2 Do we continue to teach the work of people we now suspect of behaving unethically or abusively? News stories have suggested prominent writer Díaz may have acted in predatory
ways. The Pulitzer Prize Board has launched an investigation of past Pulitzer winner Díaz regarding allegations that include forcibly kissing one author and verbally bullying another. As a reader, I’m devastated. As a teacher, I’ve got decisions to make.
3 “Writers in Print and Person,” my class at American University, where I often adjunct, invites undergraduates to alternate sustained analysis of a book with the opportunity to meet and question the author. Most of our craft learning is subsequently channeled through eight to 10 books assigned for annotation, a selection tailored to students individually. Because of the particular scope of my responsibilities, and these modes of student learning, I have always emphasized the writer as a fully dimensioned being. What do I do when those dimensional flaws are revealed?
4 Here’s what I can’t do: pretend that this is not happening. Much of the economy surrounding a contemporary writing career rests not just in what that author does on the page but what the person says at the microphone and in the classroom. I’ve never been a full-time academic. Yet I’ve served as a writer-in-residence four times. In other words, I cross paths with thousands of students, many of whom tell me about theiraspirations of becoming writers.
5 These are students who wait in line afterward, sometimes for hours, so that the author can sign their copy of the book we put on the syllabus. These are the students who nervously apply for a faraway workshop, and then hustle to cover the expenses, so that they can work with a celebrated writer. These are the students who trust in both that writer’s aesthetic expertise and best intentions.
6 I look back with deep regret at times I’ve reco妹妹ended someone as a mentor, editor or visiting writer, unaware of a history of abusive attitudes.
1. The well-known writer Díaz is mentioned to _____.
A. stress he is a Pulitzer winner
B. reveal he fought an author
C. illustrate some writers have unethical behaviors
D. explain why I moved his works out of my syllabus.
2. Which of the following is “my teaching method”?
A. I ask my students to meet the writer to analyze his book.
B. I want my students to understand the writer from different dimensions.
C. Students are required to read eight to 10 books to find individual taste.
D. One of my responsibilities is to help students find the writer’s flaws.
3. The word “aspiration” (Para. 4) is closest in meaning to _____.
A. hate
B. cheating
C. sadness
D. ambition
4. What kind of students is mentioned here?
A. The students who are eager to get the writer’s signature whose book on the syllabus.
B. The students who want to join in a workshop.
C. The students who have the same aesthetic expertise as the writer.
D. The students who can publish an expensive book.
5. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
A. Teach an Abusive Writer’s Work?
B. Writer in Print and Person
C. How to Prepare a Syllabus
D. My Regret
谜底：CBDAA
出题思绪：
【1】The well-known writer Díaz is mentioned to .
A. stress he is a Pulitzer winner
B. reveal he fought an author
C. illustrate some writers have unethical behaviors
D. explain why I moved his works out of my syllabus.
这里想出一道 “论证型推理题”，也就是“论据A是为了阐明论点B”如许的标题。该题的论据是由题干“the well-known writer Díaz”指向文中所述“Diaz是一个举动有问题的人”，论点则是四个选项。
起首，肯定准确选项：C：illustrate some writers have unethical behaviors（举例阐明某些作家有不道德性为）。原文第2段开首说Do we continue to teach the work of people we now suspect of behaving unethically or abusively?（那些让咱们如今猜疑举动粗鲁、不品德的作家，咱们是不是继续传授他们的作品呢？）第2句话，作者并无急于答复这个问题，而是举例甚么人是那些不品德的作家。就提到News stories have suggested prominent writer Díaz may have acted in predatory ways.（消息报导已表示闻名作家迪亚兹可能有强横式举动。）以是，Diaz就是前文提到的那些unethically or abusively中的一员。作者提到Diaz就是想举例阐明简直有作家举动不品德，而不是作者本身的揣测。
其次，设计滋扰选项：
选项A操纵原文中Pulitzer winner一词，让那些没读懂文章，想蒙对谜底的人被骗。选项B的fought an author是对原文中bullying another的近义转写，让那些迷信“同义转述”的人被骗。选项D操纵第1段的syllabus利诱考生。
【2】Which of the following is “my teaching method”?
