Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析
小編給大家整理了Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析，快來一起學(xué)習(xí)吧。下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
"The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."
觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/[題目]
"被置于媒體審視下的任何人，其名譽(yù)終將受毀損。"
Sample Essay
The intensity of today's media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. Intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject has turned even minor media events into so-called "media frenzies". Reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pry ever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. With this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected to it will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. Technology has also made it easier to dig further than ever before into a person's past, increasing the possibility that the subject's reputation may be harmed.
[范文正文]
當(dāng)今媒體報(bào)道的力度，由于當(dāng)今時(shí)代所能獲得的媒體渠道那前所未有的數(shù)量和種類，從而被極大地增強(qiáng)。圍繞著對(duì)最具暴露性的圖片及對(duì)某一題材最新信息所展開的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，使哪怕是次要的媒體事件也轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樗^的"媒體瘋狂".由于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的本質(zhì)，記者們被迫就某一項(xiàng)報(bào)道作深度采訪，以其窺探到一個(gè)任何其他人都無法揭示的視角。隨著這類媒體報(bào)道的出現(xiàn)，任何被置于媒體報(bào)道之下的人，其名譽(yù)越來越有可能被玷污，因?yàn)?quot;金無赤金，人無完人".每個(gè)人都有可能犯錯(cuò)誤。技術(shù)進(jìn)步使大量的信息在第一瞬間便被輕易獲取。技術(shù)也使媒體得以比以往任何時(shí)候更深入地去挖掘一個(gè)人的過去，從而更增加了當(dāng)事人名譽(yù)受損的可能性。
The above statement is much too broad, however. "Anyone" covers all people all over the world. There are people whose reputations have only been enhanced by media scrutiny. There are also people whose reputations were already so poor that media scrutiny could not possibly diminish it any further. There may very well be people that have done nothing wrong in the past, at least that can be discovered by the media, whose reputations could not be diminished by media scrutiny. To broadly state that "anyone" subjected to media coverage will have his or her status sullied implies that everyone's reputation worldwide is susceptible to damage under any type of media scrutiny. What about children, particularly newborn children? What about those people whose past is entirely unknown?
然則，上述陳述涵蓋面過于寬泛。"任何人"涵蓋了世界上所有的人。有些人的名譽(yù)反而會(huì)因?yàn)槊襟w的聚焦而陡然顯赫起來。也有些人，其名聲早就如此之糟糕，以致于媒體的聚焦再也無法讓它受到更壞的毀損?；\統(tǒng)地陳述受媒體報(bào)道的"任何人"均會(huì)使其地位被玷污，這暗示著全球每個(gè)人的名聲在任何種類的媒體聚焦下均易于遭詬病。那么，對(duì)于天真無辜的孩子們，尤其新生嬰兒，情況會(huì)如何?對(duì)于那些其過去根本無人知曉的人來說，情況又會(huì)是什么樣呢?
Another problem with such a broad statement is that it does not define the particular level of media scrutiny. Certainly there are different levels of media coverage. Does merely the mention of one's name in a newspaper constitute media scrutiny? What about the coverage of a single event in someone's life, for example a wedding or the birth of a baby? Is the media coverage of the heroic death of a firefighter or police officer in the line of duty ever going to diminish that person's reputation? It seems highly unlikely that in these examples, although these people may have been subjected to media scrutiny, these individual's reputations are undamaged and potentially enhanced by such exposure.
