Issue 24

　　"Such nonmainstream areas of inquiry as astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits play a vital role in society by satisfying human needs that are not addressed by mainstream science."

　　这个题目是讲主流和非主流的关系，提的方面是科学领域内。但是这个题目里面我自认为的一个问题是，speaker把astrology，fortune-telling，psychic,和paranormal pursuits也归结为科学的范畴内了，但这些都是我们通常成为的伪科学(pseudoscience)的几个典型方面。

　　这个题目，目前我没有想到什么好的方面来支持这个speaker的正确性。希望有持支持观点的朋友来说说你自己的看法伪科学的相关释义附在点评最后处

　　This statement actually consists of two claims: (1) that non-mainstream areas of inquiry are vital in satisfying human needs, and (2) that these areas are therefore vital to society. I concede that astrology, fortune- telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits respond to certain basic human needs.

　　干净利索的分析了题目，但是个人认为还不是分析的很透彻。

　　However, in my view the potential harm they can inflict on their participants and on society far outweighs their psychological benefits.

　　自己观点出来了，反对。是一个让步的关系，先承认了是有此方面的作用，用了however来了个转折给从更大的方面给否了。

　　Admittedly, these non-mainstream areas of inquiry address certain human needs, which mainstream science and other areas of intellectual inquiry inherently cannot.

　　开始驳斥了，首先肯定了其之作用。

　　One such need involves our common experience as humans that we freely make our own choices and decisions in life and therefore carry some responsibility for their consequences. Faced with infinite choices, we experience uncertainty, insecurity, and confusion; and we feel remorse, regret, and guilt when in retrospect our choices turn out be poor ones. Understandably, to prevent these bad feelings many people try to shift the burden of making difficult choices and decisions to some nebulous authority outside themselves--by relying on the stars or on a stack of tarot cards for guidance.

　　具体分析了这些种‘学科’产生的具体原因。

　　Two other such needs have to do with our awareness that we are mortal. This awareness brings a certain measure of pain that most people try to relieve by searching for evidence of an afterlife. Absent empirical proof that life extends beyond the grave, many people attempt to contact or otherwise connect with the so-called "other side" through paranormal and psychic pursuits. Another natural response to the prospect of being separated from our loved ones by death is to search for a deeper connection with others here on Earth and elsewhere, in the present as well as the past. This response manifests itself in people's enduring fascination with the paranormal search for extraterrestrial life, with so- called "past life" regression and "channeling," and the like.

　　这个部分的逻辑关系简洁明了，写的很利索。写出了这些“science”存在和产生的理由。阐述的也可以说是比较的exclusive---这个单词大家不要忽略，等我们开始分析ETS范文的时候你就会发现在满分范文的评语中这个单词会多次出现的。这个是对testee的逻辑思维的一个考量的方面。

　　While the sorts of pursuits which the speaker lists might be "vital" insofar as they help some people feel better about themselves and about their choices and circumstances, query whether these pursuits are otherwise useful to any individual or society.

　　开始了自己的质疑。

　　In the first place,用一个非常普通的用于连接的词语开始了自己的列举because these pursuits are not rooted in reason, they are favorite pastimes of charlatans—经典，非常好的否定，hit home。and others who seek to prey on dupes—好，一个单词就直截了当的表明自己的想法driven by the aforementioned psychological needs. And the dupes have no recourse. After all, it is impossible to assess the credibility of a tarot card that tells us how to proceed in life simply because we cannot know //where// the paths not taken would have led. Similarly, we cannot evaluate claims about the afterlife because these claims inherently defy empirical ?这个形容词是经常用来解释pseuoscience的用词，我后面会给大家附一个伪科学的解释大家可以多次找到这个empirical这个词--proof--or disproof.

