说起改革后的新ACT写作，那篇不知被老师分析了多少遍的intelligent machines就赫然浮现在眼前。不管是压棉机的例子，还是人类种族灭绝的恐怖后果， 给出的6分范文始终是我们对于作文重要的参考样本。
然而在近期，在保持1-5分范文内容不变的情况下，官网将范文进行了更换，带来新鲜感的同时也让我们注意到一些对于ACT作文考试要求的变化。下面就文本进行简要分析。
Advances in technology have become so widely accepted in today’s culture that very few people are willing to pause to consider the consequences. People get so excited about what new technologies can offer that they forget to question whether there might be any negative effects. Without caution and deliberation, replacing the natural with the mechanical would undoubtedly be disastrous. | 话题引入部分
观点引入部分
观点表明部分 (支持perspective1) |
The economic implications of the potential mechanical takeover alone should be enough to dissuade anyone from moving too fast. In the event the robots are more widely used in the workplace, humans would surely be replaced. At first, businesses would benefit from the efficiency of robots, but eventually a depressed job market would lead to a population that struggles just to feed themselves and their families, let alone purchase the products these robots make. In the long run, society will suffer if it does not take care to prevent the economic consequences of giving everything over to machines. | 表明观点1(支持perspective1) [经济角度]机器取代人类弊端
打压劳动力市场 |
Our careless use of automation has already taken a toll on our culture. People have been interacting with automation in nearly every aspect of their lives, whether it be shopping, banking, or the use of a telephone. The effect of this is obvious: basic respect for our fellow man is all but absent today because of increased interaction with automation. Why treat a machine with kindness? It suffers no emotional or psychological damage. In a culture saturated with automation, we get used to treating machines rudely, and we begin to treat each other rudely. This of course leads to all sorts of issues, like intolerance and incivility, and in the long run, results in the complete degradation of culture. | 表明观点2(支持perspective1) [文化角度]机器取代人类弊端
人与人之间丧失尊重 |
Even in the face of these obstacles, some people argue that the increasing intelligence of today’s machines is a good thing. After all, machine power can decrease the human work load. Computer processers double in power and ability every year. Computers are projected to reach human intelligence by as soon as 2025.The implications of this shift are unknown, but one thing is for certain. We are moving into this change too fast to anticipate and prevent damage to the human species. We are approaching this change too quickly for any sort of safety net to be built. Because of this, it is important that we as a species slow down our technological development so that we might consider all the implications of a change this big. We must figure out how to handle negative societal and cultural consequences before we embrace total integration of automated, intelligent machines. | 表明观点3 (回应perspective2) 机器的确减轻了人力负担
解释perspective2
perspective2弊端： 此类发展进程过快，导致来不及趋利避害 |
Decreasing the speed with which we incorporate mechanical influence is important because of the potential dangers that lurk in blind acceptance. Not only does the preference of the mechanical over the natural interfere with the job market and the economy, but its use also has the potential to seriously degrade our culture as a whole. In combination with the uncertainty surrounding the increasing intelligence of machines, it is most assuredly better for the human species that technological progress be slowed so that we can, if necessary, prevent additional damage. | 观点总结 (支持观点1)
观点1经济
观点2文化
由于观点1+观点2,所以观点3
|
通过以上分析我们发现整体结构是：
1）段依旧是话题引入+观点提出；
2）第二段立足经济方面，指出机器取代人类会打压劳动力市场；
3）第三段立足文化方面，指出机器取代人类会导致人与人之间丧失尊重；
4）第四段回应perspective2中提到的机器取代人类的好处，但弊大于利；
5）第五段对各段观点观点进行总结。
整体上来看，新的范文的逻辑还是很清晰的，但相较于旧版范文区别在哪里呢？
1）旧版作文采用标准四段式，新版作文则采用旧版5分范文的五段式结构，即“开头+正面论证*2+反面论证+结尾”。相比四段式来说，五段式无非就是将支持观点的两个依据分段写出，但我们认为，五段式的结构从整体上看更加一目了然。
2）新版范文对于得分点的指向更加模糊。例如，类似“This is in agreement with Perspective Two which claims”等较为明确指出回应哪一条观点的句子在新版范文中没有出现。而对于旧版范文，评分标准、文章内容以及分维度评价结合较为紧密，几乎可以根据范文给出的内容推测出出题者倾向于给何种文章较高的分数。我们推测，这一举动实际上是为了弱化ACT范文的强烈指向性，而更多地鼓励考生从宏观着手进行论证，而不是模板套用。不得不说对于习惯模板写作的中国考生来说是个不小的挑战。
3）新版范文倾向于logical reasoning而削弱persuasive examples的使用，即重说理，削弱举例。用这篇全篇没有明显举例的文章替换旧版范文，很强烈地体现出了其考察学生强调逻辑说理的强烈意图。对于善于举例并习惯于考前准备大量例子的中国考生来说这也是一个难度的提升，即不能再用详细的举例来填充字数，而是要体现出自身良好的逻辑思维能力。
综上，我们认为在备考ACT写作时，新版范文可以作为逻辑论证方面的有力参考，参照要求尽量增加论证所占篇幅。而对于采分点则依旧可以参考旧版范文进行分析，如新版范文中没有出现明显举例并不代表举例不再重要，而是要在对举例部分进行适当简化，使得整篇文章由说理主导而非大段例子罗列。希望同学们继续积极备考，取得满意的成绩。