對(duì)于這樣一項(xiàng)籠統(tǒng)的陳述而言，它的另一個(gè)問題是沒能明晰界定媒體聚焦的具體程度。媒體的報(bào)道毫無疑問存在程度上的差別。只在報(bào)紙上提及一個(gè)人的名字，是否算作媒體聚焦?對(duì)某人一生中單獨(dú)一次事件(如婚禮或孩子出生)的報(bào)道這也算媒介聚焦嗎?媒體對(duì)消防隊(duì)員或警官因公而死的英雄壯舉進(jìn)行報(bào)道，難道也會(huì)毀損該人的名聲嗎?在這些實(shí)例中，其名聲受損的事情極不可能發(fā)生。雖然這些人可能被置于媒體審視之下，但其名聲卻會(huì)完好無損，且潛在地可因這些披露而得以提高。
Without a doubt, there are many examples of individual's whose reputations have been diminished by media scrutiny. The media's uncovering of former U.S. President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky will most likely overshadow the entire eight years of his administration. Basketball superstar Michael Jordan's sterling reputation has been tarnished more than once by the media; first by media coverage of his gambling habits, then most recently (and in a much more harmful manner) by news reports of his marital infidelities and the divorce from his wife of thirteen years. Fame and fortune can turn an ordinary individual into a media target where reporters will stop at almost nothing to "dig up dirt" that will sell more newspapers or entice more viewers to watch a television program. It could even be argued that media scrutiny killed Princess Diana as her car sped away from the privacy-invading cameras of reporters in Paris. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people who have been hurt in one way or another by particularly intense media scrutiny.
毫無疑問，也有許多例子能證明一個(gè)人的名聲會(huì)被媒體審視所毀損。媒體對(duì)美國(guó)前總統(tǒng)Bill Clinton與Monica Lewinsky的風(fēng)流韻事的揭露極有可能會(huì)將其八年的執(zhí)政生涯置于陰影之中。超級(jí)籃球明星Michael Jordan一世英名也被媒體不止一次地玷污，首先是被有關(guān)其賭習(xí)的媒體報(bào)道，其次是最近——且以一種更具致命性傷害的方式——被有關(guān)他婚姻不忠以及與其結(jié)婚13年的妻子分道揚(yáng)鑣的報(bào)道。當(dāng)媒體記者不擇手段去挖掘某些可促使其報(bào)紙銷量大增的"猛料"時(shí)，或去誘惑更多的觀眾觀看某一電視節(jié)目時(shí)，名和利就會(huì)將一個(gè)普通人轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槊襟w追蹤的目標(biāo)。我們甚至可以提出這樣一種論點(diǎn)，即正是媒體的審視將Diana王妃置于死地，隨著她的汽車去竭力逃脫巴黎街頭的記者們那侵犯隱私的相機(jī)鏡頭。毫無疑問，肯定有許多人被極其強(qiáng)烈的媒體聚焦以一種方式或另一種方式所傷害。
In summary, it seems impossible that for every person that is subjected to media scrutiny, his or her reputation will eventually be diminished. Millions of people are mentioned in the media every day yet still manage to go about their lives unhurt by the media. Normal individuals that are subjected to media scrutiny can have their reputation either enhanced or damaged depending on the circumstances surrounding the media coverage. The likelihood of a diminished reputation from the media rises proportionally with the level of notoriety that an individual possesses and the outrageousness of that person's behavior. The length of time in the spotlight can also be a determining factor, as the longer the person is examined in the media, the greater the possibility that damaging information will be discovered or that the individual will do something to disparage his or her reputation. But to broadly state that media scrutiny will diminish anyone's reputation is to overstate the distinct possibility that, given a long enough time and a certain level of intensity of coverage, the media may damage a person's reputation.
(766words)
歸納而言，對(duì)于每個(gè)被置于媒體審視的人來說，其名聲將最終受到毀損似乎并不可能。每天，有數(shù)百萬人被媒體提到，但他們?nèi)栽O(shè)法我行我素，不為媒體所傷害。被置于媒體審視之下的普通人，其名聲或可得到提高，或可蒙受毀損，取決于圍繞著媒體報(bào)道的具體情況。一個(gè)人的名聲受媒體毀損的可能性，與所其擁有的臭名昭著的程度，及其行為的令人厭惡程度成正比。受媒體關(guān)注的時(shí)間長(zhǎng)短同樣也是一個(gè)決定性因素，因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)人被媒體審視的時(shí)間越長(zhǎng)，于他名聲不利的信息越有可能被抖落出來，或者該人越有可能去做出某些于其名聲不利的事情。但只是籠統(tǒng)地陳述媒體的審視終將毀掉一個(gè)人的名聲，即是過分夸大這樣一種顯著的可能性，即在足夠長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間和一度程度的報(bào)道力度這兩個(gè)條件下，媒體是有可能毀掉一個(gè)人的名聲的。
Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析
Topic
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine："The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."
