观点冲突的段落

让我们来看看相互矛盾的观点段落。现在在我们的其他节目中，我们讨论了在科学中，通常你不需要阅读任何东西，它是在图表和图表上，这是非常重要的，你不必担心段落。然而，关于相互矛盾的观点，你必须阅读，不幸的是，实际上没有任何图表或图表，所以你只能阅读，这就是你所拥有的。所以在这一节课中，我们将讨论一些非常非常好的解决观点冲突的策略，这样你就可以在考试当天完成这个部分。
让我们回顾一下并讨论一下观点冲突的文章是什么样子的。你只有其中一个，所以记住你有三个数据表示，三个研究总结和一个相互矛盾的观点都混在一起。关于这篇观点冲突的文章，你们将有7道题，所以你们一定要做好这篇文章，因为有了这篇文章，你们就能答对14道题中的7道题。你会在一个普遍的话题上有两个相互矛盾的观点;你可以让两个科学家只是为了一些科学的事情而争吵。让我们看一下，这样你就明白我的意思了。
你会有一段关于科学家的内容一个对科学有某种观点的人。然后是科学家二，他总是不同意，这就是为什么会有相互矛盾的观点。然后你会有七个问题，其中一些只会问关于科学家1的问题，一些会问关于科学家2的问题还有一些会同时问你两个理论。好吧，让我们来看看如何解决这些问题的一些策略。学生们经常看到相互矛盾的观点，他们会说，“好吧，科学家一，科学家二，让我把它们都读一遍。”永远不要这样做，让我告诉你为什么，他们有相互矛盾的观点，有很多科学的措辞。发生的是，你会读到科学家1，然后你会读到科学家2，你知道吗?你会想，‘天哪，谁说了什么?’你真的很困惑，另一件事是ACT的人认为你实际上是要把它们都读一遍科学家一，科学家二，然后进入问题。结果是他们把很多科学家二的东西作为科学家一的诱人的错误答案选择反之亦然因为他们认为，哦，这在你的脑海中是新鲜的，你不会确定你会真的很困惑谁说了什么? And you'll pick the wrong answer. So best strategy for conflicting viewpoints, first read theory one just what scientist one has to say don't even look at scientist two. And then head to the questions and you'll scheme really quickly and find which ones of them are only talking about scientist one, you'll answer those questions. And then you're not going to be tripped up about those wrong answers that have to do with scientist two 'cause you won't even know what scientist two has said.
然后你会读理论二，回答那些关于科学家二的问题。最后你们会跳过，做剩下的问题也就是关于这两个理论的问题。当你看这篇文章的时候，你应该寻找什么?好吧，有几件事首先要做标记。现在你不需要强迫自己做标记，但你需要注意一些事情。你们要看每篇文章的第一行，因为你们知道吗?这通常是在你的观点的段落上，尤其是当科学家要告诉你他或她的观点时，他的观点是什么?这个人是同意、不同意、鼓励还是反对?这通常会出现在第一句和最后一句，实际上通常你应该把它包起来。所以当你看每个段落的时候，要注意第一个和最后一个句子。 Also, cause and effect relationships the ACT loves to ask about these. So, on the passage when you see one thing causing another thing, I would underline it or at least make a mental note. So these are some strategies, let's head to an actual passage and we'll put them into practice.
