01 段落組織結(jié)構(gòu)

01 段落組織結(jié)構(gòu)

英語文章中的段落是由一些有所聯(lián)系的句子對某一中心思想或者共同主題進(jìn)行闡述而結(jié)合在一起的單位。通常來說，段落組織結(jié)構(gòu)有演繹型、匹配型、假設(shè)——真實(shí)型和問題——解決型四種方式。接下來，我們就為大家一一介紹這四種方式。

1.演繹型

何為演繹？演繹指的是文章開頭先給出一個(gè)總的說明，然后下文對這一說明進(jìn)行具體的闡述。這樣的段落組織結(jié)構(gòu)是最為常見的，并且一般多用于說明文。

2.匹配型

這種結(jié)構(gòu)主要是對兩種事物進(jìn)行對比，有的是將這兩種事物的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)一一對應(yīng)闡述，有的是先說完一件事物，接著再說另一件事物。這樣的結(jié)構(gòu)一般見于議論文。

3.假設(shè)——真實(shí)型

這樣的結(jié)構(gòu)一般是作者先提出一種社會(huì)上普遍認(rèn)可或者某些圈子里認(rèn)可的觀點(diǎn)或態(tài)度，在下文中進(jìn)行論述，闡明自己的態(tài)度或觀點(diǎn)，或者對以上觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行反駁，或者闡述真實(shí)情況。這樣的結(jié)構(gòu)一般常見于議論文。

4.問題——解決型

這個(gè)也很好理解，作者在文中先提出面臨的問題，也就是寫作背景，接著闡述自己對這個(gè)問題的看法，提出自己的意見或者解決方法，文章最后會(huì)對自己提出的方法進(jìn)行評估。這種結(jié)構(gòu)常見于科學(xué)文章或者社會(huì)時(shí)事評論。

超強(qiáng)實(shí)踐

請大家試著找出以下文章的段落組織結(jié)構(gòu)類型。

-1

The California Department of Public Health has failed to effectively investigate nursing home complaints, a state audit released Thursday found, with a total of 11,000 unresolved complaints in its system.

The department, which is responsible for monitoring more than 2,500 nursing homes, classified more than 40% of these complaints and incidents as having caused or being likely to cause harm to a resident.Yet the state auditor's office found that the average number of days these complaints were open ranged from 14 to 1,042 days.

The Santa Rosa-Redwood Coast district office had 102 open complaints and incidents that posed a threat to a resident's health or life.On average those incidents remained open for almost a year, according to the audit.

Auditors said the California Department of Public Health oversight for processing complaints was inadequate, adding that until recently it had not established a system to track unresolved complaints.The agency had also failed to set time frames for when a complaint should be closed.

Nearly 1,000 of these complaints were against certified nurse assistants and home health aides.On average they remained unresolved for eight months, and 22% of them were in the two most serious priority categories, the audit found.

The department was also inconsistent in the quality of its investigations, auditors said.The San Francisco district office closed complaints without supervisors reviewing them in four of the 10 investigations that were examined.

Among the audit's recommendations are for the department to establish and implement a formal process for monitoring the progress of open complaints and incidents for all of its offices.The audit also recommended that health officials establish a specific time frame for completing their investigations.

The California Department of Public Health said it was in the process of developing policies and procedures for complaints against nurse assistants and home health aides.But the agency said it disagreed with establishing time frames for investigations.

-2

Every five years for the last decade and a half, a film has appeared out of nowhere and effortlessly dictated the next half-decade of horror.In October 1999, for instance, The Blair Witch Project managed to wrestle the genre back from the gibbering self-awareness of the Scream years, scaring audiences stiff with little more than wobbly footage of trees and snot.

Then, a decade ago, Saw came along and set the agenda for torture porn by throwing a grisly series of moral conundrums—and Ben from Lost—into the mix.And then, after that, Paranormal Activity's widest theatrical release in 2009 turned everything upside down once again, by scaling things back and focusing on anticipation over overt scares.

And now it's Halloween 2014.Another five years have passed.By rights, we should be throwing ourselves at the feet of a new gamechanger; a film that's lurched out of left-field, reacted to the predominant horror tropes of the day, made buckets of cash and set us off on a new path of terror.Except, that clearly hasn't happened.

The biggest horror film of the moment is Ouija, a knackered, critically reviled Hasbro franchise that half-heartedly hits all the beats you'd expect it to and then limps away again.That's it.That's the big Halloween release.Aside from that, this year's horror output has been a soggy collection of sequels (The Purge: Anarchy), spin-offs (Annabelle), rip-offs (As Above, So Below), and reboots so graspingly unnecessary that they make your teeth hurt to even think about them (Dracula Untold and I, Frankenstein).Not only has there been no gamechanger, there's barely even been an original idea.

Admittedly, the big films of 1999, 2004 and 2009 all wore out their welcomes especially quickly.Blair Witch essentially destroyed its own future in 2000 with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows, a rush-released conventional horror so uniformly reviled that its own writers used the DVD commentary to berate it at every turn.

