2019「外研社·國才杯」全國英語寫作大賽榮耀落幕！決賽選手們面對賽題文思泉湧，佳作頻出，驚豔賽場！
自本周起，小U將陸續為大家展示今年決賽寫作真題及高分作文，揭秘選手破題角度、寫作思路，同時力邀寫作領域專家解讀點評，帶你深入體會文中精彩！今天，跟隨小U一起來欣賞議論文最高分選手的精彩呈現！
真題分享
選手破題思路
嶽珏嘉 東南大學（指導教師：朱麗田） 2019「外研社·國才杯」全國英語寫作大賽季軍
讀畢題目，我理解材料中的觀點為：從自然選擇的角度出發，人工幹預對人類進化造成了破壞，因此應反對人工幹預。但材料所謂「人工幹預」恰恰是人類文明的體現。人類文明的進步，使人類可依靠科技和文明手段區別於動植物，以人類獨有的方式「進化」。有了這樣的思路後，我定下了本篇題目及論述重點。
行文過程中，於開篇表態，針對題目中的擔憂，提出自己的反方立場，即所謂「人工幹預」實則是人類文明，不應因文明先進輝煌而遭受譴責和抵制。後續段落分別通過舉例論述觀點，回應材料中提到醫療進步、基因技術和人工智慧這三個角度，明確這些看似「幹預」人類進化的方面，正是人類進化的體現。通過一步步歸謬，我對材料觀點進行反駁，增強論述的說服力。最後一段總結全文，呼應標題，重申人類文明比人工幹預更值得思量。
其實，我選擇這樣的立意，是有些劍走偏鋒的，但支撐我堅持成文的是希望能夠以己之力提醒有technophobia（技術恐懼）的人們，在科技飛速發展的今天，毋須談科技色變，更不要鼓吹停止發展的論調。文明和發展本無罪，發展問題要依靠發展去解決，恐慌和抵制並不能解決問題，更可能帶來文明的倒退。
作品欣賞
Human Civilization Outshines Human Intervention
Recent years have witnessed the heated discussion concerning the potentially dire consequences entailed by the unprecedentedly fast development of human society. Some people fear that the uncontrolled advancement of science and technology will bring about adverse ramifications which would eventually take a deadly toll on human beings itself. According to them, "the doomsday clock is on the verge of striking" if we do not endeavor to stop human intervention before it is too late. However, my view on this issue is different. The so-called "human intervention" is, if we view it from another perspective, actually "human civilization", which is not supposed to be to blame for its grandeur and sophistication.
In the first place, the fast-growing medical technology have been making great contributions to human evolving. Thanks to the progress made in medical cares and hospital facilities, human beings are able to live longer and survive harsh circumstances under which our predecessors are vulnerable to disease and death, such as the dessert zones or icy Antarctic areas. Also, human beings have been developing special treatments to combat what was formerly seen as incurable cancers, such as malaria, AIDS, and Ebola, managing to save lives and increase people's sense of security and happiness. All the uplifting results is evidenced in the global life expectancy surging from about 40 years old in the 20th century - the number of which was much dismal in under-developed countries - to over 65 nowadays. Therefore, instead of claiming such human interventions prevent us from adapting to infectious disease through natural selection, we ought to come to the realization that humans are evolving in a more effective and efficient way, that is, through technological advancement.
Secondly, the highly developed genetic knowledge is increasing biodiversity instead of destroying it. Since human beings became curious about how life forms and how myriads of organs and systems function in human bodies, the world has seen the burgeoning of biotechnology and genetic research. Through all the amazing findings by scientists and researchers, human beings not only have a better grasp of the secrets of life, but also propose new ways to enrich life forms. Because of cloning, we are able to "duplicate" endangered animals which would have been extinct otherwise. Because of genetic advancement, we are able to produce hybrid corns and vegetables, which have been pulling millions of people out of the risk of starving to death. Because of genes transplanting, we are able to create creatures we never see and also many other intriguing possibilities. Evolutionary change is not necessarily achieved by longitude natural selection, but also can be accelerated by modern genetic engineering.