Sample Essay
In this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.
Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.
In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.(599 words)
[題目]
下述文字摘自一封致某環(huán)保雜志編輯的信函："全球兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量的減少明顯標(biāo)志著全球性水與大氣的污染。對(duì)加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物所作的兩項(xiàng)研究可證實(shí)我的這一結(jié)論。1915年公園內(nèi)有七個(gè)物種的兩棲動(dòng)物，每一物種都擁有豐富的種群數(shù)量。然而，1992年，在公園內(nèi)所能觀察到的兩棲動(dòng)物物種僅為四類，且每一物種的種群數(shù)量已驟然下降。約塞米蒂公園動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少被歸咎于始于1920年的將鮭魚引入公園水域的做法(眾所周知，鮭魚喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)。但鮭魚的引入不可能成為約塞米蒂公園動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的真正原因，因?yàn)樗鼰o法來解釋全球范圍內(nèi)的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少。"
[范文正文]
在本項(xiàng)論述中，信函作者的結(jié)論是，全球性水與大氣污染已致使世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量減少。為了支持其論點(diǎn)，作者援引了兩份時(shí)隔75年之久的研究結(jié)果，這兩份結(jié)果據(jù)稱可證明加利福尼亞州某一公園――即約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物的數(shù)量銳減。此外，該作者撇開了動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少的一個(gè)已知原因，陳述道，將鮭魚引入公園(據(jù)稱，鮭魚喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵)這一做法不足以解釋世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量上的減少。這一論點(diǎn)有悖于簡(jiǎn)單的邏輯，犯有一系列關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤。
首先，該論點(diǎn)所依據(jù)的僅僅是世界上某一特定地點(diǎn)――即加利福尼亞州約塞米蒂國(guó)家公園――內(nèi)的兩份研究。圍繞著兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一問題，如果僅以世界上一個(gè)特定的地點(diǎn)為樣品，再多數(shù)量的研究也無法得出一種精確的、適用于全世界的理論。兩棲動(dòng)物的具體種類、地理狀況以及其他因地點(diǎn)而特異的變數(shù)均不允許我們作出如此一概而論的總括。一個(gè)非常具體的地點(diǎn)不能用作一個(gè)代表所有其他地點(diǎn)的模型，即使在一個(gè)特定的國(guó)家內(nèi)也不行，更不用說在整個(gè)世界范圍內(nèi)了。信函作者沒有提供任何證據(jù)將約塞米蒂公園的研究與全球環(huán)境中任何其他一處地方的任何所宣稱的效果聯(lián)系起來。 其次，所提及的那兩項(xiàng)互為獨(dú)立的研究時(shí)隔75年之久。沒有證據(jù)可證明這兩項(xiàng)研究是在相同的時(shí)間跨度內(nèi)以相似的方式進(jìn)行的，或是在約塞米蒂公園完全相同的地點(diǎn)進(jìn)行的，或所使用的研究方法絕然相同。
例如，第一項(xiàng)研究可能持續(xù)了整整一年之久，且是由兩棲動(dòng)物生物學(xué)領(lǐng)域的二十五位專家共同進(jìn)行的。結(jié)果是發(fā)現(xiàn)了七大種類數(shù)目眾多的兩棲動(dòng)物。相反，第二項(xiàng)研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的學(xué)校的一個(gè)科學(xué)課題，僅為期一個(gè)星期。信函作者沒有提供將此兩項(xiàng)研究進(jìn)行比較的基礎(chǔ)，從而使兩項(xiàng)研究在其廣度、范圍以及專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，兩棲動(dòng)物種群數(shù)量的減少，已被人歸咎于1920年將鮭魚引入公園水域這一做法，但緊接著又以該論據(jù)無法解釋世界范圍內(nèi)動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一似是而非的依據(jù)將該論據(jù)予以否認(rèn)。信函作者論述中的這一部分漫不經(jīng)心地將一個(gè)極為相關(guān)的事實(shí)棄置不顧，即眾所周知，鮭魚喜食兩棲動(dòng)物所產(chǎn)的卵。這種"prove a negative "的嘗試往往是這樣一類人所慣用的最后伎倆，他們竭力尋找某種徒勞的嘗試，力圖去證明他們所宣稱的事物的真理。從根本上講，"prove a negative"是不可能的。這樣一種做法是試圖將論證的負(fù)擔(dān)重新轉(zhuǎn)嫁給不相信該論據(jù)的人。全球的環(huán)境情形與約塞米蒂公園的情形并不絕然對(duì)應(yīng)。鮭魚極有可能造成了兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少這一事實(shí)在缺乏進(jìn)一步證據(jù)的情況下是斷不能輕易予以否認(rèn)的。
概括而言，信函作者沒能在全球空氣和水污染與世界范圍內(nèi)兩棲生命數(shù)量減少之間建立起任何因果關(guān)系。該作者所拿出的證據(jù)充其量也是極為蒼白無力的，狹隘地將焦點(diǎn)集中在世界的一片極小的區(qū)域上，作為證據(jù)而援引的兩項(xiàng)研究幾乎不能說明任何問題。欲使其論點(diǎn)更具力度，信函作者尚需擺出直接的證據(jù)，將水和空氣污染不僅僅與約塞米蒂公園的兩棲動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來，而且也與世界其他地方的動(dòng)物數(shù)量減少聯(lián)系起來。
Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析
Issue
"People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."
Sample Essay
Teamwork as a whole can naturally produce an overall greater productivity through the concept of "synergy", where the total of the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. But the idea that people work more productively in teams rather than as individuals is going to vary greatly between the types of teams that are organized, the end reward or motivation for both the team and the individuals, as well as the individuals themselves.
Regarding individuals, some people are born with the desire to succeed, no matter what the situation or task that they are facing. These people may evolve into the classic "Type A" personalities that work ferociously because they are driven by an internal fire that says they must always be doing something, whether individually or as part of a team. Other people may desire to be less socially involved or are very highly competitive with other people. For these people, their work is most productive as individuals, because the very idea of cooperating with other people limits their effectiveness and efficiency because they simply do not want to be a part of the team. Whether this mindset is innate or developed over time does not matter, it is merely the state of their being and neither motivation nor rewards can generate inside them the desire to work collectively as a team.
Some people are highly motivated by social interaction and the desire to work with others towards a collective effort. Obviously these individuals are at their most productive when working as part of a team. Organizational behavioral studies have shown that Asian cultures are much more likely to develop this type of collective behavior as opposed to the more individualistic behavior associated with Western cultures. It could naturally be assumed then that there may be cultural values that can determine whether people are at their most productive individually or as part of a team.
Another variable is the end reward that is involved with the task at hand. Will the rewards be greater if the team works together towards a common goal, or are the rewards more geared toward individual performance? To the extent that the individual is motivated by the end reward, obviously his or her performance inside of a team may be more or less productive with respect to the entire team, depending on how the performance is rewarded. Individual goals may interfere with the group performance. Synergies may not be achieved because the individuals are not working towards a whole "sum" but rather towards an individual reward. Productivity thus will vary for each person as a team member or as an individual depending on the degree to which that person is motivated by an individual or overall team reward.
