Write an essay in response to the passage below. You should discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the passage and explain your reasons for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the author's opinion might or might not hold true and explain how these consideration shape your position.
You should write about 800 words.
The moment the innocent little monkey creeps to its pseudo mother helplessly for help, Dr. Harlow's renowned zoo-behavioral-psychological experiment has been referred to as "cruel". As reporters and critics first spot the controversial experiment on monkeys rather than ordinary rats or rabbits which have sacrificed for science for nearly four centuries since the emerging of modern medical science, light has been cast on the so-called legality of all experiments conducted on animals, especially primates. However, the fiercely critical mass media and the public have made a confusion, in my opinion, between science and real-world life, between which lies huge distinction.
To begin with, by analyzing the criticism from the society, we may find a vital mechanism that functions through, which is called "empathy". Empathy is widely considered to be one of the universal characters of human beings, which leads to sympathy and self-identification while one witnesses the "mom-and-kid" tragedy. From my perspective, empathy should be present in daily life, but in science discourse, absent, which can be proved by the development of modern science.
The theoretical basis of the argument is that science experiments are defined to be different from daily life, since the establishment of logic-positivism science. Logic-positivism science, in its usual term, experimental science, stands for a paradigm of research that utilizes experimental approaches to probe the mechanism or relationship underlying the world. As the France philosopher and mathematician Descartes once pointed out, the instant moment people start to view the world, in other words, to explore, they have distinguished themselves from any other surrounding, which means the single word "human" is established in that other objects are "non-human". Descartes' idea has clearly delineated the boundary between science and daily life and thus prevented empathy from intruding the field of science.
Empathy jeopardizes science, since empathy is most likely to prevail, as emotionalism often does. If we scroll back to the Harlow conflict, it is apparent that those critics are mostly emotion-driven, since there is a strong instinct among human beings to endow objects such as plants and animals with human-like emotions, which has been long utilized by romantic poets and playwrights like Shakespeare to produce literally important masterpieces. Emotion never reasons, since we cannot prove the actual and scientific resemblance of the monkey tragedy to be typical human tragedies, but it tempts human into emotional protests and criticism that cannot be soothed easily, as it often does in the theatre, which significantly hinder the progress of science. It is rather hard to imagine that on the day when the switch of emotion is turned on, any science experiment that includes living organisms could be labelled as cruel and immoral. Besides, it should be re-stated that excluding emotion from science experiments does not necessarily equals causing harm to the environment, since basic ethical rules have made regulations on the proper disposal of lab wastes.
To get my point further, we cannot deny the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism, that is to say, a history of experimental science is equivalent to a bibliography of cruelty. Animal experiments have been designed only to avoid unnecessary harm to human, which can get its evidence from the fact that numerous rats and rabbits have long been used as experimental materials in medical schools so as to function as a platform to test newly-developed chemicals or novel therapies. To trace back to the history of science, many of the scientific findings are conducted at the cost of harm to animals or plants, such as the finding of conditioned reflex, which was done on the pet dog of the Russian scientist Pavlov. As I have stated above, the moment the first human being stretched out to the outer world, he started to seek benefit for himself, either emotionally or materially, which, indeed, is deliberately neglected by some humanitarians. As naturalists and animal protectors insist, nature can adjust to the most balanced condition, so once human beings gain, the surroundings lose.
However, harm to animals has nothing to do with cruelty to people, which means ethical regulations on body experiments should never be loosened even to the slightest extent. The uprising issue of two genetically-modified infants that might be immune to AIDS has stirred up hot debates online that spat venom criticism on a Chinese scientist from Shenzhen. From where I stand, I would strongly oppose the gene-editing practice, as it might trigger complicated aftermath and hidden ethical paradoxes that might mess up the whole post-modern society and thus poison ourselves in turn. It contradicts the essence of science, namely egoism or utilitarianism, as I have circulated above.
Aggressive as my points might be, I would like to clarify and reinforce my opinion that the purity of experimental science along with its paradigm must not be stained due to the admixture of emotion and empathy from the one-sided media, while basic ethical rules of environmental protection and regulations on human gene-editing cannot be surpassed according to the core of utilitarianism.
As countless science figures shine beyond: only with rationalism can science progress, so can we insignificant human beings creep nearer, to the core of universal truth.