By upping the gore level of the previous instalment at the expense of such things as basic logic, the Saw sequels quickly descended into such irrelevance that they're currently best known for inspiring a quite-good Thorpe Park rollercoaster.And, even though Paranormal Activity's formula—40 minutes of static shots of corridors followed by a vase falling over—was barely enough to sustain two films, that hasn't stopped the producers from churning out sequel after sequel to increasingly jaded reactions.

In spite of all this, the kernel of each idea has been strong enough to force an entire genre down a new avenue.They're each the product of an enterprising film-maker with a big idea that outstrips their budget or experience.And there doesn't seem to be another one of these on the horizon.

The horror scene of 2014 looks a lot like that of 1994, with producers just idly spinning their wheels until the next big idea comes along.Then, as now, audiences had to make do with sequels like Leprechaun 2 and Watchers 3, or films that had post-colon subtitles such as Lord of the Dead (Phantasm 3) or Raven Dance (Mirror, Mirror 2) where their plots should be.

But let's not give up hope completely.It might just be the case that a film from 2014's fallow crop is simply setting the scene for the next big thing.That happened 20 years ago, too—though disappointing, the Nightmare on Elm Street sequel Wes Craven's New Nightmare demonstrated fleeting metatextual touches that laid the foundation for the phenomenon that was 1996's Scream.So, perhaps the future of horror is simply hiding in plain sight.Who knows, maybe in 2016 we'll be able to look back and see that the future of horror movies was Zombeavers all along.

-3

The second crash this week of a space craft is a setback for the fledgling field of space tourism, aerospace experts say.But it's unlikely to stop an industry that has attracted a trio of ambitious, daring billionaires like Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk from trying to open a pathway for ordinary citizens to travel into space.

VirginGalactic's SpaceShipTwo, which was designed to ultimately carry paying passengers into suborbital space, crashed Friday in the Mojave Desert during a test flight.The accident occurred three days after an Orbital Sciences rocket headed to the International Space Station exploded within seconds of liftoff in Virginia.

The long-term effect of the accidents on the burgeoning commercial space travel industry will likely be slight, experts say, but it may hobble the businesses that suffered the losses in the short term.

“It's unfortunate that both mishaps happened in one week because it has an impact on people's impressions,” said Leroy Chiao, a former NASA astronaut who has flown four missions to space.“I think the long term impact on commercial space flight will be minimal but there are significant setbacks for both companies.”

Speaking at a news conference Friday, Virgin Galactic's chief executive George Whitesides said “Space is hard, and today was a tough day.” But, he added, “We believe we owe it to the folks who were flying these vehicles as well as the folks who have been working so hard on them to understand this and to move forward which is what we'll do.”

Virgin Galactic was founded by billionaire and aviation enthusiast Branson, the colorful British entrepreneur who launched Virgin Atlantic and several other airlines.

Musk, founder of PayPal, has Space X, which designs, builds and launches space vehicles and rockets.And Amazon founder Bezos has launched Blue Origin, a company that is “working to lower the cost of spaceflight so that many people can afford to go and so that we humans can better continue exploring the solar system,” according to its website.

Those men, and the pilots, engineers, and others who have been helping them to push into space understand that it can be a dangerous enterprise, says Bob Weiss, president and vice chairman of the XPrize Foundation, which a decade ago awarded the $10 million prize to the creators of SpaceShipOne, the predecessor to Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.

“I don't think that overall it's going to set back space tourism,” he said of Friday's accident.“The people that are directly involved with this effort understood the inherent risks.This was pioneering work.Test flight always has risks involved and those risks are taken so that they can be mitigated or eliminated as much as possible, whether it's for an airplane or space craft when they're made operational.”

-4

Earlier this year I started my own running blog, Running the Line, joining the hordes of other wannabe runner-writers and the thousands of running-related websites.The experience itself has made me reflect upon the nature of the relationship between writing and running.

Judging by the explosion of running bloggers sharing their race reviews, training programmes and advice on staying motivated, the activities are inextricably linked.And perhaps part of an explanation for this stems from the similarities between running and writing: it is common to see both pursuits attracting descriptors such as discipline, perseverance, and endurance.These reflect the perspiration required, as well as the importance of making them part of your routine.You know that some days will be more challenging than others, when you'll stare at a blank screen for hours—or the prospect of lacing up your trainers feels like a chore.Sometimes running, like writing, is a slow and incremental process.It's a case of putting one foot in front of the other, and using words to move from one point on a journey to another.

Novelist Haruki Murakami explores these intertwined fascinations in his book, What I Talk About When I Talk About Running, attributing “most of what I know about writing fiction I learned by running every day”.On the one hand running is about constantly striving for new challenges, setting fresh goals, and completing longer distances.On the other we express how this makes us feel through our words.

Drawing upon my own personal experience, running for me helps to create a productive space for “mind wandering”, where creative thoughts crystallise and ideas incubate.On a long run, mentally I am able to envision whole sentences and paragraphs with a cognitive flexibility that I rarely have when sitting behind a desk.