　　这个部分反驳的是这些所谓‘科学‘存在的理由以及可信度。驳斥的干净利索，一点也不拖泥带水，最后几个figurative expressions完全表达出了作者的意思。干净漂亮！

　　In the second place,衔接上面一段的陈述without any sure way to evaluate the legitimacy of these avenues of inquiry, participants become vulnerable to self-deception, false hopes, fantastic ideas, and even delusions.开始陈述这些所谓的科学的害处了。首先来的是对个人的害处。In turn, so-called "insights" gained from these pursuits can too easily serve as convenient excuses for irrational and unreasonable actions that harm others.引申到了对他人的害处。On a personal level, stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of reason and empirical evidence can lead to self-righteous arrogance, intolerance, anti-social behavior, and even hatred. Moreover, on a societal level these traits have led all too often to holy wars, and to such other atrocities as genocide and mass persecution.最后扩展到了整个社会的深度上来

　　In sum,开始结尾陈述了。I concede—承认部分的advantages，一看这个词concede就知道后面要出来转折-- that the non-mainstream pursuits that the speaker lists are legitimate insofar as they afford many people psychological solace in life. However,出来转折了，意料之中，开始陈述反对意见的总结陈词咯when such pursuits serve as substitutes for reason and logic, and for honest intellectual inquiry, participants begin to distrust intellect as an impediment to enlightenment. In doing so, they risk making ill-conceived choices for themselves and unfair judgments about others--a risk that in my view outweighs the psychological rewards of those pursuits.说明从整体的角度来看还是害处要多于好处。

　　这篇文章逻辑层次非常鲜明，而且行文过程中运用了figurative expressions的修辞手法，显示了作者对语言的驾御能力，属于一篇写的非常漂亮的文章。尤其是作者的逻辑非常严谨，几乎挑不出来什么过失。考虑到testing time，这个文章绝对可以拿到5。5---6分的好成绩。

　　说到这个文章中的逻辑，其实，个人认为，ISSUE和ARGUMENT的文章是相辅相成的。你在分析I部分的文章的时候肯定也要运用到逻辑方面的一些基本的表达方式。如果逻辑思维在文章中表达的不够清晰，文章脉络也就不能够被非常好的表达出来，也就相应的影响到你最后的一个分数。而在练习I部分的时候的表达了，语言了等等，对A部分的写作也是大有益处的。就算说是A部分最注重的还是逻辑但是如果没有掌握一定层次的语言表达能力如何能够干净漂亮的向reader表达出自己的逻辑思维来？

　　最近听到很多朋友都说A部分就是摸版了，只要掌握规律就可以了，类似的说法。但是，实际上A还是需要你一定的语言能力的支持的。虽然相对于ISSUE要比较容易拿个好分数，但要满分也相当困难。也需要精彩的表达和出色的写作能力的。希望大家不要顾此失彼。这个题目，我也只想到了如何反驳，但是还没有好的方法来个支持方面的论点和观点，大家可以讨论讨论看看是不是可以从支持的角度来写这个文章呢？这是一个比较challenging了。

　　这个题目中涉及到了伪科学的含义，我暂且列在这篇小评的结尾处给大家做一个参考。

　　pseudoscience

　　A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.

　　Scientific theories are characterized by such things as

　　(a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text;

　　(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;

　　(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory;

　　(d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts;

　　(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs;

　　(f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and

　　(g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe, e.g. orgone energy.

　　Some can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory, e.g., the enneagram, iridology, the theory of multiple personality disorder, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? the theories behind many New Age psychotherapies, and reflexology.

　　Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them, e.g., astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP. Yet, despite seemingly insurmountable evidence contrary to the theories, adherents won't give them up.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when their interpretations of those legends either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von D?iken's, and Sitchen's theories.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances, e.g., anthropometry, aromatherapy, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, and physiognomy.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, e.g., the theories of acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, rolfing, therapeutic touch, and Ayurvedic medicine.

　　Some pseudoscientific theories not only confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.

　　Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory which is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957, 118).

　　See related entries on ad hoc hypothesis, cold reading, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, control study, Occam's razor, pathological science, the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy, pseudohistory, science, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, and testimonials.