首先，文章开头部分第一句直接点题，一句话点明这场论争的主题“The moment the innocent little monkey creeps to its pseudo mother helplessly for help, Dr. Harlow's renowned zoo-behavioral-psychological experiment has been referred to as 'cruel'.”，innocent、helplessly、cruel 等词汇突出了强烈的反差效果，激发了读者的阅读兴趣，想进一步了解作者的观点到底是支持哪一方。然而本文作者并没有直接明确地亮出自己的观点，而是笔锋一转，进而分析公众及媒体对此类科学实验进行批判的原因，可以看出作者意在通过发掘另一方观点的逻辑漏洞来论证自己的观点，体现了较强的逻辑思维能力。
第二，作者通过引证哲学理论、定义等论证自己的观点。作者认为公众及媒体混淆了科学与现实生活的界限，现实生活中人们的“共情”心理让人对动物的悲剧性遭遇产生同情，这种“共情”心理不应该侵入科学领域。为了论证自己的观点，作者从逻辑实证主义理论出发，引用了笛卡尔关于人与外界环境及其他非人类的区别的思想the instant moment people start to view the world, in other words, to explore, they have distinguished themselves from any other surrounding, which means the single word “human” is established in that other objects are “non-human”. 以此为理论基础，作者认为“共情”发生在现实生活，而科学研究与现实生活是两码事，不应该让“共情”侵入。
第三，在接下来的一段，作者从反面论证“共情”对科学的影响，提出Empathy jeopardizes science，作者认为赋予动植物以感情是诗人和剧作家的运用的手段，而在科学研究领域，无法证实猴子的悲剧等同于人类悲剧，“共情”反而会阻碍科学的进步。而科学发展的本质在于“功利主义”（the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism），运用动物进行实验研究的目的在于避免对人的伤害，并造福人类，作者举出在医学领域的研究实例，许多重要发现正是通过动物实验来完成的。这样在这场论争中，作者明确地站在了赛题中“I”的立场上，即科学实验的结果比手段更加重要。但作者也就当前的热门话题基因编辑婴儿以预防艾滋病提出了自己的观点，认为基因编辑后果复杂，可能毒害人类社会，因此坚决反对。
1. 文章的观点特别鲜明，但也会有过于极端之嫌，或者像作者本人所说的“aggressive”, 对于相反观点的合理内容没有适当的解析，有些语言表述也过于绝对，例如“the essence of science is absolute utilitarianism”这样反而削弱了论证的力度。
4. 文章的语言整体流畅，但还有部分中式英语搭配的痕迹，例如made a confusion，部分拼写错误或词汇使用不准确。文章中所使用的句式略显单调，例如全文定语从句使用近20处，有部分句子出现了主谓一致方面的语法错误。多数表示因果关系的句子大多使用了since, 也缺少一些变化。
打英辩的时候有一个思路：To prove your worst case better than the other side's best case. 这个思路在写这篇议论文时同样适用。即便使用题目中的手段取得了卓越的科学成果，造福了世人（best case），我们人类在这一过程中也失去了更为宝贵的东西——对生命的普遍尊重，以及“人性”这一词汇的深度。
Matthew Arnold曾用Sweetness and Light一文抨击维多利亚时期英国国民过于重视工业进步而导致精神世界荒芜的现象。作为这篇议论文的致意，我希望在当今社会人们追求科技进步的同时永远不要弱化自己内心的道德标尺。
Scientific Experiments Entail Justifiable Means
Presentations of scientific outcomes are always mired in controversies. To whom the outcome mattars more than the process, it is a practice entailing fame and accolades. On the contrary, the justifiability of experimental methodologies can also arouse copious chatter. Exemplified by Harry Harlow's psychological experiments, certain scientific studies have proved their methodology unsettling. Scientists became embodiments of voracious, intuitive and presumptuous beings, and I share the same fear towards this issue. While the human society is seeking progress in scientific areas, the adoption of the edgiest technologies may born the risk of inflicting truma on the innocents. From my standpoint, I am firmly opposed to utilizing improper deeds to achieve research purposes.
