在ETS 用“雷同探测器”向全球考生，尤其是中国考生，念起紧箍咒，规定了这样那样的百般“禁忌”之后，如何才能写出能给自己带来满意成绩的文章，便成为考生们的当务之急。

　　实际上，如果中国考生能摈弃某些好高骛远、不切实际的目标，那么，研究一下ETS的作文评分标准以及对应于各分数段的作文样品，我们就会发现，要达到4.0的平均分，其实并不过分困难。当然，能获得5.0或6.0分的成绩无疑会使人欣喜若狂，但这一成绩在目前的中国考生中，仅限于英语专业研究生中训练有素（well-trained）的中等学生，英语专业本科生中的佼佼者以及非英语专业本科、研究生中具备英文写作特长的学生。如果考生愿意将分数底线设定在4.0分并全力以赴朝着这一目标努力的话，则不失为一种明智、务实之举。

　　考虑到一般考生在Argument类文章上得分较高而在Issue类文章上得分较低这一实际情况，考生可力争在Argument类文章上获得5.0分，在Issue类文章上获得3.0分；或者，如果在Argument类文章上获得4.5分，但在Issue类文章上则必须获得3.5分，从而达到总平均分4.0分的目标。

　　那么，只有在写出怎样的文章之后才有可能在Issue类文章上获得3.0及以上的分数呢？相信看了下述ETS公布的3.0分标准的作文样本后，考生们都会信心倍增。

Samples of Scored Issue Essays with Reader's Commentaries
Sample Issue Topic
"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly over-rated. We need more generalists — people who can provide broad perspectives."

Benchmark 3 — Limited

Generalists have the ideas and beliefs of what America is made of. America's wealth of knowledge can be related to the generalists of the past generations and the original leaders of our Constitution Period that helped shape our great nation. If our former leaders would have not been generalists when creating our country's Constitution in the late 1770's, American generations of would have been burdened with the constant understanding that they are doomed to failure.

The fact that our past leaders were not specialists gave the creation of the Constitution the ability to be changed through amendments passed by our represented leaders of today. The Constitution was created with the ability to adapt to the countries needs and demands in running our society as it changes over time. The generalists approach to this creation of a non-specialized Constitution shows the need for todays generations to continue with the beliefs that a specialist would not follow.

America has learned from it's past and has done what it can to make the changes through adaption. America's greatness has been from the generalist leaders of the past, thinking for the Americans of the future. Americans with a broad perspective is what will continue to lead our great nation into the twenty-first century.

　　全文总共209个英文单词。对于中国考生而言，其写作能力无论糟糕到何种地步，在考场上规定时间内写出209个英文单词应在情理之中。纵观上述作文样本，原文作者主要是较好地组织了三个层次的论点，清晰地表述出来，所援引的例子仅有一个，即美国宪法这一例子。在国内很多TOEFL/GRE培训班上，作文老师告诫学生应该尽可能将文章的篇幅写得长一些。但这种“多多益善，以长取胜”的做法至少在这里已不适用。因此，中国考生以其漫无边际地贪图写得多，在语言文字上冒错误连篇、又臭又长之风险，还不如尽量使内容简洁有力，将结构加以精心组织为好。

　　撇开上述这篇作文样本语言文字上的各种错误姑且不谈，如果作者能将每个论点稍加扩充，议论更加深入一点（再多写100个左右的英文单词），并且，论点再稍加平衡一点（原文作者对题目全盘肯定，一点都没有考虑特殊、例外的情形），则分数有望达到3.5或4.0分。

　　我们不妨看一下ETS评阅人对该文的评语：

Reader Comment on 3
This response displays some competence but is flawed by imprecise use of language and limited analysis of the issue.

The writer supports the claim that generalists are preferable to specialists, offering as evidence the historical example of the generalists who created the U.S. Constitution. The example, while relevant, is not adequately developed. The middle paragraph traces the flexibility of the U.S. Constitution to the generalist orientation of 18th century leaders, but the ideas in the first paragraph are too vaguely expressed to contribute to this discussion, and the final paragraph consists of unsubstantiated generalities.

