marți, 20 martie 2012

Argumentative essay


Eseul argumentativ – este un eseu mai complex decât cel narativ sau cel descriptiv, în sensul că se ocupă cu tratarea unor idei, dar de această dată nu ni se mai cere să interpretăm un subiect, ci să dăm argumente convingătoare în această privinţă. De cele mai multe ori, atitudinea pe care trebuie s-o adoptăm este determinată chiar de titlul eseului (de exemplu, Books, films and plays should be subjected to a deep censorship). Într-un eseu argumentativ putem da argumente pro şi /sau contra, fără însă a ne pronunţa clar pentru una dintre cele două extreme.
Există două tipuri de argumentare:
-          inductivă – prezintă întâi ideea generală şi apoi se oferă argumentele
-          deductivă – invers, întâi apar argumentele din care reiese ideea generală

Oricare ar fi metoda folosită, eseul trebuie să fie bine organizat, echilibrat şi să prezinte ambele aspecte ale argumentării. După cum îi arată şi titlul, importanţa majoră într-un eseu argumentativ o are exemplificarea, care ajută la clarificarea ideilor generale. În acest fel, acestea sunt „susţinute” de o bază care face ca eseul să fie „solid”. De asemenea, contrastul este deosebit de util. Se recomandă folosirea cât mai variată a exemplelor şi evenimentelor contrastante pentru a face lucrarea mai interesantă. Stilul folosit trebuie să fie simplu, clar şi impersonal (exceptând cazurile în care se cere propria opinie).
Ex.
Title: Fine old building of no artistic, historic or politic value should be demolished and replaced by modern constructions.
Attitude: argument against this point of view
Brainstorming:
-          progress
-          the old is replaced by the new
-          re-development
-          modern buildings are considered to be beautiful; the old ones are thought to be ugly
-          national buildings are protected
-          functional blocks of flats or offices
Introduction:
-          the national buildings are protected, whereas the ones of no artistic, politic or historic value seem to be condemned
Body:
-          arguments of the people out to demolish the old buildings; unconvincing
-          the manner in which the appearance of a city can be changed for the worse because of the lack of proportion
-          the ennemies of old buildings are the speculators who try to convince people to “get modernized”
-          the charm of a big city lies in its variety
Conclusion:
-          in the eighteenth century  there was a “culture” of the old: ruins
-          today, this is an irony

Fine old building of no artistic, historic or politic value should be demolished and replaced by modern constructions.

Every now and then, a proposal to demolish a much-loved old building to be replaced by a factory or a new block of flats raises a storm of angry protests. Buildings of national importance are relatively safe. Although even these are occasionaly under menace, their reputation does protect them to some extent. The “unsignificant” old buildings are permanently in danger: this is the category of old buildings of no artistic, politic or historic value. Despite the fact that people have become sentimentally attached to them and have grown to love them, they are labelled as being “ugly”. This very word and its opponent, “beautiful” are relative terms. A building with high ceilings and huge rooms may be less practical than the colourless block of offices that takes its place, but it often fits in well with the surroundings.
The people out to demolish old buildings often argue that a factory will bring prosperity to a town and provide employment for its inhabitants, a new block of flats will make the living conditions better, a new road will create better transport facilities etc. This modernization is true and helpful, but we have to consider the other aspects of the problem, too. Numberless quiet country villages have been distroyed by the addition of modern ‘improvements’ like immense traffic-signs or tall concrete lamps which shed a sickly yellowish light. In the same way, buildings constructed thoughtlessly become prominent landmarks which may change the character of a whole town. It is exactly these buildings which are ugly, because they are so out of place.
Nothing can change the face of a town so dramatically than the apparition of such modern buildings which tower above all the surrounding buildings. There was equilibrium, a perfect harmony amongst the old buildings. The most imposing of them was the cathedral, followed by the town hall and the public buildings. These dominated the city and gave it a clear shape. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, the new construction, which is rarely a public building, makes everything around look smaller and unsignificant. Even the delicate gothic church is meaningless as contrasted to the huge, colourless and cold modern building demanding attention merely because of its size and not because of any intrinsic worth.
It is rarely realized that very often the greatest ennemy of the old buildings are ruthless individuals speculating in land. Their unique aim is a quick return of profit and they are not particular about how they will obtain it. They rush to point out the necessity for redevelopment and modernization, by which they actually mean demolishing old buildings and replacing them with huge blocks with high rent yields. Unfortunately, people are easily convinced that this is in their best interest and dear old buildings are sacrificed in the name of the progress.
Part of the charm of a town or city lies in the variety of styles that can be seen in the architecture of its constructions. One may feel that the city has grown slowly and each age has left its marks. By destroyind buildings of past times, we wipe out every vestige of old ages for ever. In the place of infinite variety, we have monotonous uniformity. Rows of houses, each of them different and pleasing with their spacious gardens, are replaced by functional blocks of flats referred to as “modern conveniences”. No one can deny that there are many superb modern buildings which are truly representative of the very best architecture of our age. But these are seldom the utilitarian blocks which are to be found in many cities. But not every time a fine old building is demolished is necessarily replaced by an equally fine modern one. If the demolishion continues uncontrolled, fine old cities are in danger of becoming odd and uncivilised.
In the eighteenth century there was a time when ruins (as representatives of the past) were deliberately constructed to lend charm to the countryside. Still, this is not something that not even the most fanatical lover of old buildings would defend. But it seems to be an irony that today testimonies of the past are neglected and threatened with extinction.

Un comentariu:

Rețineți: Numai membrii acestui blog pot posta comentarii.