托福/GRE寫Economist經濟方麵寫作素材分享

特別地緣政治和新聞類的沒有包含，因為(wei) 對於(yu) 一般寫(xie) 作的有用性不是特別強。

以下例子也不是為(wei) 托福/GRE寫(xie) 作量身定做的，更多做個(ge) 能力上的積累吧。對於(yu) 結構，構思和語言都是會(hui) 有所幫助的。

Peter Thiel, scourge of Silicon Valley

A venture capitalist reinvents the military-industrial complex

內(nei) 容：關(guan) 於(yu) Peter Thiel 反骨矽穀的一篇文章，描述了一個(ge) 人的多麵性，但也可以認為(wei) 不管是paypal 還是Facebook，還是Palantir，背後都是Peter Thiel 對於(yu) 自己的產(chan) 品的篤定

有用性：可以學習(xi) 下結構

He co-founded PayPal, a payments platform that, as a young libertarian, he hoped would undermine the world’s monetary system. Instead it gave him the money to bestride Silicon Valley, a place he disdains. He was the earliest outside investor in Facebook, a tech giant on whose board he remains, though he mocks social media. As a hedge-fund manager, he bet on an economic meltdown in America ahead of the financial crisis of 2007-09, but called the bottom of the market too soon. He was one of the most prominent financiers to throw his weight behind Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency in 2016. Yet his efforts to populate the Trump administration with radical-thinking acolytes failed.

Reason and its discontents

Steven Pinker’s new defence of reason is impassioned but flawed

內(nei) 容: 關(guan) 於(yu) Steven Pinker 新書(shu) 的書(shu) 評

有用性:

表達= met with praise and objections

觀點 = 人類是非理性動物

Mr Pinker, a professor at Harvard, has a lot to get off his chest. His previous book, “Enlightenment Now”, a paean to reason’s role in history, had a mixed reception in 2018. It met with praise (including in The Economist), but also objections that it was simplistic, Panglossian and selective in its evidence. A personal attack followed last year, with a vicious and shoddy campaign demanding that the Linguistic Society of America cancel him. Meanwhile, in recent decades, research in economics and psychology has underlined just how far Homo sapiens falls short of rational beings who maximise their economic welfare and engage in truth-distilling debate.

The future of food

New ways to make food are coming—but will consumers bite?

內(nei) 容：“人造” 肉

有用性：

觀點：可以是不是可以解決(jue) 人類的糧食問題

結構：正反說: [ 前段是科技帶來的promise，後麵是存在的問題]

Fortunately, technologies are emerging that promise to produce food in new ways, in large volumes with less inhumane factory farming and a lower environmental footprint. These range from bioreactors that grow meat to indoor “vertical” farms and new ways of producing fish. Such techniques could make a huge difference. Three-quarters of agricultural land is used for livestock, for example, so it is easy to see how steaks made from plant-based protein, or grown in vats from cells, could greatly reduce factory farming and land and water use, and produce fewer emissions.

Just because it is possible to make food in new ways does not mean people will be willing to eat it, however. Given food’s cultural importance, and the fact that it is ingested into the body, conservatism and scepticism are common reactions to new foodstuffs and production processes. In 17th-century Europe many people were loth to eat a new vegetable called the potato because it was not mentioned in the Bible, or because they feared it caused leprosy. Today, many European countries ban the cultivation and sale of genetically modified crops, even though they are widely grown and eaten elsewhere. And although much of the world considers insects a mouth-watering treat (and locust-eating is endorsed in the Bible), the very idea revolts many Western consumers.

Facepalm

Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

內(nei) 容：facebook 的公共危機 【文章覺得Mark Zuckerberg 要負一定的責任，但從(cong) 今天Facebook 改名這個(ge) 事情來看，老板的意思是名字有些晦氣，自己沒有問題】

有用性：

觀點 = 有些針對Facebook的指責更多是情緒，不夠理中客

語料 = 1.人們(men) 對於(yu) 壞消息比較敏感 2. Internet 的問題  3. leader 對於(yu) 公司的影響

A share of the opprobrium heaped on Facebook is incoherent.

