外研社国才杯图表写作范文(4篇)

外研社国才杯图表写作范文 第1篇

这道题目首先能够让人浮想联翩的是时代——1942年。1942年是第二次世界大战的一个关键时间点，很难让人不联想到那个时代里，战争对于人类，对于整个世界带来的影响。而就这幅画而言，空荡的街道和冷清的餐厅，收敛的人物装束与体态，整体高饱和度冷色调的运用让人明显感觉到压抑感、孤独感、绝望感、迷失感和不确定感。与时代背景相联系，战争的残忍不仅仅体现在硝烟弥漫的战场，对后方的每一个人、每一个家庭也都会产生无尽的痛苦。而画面中的几个人到底是谁？他们之间有着怎样的故事？这些问题都需要我们去思考，去构思，去解决。在我的文章里，“我”，一个painter，以第一人称的口吻，讲述了这幅画背后的故事，让他和这幅画的赠与者的一段对话，带领读者探索一个家庭的忧伤分离故事以及世界大战对于平凡人的影响。或许与画的原意有所出入，但求定格时代，安抚心灵。

名师点评

刘力，博士，硕士生导师，现任中国人民大学大学英语部副主任。担任2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛评委，

合集收藏

备考专辑： & &

语音单词：& & &

新闻英语： & && &

歌曲TED: & & & &

美文故事: & & &

名字外教： & & & & &

微信公众号改版，订阅号消息不再按时间排序，为了防止迷路，希望小可爱们可以动动小小手点个“在看”或者将“小芳老师”添加到★“星标”☆中！让系统知道这是你喜欢看的公众号，这样我们就可以一直就可以永远幸福在一起啊！

外研社国才杯图表写作范文 第2篇

打英辩的时候有一个思路：To prove your worst case better than the other side's best case.这个思路在写这篇议论文时同样适用。即便使用题目中的手段取得了卓越的科学成果，造福了世人（best case），我们人类在这一过程中也失去了更为宝贵的东西——对生命的普遍尊重，以及“人性”这一词汇的深度。

看完题目并确定立场之后（我反对科学家利用动物进行实验），我明晰了自己要论证的事情有三：

我反对科学家利用动物进行实验

1）通过坚持这一立场，我想要达成什么样的效果？我是在默认人类的科学研究进度会因为这一禁令而停滞不前吗？科研成果的取得和实验对象的“赦免”真的是mutually exclusive吗？

2）为什么我会坚持所有生灵皆平等这一说法？有没有理论可以支撑这一立场？

3）为什么会出现这样的题目？这个题目背后隐藏的社会普遍现象是什么？我和题目中的科学家Harlow对科学的目的和意义是不是有不一样的认知？

☆ 我用第一段概括了题目中凸显的中心冲突，同时表明了自己反方的立场。

☆ 第二段用来初步揭露这一手段的弊端：人类的贪婪和野心是无止境的；这样的实验会给动物带来严重的精神伤害（我用了弗洛伊德对trauma的分析佐证这一点）；同时“人性”这一词汇所涵盖范围的扩展和人类文明的进步是划等号的。

☆ 第三段，我回答了上文的三个问题：

1）通过坚持这一立场，我不是默许科研进度的停滞，反之，我希望借这一契机推动虚拟实验技术的进步。我希望通过宣传这一立场，能够将科学家心中人性的标尺具象化，使人类在发展自身的同时对这个世界永远充满善意的敬畏。

2）一切生灵皆平等。我借用了索绪尔的语言学理论论证共情的重要性，同时借用了William Blake的诗句突出人类对自然和世界缺乏敬畏性这一问题的历史性。

3）出现这道题目的原因与当今社会科学飞速发展的背景息息相关。如今人类对科学的重视达到了前所未有的程度，而对科技进步速度的追求也会促使人们淡化心中的道德标尺。而科学的终极目的是什么呢？是全体意义上的造福还是允许少数牺牲的造福？我认为是前者。既然我们发明创造的初心是造福世界上的每一个生灵，那么对于任何潜在的伤害我们都要三思，甚至要杜绝。通过自我反思，我认为本文存在一定的论述限制性。首先是有些词汇的拼写失误，其次通过张文忠教授的赛后指导，我认为此篇文章的论述过于单向。论辩型写作需要对于两个方向的解读和剖析，以及对于对方立场的宽容。