Thirdly, the wider currency of artificial intelligence adds rather than distracts. Increasing automation and diminished human contact is the reality of today: a world where dexterous robots replace endless rows of Chinese workers and the trading floor specialists on New York Stock Exchange are ready to hand over the keys to Wall Street's version of SkyNET. That traditional teachers in classrooms give way to their counterparts on YouTube, under the auspices of the leaders of digital economy, is inevitable. Maybe that is necessary. But that is not the reason we should stop it - at least it's cheap and convenient. A case in point is the MOOCs, or Massive Online Open courses. It is essentially online classrooms, and are easily accessible to courses designed by professors from prestigious universities, such as Yale, Caltech and Duke. Even though MOOCs may in a large extent replace traditional teachers, it offers platforms and opportunities for those who fail to be accepted to selective colleges or those who cannot afford expensive high-quality education. It is therefore concluded that machines and modern technologies can be a blessing in disguise.
It may be argued that, no matter how we whitewash advances of modern age, human practice has been definitely intervening the laws of nature. It's true that humans aren't always comply with how nature works, but the interplay between human and nature can also be seen as human's utilization and transformation of nature by using their endless creativity and ingenious mind. More importantly, there's no point denying the advancing of human society. If the case is exactly what the author of the given paragraphs expects, all human intervention should be eliminated, and the best way for humans not to "intervene" is stopping developing, halting making progress and reducing back to barbarous creatures like any other beings then thousands of millions years ago. Needless to say, it is ridiculous and unrealistic.
In a nutshell, human civilization, another interpretation of "human intervention", should not be stopped or discouraged. The effects of human intervention in biological evolution of the human species pales in comparison with the profound significance that human civilization have on human species in terms of modern advanced technologies. The claim "Humans have stopped evolving" is, in my standpoint, "Humans have been evolving, but in a unique human way". And this is, in essence, how humans evolve far smarter and far more sophisticated than any other living beings.
（為真實展示選手賽場上的寫作風貌，文章為從iTEST 大學外語測試與訓練系統中摘出的原生作品，僅供學習分享使用。）
名師點評
John Olbrich 任教於清華大學 2019「外研社·國才杯」全國英語寫作大賽評委
The judges were asked to evaluate the essays in the writing competition according to three criteria: content/ideas,organisation/development,and language. I shall follow this format.
Content was excellent, very well-argued and thought-through. The writer’s range of knowledge of current social issues was impressive, covering genetics, cloning, AI, disease, MOOCs and the New York stock market. She/he argued persuasively for the continuing evolution of humanity through advances in medicine, AI and technology rather than along Sir David Attenborough’s more simplistic view of evolution as a Darwinian survival of the fittest.
Organisation and development were also outstanding. The writer followed a logical progression, numbering her/his points and with clear and ordered writing. Sentence structure was good, and her/his ideas were presented with clarity and intelligence. The argument had an introduction, definite paragraphs with separate points and a clear conclusion, and the argument was easy to follow yet with intricate knowledge.
Language was where the writer fell down. Although complex vocabulary was used widely and for the part correctly, this piece is not immune from simple grammatical mistakes – in particular
singular/plural 單數/複數; please remember that a singular noun must take a verb also in the singular, and vice versa. For example: technology (singular)/have (plural); cancers/was; uplifting results/is; it/classrooms; effects/ pales; civilization/have.
「Dessert」 is what follows the main course at a western meal; presumably the writer meant to say 「desert」.
Please try not to use clichés such as 「in a nutshell」 (used by the writer), 「it is a truth universally acknowledged」, or 「every coin has two sides」. These expressions are fine, but if every student uses them then they lose their effectiveness.
In general, try not to use elaborate or complex vocabulary unless you are certain that you know what these words mean. This writer did use vocabulary correctly, but many students did not.
In general, this was an outstanding piece of argument, clear and logical and using a wide range of ideas and concepts.
讀罷這篇賽場佳作，是否對你有所啟發？歡迎在下方評論區說出你的觀點！
小U還將陸續帶來更多高分作文與專家解讀，敬請期待！