这里我们有一个真正的观点冲突的段落。我们有一个科学家，记住第二个是科学家，但我们甚至不关心科学家2。我们将从科学家1开始，然后回答关于科学家1的问题。记住，第一行通常非常重要，通常会告诉你整篇文章要讲什么。“转基因作物有潜力通过提高作物产量和减少对化学农药和除草剂的依赖来帮助保护和保护环境。”好吧，这就是这位科学家要讲的听起来他在推广转基因作物，这是你的第一句话。你可以在它下面划线，你也可以记住。好的，让我强调一些关键词，比如，“帮助保护和保存环境的潜力”。这似乎是他最关心的?因果关系很好，通过增加作物产量，嗯哼，减少依赖。 So, 'Reducing chemical pesticides and herbicides.' Okay try to preserve the environment how? Reducing the chemicals sounds good. 'Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers.' Another cause and effect you don't need to get too neurotic marking these 'cause you'll draw a lot of them, but keep in mind we kind of know this 'crop losses' that would be devastating. And it's 'Crop losses from insect pests,' okay, 'resulting in devastating financial loss. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides and herbicides annually. Growing GM foods can help eliminate the application of these chemicals, thus reducing the cost of bringing a crop to market and then environmental impact of these chemicals.' Now we know since he's promoting genetically engineered crops, this might be a cause and effect thing that's going to be important.
他说了什么?他说“种植食物”，这有什么用?这将有助于消除化学物质，从而降低将作物推向市场的成本和对环境的影响。我想强调其中一些术语，作为他的论点中突出的因果关系。他说，种植转基因食品有什么用消除化学物质的使用，这样就减少了将作物推向市场的成本和对环境的影响，很好。我们还能看到什么?此外，还有许多病毒、真菌和细菌会引起植物疾病。“植物生物学家已经培育出了能够抵抗这些疾病的基因工程植物。”好的，我们还有另一件事，哦，顺便说一下，你知道你有基因工程植物它们对外面的疾病有抵抗力。 'Genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and we cannot afford to ignore technology that has such enormous potential benefit.' Okay, again remember the last sentence is usually great too it's kind of sums it all up. And that's what we've got here he's saying this is great, this is my prospective, we can't afford to ignore it. Okay, so we got the gist out of these paragraph here. Remember scientist two comes next but we don't even want to read him, let's head straight to scientist one questions.
好吧，第一个问题是关于科学家的。“根据一位科学家的说法，基因工程植物的预期好处是什么?”还记得我们讨论过这个吗，他说基因工程植物是个好主意有很多原因，对吧?减少农药的使用是一件大事，所有的环境问题，然后是减少作物进入市场的时间，所以它会更便宜。让我们看看这些东西是否与他的主要思想有关主要是关于环境影响的。他还说了最后关于疾病的部分内容?以及这些转基因作物如何减少病害。下面哪个答案听起来最好?“转基因食品有可能解决世界上许多饥饿和营养不良问题。”他有说过饥饿和营养不良吗? No he didn't right? Okay we can cross off A. B, 'A reduction in environmental hazards due to reduced pesticide and herbicide use by farmers.' That sounds good; we know that was his main focus, 'Reduce those pesticides,' right? Let's just check C and D just to make sure. C, 'Introducing foreign genes into food plants has an unexpected and negative impact on human health.' Again totally out there. Now by the way we might find scientist two said some of these things that seem out there to us, but because we haven't looked at it yet we have no idea. So we know C can't be correct either, that leaves D. 'Development of new technologies that have enormous potential benefit.' Now he just talked about how this is a great technology, it has enormous benefit but that's not an expect benefit of genetically engineered plants. So keep in mind, even if something sounds correct in the answer choice make sure it's answering the right question. Okay D is not correct, so the answer choice is B he said, the expected benefit of genetically engineered plants it that it would reduce environmental problems that you have from the pesticides and the herbicides.