Some of this week’s criticism was tendentious. Reports highlighted internal research showing that Instagram, Facebook’s photo-sharing app, makes one in five American teenagers feel worse about themselves. They paid less attention to the finding that Instagram makes twice as many feel better about themselves. Facebook’s critics are right that it should be more open. But the firm has half a point when it says that the hysterical reaction to unsurprising findings will lead companies to conclude that it is safer not to do such research at all. 【這個(ge) 段落可以用來寫(xie) 人們(men) 對於(yu) bad information 更為(wei) 敏感的話題】

Other complaints are really criticisms of the broader internet. The question of how to regulate viral content for children goes beyond Facebook, as any parent who has left their child with YouTube knows. Likewise, dilemmas over how the firm amplifies attention and how to draw the line between upholding free speech and minimising harm. Facebook repeated its plea that Congress should weigh in on matters such as minimum ages, rather than leaving it to firms. It has made a better stab than most at settling free-speech questions with its “oversight board”, a pompous-sounding but quietly useful body which dispenses rulings on matters from misogyny to misinformation. 【這個(ge) 段落可以用來寫(xie) 科技的問題】

If rational argument alone is no longer enough to get Facebook out of its hole, the company should look hard at its public face. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s all-powerful founder, made a reasoned statement after this week’s wave of anger. He was ignored or ridiculed and increasingly looks like a liability. 【這個(ge) 段落可以用來寫(xie) leader 對於(yu) 公司發展的影響】

Tentacular spectacular

South Koreans are bemused by the global success of “Squid Game”

內(nei) 容： “Squid Game”的爆紅

觀點：韓國國內(nei) 原來的反響不好，但是國外的火也是倒逼了國內(nei) 收視。

語料：可以用於(yu) 類似看國內(nei) 還是國外電影的話題

When “squid game” appeared on Netflix in mid-September, many South Korean reviewers were underwhelmed by the home-grown survival drama. They found the characters clichéd, the plot unconvincing and the violence gratuitous. The whole thing, they complained, was too similar to older films, such as the Japanese “Battle Royale”, and added nothing new to the survival genre, notwithstanding the striking set designs and star-studded cast. “Even though every genre has its clichés, too much in ‘Squid Game’ reminds you of every other movie you’ve ever seen,” complained one critic.

“Squid Game” has taken the world by storm. It is currently the most-streamed show on Netflix in all but a handful of the company’s markets. It has entered mainstream cultural consciousness, spawning millions of videos on TikTok, thousands of memes and dozens of earnest articles dissecting the show’s meaning. Cafés all over the world have started selling their own takes on dalgona, a Korean candy featured in one episode. In Paris fights broke out as fans tried to force their way into a pop-up shop where visitors could pose with staff dressed like the pink-suited enforcers from the show.

Virtue’s reward

An advocate of sustainable capitalism explains how it’s done

內(nei) 容：聯合利華前CEO, Paul Polman 的一本新書(shu)  Net Positive 的書(shu) 評

語料：公司角色

What is the purpose of a company? For some, the answer is simple: to make as much money for shareholders as the law permits. But many modern companies take a much broader view. They argue that business should also serve workers, consumers and society at large, and that profit should not be pursued at the expense of the environment or social justice.

Schumpeter

What if firms were forced to pay for frying the planet

內(nei) 容：企業(ye) 的汙染要不要收稅

語料：carbon tax 的利弊

This feeds into a third problem: consumption. A high carbon tax is bound to push up prices, which will change consumer behaviour, especially among lower earners. The tourism industry, for instance, would have to rely less on customers arriving by cheap flights. Supermarkets would need to provide more local foods. People might start tracking the carbon trail of some things they buy, creating headaches for retailers like Amazon.

The flip side would be more innovation. The International Energy Agency, which represents energy-consuming countries, said last year that investments in low-carbon research and development had barely budged since 2012, and was a fifth of what was spent on health and defence. This is pitiful. A carbon tax would change that. Think of hyperloops for long-distant transport; eating bugs, seaweed and lab-grown meat; an endless stream of virtual-reality entertainment as people stay at home rather than consume goods that become less affordable owing to the carbon bill.