To prove the necessity and variety of maternal bonding, Harlow arbitrarily exercised his "prerogative" as to deprive a baby monkey of his mother's caress and tenderness, and under an international backdrop, this phenomenon is barely one in a million. The processing and advancement of this experiment shall be envisoned as gruesome in a vocarious way. As monkeys can not supersede human beings on the level of intelligence and emotional sentiments, an outcome of precision may require samples of more intelligent bodies. While some laud the achievements and accolades, I lament the innocent samples functioning as guinea pigs. The psychologist, Sigmund Freud, has long pointed out that the trauma inflicted on both human beings and animals can induce mental handicaps. He refers to the aftermath as "repetition" and "repression". Victims shall spend their life hindering a deluge of strong, stimulus reminiscence from dominating their sobriety. While some declare that animals are not as developed in their carnal fuctions as humans, I still deny the justifiability of this practice for their potential damage. Humanity shall cover the range of all beings alive, and the augmentation of this notion represents the advancement of our civilization.
Three arguments can be enlisted in order to strengthen my motion. On the outset, by universally defying scientists' intuitive utilization of animal samples, we are preventing tragedies from being ubiquitous. On the contrary of hindering scientific advancements and delivering assailant comments, we are, in essence, promoting the deveopment of edgy technologies. By reinforcing the idea that scientists can only resort to using the given methods in a terrible predicament, we can provide incentives and momentums for the publishing of virtual experiments. Author of the given paragraph stand unfazed towards the jeopardy for he subconsciously neglected the tentativeness underling those experiments. Doubts are prevalent. Sagacity and meticulousness are required. Inflicting ethical burden on scientists can reduce spiritual damage considerably. Second, all beings enjoy equal rights in terms of mental well-being. Empathy is a necessity. The renowned scholar, Saussure, has long pointed out its significance from the prospective of linguistics by claiming that there exists a certain arbitrariness between the signifier and the signified, while the school of Frankfurt reinforced that idea by manifesting it from an augmented prospective. Human beings are born with a lofty sense of prerogative, and evaluate the ranking of other lives without bona fides. Poet William Blake has stated this issue in a sarcastic way by reaffirming human authority overtaking god's will in his Song of Innocence. By granting a license on scientists' reverie instead of solacing it with due respect, we shall witness drastic exasperation in the near future. Finally, the contention between me and the given author derives from our distinguished definitions on the function and purpose of scientific development. He intends that science shall serve better on the basis of accumulated sacrifices, while I belive the very existence of science fuctions as an effective tool to alleviate suffering and eradicate every possibility of its proliferation. An outrageous methodology of presenting scientific experiments is only a facade of human beings' insatiable demand for development and the insufferable methods they are willing to adopt to fulfill this purpose. The burgeoning intelligence of human is unsettling, for it exacerbates the corruption of our mentality as voracious, presumptuous and intuitive. While human lives are ephemeral, our ambitions everlasts in their pampering of every penchants, even in the name of science, which automatically serves as a potential threat. Once we are exposed to it, our curiosity is bombarded with a myriad of outrageous methods, which are doubtful both in their utility and their legitimacy. Lives are too essential to be harmed by human whims. Astute, tenacious and vigilent as lives are, they shall enjoy due respect and even an ethical asylum to prevent them from future calamity.
By berating and reprimanding the scientists' audacious behaviour, we are literaly rendering them momentums to make asssiduous efforts to simulate experimentation while respecting lives, instead of defying the general experimental mechanism. The given paragraph manifests a prevalent phenomenon in the status quo that the burgeoning scientific progress may incur deviation from our moral criteria. I hope the castigation above shall serve as a siren towards human beings' insatiable ambition in scientific areas, and assist us to seek progress with due prudence and respect.
首先作者用一个完整句作为标题明确提出自己的观点：“Scientific Experiments Entail Justifiable Means”，寥寥五个单词既开门见山、言简意赅地表明立场，又囊括几乎所有关键词，起到点题点睛的作用，堪称精彩巧妙。
第一段介绍人们对科学实验手段的对立看法后，层层递进，在结尾处重申个人立场：坚决反对通过不正当手段达到科学目的（I am firmly opposed to utilizing improper deeds to achieve research purposes.），成功达到了立论的目的。
1） Humanity shall cover the range of all beings alive；
2）I believe the very existence of science functions as an effective tool to alleviate suffering and eradicate every possibility of its proliferation.