Historically there are a number of writers who also claimed running facilitated the creative process.American novelist Louisa May Alcott was reportedly a devoted runner, whilst fellow countrywoman Joyce Carol Oates ascribes the twin activities of running and writing to “keep the writer reasonably sane and with the hope, however illusory and temporary, of control”.

The philosopher Henry David Thoreau, meanwhile, wrote “the moment my legs begin to move my thoughts begin to flow”.Others have used running as a metaphor to explore ideas.Struck by the serene calmness of a young man bedecked in a running vest and shorts trotting past his cottage, Alan Sillitoe wrote down two alliterative lines of verse.These went on to form the basis of the short story The Loneliness Of The Long Distance Runner.

Anecdotally, literature suggests that creative people sometimes use physical activity to overcome mental blocks and a dearth of inspiration.More scientifically, several studies have implied a connection between aerobic exercise—which increases the flow of blood to the brain—and enhanced mental capacity, though the evidence remains inconclusive.Earlier this year a study by Oppezzo and Schwartz demonstrated that walking boosts “creative ideation”both in real time and shortly after, although the authors tentatively suggest that other mind-freeing activities (eg.knitting) may have similar effects.

An alternative interpretation underlines the introspective nature of both running and writing; that both need focused concentration.Running, like writing, is an intensely solitary pastime, which itself creates a space to think.

Returning to my own runner/blogger experiences, the mindset of determination and routine has become an important aspect of the creative process.On one occasion when I was out running I was consumed by an outpouring of free-flowing prose.On arriving home I immediately grabbed my notepad, furiously jotting down the words tumbling out of my brain onto the sweat-soaked paper.When creativity flows, it really flows.Just like an invigorating run—the type that unclutters your head, and causes your mind to wander through new questions and curiosities.

Of course the idea that creativity is an abundantly available resource merely waiting for the correct application (eg.physical exercise) to extract it ultimately feels deterministic.There have been occasions when, regardless of the distance, I've simply run out of steam, colliding head-on with the creative wall.Similarly there have been times when I simply haven't felt like running.But these moments have been fleeting, and the commitment to regularly write new content for my blog has gone a long way in silencing the routine internal monologue as to whether to pound the pavements or find something more appealing to consume my leisure time.

-5

In just a decade, Thai-American designer Thakoon Panichgul has accomplished a lot.

He launched and sustained his own namesake luxury clothing label, Thakoon, as well as the contemporary-priced Thakoon Addition collection, which is sold in 180 stores around the world.He's collaborated with both Target and Gap stores on cheap-chic collections aimed at different customers.And he's made a fan out of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has worn his feminine-yet-sporty floral designs on several occasions.

But at age 40, Panichgul is part of a sandwich generation of American designers.He's no longer a rising talent supported by the Council of Fashion Designers of America and Vogue magazine's Fashion Fund, or one of the industry's numerous other prize programs dedicated to identifying new talent, and too often cycling through it.And he's not yet an established name in the vein of Marc Jacobs, Ralph Lauren or the late Oscar de la Renta.

Nevertheless, Panichgul, who is privately funded and based in New York, is still very much in the fashion game.He's just rolled out his first handbags at Barneys New York.The retailer hosted twin celebrations in New York and L.A.to celebrate Thakoon's 10th anniversary, and also produced a capsule collection based on past best sellers.

-6

Out here in Exampleland, Pete and Frank always leave Philadelphia at noon and pass Helen and Irma in Altoona at 4:30, but no one will tell you how fast they're going.And when you're planning for retirement, you can always figure out what percentage of your income you can save, but no one here will tell you what you'll have when you leave the office for the last time.

Today we're going to show why, and what you can learn from that—because you can always learn something in Exampleland.We're going to start with Joe, who started saving for retirement at age 30 in 1975 and retired at age 65.Joe's younger brother, Ralph, also started saving at age 30, but does so four years later.You'll soon see why Joe hates Ralph, and it's not because Ralph briefly dated Abba's Agnetha F?ltskog while visiting relatives in Sweden.

Joe invested all his retirement money in the Standard and Poor's 500-stock index and reinvested his dividends.So did Ralph.Each of them earned the median family income—half is higher, half lower.For Joe, that started at $11,800 in 1975, or $46,453, adjusted for inflation.For Ralph, who starts saving in 1979, that's $16,461, or $49,225 adjusted for inflation.Wage growth was a real thing in the 1970s.

Both Joe and Ralph saved 10% of their income each year for retirement.We use nominal dollars for our calculation—that is, not adjusted for inflation—because those are the kind of dollars you get deducted from your paycheck.

Why does Joe hate Ralph? Because Joe retired with $672,000 in his retirement account, while Ralph left work with $906,000—a difference of $234,000.

As can only happen in Exampleland, both Joe and Ralph had identical savings plans, but they would end up with vastly different results.The reason was entirely due to accidents of birth.Joe retired at the end of 2009, shortly after the worst bear market since the Great Depression, while Ralph, who retired at the end of 2013, had time for his investments to recover and even grow larger.