Frequent minor errors in punctuation, pronoun use, and verb tense, as well as imprecise syntax and phrasing (e.g., "Generalists have the ideas and beliefs of what America is made of. " and "...gave the creation of the Constitution the ability to...") contribute to the overall inadequacy of this response.

在看完了3.0分的Issue类的作文样本之后，我们不妨再来研读一篇得分为4.0分的Issue类文章。

Sample Issue Topic
"In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly over-rated. We need more generalists — people who can provide broad perspectives."

Benchmark 4 — Adequate

The need for generalists is undeniable but one can not underestimate the need and importance of specialists. The medical profession is a good example of an area that requires both generalists and specialists. If there were no generalists in the profession there would be no one to help patients determine when a specialist was needed. There are certain problems that a general practitioner can take care of and there are other problems that are out of his or her league. The general practitioner is the an appropriate place to start when a patient develops a problem. Many times the general practitioner is more than capable of handling problems that arise and other times he or she is unable to fully take control of the patient's care. It isn't a fault with the general practitioners. There is just too much to know for any one person to be an expert on all topics. It takes people years to become experts on a single topic, never mind being an expert on everything in the medical profession.

I am currently working in a large teaching hospital where the need for both general practitioners and specialists is obvious. When a patient is admitted to a general medicine floor, the general medicine physicians are not always able to deal with every problem the patient has without some help from the specialists. It would be unrealistic, not to mention unfair to the general practitioners, to expect the general practitioners to know everything about everything. The key is to know where everyone's knowledge and area of expertise lie and use their strengths to optimize patient care.

On the general medicine team in which I worked, the team would constantly be requesting consults from specialists. Whether it be a renal, psychiatric, orthopedic, rehabilitation, speech, gastroenterologist, or any other specialist, their input was constantly needed and used to get the patient well as quickly as possible. The list of specialists can go on longer than one would think and it is just impossible for one person to know everything about each one of them.

Although the need for generalists is apparent, it would be hard to survive without specialists, also. When a person acts as a generalist, they know little bit about everything, but certainly not a totally inclusive knowledge of everything. The specialist is there to help add the expertise and inclusive knowledge that the generalist may be lacking. The most important thing to remember with specialists and generalists is to recognize both's strengths and weaknesses and capitalize on the strengths to achieve whatever goal may be desired. （430 words）

如果我们将上述两篇Issue类文章稍加对比的话，那么，被评为”limited”的3.0分文章在所提出的论点、所展开的论述以及所列举的事例这三方面仿佛是话仅说出了一半，显得意犹未尽，且由于仅持一面之辞而似显片面。而纵观这篇被评为”adequate”的4.0分的文章，作者的观点是平衡的。从结构上来说，其综合的论点在第一段得到了全面的表述。如果我们将第一段视作议论的话，则第二、第三段则是在进行举例说明（illustration）。与我们有些考生爱用“举世闻名”的事例相反，该文作者所引用的是其工作中的亲身感受，因此决不会落入俗套而与人人熟知的事例相雷同。此外，所举例子确实能有力地论证文章的论点。ETS评阅人认为，该文的主要缺点是第二段的例证有“掉链子”的迹象，而最后一段的结论仅仅是在复述第一段的主题，没能“推陈出新”地深化和发展主题。这篇4.0分的文章全文共430个英文单词，是它前面那篇3.0分文章的一倍多。

　　对中国考生来说，在实际考试的时间限制内，可能只有一半的考生能写出400个至450个英文单词。如果考生虽能写出450个至500个单词，但仍然没能得到4.0分，除去文字和语言上的问题，原因主要在于立论、论证和例证三方面缺乏条理和深度。

下面是ETS评阅人对4.0分作文的评语。

Reader Comment on 4
Overall, this is a competent response to the topic. The writer disputes the claim that "specialists are over-rated" and argues from the position that both specialists and generalists are needed. The single extended example clearly supports the premise of the argument as the writer compares the roles and responsibilities of generalists and specialists in the medical profession. By paragraph 3, however, the discussion falters, and the concluding paragraph does little more than repeat ideas presented in the first two paragraphs.

