細觀2005年雅思寫作實質(zhì)性變化
來源：
小編： 62
細觀2005年雅思寫作實質(zhì)性變化 |
| 雅思考試每年都會出現(xiàn)變化，今年也出現(xiàn)了新動向。對于廣大考生不僅僅要注意到今年雅思考試標準“進一步公開化和信息的透明化”這一點。更要注意考題內(nèi)容中諸多細致的變化。事實上，雅思考試或其他全球性考試從來就不會一次性進行出題思路和考試內(nèi)容翻天覆地性變化。對于考生而言，本月一些題型的新變化已經(jīng)足已引起“2005雅思實質(zhì)性變化”。 作為專業(yè)的雅思培訓學校和指導考生備考的專業(yè)教師，一次考試中，一個內(nèi)容和一些細微的出題思路調(diào)整，就應該高度引起我們注意。事實上，雅思數(shù)十年的考題變化，一直是采用這種微調(diào)的方式進行的。 下面，我們來看看如何通過環(huán)球教育寫作名師們的專家眼，看到這些“2005年雅思寫作實質(zhì)性變化”的。 剛剛過去的9月三次A類作文考試讓廣大雅思考生感受到了全新的挑戰(zhàn)：（1）話題比往常的A類考題更生活化，甚至帶上了G類作文的色彩，被一些無奈的考生戲稱為“應該讓民政局的人來做”；（2）審題更加微妙，稍有不慎就可能陷入GZ所設的圈套；（3）即使以前出現(xiàn)過的考題也會必須要從文章結(jié)構和觀點上加以調(diào)整才能做到真正扣題。針對這一系列的變化，環(huán)球?qū)懽髦髦vPatrick(慎小嶷)在下文中將就9月份的三道A類作文試題逐一破解，并給出變題后每道題的范文，讓同學們做到應變自如。 A) 9/3 essay question Children who grow up in families without large amounts of money are better prepared to deal with problems in their adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. Do you agree or disagree? 在考完這道題之后，我查看了一些考生在網(wǎng)上發(fā)表的評論，發(fā)現(xiàn)很多同學覺得這樣的題目太偏，出乎意料。的確，和往常的A類寫作教育類話題不同，這道題雖然表面上還是在談education,但卻已經(jīng)是在談家庭經(jīng)濟狀況對孩子能力的影響，更象是general training考試當中的話題。另一方面，很多同學在把題目理解成了中文的“窮人的孩子早當家”。事實上這道題目當中families without large amounts of money決不是“窮”的意思，準確的意思是沒有很多錢的家庭。審題的失誤導致了很多考生在文章中觀點的偏激，導致扣分。還有一個誤區(qū)在于因為這道題目和中國文化比較貼近，很多同學會舉過多的簡單生活事例但是卻忽視了普遍性推理，導致論證缺乏深度。以下是對這道題解法的具體說明： 從論點上看，考慮到多數(shù)考生更熟悉中國的國情，肯定是totally agree更好寫,布什的內(nèi)閣里面現(xiàn)在也有拉洋板兒車出身的（不過在美國富豪的孩子當中牛人還是出了不少，四十三位總統(tǒng)里面也有大量富家子弟，從整體上看在西方有錢的家長更舍得讓自己的孩子經(jīng)歷風雨）。既然觀點寫一邊倒，那么結(jié)構當然就是五段式――開頭段轉(zhuǎn)述題目+主旨句，主體段1講一般家庭的孩子比富家孩子有更強的心理承受能力，主體段2講一般家庭的孩子有更強的獨立性，主體段3講普通家庭的家長對小孩的要求往往更嚴格，結(jié)尾段總結(jié)上文三層意思。thesis statement和topic sentences（范文里用橫線標明）要是少了，扣分沒商量。 關鍵詞： income gaps 指收入差距 income inequality 指收入不均 intergenerational兩代人之間的 turn the tables 是個idiom,有點像中文說的"打翻身仗" offspring 孩子counterpart 相對應的人（或事物）meritocratic society 說白了就是“憑本事吃飯的社會“ self-restraint 自制能力infancy 嬰兒期frugality勤儉 financial strains 說白了就是缺錢，名詞 well-off / affluent（adj） / well-to-do/ well-heeled / wealthy 都是有錢的意思，實在彈盡糧絕了還可以再用一個moneyed(adj), autonomy 自己管理自己，名詞 initiative 主動性 well-acquainted 對某事很熟悉，mitigate緩解，要說解決問題，雅思里面詞匯也特多tackle / address / solve / resolve / grapple with / combat 再加題目里的deal with. 范文： It is widely accepted that we have been living in a “the rich get richer whereas the poor get poorer” age in terms of income gaps within a generation. However, to this day, there has been no consensus yet over the extent to which income inequality is intergenerational. Some contend that the offspring of low-income and middle-income parents can largely grow up to manifest better problem-solving abilities during adulthood than their high-income family counterparts, thereby turning the tables socially and financially. Personally, I believe this is generally the case in any meritocratic society. First and foremost, children raised in households not in possession of a good fortune are conditioned early on in their lives to exercise self-control and self-restraint. These individuals learn from their infancy onward that not everything they crave will become theirs instantaneously. Every so often their wishes go beyond their parents’ means and they have to come to terms with the resulting sense of frustration or rejection. Throughout the childhood and early adulthood years they are tempered by the repeated experiences of parents’ denial of their requests and frugality is inculcated into their minds as a virtue. Consequently these children, for the most part, are apt to interpret scrimping and saving, emotional uneasiness, not infrequent financial strains and menial first jobs as an integral part of life rather than a devastating ordeal. Hence they end up being better able to manage stress in their adult years and less likely to panic or get daunted when problems occur. Further, children brought up by parents of low or middle economic status often grow up to be physically, mentally and professionally more independent than children brought up by affluent parents. It goes without saying that children whose parents are not particularly well-off are more likely than children of affluent households to know how to get the most out of a modest allowance, if they ever get such a thing at all. To the former group of children, most desirable things in life have to be “earned”―that is, more often than not they must put forth great effort before their desire is fulfilled. On the other hand, busy, low or medium salaried parents translate into more autonomy and initiative on the children’s part. This originally disadvantaged group becomes spontaneous and handy through crafting toys on their own, resourceful by cooking their own meals, tactful with coaxing their parents into buying them gifts, intelligent thanks to the absence of private tutors, savvy in doing summer jobs, and above all, unrelenting in pursuing their dreams. Lastly, non-wealthy parents typically have higher and more definite aspirations for their children than well-to-do parents. Well-acquainted with all the disadvantages a meager or