Matthew Arnold曾用Sweetness and Light一文抨击维多利亚时期英国国民过于重视工业进步而导致精神世界荒芜的现象。作为这篇议论文的致意，我希望在当今社会人们追求科技进步的同时永远不要弱化自己内心的道德标尺。

名师点评

本届议论文赛题以美国心理学家Harry Harlow著名的猴子母爱实验为案例，提出一个观点：只要科学实验的结果对人类有利，实验手段是否合理可以忽略不计。参赛选手需要表明态度是否赞同此观点，并进行论证。

初读此篇参赛作品的感受可以用“震撼”两个字形容，细细品味之后发现以下特点成就了这篇优秀的议论文。

1 立论有力

外研社国才杯图表写作范文 第3篇

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 _ 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.

赵隽元，华东师范大学（指导教师：王越）

2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛一等奖

名师点评

外研社国才杯图表写作范文 第4篇

Narrative writing和argumentative writing对我来说其实是完全不同的两种体裁。对argumentative writing，我更注重逻辑、句式和词汇；而在narrative writing中，氛围和主题是最重要的。也可能是因为这样的想法，我看到题目“write a story based on the given painting”时并没有很诧异。因为不过于注重复杂的情节，我在拿到题目时从画作入手，让这幅画引导我写一篇故事。或许是因为这学期接触了较多西方艺术史的缘故，我对art本身是有兴趣的，在此也启发大家平时要广泛涉猎，接触不同的领域。因此，我从composition（构图）、subject（人物）、environment（环境）、color combination （色彩）及历史大背景（二战）入手分析这幅画，自然地在分析过程中得出画家传达给观众的二战时期年轻人的迷茫心态及战争带来的影响。在本篇文章写作中，我没有写大段对话，而是把对话作为推动故事发展的节点，在主人公（bartender）的独白和回忆中给读者展现二战时期人们的精神生活。我希望打破时空的局限，因此在最后留下开放式结尾，希望通过这个故事建立读者与画中人之间的联系，引导他们反思自己、反思过去，走进这幅画，走进自己的心灵。

名师点评

油画完成于1942年珍珠港事件之后，描绘人们坐在小餐厅吃晚餐的情景。三位客人，一个伙计，整个场景笼罩着一种苦闷、孤独和迷惘。当然，不同的观众可能有不同的解读。

虽然题目并未要求选手必须回应1942年所蕴含的信息，但是许多选手仍选择了二战背景。这一篇也是以二战为背景，但却能脱颖而出，令人久久不能忘怀。玩味再三，初读时感受到的那种亦近亦远、清晰又似隔着一层纱的场景依旧让人欲罢不能，那种沉迷而又迷惘的情绪依旧笼罩心头。在89篇决赛记叙文中，这一篇故事通过一位小餐厅（酒吧）伙计的眼睛和心理活动透视世界。其写作手法娴熟，独具匠心，是一篇难得的英语记叙文！

大学生常感到英语记叙文很陌生，无从下手，不知所措。很多记叙文的故事或不完整，或过于平淡，或没有寓意，或英语表达的不达不雅。而这一篇记叙文几近完美，表现出选手深厚的功力，在四个方面可以作为示范。

第一，主题明确，中心突出。这是英语作文中常说的“unity”，也是记叙文最难达到的境界——整个故事围绕一个中心展开。这篇看似没有主线的故事实际上充满了故事，画面中每一个人的故事碎片合在一起，渲染了一个世界，营造了一种情绪。主人公餐厅伙计从意气风发的青年到沉默忧郁的未老心已衰，目睹人世的艰难，感受兄弟身体与心灵的伤痛，品味战争的味道，明白物是人非，但还能从观察人来人往之中获得一些兴致。红衣金发的女子迷失在灰暗的现实中，只凝视吐出的烟圈，不知所思。身边的男子毫无热恋的兴致，甚至不愿开口交谈。另一角落，一位与伙计年龄相仿的黑衣黑帽男子，与这毫无生机的环境融为一体。冷不丁地对“我”开口：“这许多年，已物是人非了”——淡然而不无讽刺的语气。我们看到，每一个人都有自己的故事，几乎一句话就是一个小故事。而这所有的故事又汇成同样的一个故事，所有人的故事都是同一个时代的同样故事——这就是这篇故事的unity所在。在英语作文中能够做到形散而神不散，可见选手对故事的驾驭能力。值得点赞！