让我们继续，这是关于科学家二的，所以我们将再次跳过它，回到过去。两位科学家，我们跳过这个。又来了一个科学家的问题。“科学家一号所采取的立场涉及到这样一个假设:什么?”好的，对于这个问题，你需要仔细看一下答案选项我们不知道题目说的是什么假设。让我们看看他是否假设政府审查了转基因食品的潜在影响并确定了收益大于成本?不是真的，因为他说他在宣传阶段，他只是说'这看起来真的很好'，他没有说任何关于政府。所以这也是存在的尽管他确实谈到了利益但是政府的部分还是不起作用。那么B呢?“转基因植物需要更少的杀虫剂和除草剂。” Huh? That does sound like that's one of his assumptions, he's saying, 'we need this because then we'll reduce our problem with pesticides.' So the implication is that these crops require less pesticide usage. So B looks pretty good, but then let's look at C and D just to check. C, 'Genetically-engineered plants produce Oxygen through photosynthesis.' You'll see this once in a while, totally out there. We didn't even talk about Oxygen, we didn't even talk about photosynthesis, can't be C either. What about D? 'Introducing foreign genes into food plants has an unexpected and negative impact on human health.' Interesting, we've seen genes come up a couple of times; I'm betting that's what scientist two was talking about. But scientist one wasn't, we know, totally out there, not the right answer. So B is the correct answer choice here.
让我们再找一些科学家。好了，这两个问题都有了，这是另一个科学家的问题。“以下哪项研究能支持科学家1提出的论点?”那么，哪些研究能让科学家的论点看起来更有力呢?A，“对制造最有营养食物的基因工程植物类型的研究。”不是很酷，但这确实支持了他的观点。还记得他的观点吗，我们需要这个因为它对环境更好对作物抗病也更便宜有一点但主要是环境。B，“对种植转基因植物的公司所经历的环境效益的研究。”这就是他谈到的环境问题他谈到了农场，你知道，如果他们种植这种作物，希望他们对环境有好处，因为他们需要更少的杀虫剂和除草剂。同样，B看起来很好。 Let's head to C and D. 'A study of potato plant mutations in North America.' Potato plants, definitely not, we never talked about those. And it wouldn't boost his argument and all. And D, 'A study on the most commonly used pesticides by farmers in developing countries.' This is tricky because you see pesticides, 'Aha, I saw that on the passage, maybe it's right.' But if you had to study about the pesticides it doesn't say, does it say that this pesticides are good? Does it say that there's a lot of them? Does it say that there's not a lot of them? And it's not, so it's not specific enough to boost his argument, right? This study might say something like 'oh pesticides in developing countries, no problem,' that would ruin his argument so this is a really tricky one because it's not specific enough to be the right answer choice but it does have that detail thrown in from the passage about the pesticides. So it's tricky, but this is incorrect. So again our answer choice is B.
这是第六项;我们来看看第七题是不是关于科学家一号的，不是，是关于科学家二号的。现在是时候读这篇关于科学家二的文章了。
两个科学家;让我们开始阅读吧;“转基因作物在解决许多饥饿和营养不良问题方面具有巨大的潜力。”我们说过第一句话很重要。听起来他像是在推销，我有点怀疑，因为另一个人也是，所以我们来看看这幅图是否有更多的东西。“在支持使用转基因植物之前，我们必须首先考虑对环境的危害、对人类健康的风险和对经济的影响。”啊哈，所以实际上他对此非常谨慎，他说它们确实有好处，但在支持使用它们之前，我们需要考虑它们对环境的危害，对人类健康的风险和对经济的影响。我甚至可能会强调这一点，因为这似乎就是他的意思，在支持他们之前，我们需要首先考虑环境危害，人类健康风险以及与转基因作物相关的经济影响。有趣，所以他不是一个粉丝，或者至少他说我们需要更加谨慎，我们从前几句话就知道了。
其次，美国和欧洲的许多儿童对花生和其他食物过敏，危及生命。将基因引入植物可能会产生新的过敏原，或者在易感人群中引起过敏反应。”好的，这里有因果关系，所以要记住。将基因引入植物可能会产生新的过敏原，或者在人体中引起过敏反应。好的，还有什么?“人们也越来越担心，将外源基因引入食用植物可能会对人类健康产生意想不到的负面影响。”好的，到目前为止还没有具体说明，但他只是说，一般来说，越来越多的人担心外源基因可能会对人类健康产生负面影响，也许我们还没有想到。这是另一个因果关系引入外源基因，对人类健康的负面影响，因果关系。
接下来，“最近的一篇文章研究了转基因土豆对大鼠消化道的影响。”我们来看一个例子。“这项研究声称，喂食转基因土豆的老鼠和喂食未转基因土豆的老鼠的肠道有明显的差异。”政府必须谨慎行事，避免我们对这项强大技术的热情对人类健康和环境造成意想不到的伤害。”
