考量的方面。
While the sorts of pursuits which the speaker lists might be "vital" insofar as they help some people feel better about themselves and about their choices and circumstances, query whether these pursuits are otherwise useful to any individual or society.
開始了自己的質疑。
In the first place,用一個非常普通的用于連接的詞語開始了自己的列舉because these pursuits are not rooted in reason, they are favorite pastimes of charlatans—經(jīng)典，非常好的否定，hit home。and others who seek to prey on dupes—好，一個單詞就直截了當?shù)谋砻髯约旱南敕╠riven by the aforementioned psychological needs. And the dupes have no recourse. After all, it is impossible to assess the credibility of a tarot card that tells us how to proceed in life simply because we cannot know //where// the paths not taken would have led. Similarly, we cannot evaluate claims about the afterlife because these claims inherently defy empirical ?這個形容詞是經(jīng)常用來解釋pseuoscience的用詞，我后面會給大家附一個偽科學的解釋大家可以多次找到這個empirical這個詞--proof--or disproof.
這個部分反駁的是這些所謂‘科學‘存在的理由以及可信度。駁斥的干凈利索，一點也不拖泥帶水，最后幾個figurative expressions完全表達出了作者的意思。干凈漂亮！
In the second place,銜接上面一段的陳述without any sure way to evaluate the legitimacy of these avenues of inquiry, participants become vulnerable to self-deception, false hopes, fantastic ideas, and even delusions.開始陳述這些所謂的科學的害處了。首先來的是對個人的害處。In turn, so-called "insights" gained from these pursuits can too easily serve as convenient excuses for irrational and unreasonable actions that harm others.引申到了對他人的害處。On a personal level, stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of reason and empirical evidence can lead to self-righteous arrogance, intolerance, anti-social behavior, and even hatred. Moreover, on a societal level these traits have led all too often to holy wars, and to such other atrocities as genocide and mass persecution.最后擴展到了整個社會的深度上來
In sum,開始結尾陳述了。I concede—承認部分的advantages，一看這個詞concede就知道后面要出來轉折-- that the non-mainstream pursuits that the speaker lists are legitimate insofar as they afford many people psychological solace in life. However,出來轉折了，意料之中，開始陳述反對意見的總結陳詞咯when such pursuits serve as substitutes for reason and logic, and for honest intellectual inquiry, participants begin to distrust intellect as an impediment to enlightenment. In doing so, they risk making ill-conceived choices for themselves and unfair judgments about others--a risk that in my view outweighs the psychological rewards of those pursuits.說明從整體的角度來看還是害處要多于好處。
這篇文章邏輯層次非常鮮明，而且行文過程中運用了figurative expressions的修辭手法，顯示了作者對語言的駕御能力，屬于一篇寫的非常漂亮的文章。尤其是作者的邏輯非常嚴謹，幾乎挑不出來什么過失?？紤]到testing time，這個文章絕對可以拿到5。5---6分的好成績。
說到這個文章中的邏輯，其實，個人認為，ISSUE和ARGUMENT的文章是相輔相成的。你在分析I部分的文章的時候肯定也要運用到邏輯方面的一些基本的表達方式。如果邏輯思維在文章中表達的不夠清晰，文章脈絡也就不能夠被非常好的表達出來，也就相應的影響到你最后的一個分數(shù)。而在練習I部分的時候的表達了，語言了等等，對A部分的寫作也是大有益處的。就算說是A部分最注重的還是邏輯但是如果沒有掌握一定層次的語言表達能力如何能夠干凈漂亮的向reader表達出自己的邏輯思維來？
最近聽到很多朋友都說A部分就是摸版了，只要掌握規(guī)律就可以了，類似的說法。但是，實際上A還是需要你一定的語言能力的支持的。雖然相對于ISSUE要比較容易拿個好分數(shù)，但要滿分也相當困難。也需要精彩的表達和出色的寫作能力的。希望大家不要顧此失彼。這個題目，我也只想到了如何反駁，但是還沒有好的方法來個支持方面的論點和觀點，大家可以討論討論看看是不是可以從支持的角度來寫這個文章呢？這是一個比較challenging了。
這個題目中涉及到了偽科學的含義，我暫且列在這篇小評的結尾處給大家做一個參考。
pseudoscience
A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterized by such things as
(a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text;
(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;
(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory;
(d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts;
(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs;
(f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and
(g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world.
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe, e.g. orgone energy.
Some can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory.
Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory, e.g., the enneagram, iridology, the theory of multiple personality disorder, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? the theories behind many New Age psychotherapies, and reflexology.
Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them, e.g., astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP. Yet, despite seemingly insurmountable evidence contrary to the theories, adherents won't give them up.
Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when their interpretations of those legends either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von D?iken's, and Sitchen's theories.
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances, e.g., anthropometry, aromatherapy, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, and physiognomy.
Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, e.g., the theories of acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, rolfing, therapeutic touch, and Ayurvedic medicine.
Some pseudoscientific theories not only confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory which is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957, 118).
See related entries on ad hoc hypothesis, cold reading, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, control study, Occam's razor, pathological science, the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy, pseudohistory, science, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, and testimonials.