2. 职称英语
  3. Claim: Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historic

Claim: Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historic

游客2024-01-12  53
问题 Claim: Though often considered an objective pursuit, learning about the historical past requires creativity.
Reason: Because we can never know the past directly, we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, and artifacts.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which the claim is based.
选项
答案     "The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." These words from Winston Churchill clearly demonstrates that understanding the past is of great importance. The method to study the history, however, remains debated. Some argue that because we could never directly probe into the past, we can only reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts, documents, as well as artifacts. As a result, creativity actually becomes an essential requirement for learning about the past, even though such efforts are considered to be an objective pursuit. In my opinion, I largely agree with the lines of reasoning above, although I find problems with the premises that the past cannot be directly known and the unsubstantiated assumption that pursuit of learning about history is an objective endeavor.
    To begin with, let’s look at the argument that it is impossible to know the past directly, which I cannot fully agree with. From my own point of view, the history itself can actually be directly known, as there are abundant historical documents that faithfully record what exactly happened in the past. For instance, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was broadcast live in front of the American public so any future historian interested in this event will have direct access to such important archives. Even for some events in the very remote past, there can still be documents on what happened, both recorded in artifacts and in nature. The origin of agriculture for instance is believed to happen around 13,000 years ago beginning in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. This is based on evidence of the remains of agricultural equipment discovered from modern-day Syria and Iraq dating back to that period. Fossil record showing the emergence of domesticated crops also firmly informs us the transition from hunter-gathering to a sedentary lifestyle known as farming. Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the historical past can never be directly known.
    That being said, even though we can directly know the past events, what remains unclear is people’s motivation and what is in their mind. This turns out to be where imagination is needed. As a result, I by and large agree with the claim that learning about the past requires creativity. Let’s take the case of John F. Kennedy’s tragic death as an example. Although his assassination is clearly documented, even to this day it is still not clear why the alleged assassin committed such a crime. This mystery is compounded by fact that the suspect was murdered soon afterwards, forcing people to rely on imagination to infer his motivation. Hence, even though the past can be known directly, understanding what is behind the historical facts requires imaginative capacities. For such an event with detailed documentation and extensive investigations, we still need to creatively interpret some of its elements, so it is not surprising that for events occurring in the more distant past with little or no direct archiving, imagination becomes critical. Similarly, even though we could determine from a wide range of evidence the timing of when agriculture started, one has to speculate the reason why people changed their lifestyle. Could it be the change in Earth’s climate? Could it be simply a coincidence? The real causes for many historical events do not carry a simple, straightforward answer and instead challenge our imaginative faculty.
    However, before concluding my argument, I need to point out one more issue within the original claim. It is claimed that learning about the history is thought to be objective, but I do not think this is the case. To understand the reason, we must go back to the fundamentals on how history is learned. People understand history based on our interpretation of the archives. While it is true that historical documents and artifacts are objective, the interpretation on them is very much subjective. Despite their academic training, historians are still human beings and have biases and preferences. As a result, there could be different views on the same object. For example, the Easter Island, located in the South Pacific, is known for the giant stone statues. Historians have long speculated their purpose and significance: some claim they are the personification of deities, while other argue they represent the ancestors of the island habitants with no religious implication. A different interpretation on the statues could paint a drastically different picture on the island’s religious culture. To date, the mystery of Easter Island stone sculptures remains unresolved, and it illustrates the subjective nature of studying history.
    To conclude, because historical documents are either sparse or do not record people’s inner thinking, learning about the past does require certain level of imagination and creativity. That said, it does not establish the inability to know the past directly, and in the meantime, learning about the past is actually a highly subjective endeavor because it involves our interpretation of historical documents and artifacts. (816 words)
解析     本题认为：研究过去的历史需要创造力，因为我们不能直接获知过去发生了什么，所以要富有想象力地去解读历史记录、文献以及器件。
    注意本题分为了claim和reason两个部分，我们需要分开进行讨论。
    首先，我们来思考reason当中的陈述，我们究竟能否直接获知过去发生的事情呢?本文认为是可以的，因为大量的史实记载了过去究竟发生了什么，譬如肯尼迪总统于1963年在达拉斯被刺杀，整个过程被新闻直播记录了下来——请注意在原文的举例过程中，我们并没有强调肯尼迪是在何时何处被刺杀的，这是因为例子举得好不好并不在于细节的多少，而是例子本身是否恰当。接着本文进一步延展，认为即便是发生在远古时期、没有文献记录的事情我们也可以知晓，譬如农业的出现。换言之，我们清楚地知道肯尼迪总统被刺杀这一事实，也知道农业在何时出现，因此说“直接了解过去是不可能的”这一点并不成立。
    但是，本文也承认创造力在历史研究当中的重要性，这是因为我们不能获知历史事件的原因。在这里，本文使用了一种高明的论证技巧，即对原有例子的新解读。在主旨段第二段中，我们仍然使用了肯尼迪总统被刺杀以及农业出现的例子，并指明：虽然我们有各种历史事件的直接或间接记录，但是它们为什么会发生需要想象力。这里我们延续了上一段同样的例子，但给出了不同的解读，这等于在论证和论据两个层面同时完成了反转，读起来更加令人信服。
    具体来看，原文中有一个让步状语从句，说“尽管(研究历史)被认为是客观的”，这句话很多同学在写文章时把它漏掉了。对于考生而言，想要拿高分就一定要充分利用题目中的信息，所以我们在第三主旨段对这一让步状语从句提出了质疑，认为研究历史本身就是一个主观的过程，因为它包含了我们对史料的解读和对原因的揣测，这些解读(interpretation)都会受到个人的主观偏好影响。
    这道题给我们的启迪是，我们一定要意识到Issue题干当中任何一个词、一句话都是蕴含了信息的，如果是像本题一样有一个完整的从句，那更应该要引起我们的注意——ETS不会将一句没用的话放在题干里。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3356921.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)