好了，所以我们有了土豆的因果关系，可能不像他的整体观点那么重要因为这只是一个小例子，所以我不打算标记它，但因果关系是，嗯，这些人吃了转基因土豆，你知道吗，他们的肠道有一些明显的差异，有趣。然后他以一种谨慎的方式结束，所以政府，这是政府的正确之处，政府必须谨慎行事，避免在我们使用这种转基因作物时对健康和环境造成意想不到的伤害。这是科学家二，现在让我们回到科学家二的问题。我们做了这个，科学家2。“科学家二对转基因植物的问题有什么看法?”记住我们说过的，他是;他说，这些作物可能会带来很多好处，但我们需要非常谨慎，使用这种作物可能会对人类健康和环境造成危害。
让我们看一下答案选项。A，“政府需要审查基因工程植物和食品对人类健康的潜在影响。”很好，这几乎是直接从段落中抄来的，你们偶尔会看到这些。这对你来说真的很好，它会直接回答你的问题。但是我们先跳过B, C和D再检查一下。
“转基因植物没有危害，所以不需要采取任何行动。”恰恰相反，他是说它可能有害，或者研究表明它至少可以有所作为，所以我们需要采取行动，好吧，不是b.c，“研究转基因植物食物的影响表明这些食物会影响老鼠的消化系统。”这很棘手，因为这又是直接从文章中得出的但它能回答问题吗?我们想知道他对这些问题的总体看法，所以是的，这可能会导致他们肠道的不同，但这不是他的全部观点，这只是他为了支持他的观点而举的一个例子。所以C选项太窄了，不可能是正确的。D、“转基因食品对人类健康没有实质性影响。”再一次，与他所说的相反，他说可能有或者它们可能，所以我们要进一步研究，所以A是我们的正确选项。让我们和科学家二一起寻找更多的答案。这两个问题都有，这是科学家一号和最后一个问题，第七个是另一个科学家二号问题。“还有什么进一步的进展会削弱科学家二的观点?” Okay, before we look through these technical answer choices, let's think about it for a second. What was his point? His point was we have to be cautious right? There might be some problems and you know what? When you introduce new genes sometimes there's allergies and we have some studies that show that people's intestines are maybe it was rats, intestines changed a little bit, so we've got to be cautious. What would weaken his, that this case? Maybe something saying 'Hey, these foreign genes not so bad.' Or 'The changes in the human body not so bad.' Right? That's that would weaken his case. So which of these answer choices says something like that?
好吧,一个。“新药物的开发有助于减轻儿童花生过敏的症状。”这是一个很好的技巧，因为他确实谈到了花生过敏，但想想看，如果他说“啊哈，我们有一种针对花生过敏患者的新药”，这是否会削弱他的论点?不完全是，因为他说，‘我们根本不想让他们过敏。’所以在引进这种新作物时要小心。所以A是不正确的，那B呢?一篇发表在权威医学杂志上的文章强调了接触农药对儿童的负面影响棘手的是，这要追溯到科学家1。是他说“农药是个问题”，对吧?环境影响，也许是对人的影响。 But scientist two really not talking about pesticides, so B is not going to be correct. What about C? 'A study by a reputable university that foreign genes have predictable and positive effects on human health.' Huh? This might be it. There's a study that shows, you know what this foreign genes are predictable we don't have to worry about them and not only that the effects are positive, that would truly go against his point which is that we have to worry, what's going to happen when we introduce foreign genes into the human body. So C looks great but let's just look at D. 'A leading economist findings that reducing pesticide usage does not affect the cost of bringing a crop to market.' Huh, again, they pulled this from scientist one right? But totally not what scientist two was talking about. Great, in the answer choice, C will be correct. Now we're going to go back and just do the one or two questions that ask you to compare both scientists. So let's go back to the beginning, three is the first one about both of them. One is a point which both scientists agree. Alright, well let's think about it for a second. They didn't have a lot of agreement, the first scientist really for it, the second scientist really weary right about it. But we did have that beginning where we weren't even sure about scientist two's point of view because he said something like 'There really are a lot of benefits that we could get' and then he said 'but' and that was the rest of his point, we have to be careful. So really the only thing we can think of that they do agree about is that there are some benefits that maybe could happen with these genetically modified crops. Let's take a look at the answers.