2 . 结构严谨
值得一提的是，这一段虽然篇幅长，内容多，但并不显冗赘，得益于有效的组织连接。第一句简单交代本部分包含三条论据，并精炼地使用“on the outset”（注：正确搭配应为at/from the outset）, “second” 和“finally”实现了自然过度，层次分明、逻辑清晰。
3 . 文风独特
语言运用是本文另一大亮点，高级词汇丰富，信手拈来，且专业性强。句型灵活多变，简单句、并列句、各种复合句转换自如。以第三段为例：在第一部分中，作者没有一味使用主复合句，而是以“by”、“on the contrary of”等介词（短语）引导分词短语组成难度较大的单句，并使用插入语等给严肃正式的语言平添几分变化，增强了阅读愉悦感。同时，短句（如：Doubts are prevalent; Sagacity and meticulousness are required.）与长句的结合也丰富了语言的节奏感和力量感。
第二部分的前两句（all beings enjoy equal rights in terms of mental well-being. Empathy is a necessity.）短小精悍，直击论点，后一句则改用以“while”连接的并列句清楚明了地列举了两个例证，显示出很强的造句能力。
Write a story based on the following painting entitled Nighthawks by Edward Hopper in 1942.
You should write between 600 and 800 words.
It was a cold and chiily night in 1942. I was a painter back then, I still remember the feeling when I walked down the street in the town and saw nobody, tragic and hopeless. Three years ago, everytime I came to this town, the street was crowed with shouts and laughters. But every store on the street closed their doors, keeping themselves away from the atmosphere of lonliness and boredom in the town. Males had left their homes, heading for the battlefields, and fighting for their country. Walking in the street, I thought I might never see a light in this haunted town, but fortunately, a house in bright life emerged in front of me, so conspicuous compared with other darkened place.
It was a tiny pub, with only an old man cleaning the table quietly. I opened the door, and walked in. "Excuse me, I am sorry to bother you, but have you closed already?". After uttering the word out, I suddenly felt how warm and cosy it was in this tiny pub. The floor was meticulously cleaned by the old owner, and the table was juxtaposed in arrangement, leaving ample room for friends to talk and chat. "No, no, we haven't closed, please feel free to have a seat". The old owner smiled his words to me. But I can see there is something sad hidden in his eyes, like a diamond of lake.
"Can you believe that you are the third guest entering my pub today?" He said with a gentle and graceful voice. "What would you like to drink?" "A cup of coco, please". I thought a warm cup of coco would perfectly match this cold, chilly night. When making the coco, the old owner was mumbling something, too light and too fast for me to catch up his word. So I just sit there, watching him clean the table and talking. He seemed to be taking about his son and his family.
I took out a piece a paper, trying to draft and depict how sadly quite this town was. When he asked me if I would like to refill my cup of coco, he saw me painting. "Are you a painter?" He curiously asked. "Yes, sir." I replied, "If you wish, I can paint for you".
His eyes shined with surprise but then darkened again. "My son is as same old as you. He also loves painting. Although I always joke that his doodles could be hardly said as paintings. But how I wish I could compliment him more back then."
"Why?" I asked.
"He was recruitied by the army and headed for the front three years ago". He sighed, "He used to write a letter to me once a month, but I haven't heard from him since last year. I even have no idea whether he is still alive or not"
"I miss the day when the town was crowded with people. Men and women would come here and have talks. He would always be helping around, when there was no other guests, he would always chat with me with his wife. After he was gone, his wife moved to another safer town, carrying her baby. Now, you cannot see the town people any more, because they have all gone to nearby city to hide. I am alone here. And I feel so lucky to see you today."
"So why did you stay in this town rather than move to the city with your wife", I asked, with confusion.
"I have spent most of my life in this tiny town. I grow up here as a boy and must end here as an old man. I have witnessed how this town flourished with crowds of people and how it darkened with the outbreak of the war. The last thing I could ever do is to leave this town, I am old, but I will accompany this town till the end of my life."
My eyes moisted. I insisted that I want to record the pub and the town. What I have seen is an old man cleaning his table in a pub surrounded by the empty street. But I hope to depict how happy the old man was talking to his son and daughter-in-law, and I just sit next to them, watching them talking in this cold, chilly, windy night. At last, I left the painting to the old man, hoping it can confort him and, more importantly, remind whoever will see this painting the brightness and the darkness, and the wax and wane of this tiny, little town.