This essay displays generally adequate control over syntax and usage, and the word choice, while appropriate, lacks precision.

　　在扼要分析了Issue类文章的评分标准及相应样本之后，我们不妨接下来审视一下Argument 类的作文样本及其评分标准。

　　记得在第一次读到ETS公布的Argument 6.0分的作文样本（参见附录一）时，我在读完最后一句时曾确实情不自禁地为之拍案称奇，深深感慨于其鞭辟入里之深邃，丝丝入扣之细腻，实有一种令多数考生无可企及的感觉。但是，如果我们不以Argument作文6.0分作为终极目标，并且，当我们对5.0分的Argument类文章作一番分析之后，信心和成功的希望在我们内心深处又会油然而生。

Samples of Scored Argument Essays with Reader's Commentaries

Sample Argument Topic
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

Benchmark 5 — Strong
The argument presented is limited but useful. It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries. However, the conclusion that protective gear and reflective equipment would "greatly reduce...risk of being severely injured" is premature. Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination of that population. It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations.

Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries. The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to those injuries. For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures. (250 words)

纵观这篇5.0分及后面4.0分的两篇Argument类文章，我们发现它们的篇幅分别仅为250和262个英文单词。这似乎再次证明了这样一个道理，文章篇幅写得长并非是取胜之关键。有的放矢地写，有组织地写，用规范的语言写，简洁明了地写，这些因素才是关键所在。

　　众所周知，所有Argument的论题都是“似是而非的”，在立论、论据和结论之间貌似合理，但细加推敲必漏洞叠出。考生写作此类文章的任务，就是探讨所给出的论题在哪些方面是合理（justified）和有效（valid）的，在另外哪些方面存在缺陷（flawed）。总之一句话，就是“Discuss how well reasoned you find the argument.”

　　在ETS评阅人为这篇5.0分的文章所写下的评语中，我们可以敏锐地捕捉到一个关键词汇——critique。Critique 非全然是负面的反应，而是主要由summary（要点归纳）， evaluation(评价)及criticism（批评）构成。虽然critique与criticism词根相同，并也常常被译作“批评”〔尤其是在哲学领域，如德国哲学家Immanuel Kant（康德）的两部著名论著Critique of Pure Reason及Critique of Judgment普遍被译为《纯粹理性批判》和《判断力批判》（商务印书馆）〕，但《英汉大词典》（上海译文出版社，陆谷孙主编）的注释却是“评论”。实质上，无论是“批评”还是“评论”，对某一作品、文章或论点进行critique就是对其得失进行剖析，肯定其合理有效之处，指出谬误失败之处，提出尚待改进和完善的意见。

　　具体到GRE作文中的任何一个特定的Argument，其“似是”的程度约为1/3甚至更少。“而非”的程度约为2/3或更多。因此，在写Argument类文章时，一味地对所给出的论题（argument）进行负面评述，进行全盘否定，这是不可取的。这样做本身就是片面的，而片面性即是逻辑推理之大忌。毕竟，Argument类作文的写作要求是：“Discuss how well reasoned you find the argument”。它意味着，考生应将所给出的argument比照逻辑推理的尺度来进行衡量，揭示出该argument在何种程度和哪些方面是合理的，又在何种程度和哪些方面是不合理的，并给出理由。

