Lang Q3就像是獨立口語,也許題目彈出後看起來很簡單,但可以考前最令人焦慮
其實19年之後的北美Q3都挺友善,倒是2010s期間有幾道難題
這道17年題就來者不善。首先認不認得artifice這個(ge) 詞就是問題,估計大多數國內(nei) 教lang的老師自己也不認識,然後如何理解political theater and personal narrative也不簡單,最後就是怎麽(me) 舉(ju) 例的問題
如果像托福寫(xie) 作那樣編個(ge) 故事假裝成論據,那等著被考官拍死吧
我認為(wei) lang很值得學——強於(yu) 學lit——在於(yu) lang想要學生熟悉和掌握的論據,是對人文素養(yang) 的補充。過去15年,lang Q3有約30%題幹要求圍繞contemporary (American) society做討論,所以BLM這
種事就得會(hui) 看會(hui) 講
看我隨手寫(xie) 的示範段⬇️ 有人能幫我改改嘛)
On the politics of Black Lives Matter, narratives have indeed trumped facts. The death of George Floyd, who was unarmed, black, and effectively killed under the knees of a white police officer, sparked major protests in American cities and across the Atlantic for much of 2020. The reality of police brutality and the need for reform notwithstanding, using the Floyd incident to generalize about “systemic racism” in American society has become a popular trope in mainstream media and academia. For the left, what matters is not the reality that police shootings of white people are more numerous than of blacks (even adjusting for population), or that major corporate and academic institutions have been bending over backward to hire minority candidates. None of these provable “facts”, given they are politically incorrect, could be discussed out loud, not without casual but reliable accusations of racism. Apparently, affirming the BLM rhetoric of “systemic racism” and “white privilege” has run roughshod over the need to consider empirical data, let alone question such BLM excesses as looting, rioting, larceny, arson, or destruction of property. Today, peddling to voters this distorted image of the country that is “at odds with reality,” politicians on the left have proved Hedges’ point: it is the emotional potency of the Floyd experience, not the crime statistics by race, that gives meaning to discourse.
看得一頭霧水也沒關(guan) 係,這就是上課要講要解釋要練習(xi) 的知識。如果隻滿於(yu) 寫(xie) 艾迪森/哥白尼/居裏夫人/紮克伯格,在國內(nei) 讀完初中就夠了 關(guan) 於(yu) 托福寫(xie) 作的 bonus question: 能借用這張infamous CNN報道截圖,論述為(wei) 何傳(chuan) 統電視越來越沒人看了嗎?
評論已經被關(guan) 閉。