第一，人物角色设定出彩，巧妙点题。文章不同于其他的地方在于在一开头作者就清楚的设定了自己的角色—一位画家，也呼应大赛题目中这幅画的画家，即：“I was a painter back then, I still remember the feeling when I walked down the street in the town and saw nobody, tragic and hopeless.”。这也决定了文章将是由这位画家从艺术家的视角出发，用自己的画笔来记录当时的时代特征和人物特征。从另一个角度来说，画家的角色设定也为文章的结尾埋下伏笔，在画家记录下的小酒馆是现实和想象的交织，最后他描绘出的图景并不是生活在苦难和阴郁之中的普通人，而是一派平和幸福的景象。除了画家本身，剩余的三位人物关系设定为酒馆的主人以及其儿子一家两口，即：… the old man was talking to his son and daughter-in-law, and I just sit next to them, watching them talking in this cold, chilly, windy night.”。这也恰是题目中图画呈现出的场景，进行了巧妙点题。
第二， 环境描绘和人物描述相互联系。一方面，作者在文章开头部分使用一定笔墨进行环境描绘，并且对比城镇在战争前后的图景，给人强烈的现实感，如：Three years ago, everytime I came to this town, the street was crowded with shouts and laughters. But every store on the street closed their doors, keeping themselves away from the atmosphere of loneliness and boredom in the town. 另一方面，文章也得益于对于环境描写的细节。记叙文是由细节组成的，但细节过多会使读者如堕烟海 , 兴趣顿消。因此要注意选用与内容有关或能表现主要观点的细节, 才能产生预期的效果 。作者在恰当时候进行细节描写，比如：在进入酒吧后描述酒吧里的地板、桌子，“The floor was meticulously cleaned by the old owner, and the table was juxtaposed in arrangement, leaving ample room for friends to talk and chat.”侧面反映出酒吧主人即使在战争氛围笼罩下的社会环境中仍持有积极的生活态度。小酒馆的井井有条和城镇的整体氛围形成鲜明对比。结合这样环境的描述再刻画人物的举止谈吐，比如“The old owner smiled his words to me. But I can see there is something sad hidden in his eyes, like a diamond of lake.”，使人与环境相互关系结合更加完美。
第三， 两条故事线并行。一方面作者在讲述进入酒店后发生的事情，另一方面作者通过酒店老板的讲述，描绘出普通人在战争生活中的无奈和坚持，作为一个缩影，再次通过酒店老板的话语来展现小镇的兴衰变化，如“I have witnessed how this town flourished with crowds of people and how it darkened with the outbreak of the war.”。这样的双重叙事让整个故事更加丰满，也达到作者的目的“…remind whoever will see this painting the brightness and the darkness, and the wax and wane of this tiny, little town.”。
吴晓灵 厦门大学（指导教师：Jasen Grant）
Narrative writing和argumentative writing对我来说其实是完全不同的两种体裁。对argumentative writing，我更注重逻辑、句式和词汇；而在narrative writing中，氛围和主题是最重要的。也可能是因为这样的想法，我看到题目“write a story based on the given painting”时并没有很诧异。因为不过于注重复杂的情节，我在拿到题目时从画作入手，让这幅画引导我写一篇故事。或许是因为这学期接触了较多西方艺术史的缘故，我对art本身是有兴趣的，在此也启发大家平时要广泛涉猎，接触不同的领域。因此，我从composition（构图）、subject（人物）、environment（环境）、color combination （色彩）及历史大背景（二战）入手分析这幅画，自然地在分析过程中得出画家传达给观众的二战时期年轻人的迷茫心态及战争带来的影响。在本篇文章写作中，我没有写大段对话，而是把对话作为推动故事发展的节点，在主人公（bartender）的独白和回忆中给读者展现二战时期人们的精神生活。我希望打破时空的局限，因此在最后留下开放式结尾，希望通过这个故事建立读者与画中人之间的联系，引导他们反思自己、反思过去，走进这幅画，走进自己的心灵。
I am a bartender. I have worked at Phillies for nearly ten years, and multiple horrible events happening in the last decade have transformed me from a talkative, dynamic man to a silent, middle-aged bartender. I don't want to talk; sometimes I just sit on the chair, witnessing pedestrians striding quickly by without any emotions revealed from their faces. To be frank, being surrounded by a brown triangular wooden table edge assures my mind, partially due to the caprices of life － perhaps my brother will die in the next second.
smell the war; it has been ongoing for five years, and people have
learnt how to bear and live with it － some of them have become
relentlessly resilient after the war started, and others have initiated a
carefree lifestyle seemingly in search of the ultimate goal of life.