　　如果我们将这篇5.0分的Argument文章样本逐句拆解开来并剖析一番的话，我们就能对一篇合格的Argument类文章所需包含的各项要素形成一个甚为清晰的洞悉。

　　全文共250个英文单词，每个句子都具有不可或缺的本质意义。全文首句“The argument presented is limited but useful.”具有两层功能，一是对所给出的argument一分为二地作出评价，二是构成全文的主题句（topic sentence）。以下所有内容都是在围绕这一主题句提供材料，藉以论述并证实这一主题。紧接下来的第二、第三句“It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries.”是在对原argument中的两个合理之处予以承认，同时也起到summary的作用。这种在以负面批评为主调的文章中对固有的优点予以认可，英文叫“conceding the strengths of the argument”。 但正如我在前面所指出的那样，conceding the strengths of the argument 应控制在1/3以内的篇幅。

　　第四句“However, the conclusion that protective gear and reflective equipment would ‘greatly reduce...risk of being severely injured’ is premature.”开始转入全文的主体（body），即对原argument的批判。这一批判由两部分构成，第一部分由本句至第一自然段最后的内容构成，本句为第一部分内容的主题句，指出原argument中的结论是 “premature”。 接下来的第五、第六句“Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination of that population. It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater's ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations.”是论据，说明在两个具体的方面，原argument中的结论为何显得“premature”。

　　第二个自然段构成了批判的另一个部分——指出原>argument从论据到结论之间的疏漏之处（omissions）。该段落的第一句“Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identification of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries.”是第二部分批判性内容的主题句。在接下来的第二、第三句“The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reflective equipment to those injuries.”中，作者以两个排比句式中的“fails to …”指出了原argument中的二大欠缺（inadequacies）。在最后的例证部分（illustration），即“sans-serif">For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reflective equipment might mitigate the occurrences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures.”作者通过三个“if”暗示，如果原arguer能在这三方面对injuries的种类进行细分（subdivide）并进一步明确其成因的话，则可改进原argument的推论，并使之站得住脚。

　　该文的可贵之处在于立论开门见山，直击要害。主体部分精确地捕捉住了原argument两个方面的四处谬误（fallacies）并一针见血地逐一予以揭露（expose）。在对原argument合理之处进行必要认可（concede）的同时，指出通过更为细致的因果关系的确立（the establishment of causal relationship），原argument可得到改进的几个方面。ETS评阅人的下述评语无疑是十分中肯的：

Reader Comment on 5
This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it "indicates a possible relationship" but that its conclusion "is premature." It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:

What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?

What is the usefulness of protective or reflective gear in preventing or mitigating rollerskating-related injuries?

What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?

The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as the typical "6" paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of "4."

虽然我们反对任何固定不变的写作模板，但这一篇合格的argument类文章若干个必要模块（module）还是可以归纳出来的。（一）对原argument正反两方面进行辩证评价，即evaluation；（二）归纳出原argument中二至三处合理论点，即summarizing and conceding the strengths of the argument；（三）列举原argument中二至三个方面的逻辑推理缺陷并指出原因（identifying logical flaws and pointing out their reasons）；（四）指出二至三个可改进之处及如何进行改进（indicating possible improvements that can be made and how they can be made）。

　　顺便，我们再来看一下ETS所公布的4.0分的Argument作文样本及评阅人的评语。

Benchmark 4 — Adequate
Although the argument stated above discusses the importance of safety equipment as significant part of avoiding injury, the statistics quoted are vague and inconclusive. Simply because 75 percent of the people involved in roller-skating accidents are not wearing the stated equipment does not automatically implicate the lack of equipment as the cause of injury. The term "accidents" may imply a great variety of injuries. The types of injuries one could incur by not wearing the types of equipment stated above are minor head injuries; skin abrasions or possibly bone fracture of a select few areas such as knees, elbows, hands, etc. (which are in fact most vulnerable to this sport); and/or injuries due to practising the sport during low light times of the day. During any physically demanding activity or sport people are subjected to a wide variety of injuries which cannot be avoided with protective clothing or light-reflective materials. These injuries include inner trauma (e.g., heart-attack); exhaustion; strained muscles, ligaments, or tendons; etc. Perhaps the numbers and percentages of people injured during roller-skating, even without protective equipment, would decrease greatly if people participating in the sport had proper training, good physical health, warm-up properly before beginning (stretching), as well as take other measures to prevent possible injury, such as common-sense, by refraining from performing the activity after proper lighting has ceased and knowing your personal limitations as an individual and athlete. The statistics used in the above reasoning are lacking in proper direction considering their assertions and therefore must be further examined and modified so that proper conclusions can be reached.