第二，描写刻画细致，烘托手法高明。人物刻画细致入微，如Having ordered a glass of beer, she barely talked and carefully, if not indifferently, watched the fog - another lost girl dragged down by the dismal reality, with the smoke exhaling from her mouth turning into a string of glowing circles。文字与画面相映，女子的形象更加鲜活，所传递的情感更加清晰。这种例子在文中比比皆是。讲故事其实是传递思想，但是好的故事不会明说，只是展现。这是我们常说的“show instead of tell”。这篇故事的人物容貌和心理的刻画以及环境的描写，均旨在烘托一种情绪，一种语言表达不清楚的情绪，一种长期的战争带给所有人的一种淡淡的无尽头的迷惘和孤独感。虽远离硝烟，但是每一个人都被囚困在战争中了。他们以不同的形式展示着战争所带来的“囚困”感，正如文中所言：everyone was trapped in the small triangle of their inner self - we only felt emotionally stable and consistent when we stared at the surroundings without nothing interrupting our life.多数选手能够讲出（tell）这种苦闷，但是能够如此清晰、准确、深刻地用英语语言描绘出来的人寥寥无几。这位选手的技艺，用炉火纯青来形容也不算太夸张。

故事的倒数第二段达到一个小高潮：人们为什么喜欢醉于酒中呢？选手用一列排比，道出人们欲逃离战争现实的事实，也算是给全文烘托的一个交代。

第三，英语语言运用准确、娴熟。选手不仅词汇量大，而且使用准确。上面一段中的两个例子已能够体现。再例如“... secures my mind”、“capricious life”、“smelt the war”、“examine the fragile relationship”、“turbulent reality”等搭配使用的准确；“he deserved a salubrious life, yet he was tortured and tormented by the bottomless war groaning like a wild wolf that is desperate to suck human blood”等句子中头韵、拟人、比喻等多重修辞手法在同一个句子中的使用；“I've always wondered why the alcohol was invented - Was it …? Was it …? Was it …?”排比的使用。语言使用中可圈可点的地方很多，足以判断这位选手“浸泡”在英语中已久。

第四，对艺术的感悟能力极强。如果这位选手之前并不了解这幅世界名画，那么她对艺术的感悟力令人惊叹。她描绘的深夜小餐厅的一幕就是战争影响和改变着的人们。每个人都被“trapped”，都“lost”；人们需要一点儿“alcohol”，“we would love to be drunk than sober - it was too painful to remain tuned to the turbulent reality”；战争时期的生活意义对这一代人都一样，“Pathetically, we are all the same - meaninglessness is the ultimate meaning of our generation”。这样的感悟力，既说明名画之出色，更说明我们这位选手之出色。

若说还有一点儿遗憾，有两点。第一，结尾处（最后两段）的高潮似乎还不够强烈，但也可能是选手有意为之——就是要让人感觉意犹未尽。第二，有个别语言疏忽，但也有情可原，毕竟是在竞赛场景的有限时间所完成。

总体来说，这是一篇难得的优秀记叙文。

田朝霞教授 南京师范大学

2018“外研社·国才杯”全国英语写作大赛评委

记叙文2

真题分享

Write a story based on the following painting entitled Nighthawks by Edward Hopper in 1942. You should write between 600 and 800 words.

在记叙文部分，大赛决赛阶段首次采用图片形式作为引入，展示了美国绘画大师爱德华•霍普的知名画作《夜游者》，要求选手发挥想象力，根据该画作写一篇记叙文。