揭開托福寫作的真面目

　　托福獨(dú)立寫作題目見多了，你就會發(fā)現(xiàn)處處是針對人性的拷問和對價(jià)值的權(quán)衡。

　　“你是否同意移居其他城市會造成老朋友的丟失”其實(shí)是在問，“友誼能否經(jīng)得起距離的考驗(yàn)”;“你喜歡看教育類節(jié)目還是娛樂節(jié)目”其實(shí)是在呼吁答題者考量“媒體內(nèi)容對于觀眾的正負(fù)面影響”;而“你是否同意年長的朋友給予的建議更優(yōu)”其實(shí)是在質(zhì)問“年齡”與“智慧”是否具有正比例關(guān)系;甚至，它激起了關(guān)于“或許有時(shí)人們需要的不是更正確的而是更適合的建議”的思索。

　　我們?nèi)羰菍⑼懈＊?dú)立寫作擬人化，他一定是個(gè)眉頭緊蹙、竭思苦慮的年輕人，像米開朗琪羅的大衛(wèi)永眺羅馬那樣，他心系天下，事無巨細(xì)地憂愁著、永遠(yuǎn)警醒。

　　他曾重重地從理想的云端跌落，被慘敗擊潰。因此他問：“是不是人就不該懷抱野望，而要更務(wù)實(shí)地跟隨唾手可得的夢想?”

　　他看到一邊是經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技蒸蒸日上的發(fā)達(dá)國家，另一邊是掙扎在生存危機(jī)里的第三、第四世界，感到殘酷與荒謬。于是他問：“太空探索是否是種財(cái)力的浪費(fèi)?”

　　他渴望成功，因此他會問：“商業(yè)應(yīng)是敢于冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，還是要保守地靜待時(shí)機(jī)?”

　　他想要效益化地利用自己的時(shí)間，因此他會問：“大學(xué)生應(yīng)該學(xué)習(xí)他們感興趣的專業(yè)還是選擇將來就業(yè)容易的專業(yè)?”

　　他困惑、迷茫，對自己沒有身份認(rèn)同感，因此他會問：“人應(yīng)該特立獨(dú)行，還是隨波逐流?”

　　他深陷迷思，想要事業(yè)有成、風(fēng)光無限、成為人們眼中理性跋扈的金融大亨，卻又舍不得詩與遠(yuǎn)方、水仙花和白月光。對，他就是這樣膚淺、幼稚，透過他二元論的狹隘視角將一切極端地分割和歸類，非此即彼的處世態(tài)度，卻又妄圖魚與熊掌兼得。

　　托福獨(dú)立寫作就是這樣一個(gè)令人憐愛又鄙夷的小孩。

　　而我們要做的便是為他答疑解惑，驅(qū)逐彷徨的迷霧。

　　這其中他最喜愛問的，就是“深度VS廣度”這一價(jià)值觀沖突。

　　例如2016年10月22日的考題：Some believe that young people should do various activities while others believe that they should focus on one activity that is important to them. Which one do you think is better and why?

　　又例如官方題庫中的一道經(jīng)典題目：Some universities require students to take classes in many subjects. Other universities require students to specialize in one subject. Which is better?Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

　　筆者認(rèn)為對這類涉及到“泛OR?！?、“廣OR深”話題的題目，采用支持“廣泛涉獵、綜合發(fā)展(dabble in multifarious bodies of knowledge in order to develop into a well——rounded person)”的立場是更好駕馭且更符合大眾的價(jià)值觀取向的。

　　那么具體論證段落又該怎樣下筆呢?這里向大家推薦一種視角：太過專業(yè)反而有礙于解決問題(有點(diǎn)“淹死的都是會游泳的”的意味)。

　　試看以下段落：

　　School is a path to convergence in most cases. You start out broad and end at a point, from kindergarten where you’re learning multiple subjects to a PhD where you’re expected to master the most specific area of one topic.

　　However，as elegantly concluded by Abraham Maslow，“if all you have is a hammer，everything looks like a nail，” a depth of knowledge can narrow one’s focus so much that they approach problem solving in the worst way. Instead of thoroughly breaking down a problem，they make it larger and more complex.

　　(漢譯：上學(xué)就如同一個(gè)萬法歸宗的過程。始于萬象，止于一方——在學(xué)前班時(shí)我們還學(xué)著各種不同的科目，到了修博士時(shí)卻被要求成為僅一個(gè)方面的導(dǎo)師。然而太過局限于一種視角的話反而會陷入盲區(qū)，無法順利解決問題，就像馬斯洛說的那樣：“如果你只有一把錘子，那一切都會看起來像個(gè)釘子”。相反，這樣的人會使問題更嚴(yán)峻復(fù)雜，而不是徹底瓦解它。)

　　以上文字相當(dāng)適宜作為開篇段落來回答此類題目。它很自然地概括了由泛至專的教育大環(huán)境，起到了短暫的讓步作用;而后很快轉(zhuǎn)折，利用名人名言作為起承轉(zhuǎn)合的軸承，讀起來邏輯銜接流暢，不會突兀。

　　這里筆者要提醒大家務(wù)必要記得Abraham Maslow(one of the most cited American psychologists of the 20th century)!只要遇到物質(zhì)VS精神的話題，均可以用到他的“馬斯洛需求層次理論”(Maslow’s hierarchy of needs)。(譬如能夠切入“友誼和人際關(guān)系很重要因?yàn)槿说淖晕覍?shí)現(xiàn)取決于它們的前提”這個(gè)角度。)

　　當(dāng)然了，支持泛與專結(jié)合的立場也是個(gè)相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的抉擇，對于擅長辯證思維、文筆成熟的考生而言是最能夠展示自己寫作水平的立場。那么文章的最后是幾段這種中立立場的素材，推薦大家學(xué)習(xí)和積累。

　　Oh，did I mention that 知識的“寬”是breadth而不是width哦。

　　You always need some of each. Possessing only a depth of knowledge would make you an idiot savant，fantastically capable at one thing and helpless in all other matters.

　　Having only a breadth means you know a little about everything, but not enough to be useful at anything. There is a certain amount of depth needed for broad knowledge to be useful.

　　If you are trying to push the boundaries of human knowledge, depth is important. It's why PhDs can be very specific. You need to know nearly everything about a very specific topic. However，breadth is still useful，as it can let you draw on ideas from other areas.

　　Breadth of understanding is an expression of the ability to operate across disciplinary boundaries in a coherent and productive way, with principles drawn from different disciplines. Depth of understanding depends upon mastery of a body of knowledge, but it is not to be confused with knowledge, and is not necessarily commensurate with the number of courses taken in a subject.

　　Depth and breadth of understanding depend upon，and they themselves contribute to, independence of thought; they contribute also to a love of learning.