- UID
- 422656
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2009-2-25
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
我们都知道文章可归纳成三种演进方式：a，结论--> 解释；b，旧观点--> 新观点；C，现象或疑难问题--> 解决方案和解释（有时惟一，有时不惟一）从而分类为结论解释型，新老观点对比型，问题解决型和现象解释型
但我们真的懂了这样分类的作用吗？真的明白小安阅读法中提到的主题题横向总结的意义吗？今天做到这道题突然领悟了分类的重要型、横向总结的重要性和逻辑简图的重要性。
下面是我搜到的关于这题的讨论，应该会有更多的
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-77990-1-1.html
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-80182-1-1.html
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-59007-1-1.html
我想应该会有很多人跟我之前一样没有真正理解这些含义，刚搜了一下，也没有搜到前辈们对没有解释为什么文章文类的重要性和具体区分的方法，所以有点领悟想跟大家分享。如果NN已经很明白文章类型分类或者已经非常清楚阅读的技巧，那么请关闭网页，我不想被鄙视啊！
如果觉得我写得还不算差，请大家帮忙顶下啊！看看这么点东西，写了我将近2个小时。
GWD-5-22的主题题
The passage is primarily concerned with
describing a resource and indicating various methods used to study it
presenting a theory and offering an opposing point of view
providing an explanation for unexpected findings
demonstrating why a particular theory is unfounded
resolving a disagreement regarding the uses of a technology
咋一看我选了B，看到E觉得好像也对，其实答案选C；在网上搜了一下发现有好像人对这道题有疑惑。
该文章的逻辑框架为：IT技术可以提高生产率，但经过比较生产率反而下降。IT拥护者提出3个理由说明转换需要时间。Resource-based提出IT技术现在被采用的方式不能提到生产率。
那么B说提出一种理论，然后再提出新的观点好像说得过去？ E说解决要不要用这个technology的争议好像对？
一般其他的这些写法主题题都是没有犹豫快速地选出来的，这道题之所以会犹豫文章有现象，有观点，有反驳，有解决方法。具体分析如下：
经济学家A说：IT技术使生产力下降 如果单看这句话，我们可以理解这句话为一个现象，一个观点或者一个问题
支持IT技术的人B说：IT技术会使生产力上升，只是需要时间 如果看到这里，我们可以理解为B在解释A或在反驳A
另外对IT技术有质疑的人C说：IT技术被采用的方式使生产力下降，要采用另外一种方式才能是IT技术增强生产力 看到这里，我们可以理解为C在解释A，反驳B或在提出一种解决方法
1、按照现象解释型逻辑为：现象-解释-解释
2、按照新老观点对比为：观点A-观点B-解释观点A产生的原因
3、按照问题解决型为：问题-B反驳问题错误-B提到怎么解决问题
所以文章按照2、3是没有逻辑的。
所以该文章是现象解释型，往往在答案中会用到prvoide explanation。
会产生混淆的一个原因是文章在解释现象的发展过程中往往各种解释是对立的，可以理解为老解释和新解释，往往会跟老观点和新观点的写法方式相似。但最大的不同是：现象解释型的重心（primarily concerned )是解释现象为什么会发生，解释1是不一定错的，这就是选项C的回答方式；而新老观点对比型的重心是强调新观点的重要型，老观点是一定有问题的，选项B的回答方式（通常还用correct,challenge,refute, criticize)。
举一个简单的例子
老观点：在中国人眼里，她很漂亮。 新观点：没有证据证明她很漂亮，其实她在中国人眼里不漂亮。
重点是在新观点
现象解释性：
现象：中国人认为她很漂亮。
解释一：那个时候以胖为美。
解释二：那个时候漂亮的人不多，虽然她有点胖，但脸蛋挺美，相比之下，还算很漂亮了
解释一和解释而是对立的，因为前者认为胖是美的，后者认为胖是不美的。但是文章的重心是去解释为什么中国人认为她漂亮，而不是用解释二去oppose解释一。
如我的想法有错，请大家帮忙指正，下面是原文，以便大家查看。
live;">Most pre-1990 literature on busi-
nesses’ use of information technology
(IT)—defined as any form of computer-
Line basedinformation system—focused on
(5) spectacular IT successes and reflected
a general optimism concerning IT’s poten-
tial as aresource for creating competitive
advantage. live;">But toward the end of the
live;">1980’s, some economists spoke of a
(10) “live;">productivity paradox”: despite huge IT
investments, most notably inthe service
sectors, productivitystagnated. In the
retail industry, for example,in which IT
had been widely adopted duringthe
(15) 1980’s, productivity (average output per
hour) rose at an averageannual rate of
1.1 percent between 1973 and1989, com-
pared with 2.4 percent in thepreceding
25-year period. live;">Proponents of IT argued
(20) that it takes both time and a criticalmass
of investment for IT to yield benefits, and
some suggested that growth figures for
the 1990’s proved thesebenefits were
finally being realized. They also argued
(25) that measures of productivity ignorewhat
would have happened withoutinvestments
in IT—productivity gains mighthave been
even lower. There were even claims that
IT had improved theperformance of the
(30) service sector significantly, althoughmac-
roeconomic measures ofproductivity did
not reflect the improvement.
live;">But some observers questioned why,
if IT had conferred economic value, it did
(35) not produce direct competitiveadvantages
for individual firms. Resource-based
theory live;">offers ananswer, asserting that,
in general, firms gain competitive advan-
tages by accumulating resources that are
(40) economically valuable, relativelyscarce,
and noteasily replicated. According to
a recent study of retail firms, which con-
firmed that IT has becomepervasive
and relatively easy toacquire, IT by
(45) itself appeared to have conferredlittle
advantage. In fact, though little evidence
of any direct effect wasfound, the fre-
quent negative correlationsbetween IT
and performance suggested thatIT had
(50) probably weakened some firms’ compet-
itive positions. However, firms’ human
resources, in and ofthemselves, did
explain improved performance,and
some firms gained IT-relatedadvan-
(55) tages by merging IT with complementary
resources, particularly humanresources.
The findings support thenotion, founded
in resource-based theory, thatcompeti-
tive advantages do not arisefrom easily
(60) replicated resources, no matter how
impressive or economicallyvaluable
they may be, but from complex,intan-
gibleresources. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-11-17 03:33:42
收藏
收藏
楼主
