2. 外语
  3. It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero. Write a response in which you discuss the ex

It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero. Write a response in which you discuss the ex

admin2020-10-09  47
问题 It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
选项
答案 Can any living man or woman be considered as a hero in our society today? For many the answer is negative, because media scrutiny can eventually diminish one’s reputation. While I fully acknowledge the power of the media, I can neither fully agree with the claim nor the reasoning behind it. Instead, from my perspective it is still possible for a society to have living man or woman as a hero. First, regarding the reasoning that media scrutiny will harm a hero’s reputation, it is undeniably true that no one, even a hero, is perfect. As the adage goes, "To err is human", so it is understandable that heroes will have personal flaws. Sir Winston Churchill, the political leader who led the United Kingdom against Nazi Germany is a hero of his age in the eyes of British people. However, his bad temper is also well-known and exploited by his political adversaries through media. This is also true to business leaders such as Steve Jobs, the hero who led the revival of Apple and made it the most valuable company in human history. Although Jobs is a genius in business decision, his reputation is also plagued by his bad temper and tainted private life in the past. That being said, while it is true that no man is perfect, one critical assumption behind the claim and the reason is that media will dig into the personal imperfections of a hero and expose them to the public. Moreover, it is assumed that the public will see and accept the reporting. Both of the two assumptions, however, are problematic. First, it is questionable that the media will scrutinize all heroes under the microscope simply in hopes of finding their flaws so the heroes shall be struck down, because the resources for a media outlet is inherently limited. There is a fixed amount of manpower and time that can be committed, and one has to question what priority the media has. Meanwhile, readers also have a limited amount of mental resource that can be allocated to certain stories. Nowadays with the explosion of information, it has become increasingly difficult to grab the attention of the readership. As a consequence, even if some media indeed pursue heroes and publish reports that could adversely impact heroes’ reputation, the magnitude and the scale of the impact remains uncertain. What is more, a concerning observation of the past years is that the credibility of media has been in steady decline. In the United States, for example, Republican voters have little faith in left-leaning media such as CNN and Washington Post, whereas Democratic voters regard Fox News as a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The increasing distrust in media means that even if people see a damaging piece of information about a hero, they may not accept or believe it. Finally, even if we acknowledge the possibility that media exposure of one’s flaws does diminish one’s reputation, he or she may still be called heroes. To understand the reason, we must look back and consider what makes a hero in the first place. To become a hero, one must possess outstanding traits and/or have remarkable achievements that no other people have. Those are the denning characters of a hero. Even if the image of a hero is tarnished by media scrutiny, as long as his or her achievements still stand, people can still consider him or her to be a hero. For example, despite Churchill’s bad temper, people during WWII and even today still admired him for his courage and persistence that eventually won the war. A similar imperfect but still heroic figure is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the United States’ Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century. No one would deny Dr. King being a true hero for African Americans, a reputation which his sexual scandals and anti-gay attitudes did not and do not invalidate. To summarize, while I agree that no one is perfect and the media can expose the dark side of a hero and diminish one’s reputation, heroes are made because of their superior personal qualities and/ or applaudable achievements. In this light, it is entirely possible for the society to regard someone as a hero today despite their personal flaws. (709 words)
解析     关于英雄问题最简单有效的方法就是，思考英雄为何成为英雄。从我们身边的例子就不难想到，英雄的存在是因为他们身上所具有的某些品质是社会稀缺的、积极向上的。注意社会并没有要求英雄各个方面都完美无缺，
    因此只要英雄的那些“决定性品质”(defining characteristics)存在，英雄就不会消亡。这构成了本文的基础，大家不妨也尝试用上述的思路去写另外一道英雄的Issue题。
    回到本文，一般来说，这个题目如果想拿4分，那只需要说两个主旨段即可：一是承认英雄越来越少，作为让步段；二是反驳“再无英雄”这一理论——这里只需举出现实中的英雄例子即可。这样的回答看起来逻辑完备，但还是缺乏足够的深度。在本文中，我们将敌方观点进行了更为深人和全面的思辨，将“媒体的曝光会影响英雄的声誉”拆成了两个问题： “媒体曝光真的能影响英雄声誉吗?”和“就算影响了，真的会让英雄跌落神坛吗?”第二个问题的回答是否定的，在开头我们已经说过了，原因是只要“决定性品质”不破，英雄就依然会存在。
    本文更值得玩味和学习的论证是第二和第三主旨段，它们提出了这两个问题：在如今资讯爆炸的年代，精力有限的媒体会不会去深挖英雄的黑料?就算有关于英雄的新闻，民众对于媒体的态度会如何?从这两个角度出发，对让步段进行更为深层次的反驳，会比只写现在的第四主旨段让文章更为深刻，论证更加让人信服。
    本文还展现了这样一个现象：证伪一个问题比证明一个问题更加容易。这是由证明和证伪的内在逻辑决定的——证伪只需要一个反例。从写文章的角度来说，驳斥一个观点也比证明一个观点更加精彩。从这个意义上来说，该Issue题目的direction中要求我们考虑敌方观点，我们不仅仅是在逻辑上需要更加全面，更不妨将其视作是一种华丽的、更有戏剧性的论证技巧。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3HkO777K
本试题收录于： GRE ANALYTICAL WRITING题库GRE分类
0

GRE ANALYTICAL WRITING

GRE

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)