外研社写作阅读大赛

Expository Writing 说明文

比赛内容：选手完成一篇说明文写作（300-500词）。侧重考查选手解说事物、阐明事理的能力，以及运用知识、观察理解、梳理分析、提炼总结、跨文化沟通的综合能力。

Content/Ideas (40%)

Writing effectively addresses the topic and the task;
Writing presents a clear thesis （论点）;
Writing maintains a formal style （正式文体） and an objective tone（客观的语气）.

Organization/ Development(30%)

Writing is well-organized and well-developed, using appropriate development patterns (e.g., definition, illustration, casual analysis（因果分析法）, process analysis, classification（分类）, comparison/contrast, etc.) to support the thesis or to illustrate （阐明）ideas;
Writing displays coherence（一致性）, progression（前进，连续）, consistency and unity;
Textual （文本的，按原文的）elements are well-connected through explicit（明确的，清楚的） logical and/or linguistic（语言的） transitions.

Language (30%)

Spelling is accurate;
Writing displays consistent facility in use of language;
Writing demonstrates appropriate register（语体风格）, syntactic（语法的） variety, and effective use of vocabulary.

Practical Writing 应用文写作

侧重考查选手使用得体的格式、内容和语言实现有效沟通、达到交际目的的能力。
Content/Ideas (40%)

Writing fulfills the communicative purposes（交际目的）;
Writing presents clear intention with supporting details;
Writing uses proper style, format and tone.

Organization/ Development (30% )

Writing is well-organized and well-developed, using appropriate development patterns (e.g., definition, illustration, casual analysis, process analysis, classification, comparison/contrast, etc.) to serve the communicative purposes;
Writing displays coherence, progression, consistency and unity;
Textual elements are well-connected through explicit logical and/or linguistic transitions.

Language(30%)

Spelling is accurate;
Writing displays consistent facility in use of language;
Writing demonstrates appropriate register, syntactic variety, and effective use of vocabulary.

Argumentative Writing 议论文写作

侧重考查选手的文献阅读理解、信息综合处理、判断分析、逻辑思辨、评价论述等能力，展示选手的知识广度、视野维度、思想深度等综合素质。

Content/Ideas (40%)

Writing effectively addresses the topic and the task;
Writing presents an insightful position on the issue;
The position is strongly and substantially (adv. 实质上；大体上；充分地) supported or argued.

Organization/ Development(30%)

Writing is well-organized and well-developed, using appropriate rhetorical devices （修辞手法）(e.g. exemplifications（例子）, classification, analysis, comparison/contrast, etc.) to support the thesis or to illustrate ideas.
Writing displays coherence, progression, consistency and unity;
Textual elements are well-connected through explicit logical and/or linguistic transitions.

Language(30%)

Spelling is accurate;
Writing displays consistent facility in use of language;
Writing demonstrates appropriate register, syntactic variety, and effective use of vocabulary.

expressions

moderate
adj. 稳健的，温和的；适度的，中等的；有节制的
vt. 节制；减轻
vi. 变缓和，变弱

application letter 申请信，申请报告；求职信
internship n. 实习生
completion n. 完成，结束；实现 completion time
postgraduate students 研究生
academic knowledge 学业知识
assignment n. 分配；任务(可数)；作业；功课
office-related software 办公有关的软件
facets （事物的）方面特征
an awareness of …的意识
insightful adj. 有深刻见解的，富有洞察力的
the extent to ······的程度
in response to 响应；回答；对…有反应
hold true 适用；有效
consideration n. 考虑；原因；关心；报酬

The duration of an internship generally ranges between 2 and 6 months.

Argumentative writing 范例

Do not blame scientific experiments on their“means”

Scientific experiments often prompt strong criticism,as shown by American psychologist Harry Harlow’s work,which involved an experiment using monkeys as subjects. People argued that his work showed scientists believed that the“end” justified the“means”, that any kind of experimental method is acceptable,provided it produces useful results.

To find out about mother-and-child bonding,Harlow designed a series of experiments. He removed infant monkeys from their natural mothers and left them to be “raised” by two different pseudo “mothers”:one was made of soft terrycloth but provided no food,and the other was made of wire but provided nourishment from an attached baby bottle. Harlow observed that young monkeys went to the wire mother only for food. They preferred to spend their time with the soft, comforting cloth mother. He also found that in a created terrifying situation, the monkeys turned to their cloth mother for comfort and security.
Many said Harlow was cruel,but I disagree with such censure. Innovation and exploration are keys to scientific research. Being a rational person who understands that there is a cost for any truly valuable discovery, I believe that without such“cruelty”, Harlow could not have gained this important insight,which has significance for us humans.Think about how society and individual parents today have a better understanding of the significance of early attachment and love.

