“Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years, the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more exclusively on economics and personal finance. She points to a recent survey of readers of general interest magazines that indicates greater reader interest in economic issues than in political ones. Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. 版子里的广大版友对这道题目有着很大的不理解，觉得此题有别于从前的argument出题形式，不再是某人的一言堂，出现了两个当事人，提出了两种状似意见相驳的观点。 看了下题目，前半部分都没有什么问题，说的是Newbeat这本杂志，3年来的销售很低，所以需要整改。publisher提出了一个recommendation缩减政治板块专门去从事财经方面的报道。给出一个调查数据，读者对于财经的兴趣大于政治。谈到此处，话锋一转，出现了另一位当事人，“editor”，出现另一个人也没什么问题，让人受不了的是，此人像是来捣乱的，他的观点是oppose the proposed shift in editorial policy的，顿时我们遁入了云里雾里，心中不禁大惊：“这是怎么一回事！！！！！Argument的套路不是这样的呀！！！”，再看instruction，得不到任何安慰，instruction也很中规中矩，还是找不到头绪，该文章的clue究竟在哪里？？？破题路在何方呀？？？ 对于这道题目，我的看法是，ETS这个一肚子坏水的奸商又来使坏了。首先我们要明确一个问题，谁的话才是真正的recommendation。有板油可能会觉得既然有两个意见，那么我就可以任选一个我喜欢的来写。对于这样的想法我的答案是否定的，题型虽然变化了，但题目并没有变，Argument还是有其明确的目标的。那么对于文章中得recommendation如何来确定呢？ 先看题目： [b] Since those issues of Newsbeat magazine that featured political news on their front cover were the poorest-selling issues over the past three years,the publisher of Newsbeat has recommended that the magazine curtail its emphasis on politics to focus more exclusively on economics and personal finance. She points to a recent survey of readers of general interest magazines that indicates greater reader interest in economic issues than in political ones. Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” [/b] 我们不难发现，红字部分有很明显的指示publisher recommendsXXXXX，而editor 则是opposes the proposed shift，所以一目了然，真正的recommendation在文中只有一个，另一方虽然提出了完全相左的建议，但只是基于recommendation的一个反驳而已，并不能算作是题目要求中得recommendation来看待。 看完题目，我心中有个疑问：editor这段标志异常鲜明的反对观点真的是在反对publisher吗？ [b] Newsbeat's editor, however, opposes the proposed shift in editorial policy, pointing out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” [/b] 我对于这段话的理解是，虽然文章里说editor是反对的，但editor反对的理由却是在支持publisher。各位仔细读一读这位editor的理由： very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore. 几乎没有任何一家杂志社再去广泛报道政治新闻。言下之意：大家都在做publisher所作的事情，削减报道篇幅。这说明什么？说明可能是因为政治新闻不再受欢迎了，所以杂志社才会削减，这不是Newsbeat的经营问题，而是氛围问题。将此处“editor”这个人换掉，换成“publisher”同样是成立的，“Meanwhile, Newsbeat's publisher also points out that very few magazines offer extensive political coverage anymore.” 那么这样的话，我们就很容易理解。当然，会有版友认为，既然其他杂志社不做，我们做的话不是正好很有市场吗？我的回答：“是！”确实有这个可能性，这点没错。但这说明不了问题，因为从有限的信息中你也不能否认其消极的一面，不是吗？我们攻击的就是文章factors的模糊不清和认识不足。 So，我觉得此处ETS和大家玩了个文字游戏，将原本正面的话，反过来说，让大家掉进这个小陷阱....