Reader Comment on 4
This adequate response targets the argument's vague and inconclusive "statistics." The essay identifies and critiques the illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the argument's statistics:

that non-use of equipment may be "automatically" assumed to be the cause of injury

that "accidents" may refer to minor injuries

that injuries may result from other causes - skating in the dark, failure to train or warm-up properly, failure to recognize one's physical limitations

The writer competently grasps the weaknesses of the argument. The ideas are clear and connected, but the essay lacks transitional phrases. Development, too, is only adequate. Control of language is better than adequate. The writer achieves both control and clarity and ably conforms to the conventions of written English. Overall, though, this "4" essay lacks the more thorough development of a typical "5" response.

下面，让我们分别看一下ETS公布的GRE作文6.0分的Issue类文章和Argument类文章、评阅者评语及其中文翻译。

“In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly over-rated. We need more generalists—people who can provide broad perspectives.”

Benchmark 6 – Outstanding
Sample Essay
In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists.

Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase): “I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focused individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon.” This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us.

Simply put, without specialists, our society would find itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was fine for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area.

On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow foci in which people can lose the larger picture. No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one’s own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toenails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discoveries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture.

Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universal issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focuses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the wholistic view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stifling individual specialists for the greater good of all.

Finally, over-specialization in a people’s daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must consciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focused and generally poorly-educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction.

Without generalists, society becomes inward-looking and eventually inefficient. Without a society that recognizes the importance of broad-mindedness and for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting field and know what the stakes are.
(623 words）

B: ETS评阅人的评语

Reader Comment on 6

This outstanding response displays insightful analysis, meticulous development, impressive vocabulary and a mastery of the elements of effective writing. The writer disagrees with the stated opinions by arguing that specialists and generalists are both vital: specialists prevent us from becoming "bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload," while generalists provide help to see "the big picture" and, unlike specialists, protect our "greater good."
The essay is carefully constructed throughout, enabling the reader to move effortlessly from point to point as the writer examines the multi-faceted implications of the issue and provides compelling reasons and examples to support the premise and take the argument to an effective conclusion. Although other "6" responses may not be as eloquent as this essay, they nevertheless all display the test taker's ability to articulate complex ideas effectively and precisely.

C: 参考译文

论题
　　“在我们这个时代，人们对各种类型的专才评价过高。我们所需要的是更多的通才——那种能提供广泛视角和见解的人才。” （得分基准点 6 分 – 优秀）

范文 　　在当今这个社会变革与技术变革日新月异、导致生活复杂性和心理失落感与日俱增的时代，西方社会中人与人之间积极的和消极的两类效应呼唤整个社会应在专才与通才之间达成某种平衡。

　　专才不可或缺，以便使得整个社会能恰如其分地并且有效地汲取来自科学研究、并通过全球大众传媒被广泛传播的新信息。正如我所在的大学的药理学研究主任曾经指出的那样（这里请允许我作一大概的复述）：“我之所以能够对我现在所做的一切展开研究，仅仅是因为在我之前已经出现过许多的前辈，我可以从他们那里借鉴基本的知识。正是因为在每一个研究环节上拥有这样一些个人，他们专注于各自狭隘的领域，所以人类才能对人生的复杂性得以形成一种充分的和真切的理解。每个个人只能拥有仅够在知识之梯上添加一档小小梯级的知识，但我们将这些梯级累积相加，积少成多，必能架起通天之梯。”这番话所例证的是这样一个论点，即在我们的社会中，知识和技术正处在某一阶段，在这个阶段上，只要有了专才之后，我们这个社会才能去利用那些可为我们所获取的信息。

