【2012年4月28日雅思范文】(两篇) - 雅思论坛

议论文试题简直题题都有难念的经。2012年4月28日的大作文好像埋下陷阱，一不小心就以为是与一道老题目完全相同。记得雅思出过好几次关于利用动物作科学实验的考题，也考过如何保护面临绝迹的动物。但这次题目不一样。

通常关键字偏多则论证较难，所以跑题风险也较大，真是不知道何去何从。题目说现代人“no longer necessary” 不再需要“animals for food, clothing, medicine” 利用动物产品作为食物，衣裳，医疗。你同意还是不同意这种看法？回答这种问题往往难以摸着心肝讲道理。

当今世界真的可以不再糟蹋动物--吃其肉，穿其皮，做药品？若说同意则好像很有假装的道德良心，而却这个立场也比较方便吹牛。说不同意又好像良心不安，等于支持可以继续宰割动物，不顾动物的痛苦死活。范文作者干脆陈述两种观点，冒充讨好两方的立场，却也偏向提出不同意的立场。

每当读范文，最好把自己当做考官。检验下一篇原创范文，如果找不到主题，那肯定是跑题了。如果看到连贯不成逻辑，那也肯定结构有毛病。如果发现论证微弱，那更肯定是缺乏内容。

显然作者的母语不是英语。可是，母语外教又如何写议论文，能令读者心服口服？母语写作教练的优势是什么，是不是只有英文道地，作文不够雅思？中教的长处是不是仅仅会讲国语兼做翻译，因为英文不够道地？

明眼人知道低分写作的苦衷是六盏灯不全亮--作文的主题，结构，内容；英文的修辞，句法，字汇。英文作文高分的定义，最好去问考官，或参考官方公布的写作评分标准。

In the modern world, it is no longer necessary to use animals for food, or animal products for clothing and medicine, for example. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Trying to live without exploiting animals for food, clothing or medicine can be a healthy lifestyle, except that that would probably never become a fashion. People in the modern world seem to agree that it is not 100 percent justified to eat meat, clothe in leather, or use animals as medical research subjects; nevertheless, very few people would like to choose to live the vegan way for the benefits of animals, people and the planet. The case for animal rights is likely to go nowhere simply because people can have a choice but animals cannot.

It would be out of the question to imagine that non-human animals could voice their own opinions. As it is, the question whether animals have rights as humans do has never been considered seriously. More recently, however, pro-animal and vegan groups have joined forces in supporting one basic right for animals: the right not to be property. Roughly speaking, people take it for granted that they own the world which they actually do. Of course, the animal welfare movement is being promoted to illustrate no more than moral conscience, certainly with little, if any, cognitive knowledge of, or obvious understanding from animals themselves. As a result, amid various points of view, a parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as there is no unnecessary suffering.

On the other hand, even today common sense seems to imply that humans are licensed to kill animals for food, clothing or medicine. As if authorized by Heaven, people also make animals suffer in other things, including hard labor in farms and transportation as well as entertainment in circus shows. Discussed as a whole, this is more an issue on habitual necessity, or religious, ethnic and health backgrounds, rather than on mere survival . Although the vegan way of life is a healthy choice, most people cannot accept eating a plant-based diet, nor can they avoid using animal by-products for many purposes. Given that plants can theoretically feed, cover and cure, there is nothing like what comes from animals. In short, talking about sparing animals and leaving them alone is too cheap to carry weight since not every person is willing to be a vegan in the real sense of the word.

In all appearances, the animal debate attracts some attention but does not lead to enough action to reduce the pain of animals. Without wearing something like leather jackets and knowing to use medicines from animals, for instance, humans are in part similar to the omnivorous rats that eat anything . So, it is next to impossible for people to change the carnivorous habits and become entirely herbivorous because humans are not born vegans. (Essay created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)

Healthy video games, like healthy diets, are good for children. There is continuing concern that playing violent video games may increase the risk of aggression in players, while less is discussed about the possibility that this activity, if properly monitored by parents, may promote certain positive developments. It may be advisable to reframe the debate in reference to potential costs and advantages.

Obviously, some families are over-worried about the bad effects on kids and teens who have the habit of playing video games, particularly those with violent (or adult) content. To start with, it may be true that children learn their attitudes about violence at a very young age and unfortunately these attitudes tend to last. It is possible that often boys rather than girls are taught to use fighting instead of self-control to handle problems or conflicts. Needless to say, most parents are increasingly aware of their children's poor school performance probably being linked to an addiction to heavily playing video games whose nature is unknown. What is more, it goes without saying that spending too much time in front of the screen is harmful to children both physically and mentally. Further, according to a number of unconfirmed research reports on behavior, some of these undesirable consequences might cause signs of fatigue during the day and nightmares during the night.

To no small an extent, many families actually support video games for having positive effects, including one known as visual-spatial cognition. For one thing, the dispute on video game violence has arguably been narrow in that it assumes that all video games would encourage violence. Contrary to this argument, playing video games may, among other things, help children to practice visual-spatial cognition, a skill needed to solve a math problem or complete a jigsaw puzzle. It should be noted that since few studies examine non-violent games specifically, it is easy to overlook the overall impact of these games. Apart from being entertaining and stress-relieving, many such games prove valuable as learning tools, at minimum related to visual-spatial abilities. Accordingly, to be on the safe side, it behooves parents and children alike to have a wise choice in whether to accept such positive values.

It can be seen that, more often than not, research findings about the effects of playing video games are biased, being focused only on the negative side, or making a claim by seeing some trees without having a wider perspective of the forest . For parents, therefore, the thing to do is to distinguish between good and bad video games, and to limit the screen time for the best interests of the younger generation. After all, video games are not unlike foods of different values; some are tasty and good for health while others, although tasty as well, are not suitable for immature minds.

（作者偏向支持孩子玩电子游戏，因为有其教育价值，反驳反对者的看法窄小，尽是针对有暴力内涵的产品，等于以偏概全，所以立场站不住脚。）

有关电子游戏对于儿童的负面影响，试题不断重现世界各地雅思考区。较多的真题提到有“暴力”内含的游戏，弊端种种，但是请注意这一题并没有出现“暴力”字眼。作者以为一般好玩的益智游戏，好处多多。这是答题的立场，也是这一篇范文的主题。

考题要求讨论正负两方面的观点，考生应该照章行文，不可以忘记检验相对的立场。也不可以忽略提出自己的看法。只有完整答题, 纳入逻辑连贯才能作文提分。当然，更重要的是英文的修辞效率，句法变化，字汇适当。除此之外，成功的议论文也必定具有精彩动人的"RED"论证(supporting evidence=reasons, examples, details)。

论证的内容大致落在中体的承段与转段。红色论证是为了支持主题的立场，少不了举出相关的理由，例子，细节。论证的资源来自个人的知识或经验，或阅读，或观察。假设资源不足，则辅以类比推理，利用抽象逻辑来证明立场。比方说，把健康的游戏比喻为健康食物，或把反对者的偏见比喻为见树不见林。诸如这种类比逻辑，不解自明。

议论文的主旨就是说服读者（考官），不明不白的论证方法只会令人莫名其妙，实际上毫无说服力，肯定难以服人。话又说回来，逻辑思维无非是作文的习惯，习惯成自然。英文文法的应用才真是像逆流行舟，力争上游。写作的船桨就是造句, 一桨一桨的往上划过多重山，则必能考试提分于不知不觉中。