请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版
设为首页收藏本站

一起SAT论坛

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

更多»
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友 discuz
查看: 416|回复: 1

(评分4-3-4)SAT OG(2018)-P954 THE LOVELY STONES FROM Christopher Hitchens

[复制链接]

3

主题

3

帖子

85

积分

付费学员

Rank: 3Rank: 3

积分
85
发表于 2017-12-1 09:55:05 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
In this passage, Christopher Hitchens, through repeatedly using juxtaposition, delicately choosing descriptive language, and effectively employing numerous rhetorical devices, has successfully persuaded the readers that the Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Athens and that it is for the all human being’s good to reassemble sculpture which possesses great aesthetic values.

Beginning from the second paragraph, the author manipulates antithesis to impact the readers and force them to admit the point he is trying to convey. Christopher first informs the readers that the Parthenon has indeed experienced mutilation for several times in the history. There is even a “powder magazine” detonated and incurs huge damage to the structure. However, the “damage done by ages”, as the writer calls it that way, are not irreversible at all. In fact, the solution to that is to return and reassemble the separated pieces of the structure. This evokes the readers to wonder what the temple would look like if it was reconstructed. By comparing all the pain the structure has come through and method that is possible to restore the structure, the author easily hooks the reader’s attention and curiosity. In addition, the author also utilizes comparison in later paragraphs which specifies  what the Athens did long time ago and what they do now, suggesting that the pieces of the structure that are currently in London should, with every reason, be sent back to Athens since they have become more responsible towards what to do to the treasure of mankind. In general, the author provokes the readers to consider what good will it do to reassemble the structure, which is considered a “right thing”, by using contrasts.

Besides using comparisons, the author also enhances his argument by deploying descriptive language throughout the passage. After the first comparison of what the structure has suffered and what can be restored, the passage introduced to the audience about what the structure would look like if it was in one piece. By depicting the three crucial elements of the structure, which are “pediments” of Gods, panels with historical wars on them, and frieze which represents humans, gods, and animals that “made up the annual Pan-Athens procession”, the author explicitly emphasizes the beauty of the structure and its cultural value. Based on the greatness of the structure, the return of all the other pieces of the temple seems a very reasonable request. By acknowledging the readers about the beauty of the temple, the author provides the baseline for his argument which is that the reconstruction of the structure, to make it into one piece, is important and meaningful.

In order to further stimulate the readers, the author inputs rhetorical devices into the passage as a reassurance to let readers think. For instances, Christopher uses a rhetorical question to express why people would want the temple rebuilt into one piece. By using analogy, as it is Mona Lisa in the passage, the author questions the readers if they would like to see the picture reunited if it was separated in halves. The author then immediately set examples about the temple itself to ask the readers whether they would like to see the head of goddess Iris in Athens and her body in London, creating parallel structure. The answers to these questions would be no, obviously. So powerful are these rhetorical devices that they can easily make readers find themselves nodding in agreement with the author that the temple should be reconstructed and all the parts of it should be returned to one location.

By consistently asking readers to consider facts and consequences, the author has successfully persuaded them that the original Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece. Different strategies the author uses such as comparisons, precise language, and rhetorical devices have all contributed to his final goal.

回复

使用道具 举报

176

主题

333

帖子

1万

积分

管理员

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

积分
11523
发表于 2017-12-1 10:22:31 | 显示全部楼层
In this passage, Christopher Hitchens,through repeatedly using juxtaposition, delicately choosing descriptivelanguage, and effectively employing numerous rhetorical devices, hassuccessfully persuaded the readers that the Parthenon sculptures should be returnedto Athens and that it is for the all human being’s good to reassemble sculpturewhich possesses great aesthetic values.

Beginning from the second paragraph, the author manipulates antithesis toimpact the readers and force them to admit the point he is trying to convey.Christopher first informs the readers that the Parthenon has indeed experiencedmutilation for several times in the history. There is even a “powder magazine”detonated and incurs huge damage to the structure. However, the “damage done byages”, as the writer calls it that way,
areis not irreversible at all. In fact, thesolution to that is to return and reassemble the separated pieces of thestructure. This evokes the readers to wonder what the temple would look like ifit was reconstructed. By comparing all the pain the structure has come throughand method that is possible to restore the structure, the author easily hooksthe reader’s attention and curiosity. In addition, the author also utilizescomparison in later paragraphs which specifies  what the Athens didlong time ago and what they do now, suggesting that the pieces of the structurethat are currently in London should, with every reason, be sent back to Athenssince they have become more responsible towards what to do to the treasure ofmankind. In general, the author provokes the readers to consider what good will it(it will) do to reassemble the structure, which isconsidered a “right thing”, by using contrasts.

Besides using comparisons, the author also enhances his argument by deployingdescriptive language throughout the passage. After the first comparison of whatthe structure has suffered and what can be restored, the passage introduced tothe audience about what the structure would look like if it was in one piece.By depicting the three crucial elements of the structure, which are “pediments”of Gods, panels with historical wars on them, and frieze which representshumans, gods, and animals that “made up the annual Pan-Athens procession”, theauthor explicitly emphasizes the beauty of the structure and its culturalvalue. Based on the greatness of the structure, the return of all the otherpieces of the temple seems a very reasonable request. By acknowledging thereaders about the beauty of the temple, the author provides the baseline forhis argument which is that the reconstruction of the structure, to make it intoone piece, is important and meaningful.

In order to further stimulate the readers, the author inputs rhetorical devicesinto the passage as a reassurance to let readers think. For instances,Christopher uses a rhetorical question to express why people would want thetemple rebuilt into one piece. By using analogy, as it is Mona Lisa in thepassage, the author questions the readers if they would like to see the picturereunited if it was separated in halves. The author then immediately setexamples about the temple itself to ask the readers whether they would like tosee the head of goddess Iris in Athens and her body in London, creatingparallel structure. The answers to these questions would be no, obviously. Sopowerful are these rhetorical devices that they can easily make readers findthemselves nodding in agreement with the author that the temple should bereconstructed and all the parts of it should be returned to one location.

By consistently asking readers to consider facts and consequences, the authorhas successfully persuaded them that the original Parthenon sculptures shouldbe returned to Greece. Different strategies the author uses such ascomparisons, precise language, and rhetorical devices have all contributed tohis final goal.

能准确理解文章主旨及重要细节,分析到位,但是角度太单一,三个主体段落都是语言修辞角度,建议一个换成证据方面的分析,写作结构清晰,过渡自然,句式多样。阅读:4分;分析:3分:写作:4分。

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册 一键登录: 更多»

本版积分规则

QQ|权利声明|小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|一起SAT论坛 ( 闽ICP备16038975号  

GMT+8, 2018-7-21 21:38 , Processed in 0.141941 second(s), 30 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表