　　简而言之，倘若没有专才，我们这个社会就会发现，它正深陷在一片信息的马尾藻之海中而无可自拔。虽然对于早期物理学家而言，仅仅弄懂和领会他们那个时代所存在的为数不多的几个定理和概念，完全无可厚非，然则，在当今时代，没有哪个个人能够消化和吸收任何一个特定领域内的全部知识。

　　从另一方面讲，过度的专业化意味着范围的变窄，导致人们丧失广阔的视野和整体的把握。任何人都不可能期望仅仅通过检查自己的脚指甲就了解人类的整个躯体。我们从一个狭隘的专业范围中所能获得的知识，可能会在该范围内合乎逻辑性，但在一个更为广阔的视野框架内则有可能会显得无关紧要或谬误百出。进而言之，如果我们仅审视我们的脚指甲，我们或许会得出这样的结论，即整个人体既硬且白。有用的结论，以及有用的结论所带来的或许是有用的发明，必须源自专才之间的知识共享。单纯地抛出一项又一项科学发现，只能意味着我们所拥有的是一堆毫无用途的发现。只有当我们用它们制作出一幅马赛克镶嵌画时，我们才能看清楚它们所能构成的图案。

　　过度的专业化不仅仅对于知识的真理性、纯粹性和严谨性是一种危害，更有甚者，它还会起到另一种作用——将道德问题和某些带有普遍性意义的问题淹没殆尽。通才，唯有通才，才能领略到一幅广阔的图景，去意识到并引领给世人那些环境问题。因为专业化分工，每个人都专注于其自己的研究和目标，因此，工业化、扩张以及新技术得以被推进。但在同时，却没有人能对我们的全球生存境况形成一个完整的看法，而在这种全球性的生存境况中，真正意义上的进步可能意味着，为了全人类更大程度上的福祉而去扼杀单个的专才。

　　最后，人们日常生活和工作中的过度专业化已经导致了人际间的和心理上的隔阂。人们在人生之初便被（至少被大学）强行塞入鸽巢之中，并且必须有意识地努力摄入各种形式的外部刺激和信息，以便避免沦丧在他们那片狭小的、孤零零的天地中。这不仅仅会造成这样的一些人，其专业范围狭隘，且普遍而言教育水平低下，而且还必然会导致一种群体失落感，常常继之以一种心理错位感和个人不满感。设若没有通才，社会便会变成内省式的，并最终变得效率低下。一个社会，如果无从认识到胸怀开阔的重要性，无从认识到分享普遍性特征这一做法的重要性，那么，社会中的个人便会变得孤立无援，形单影只。因此，在我们的社会形式需要专才的同时，通才也同样地举足轻重。专才可以让我们在一次次的奋进中向前迈进，而通才则可确保我们仍逗留在竞技场上，并让我们知道我们究竟是在为何而战。

Argument 类文章样本(Sample Argument Essay)

Argument Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller-skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

(Benchmark 6 – Outstanding)
Sample Essay

The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either prevent accidents from occurring in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.

First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear – preventative gear (such as light reflecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the “other” is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an “other”, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. It is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather that the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.

The statistic also does not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends (when doctors’ offices are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment.

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful. The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
(610 words)

Reader Comment on 6

This outstanding response demonstrates the writer’s insightful analytical skills.

The introduction, which notes that adopting the prompt’s fallacious reasoning could “…inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear,” is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument’s root flaws. Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:

that preventive and protective gear are not the same

that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious

that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries

that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial

The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical and error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.
In sum, this essay exemplifies the very top of the “6” range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the essay could still have been scored “6.”