Finally, the degree of productivity of a person will depend upon the type of team that is organized. Is the group composed of equally contributing individuals? Does the group have an outstanding leader that can motivate both the individuals and the team as a whole? From a pure productivity standpoint, the presence or absence of a charismatic and exceptional leader can make all the difference whether a person would be more productive as a part of a team or as an individual. Personality types that work well together can prove to be much more productive as part of a team than as individuals, and vice versa.
Fundamentally, measures of productivity depend greatly on the individuals themselves. The dilemma facing leaders in all areas of life is how to best assess these individuals to determine how to best harness their capabilities to reach their ultimate productive capabilities. Whether a person is more productive alone or while working in concert with others is one of the great challenges that leaders and managers must face to accomplish tasks effectively and efficiently.
觀點(diǎn)陳述型作文/[題目]
"當(dāng)人們以團(tuán)隊(duì)的形式工作時(shí)，要比以孤軍奮戰(zhàn)的形式來得更加富有成效。團(tuán)隊(duì)的協(xié)同工作需要相互合作，它比個(gè)人競(jìng)爭(zhēng)更能激勵(lì)人們。"
[范文正文]
總體而言，團(tuán)隊(duì)的協(xié)同工作自然能通過"增效作用"(Synergy)這一理念而帶來更高程度的整體生產(chǎn)效率，因?yàn)樵谶@里，整體大于個(gè)體相加之總和。然則，"當(dāng)人們以團(tuán)隊(duì)的形式工作時(shí)，要比以孤軍奮戰(zhàn)的形式來得更加富有成效"這一觀念注定會(huì)產(chǎn)生巨大差異，取決于所組織起來的團(tuán)隊(duì)的類別，團(tuán)隊(duì)與個(gè)人所能獲得的終極回報(bào)或激勵(lì)，以及個(gè)人本身。
關(guān)于個(gè)人，有些人天生就具有獲取成功的欲望，無論他們所面臨的情形或任務(wù)是什么。這些人會(huì)演變?yōu)楣ぷ骺襁@一經(jīng)典的"A類"人格，因?yàn)槭艿揭还蓛?nèi)心的熱火所驅(qū)使，這股熱火時(shí)刻告訴他們必須不停地"有所事事"，無論是作為個(gè)人抑或是作為團(tuán)隊(duì)的一分子。另一些人則可能希望不必那么多地介入社會(huì)，或者他們傾向于與其他人激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。對(duì)這些人而言，作為個(gè)人，他們工作起來會(huì)最富有成效，因?yàn)橛捎谒麄兏揪筒幌氤蔀槿魏螆F(tuán)隊(duì)的一部分，與他人合作便會(huì)限制他們的效率。這一思想傾向是否與生俱有，還是隨著時(shí)間的推移而形成，這都無關(guān)緊要。這僅僅只是他們的一種生存狀態(tài)，無論是動(dòng)機(jī)還是回報(bào)，都無法在其內(nèi)心深處激發(fā)起作為一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)集體工作的欲望。
有些人，由于社會(huì)互動(dòng)以及與他人協(xié)作去實(shí)現(xiàn)某種集體努力的欲望，而具有極強(qiáng)的動(dòng)機(jī)。顯然，這些個(gè)人在作為團(tuán)隊(duì)的一部分進(jìn)行工作時(shí)，他們便會(huì)處在其最富有成效的狀態(tài)。組織行為學(xué)研究表明，亞洲文化更有可能形成此類集體性行為，與那種常和西方文化聯(lián)系在一起的較為個(gè)人主義的行為構(gòu)成對(duì)比。這樣，人們自然會(huì)認(rèn)為，某些文化價(jià)值觀可以決定人們是否作為個(gè)人還是作為團(tuán)隊(duì)的一部分工作起來最富有成效。
Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析相關(guān)文章：
Issue寫作范文詳細(xì)解析