首先，支持使用转基因植物的证据尚无定论。一位科学家甚至都没有考虑到他们是否有结论，他只是说，“好主意，让我们做吧。”对吧?所以只有科学家2说，‘我们得小心一点。我们对这些研究不太确定。”B呢?“杀虫剂真的不会造成太大伤害。”这不是他们都同意的，第一个科学家说这是个大问题。杀虫剂，你什么时候处理掉它们?科学家二并没有过多地讨论它们。
C，基因工程植物有解决问题的潜力。这个听起来真的不错。因为记住，科学家二在他讨论所有可能的问题之前，他确实向另一边点头说"嗯，你知道吗?“这真的很棒，但是……”所以C看起来不错，因为一个科学家完全认为这是个好主意。所以他们都认为他们有解决问题的潜力。D呢?只是为了确认一下。“昆虫让植物分心，增加了将作物推向市场的成本。”科学家说，天哪，这太贵了，这就是为什么我们需要这种转基因作物。 But Scientist two didn't really mention that at all, so we know answer choice C is correct. Let's look for the other question about them both.
开始，第5题。“为了反驳科学家二的观点，科学家一可能会注意到什么?”好了，让我们停下来思考一下。科学家二的观点是对的，我们必须非常小心，外源基因的问题，也许是人体的问题。好吧，科学家能告诉他什么来反驳他的观点呢?让我们看一下答案选项。因此，“研究表明，农药使用的负面影响超过了与外源基因相关的潜在危害。”这是一个有趣的问题。如果科学家1对科学家2说，嘿，听着。你知道吗，我很担心农药暴露，我告诉你，这里有一些研究表明，实际上，农药的使用更糟糕，这比外源基因的危害更大，所以我的危害比你的更大。” That might be good to refute his opinion that we need to be really weary about introducing this crops. So A looks really good but let's just check B, C and D.
众所周知，杀虫剂对人体健康有害。嗯?我的意思是，这并不能真正反驳科学家2的观点，他并没有说，它们有害，它们无害，他只是说我们必须小心对待转基因作物。所以B不可行。C、“通过有机农业技术来保护环境是可能的。”又来了，有点突兀，对吧?和我们这里讨论的并没有什么关系。D，“食物中的外来基因导致喂食转基因土豆的老鼠肠道出现明显差异。”这是一个小例子，但即使科学家说，啊哈，外源基因导致了差异这实际上支持了科学家二的观点，他说这可能是个问题，因为我们有一项研究，基因会导致老鼠的肠道出现问题。 So D can't be the answer choice here either. And that leaves us with A. Great, that's it for conflicting viewpoints passages. Make sure to practice this on a lot of sample passages at home, so you get a really good idea of how to use the strategies.
让我们回顾一下，我们讨论了回答相互矛盾的观点文章的策略，你如何阅读第一个科学家然后做这些问题，第二个科学家然后做这些问题。然后是关于两者的我们讨论了为什么这是一个很好的策略。我们讨论了要在文章中寻找什么，标出重要的东西，这样你就能轻松地回答问题。最后，我们谈到了练习的重要性，这样你在考试当天就会对这些策略感觉很好。