fair-to-middling bank account generates, many non-wealthy parents pin their hopes on their children to get their families upwardly mobile. These adults mostly have high behavioral, educational and (subsequently) occupational expectations for their children. As a result, they cannot afford to be permissive parents. Spoiling their offspring rotten is the last thing they care to do and they are always ready to discipline their children when they misbehave. They keep tabs on their children’s grades at school and do not spare the rod when their offspring do not measure up academically. The odds of children raised in such rigorous environments having good problem-solving skills are apparently better than children raised otherwise. To conclude, the chief determinant of individuals’ problem-solving skills is not the amount of money their parents can amass when they are little. Rather, hands-on experience in comprehending, analyzing, resolving , mitigating or circumventing problems is more essential to the cultivation of problem-solving abilities. Hence, I am convinced that families without great wealth are more advantageous to the development of individual capacity to tackle problems. B） 9/10 essay question Some people think stricter punishment for driving offenders is the only way to improve safety on the roads. Do you agree or disagree? 這道題同樣讓很多A類考生覺得困惑，是因為（1）話題很不熟悉（懲罰肇事司機）；（2）這道題屬于development + crime的模式而不是單獨某一類話題；（3）考生對于話題當中的邏輯錯誤（the only way）不夠熟悉，缺乏敏感度。以下是對這道題解法的具體說明： 從邏輯學角度看，A類考題里面只要出現(xiàn) the adj+est（形容詞最高級） 就采取一邊倒的反對寫法，the only就一般都使用折衷式寫法會比較好寫。這道題就是典型的折衷式寫法，寫四段式，大負小正，小的方面放在前面寫。具體說：開頭段+主體段1（承認更嚴厲的懲罰是有效辦法之一）+（主體段2）提出還有其他的辦法也必須要一起執(zhí)行才可以+結(jié)尾段總結(jié)。 高分關鍵詞： car ownership汽車占有量 incidence 發(fā)生率 car wrecks 撞車 perpetrators 肇事者 stiff punishment/severe punishment/ harsh penalty 嚴厲的懲罰 halt/curb 遏制 rampant 猖獗的 apprehensive 形容詞，對……有所顧忌的 surveillance camera 監(jiān)控攝像頭 promulgate 頒布（法令） hazard （危險）forestall=prevent 預防 pedestrian 行人jaywalk 違章橫穿馬路 circumvent 規(guī)避 the law enforcement執(zhí)法(部門) draconian（法律）嚴厲的 lax (法律)松懈的 范文： The soaring car ownership in China has thrown the issue of traffic accidents into sharp relief. According to recent research conducted by China’s Ministry of Transportation, the annual incidence of car wrecks is nearly three times as high as the corresponding figure a decade ago. Many people have been alarmed by this trend and assert that imposing stiffer punishment on the perpetrators is the only effective way to curb this disturbing phenomenon. Speaking for myself, I tend to believe their view has both merit and demerit. Granted, more severe penalty does carry certain advantages in halting the rampant driving offenses on the roads. First and foremost ,it would be the most cost-effective way to deter those would-be driving offenders. Heavy fines, long community service or even jail terms would render most of the aggressive drivers apprehensive about violating the traffic law, even without extra government funding to upgrade traffic surveillance cameras or augment traffic police force. Further, the effect of this hardline approach would be immediate. Once the related law is promulgated, we would be sure to witness a substantial decline in driving offenses overnight. However, there are also traffic hazards that we cannot forestall by merely stiffening the punishment of aggressive or destructive driving conduct. To begin with, pedestrians who habitually jaywalk will not be discouraged by this move. Pedestrians account for a considerable proportion of traffic-accident culprits. Thus, pedestrian offenses such as jaywalking must be effectively checked as well. Secondly, if people who are regularly behind the wheel are not awakened to the horrific perils traffic offenses may breed , some of them will exploit every possibility to circumvent the law enforcement capability. If people abide by the traffic law solely out of fear for punishment, when a surveillance camera is out of order or the traffic police fail to keep tabs on a specific section of a freeway, all hell would break loose. Lastly, strict punishment of disorderly driving conduct does not guarantee infallible detection of driving offenses. Without sophisticated traffic-offense detecting apparatuses and an alert traffic police force, traffic laws, no matter how draconian, would be lax enough for hardened reckless drivers to disregard. In the final analysis, I concede that harsh penalty for driving offenders constitutes an effective way to deter irresponsible driving behavior. However, the growing trend of flagrant driving offenses cannot be halted by stiffer punishment of driving offenders alone. Hence we must take a more integrated approach to this modern-day scourge, possibly including equally heavy punishment for pedestrian offenses, the heightening of people’s awareness about the horrific consequences of reckless driving and the advancement of traffic offense detectors and more capable traffic law enforcement forces.
|
