- 2018年05月09日10:40 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（1063）
这次的SAT写作的文章，没有一个数字，没有引用，没有专家，没有权威机构，reasoning部分也没有信号词，让很多还有模板依赖的同学大呼不适应。很明显，18年以来， CB选用的文章已经放弃了原来“浅显易懂”的分析要素—引用权威、数据以及明显的对比，过去三次考试，CB选择的文章更看重reasoning，所以多见的是cause-effect，root cause， clarify misconception等，这种趋势值得大家重视。请看针对5月5日SAT写作的分析解读及高分范文。
此次SAT写作的文章Give the Data to the People选自2014年地New York Times，文章浅显易懂，歌颂地是当下的“分享经济”，鼓励更多的pharmaceutical companies分享临床试验数据，互通有无，分享相关地试验数据，提高研发新药的速度，减少药物的副作用，为社会做出更多的贡献。 这篇文章的evidence部分主要运用的是medical evidence 和典型案例分析(case study)，并且用业内的leader做role model，增强persuasiveness;Reasoning的部分来说，主要的是contrast和cause-effect analysis，此外还有pre-emptivecounterargument; emotional appeals主要集中在文章的最后，用sense of duty/responsibility/ Samaritan spirit(好人精神)来uplift social morale.
纵观全文，虽然没有同学们最钟爱的Statistics 证据，但是具有很多关键的factual evidence 。这其中采用了concession and rebuttal的论证关系来阐明公开早就数据的可行性。对于目前的现状，通过irony来表明数据公开的紧迫性和必要性。而在文章末尾，又通过parallelism来列举该项计划的好处。可以组织的点比较多，但是一定要注意作者自身的参与是本文的一大亮点，也就是通过自身付出的努力来获得读者进一步的信任，以专家的姿态展现对于困难与好处的理解，并以科学的严谨态度和责任感来获得共鸣。
Give the Data to the People
In his opinion piece "Give the Data to the People" the author Harlan Krumholz emphasizes the importance of Open Data Access Project (YODA), dispels potential concerns thereof and urges more pharmaceutical companies to open clinical trial data to the world for public good. By citing recent news, role models, addressing root causes and using emotive language the author manages to makes his argument persuasive.
To begin with, the author cites a recent development of the YODA Project that Johnson & Johnson, a world's leading pharmaceutical company announces to participate. The Project is designed to make all of its "clinical trial data available to scientists around the world". "This is as an extraordinary donation to society" comments the author who, in this powerful way, begins his article and successfully grabs readers' attention to the topic under discussion, that is, the sharing of clinical trial data.
To follow, author informs the readers a rather disheartening fact that today "more than half of the clinical trials in the US" are not published. This is a stark contrast to the Samaritan decision of Johnson & Johnson. Worse, even when studies are published, the actual data are usually not made available to the public. The author argues that such practice has "troubling implications" for instance, full information on a drug's effects may "never be discovered or released" and end-users of research are "forced to accept the report" without independent re-evaluations. These two implications are indeed fearful reasons to change the status quo of the current practice. As it is known to all, drugs may have ill-effects, so the fact that drug's ill-effects are not disclosed to the public is rather disturbing, thus paving way for more popular support for the Project. Also, the author assumes a rather solemn tone, criticizing the practice as a "violation of a central tenet of the scientific method”, a very serious accusation indeed.
Next, the author addresses the root cause of why pharmaceuticals refuse to open data: their worries about competition as well as potential legal complications if mistakenly used by incompetent scientists. To readers, although the author acknowledges legitimacy to some extent, both reasons could be dismissed as ego-centric or little regard for public good. To dispel these concerns, the author quotes two more industrial leaders such as GSK and Medtronic, both support the Project, as role models and argues that, with more pharmaceuticals sharing such data, "the more we find that many of these problems fail to materialize". To buttress his claim, he quotes YODA's partnering with Medtronic in 2011 with a view to exemplifying how the Project works and its importance to the society. In this case, he cites a medical cancer-treatment device that the Medtronic produces. Unsurprisingly, conflicting results were revealed after two independent reviews, based on the data that the companies made available globally, were commissioned. It is noteworthy that the author's choice of a life-threatening disease perfectly echoes what the author fears as troubling implications if pharmaceuticals refuse to do so. Furthermore, the author dispels potential concerns from pharmaceuticals, the misuse, or even worse, the abuse of such data by emphasizing YODA's role in the Project--gatekeeping. The author repeatedly uses "we" to emphasize his team's role during the whole process. As one of the world's most prestigious university, Yale's reputation is undoubted; therefore readers would be relieved about their unnecessary worry. At this point, the author's apt employment of contrast, logical reasoning, exemplification and Yale University's reputation and authority as referral would suffice to convince readers of the YODA Project.
Toward the end, the author wraps up the importance of the Project by eulogizing the benefits of data sharing. He uses a set of parallel sentences, long sentences Interwoven with shorter ones to create a sense of urgency, appealing to pharmaceutical companies' duty for public good. Phrases such as an organization play a role as a "good global citizen", scientists to "use the data to learn new ways to help patients" are used to uplift individual companies for public good.（667词）