Issue-5．"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分范文赏析

The speaker makes a threefold claim: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is the responsibility of the government; (2) government support is needed for large cities to thrive and provide the right atmosphere for creation of cultural traditions; and (3) large cities are the best places for cultural traditions to be generated and preserved. I strongly disagree with all three claims.

【此段结构】  

文章首段首先分析了题中主张，作者将其剖析为三层含义：第一，城市繁荣和保护文化传统是政府的责任；第二，城市繁荣和保护文化传统需要政府的（资金）支持；第三，大城市是保护传统文化的最佳地点。剖析之后，作者直截了当地表明立场——对三层含义全部持强烈反对态度。  

【此段功能】  

首段分析了题中的主张，并且明了地提出了作者的观点。  

First of all, the government has no place subsidizing anything for the sake of cultural preservation. Certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are essential and the government has a duty to ensure that these services are provided or organized. These financial responsibilities might be heaviest in cities and, if provided for, would certainly aid in creating an atmosphere where citizens could thrive. However, these matters have little or no connection with generating or preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is not the job of the government to decide which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy. If that were the case, the choice would be left in the hands of a few officials whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.

【此段结构】  

第二段采用总分结构，段首提出了对题中主张第二层分析的反驳，即政府不需要向文化保护提供资助。作者先后给出两点理由，第一，政府投入的重点应为公共健康与安全等与大众利益密切相关的事务，它们在城市中需要最多财政支持，搞好这些重点事务城市才会繁荣，但与保留文化传统关系依然不大；第二，政府在作为文化产业资助者，难以保持公平公正，有可能扭曲大众需求，因为少部分人会做出出于各种私下考量的决定。  

【此段功能】  

反驳一，对应首段的第二层分析，给出两点论据解释为何不需要政府支持。  

Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not the responsibility of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture, by which I chiefly mean the fine arts, has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, for example, were a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, who supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And in the future cultural support may come from our new technology and media moguls. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.

【此段结构】  

第三段同样采用总分结构，第一句提出了对题中主张第一层分析的反驳，即资助文化传统并非政府的责任。作者指出文化（主要是美术）历来是靠私人或私企赞助，而不是政府。作者先后给出了Medicis家族、Rockfeller等例子，接着又猜想未来会有科技和媒体界的大亨来做同样的事情。末句总结了本段观点，说明政府没有责任干预文化传统的保留。  

【此段功能】  

反驳二，对应首段的第一层分析，用非政府力量历来赞助文化传统保护的例子来解释这不是政府的责任。  

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker suggests that large cities serve as the primary locations for development and preservation of cultural traditions. Actually, a nation's distinct cultural traditions, folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies thrive in small towns and rural regions. While cities do serve as our centers for art, there is a clear disconnect between the modern art of big-city culture and traditional culture as preserved in rural areas. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots. So, by assisting large cities, a government would actually be helping to create a global culture, subsidizing the traditions of other nations' cultures.

【此段结构】  

第四段仍然采取总分结构论述城市并不是发展和保护文化传统的首选地点。恰恰相反，一个国家有特色的文化传统都存在于小城镇和乡村地区，而大城市虽可成为艺术中心，但是城市作为多元文化熔炉，实际上流转着全球化的文化。若想保存有特色的文化传统，选择城市是不明智的。  

【此段功能】  

反驳三，对应首段的第三层分析，对城市是保护传统文化的最佳地点表示了  

In conclusion, a government should not and could not, even if attempted to do so, work to promote or preserve cultural traditions. Cultural traditions are a matter for society to guide. Moreover, if a government were to decide to embark on such an endeavor, it would be prudent to seek rural locations that have gone unchanged as opposed large cities where change is an everyday experience.

【此段结构】  

第五段，作为全文论述的总结，每一句话分别对应了上文第二，三，四段的观点，同时也重申了作者的对题中主张三重含义的反驳：政府不需要也不应该为保留文化传统提供支持；保留文化传统是社会导向的责任而非政府；小城和乡村才是保留文化传统的重镇。  

【此段功能】  

文章尾段，得出结论，表明作者立场——否定题中主张。  

——————————————————————————————————————————

满分要素剖析

一、语言表达
本文语言平实，用词严谨，条理清晰。首段列举一二三看似死板，但读过全文后发现作者从始至终都围绕着这三点展开，很有利于读者理清头绪。作者没有过度使用长难复杂句，但其语法准确，表意明了，可见作者并不追求花哨的表面，而是重视实在的论证。

1、It is not the job of the government to decide which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy. 这一句中的it是形式主语，后面的不定式to decide…needy为本句的真实主语。这样的句子结构保证了句子的平衡感，避免因主语过长带来的头重脚轻感。

2、If that were the case, the choice would be left in the hands of a few officials whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. 这一句使用了虚拟语气，对前文的情况做了假设。Whose引导的定语从句修饰officials。Populace一词的选择也体现了作者的词汇量较为丰富。

3、During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And in the future cultural support may come from our new technology and media moguls. 此句的语法并没有特别高深的用法，但两个选词——magnate和mogul，再次体现了作者的词汇水平。两者都有巨头、大亨、显赫人物之意。中文中有多个词语表达同样的意思，英文中其实也一样，在写作时使用不同的词，读者不会觉得枯燥。

二、逻辑结构
这边文章的风格就是从头到尾简单而严谨，没有华丽的词藻和句式，连用作支持的事例也略微平淡，但作者照章办事般的逐条理性分析还是达到了表达观点且自圆其说的目的。文章的开头即列出三条作者总结的对题中主张的三重意义，然后狠狠地否定了它们全部。作者选取的角度围绕着政府、文化传统和城市，从文化传统不是政府在城市应扶持的重点、对文化传统保留不应由政府负责和城市并非保留文化传统的重镇三个方面来反驳题中主张的三种意义。接下来的三段一一采取总分式解释了反驳的理由，通过选取客观事实和具体事例的描述作为支持，为可能支持题中主张的人士提供了不一样的思考角度。结尾处也很严谨地与三个反驳一一对应，表明了作者的立场。