prompt
n. 提示，提词；（电脑屏幕上的）提示符；鼓励；催促；付款期限
v. 提示，鼓励；促进；激起；导致；（给演员）提白
adj. 敏捷的，迅速的；立刻的，及时的；准时的；（商品）即期要送的
adv. 准时地

pseudo
n. 伪君子；假冒的人 adj. 冒充的，假的“

terrycloth
n. 毛圈织物

nourishment
n. 食物；营养品；滋养品

censure
v. 严厉斥责，正式谴责
n. 斥责，谴责

exploration
n. 探测；探究；踏勘

rational
n. 有理数
adj. 合理的；理性的

cruelty
n. 残酷；残忍；残酷的行为

attachment
n. 附件；依恋；连接物；扣押财产

作品欣赏

The moment the innocent little monkey creeps to its pseudo mother helplessly for help, Dr. Harlow’s renowned zoo-behavioral-psychological experiment has been referred to as “cruel”. As reporters and critics first spot the controversial experiment on monkeys rather than ordinary rats or rabbits which have sacrificed for science for nearly four centuries since the emerging of modern medical science, light has been cast on the so-called legality of all experiments conducted on animals, especially primates. However, the fiercely critical mass media and the public have made a confusion, in my opinion, between science and real-world life, between which lies huge distinction.

To begin with, by analyzing the criticism from the society, we may find a vital mechanism that functions through, which is called “empathy”. Empathy is widely considered to be one of the universal characters of human beings, which leads to sympathy and self-identification while one witnesses the “mom-and-kid” tragedy. From my perspective, empathy should be present in daily life, but in science discourse, absent, which can be proved by the development of modern science.

The theoretical basis of the argument is that science experiments are defined to be different from daily life, since the establishment of logic-positivism science. Logic-positivism science, in its usual term, experimental science, stands for a paradigm of research that utilizes experimental approaches to probe the mechanism or relationship underlying the world. As the France philosopher and mathematician Descartes once pointed out, the instant moment people start to view the world, in other words, to explore, they have distinguished themselves from any other surrounding, which means the single word “human” is established in that other objects are “non-human”. Descartes’ idea has clearly delineated the boundary between science and daily life and thus prevented empathy from intruding the field of science.

Empathy jeopardizes science, since empathy is most likely to prevail, as emotionalism often does. If we scroll back to the Harlow conflict, it is apparent that those critics are mostly emotion-driven, since there is a strong instinct among human beings to endow objects such as plants and animals with human-like emotions, which has been long utilized by romantic poets and playwrights like Shakespeare to produce literally important masterpieces. Emotion never reasons, since we cannot prove the actual and scientific resemblance of the monkey tragedy to be typical human tragedies, but it tempts human into emotional protests and criticism that cannot be soothed easily, as it often does in the theatre, which significantly hinder the progress of science. It is rather hard to imagine that on the day when the switch of emotion is turned on, any science experiment that includes living organisms could be labelled as cruel and immoral. Besides, it should be re-stated that excluding emotion from science experiments does not necessarily equals causing harm to the environment, since basic ethical rules have made regulations on the proper disposal of lab wastes.

To get my point further, we cannot deny the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism, that is to say, a history of experimental science is equivalent to a bibliography of cruelty. Animal experiments have been designed only to avoid unnecessary harm to human, which can get its evidence from the fact that numerous rats and rabbits have long been used as experimental materials in medical schools so as to function as a platform to test newly-developed chemicals or novel therapies. To trace back to the history of science, many of the scientific findings are conducted at the cost of harm to animals or plants, such as the finding of conditioned reflex, which was done on the pet dog of the Russian scientist Pavlov. As I have stated above, the moment the first human being stretched out to the outer world, he started to seek benefit for himself, either emotionally or materially, which, indeed, is deliberately neglected by some humanitarians. As naturalists and animal protectors insist, nature can adjust to the most balanced condition, so once human beings gain, the surroundings lose.

However, harm to animals has nothing to do with cruelty to people, which means ethical regulations on body experiments should never be loosened even to the slightest extent. The uprising issue of two genetically-modified infants that might be immune to AIDS has stirred up hot debates online that spat venom criticism on a Chinese scientist from Shenzhen. From where I stand, I would strongly oppose the gene-editing practice, as it might trigger complicated aftermath and hidden ethical paradoxes that might mess up the whole post-modern society and thus poison ourselves in turn. It contradicts the essence of science, namely egoism or utilitarianism, as I have circulated above.

Aggressive as my points might be, I would like to clarify and reinforce my opinion that the purity of experimental science along with its paradigm must not be stained due to the admixture of emotion and empathy from the one-sided media, while basic ethical rules of environmental protection and regulations on human gene-editing cannot be surpassed according to the core of utilitarianism.

As countless science figures shine beyond: only with rationalism can science progress, so can we insignificant human beings creep nearer, to the core of universal truth.