Here come three guests tonight; apparently, people no longer relish in
the peaceful life once the nation plunged into the war － they do not
cherish that pleasure and these people who came here tonight, I guess,
are merely another bunch of men and women who are seeking the meaning of
life in a chaotic world. Having served hundreds of guests since I was
19, I have developed an eagle eye that can penetrate one's mind and read
inner thoughts. That's the reason why I don't usually talk, at least
for the time being － I appreciate my observant quality and quite often, I
realize the potential to investigate and examine the fragile
relationship between strangers, friends, couples, and families. The lady
is in a scarlet dress and with blonde hair, leaving me a unique
impression the first moment she entered the Phillies. Having ordered a
glass of beer, she barely talks and is carefully, if not indifferently,
watching the smoke - another lost girl dragged down by the dismal
reality, with the air exhaling from her mouth turning into a string of
glowing circles. In contrast, the man next to her did not order
anything, and he seems to know the girl just a few days ago yet he does
not initiate any casual talk with the girl. That's a norm nowadays
though, with no one listening and talking to you; rather, everyone is
trapped in the small triangle of their inner self - we only feel
emotionally stable and consistent when we stare at the surrounding
without anything interrupting our life. Admittedly, we do not expect any
incandescently surprising or ecstatic moments, which are almost
impossible in a time bombarded with guns and shrieks.
pretend to be wiping the silverware, while my eyes are fixed on the
other man sitting across from me. He wears a black hat and a black suit,
perfectly matching the lifeless bar in the stale air. All of a sudden,
he asks, "How long have you been working here?" "Ten years," the two
words spring from my mouth like bullets, piercing through the bleak
autumn night and punctuating the silence of our favorite. "Oh, so many
unpredictable changes happened in these years," another snide remark
that I’m trying to ignore. Definitely, I understood his sarcasm; we were
both born in the roaring 20s, when we could dance to the jubilant jazz
music, and spoiled ourselves with a thick wad of notes, and most
importantly, we had a buoyant life at that time. Whereas now, we are
just cautious enough not to refer to the traumatic word - war, which has
left a unrecoverable scar on the heart, especially in the nightmare
every time I awaken to the bloody red scar stretching all the way along
my brother's right cheek - he deserves a salubrious life, yet he is
tortured and tormented by the bottomless war groaning like a wild wolf
that is desperate to suck human blood. Gentle as my brother is, he
shouts at me sometimes, complaining that he has suffered unbearable
pains from the war and his life - all his friends go to the battlefield
and they have never been in contact with each other since the war began;
he becomes nostalgic, and so do I.
beer, please," the man sitting beside the blonde-haired girl pulls me
from a distant hurtful memory with a heavy metallic voice. I've always
wondered why alcohol was invented - Was it because the inventor wanted
to escape from the bloody truth wrapped in a net of lies? Was it because
he could not find any panacea to heal himself but resorted to alcohol?
Was it an accident like what was happening all the time at the
incarnadine battlefield? All in all, he must be like any one of us; we
would rather sweet intoxication to sobriety – it is just too painful to
remain tuned to the turbulent reality.
the girl is whispering some babyish words, simple yet meaningless.
Pathetically, we are all the same - meaninglessness is the ultimate
meaning of our generation.
ordered a glass of beer, she barely talked and carefully, if not
indifferently, watched the fog - another lost girl dragged down by the
dismal reality, with the smoke exhaling from her mouth turning into a
string of glowing
was trapped in the small triangle of their inner self - we only felt
emotionally stable and consistent when we stared at the surroundings
without nothing interrupting our life.
secures my mind”、“capricious life”、“smelt the war”、“examine the fragile
relationship”、“turbulent reality”等搭配使用的准确；“he deserved a salubrious
life, yet he was tortured and tormented by the bottomless war groaning
like a wild wolf that is desperate to suck human
blood”等句子中头韵、拟人、比喻等多重修辞手法在同一个句子中的使用；“I've always wondered why the
alcohol was invented - Was it …? Was it …? Was it
would love to be drunk than sober - it was too painful to remain tuned
to the turbulent reality”；战争时期的生活意义对这一代人都一样，“Pathetically, we are all
the same - meaninglessness is the ultimate meaning of our