F: 参考译文

原论点
　　有关（旱冰）溜冰事故发生后前往急诊室接受救治的患者，医院方面所提供的数据表明他们需要更多的保护性装置。在这类群体中，曾在街道或停车场发生过事故的溜冰者，其中的75%没有穿戴任何保护性服装（头盔，护膝垫等），也没有任何反光材料（夹在衣服上的发光体，黑暗中发光的护腕垫等）。显而易见，这些数据表明，如花钱购置高质量的保护性装备和反光设备，溜冰运动者便有望大大减少他们在事故中严重受伤的风险。

（得分基准点 6 分 – 优秀）

　　 保护性装备可以减少事故中所遭受的损伤，这一观念看上去似乎是一个顺理成章的结论。毕竟来说，这类产品的目的不外乎两种，首先是预防事故的发生，其次是一旦事故无可避免地发生，减少穿戴者所蒙受的损伤。然则，花钱购置高质量保护性装备便可大大减少事故中严重受伤的风险，这一结论可能会掩盖其他的（且潜在地更为重要的）致伤原因，并激发人们在金钱方面和心理方面对保护性装备投入过多的钱财。

　　首先，正如题目的论据中所提到的那样，溜冰装备存在迥然有别的两种——预防性装备（如反光材料）以及保护性装备（如头盔）。预防性装备旨在向他人发出预警，我们可推知主要是向驾车者发出预警，提醒他们前方有溜冰者存在。这类装备只有在以下情形中才能发挥作用，即“对方”是一个富有责任感和对他人关怀体贴的个人，他愿意为溜冰者提供必要的空间距离和注意力。而保护性装备旨在减轻任何事故所产生的后果，不管该事故是由他人造成的，还是由溜冰者自己或某种自然力量造成的。保护性装备在预防事故方面，即使能起到任何作用，其作用也只能是微乎其微的。但保护性装备则被假定能减轻事故所致的伤害。有关溜冰者所受伤害的数据，如果能将溜冰者划分为以下几个群体（即根本不戴装备者，只戴保护性装备者，只戴预防性装备者，以及保护性装备和预防性装备“兼而戴之”者）的话，将更具说明意义。这样，这些数据就能让溜冰者更清晰地了解清楚哪些类别的装备于他们更有益处。

　　上述论据还由于下列事实而遭削弱，即该论据没能考虑穿戴装备者与不穿戴装备者之间内在的、固有的差异。至少有这样一种可能，即那些穿戴装备的溜冰者普遍而言是一些更有责任感和更具安全意识的人。穿戴装备者不太可能通过其鲁莽或危险的行为来导致事故发生。事实上，可能正是凭着其与生俱有的谨慎和责任感，而根本不是凭借其装备，这类人才得以远离医院的急诊室。除此之外，上述数据完全以那些在街头和停车场这样一些本来就较为危险的场所溜冰的人为依据。那些普遍地更有安全意识的人（且因此更可能穿戴装备者）可能会选择诸如公园或后院一类的更为安全的场所去从事溜冰运动。

　　上述数据的另一个缺陷是，它没能区分各种所受伤害的严重程度。安全装备能预防严重受伤这一结论暗示，我们可以假定人们只有在严重受伤的情况下才会前往急诊室。无庸置疑，实际的情形并非如此。并且，由于溜冰是一项主要在晚上和周末才从事的娱乐性活动，而此时大夫的诊所大都关门歇业，因此，受伤程度不那么严重的溜冰者尤其可能前往急诊室接受治疗。

　　最后，上述论据绝对没有提供任何证据来证明高质量的（且可假定是较为昂贵的）装备就一定会比其他种类的装备来得更加有益。例如，一件普遍的白色T恤衫所能提供的预防作用，可能与一件专为溜冰而设计的质量更高、售价更高的溜冰衫毫无二致。在溜冰者被鼓动去对溜冰装备作大量金钱投入之前，对每一件单独的装备所能提供的益处形成一种较为全面的理解，这对溜冰者无疑会大有裨益。上述以急诊室数据为依据的有关安全装备的论据可以提供重要的信息，并能潜在地挽救人们的生命。但是，在人们就溜冰装备应作何种程度的投入以及作何种类型的投入得出最终结论之前，去对无效的装备充满信心，其后果将与不穿戴任何装备同样严重。