A. I ask my students to meet the writer to analyze his book.
B. I want my students to understand the writer from different dimensions.
C. Students are required to read eight to 10 books to find individual taste.
D. One of my responsibilities is to help students find the writer’s flaws.
这里想考第3段。发明第3段讲授法子讲的很具体，就出一道多细节题，即每一个选项对应一个细节，但毛病选项在细节描写上不许确。
起首，肯定准确选项： B: I want my students to understand the writer from different dimensions.（我想让我的学生从分歧角度理解作者）对应于原文I have always emphasized the writer as a fully dimensioned being.（我一向夸大作者是一个全方位的存在）。出题技能是paraphrase（同义转述）。
其次，设计滋扰选项：选项A操纵meet来利诱考生。在选项A中，由于没有上下文语境，以是meet the writer就是真正和writer“面临面”的碰头。而原文中invites undergraduates to alternate sustained analysis of a book with the opportunityto meet and question the author. （约请本科生对一本书举行瓜代延续的阐发，让他们有机遇去熟悉和质疑作者）。原文中meet是学生和作者在“书中”碰头，学生经由过程阐发作品，领会作者。这类利诱选项叫“去语境化”，也就是说原文中的词必定是“带语境”的词义，而选项中的词是“去语境”的词义，这两个词义纷歧样。
选项C的设计是斟酌到原文中与C对应的是一个难句，考查学生是不是真的读懂了这个句子。读懂了，就不会选C。没读懂，由于数字10很夺目，就极可能选C。原文Most of our craft learningissubsequently channeledthrough eight to 10 books assigned for annotation, a selectiontailored to students individually. 这句话的重要部门是Most of our craft learning is channeled (咱们大部门写作技能的进修被指导)。后面是through…books…, selection…（经由过程书和选集被指导）。甚么样的书和选集呢？由被动的assigned, tailored润饰（被安插功课请求写注释的书指导，被针对学生个性化定制的选集指导）全部句子的翻译是：然后，让学生读八到十本书并做注释。咱们大部门写作技能的进修是经由过程这八到十本书的指导举行，这些书组成的选集是针对学生个性化定制选择的。选项D是用flaws做滋扰，利诱考生。
【3】The word “aspiration” (Para. 4) is closest in meaning to _____.
A. hate B. cheating C. sadness D. ambition
这里出一道猜词题。对付出题教员来讲，出如许的题比力轻松。词的意义一般要从上下文猜。这道题aspiration固然呈现在第4段，但它的意义要从第5段对那些学生的描述得出，晓得学生们何等巴望成为作家，才能猜出ambition（大志）这个寄义。滋扰项在这里没有太多设计。
【4】What kind of students are mentioned here?
A. The students who are eager to get the writer’s signature whose book on the syllabus.
B. The students who want to join in a workshop.
C. The students who have the same aesthetic expertise as the writer.
D. The students who can publish an expensive book.
这里又是一道多细节题，由于第5段提到学生们的多种履历。
起首，肯定准确选项：A: The students who are eager to get the writer’ssignature whose book on the syllabus.（学生巴望得到那些纲领上列出的书的作者的署名）由于原文：These are students who wait in line afterward, sometimes for hours, so that the author can sign their copy of the bookwe put on the syllabus. （这些学生是有时列队等待几个小时，只为了让讲授纲领上的某本书的作者可以或许在书上署名。）
其次，设计滋扰选项：选项B用workshop利诱考生，原文的重点不是学生加入workshop，而是“想和作者一块儿”介入workshop。选项C用aesthetic expertise利诱，但意思和原文无关。选项D用expensive和expenses词形类似利诱，意思和原文也无关。
【5】Which of the following would be the best title for the text?
A. Teach an Abusive Writer’s Work?
B. Writer in Print and Person
C. How to Prepare a Syllabus
D. My Regret
这里想出一道大旨题。这类题比力难出，主如果毛病选项要有利诱性，但又要与准确谜底有区分，还要反应出读者一些毛病的大旨总结习气，以是比力难出。准确选项要出得大师都没有贰言也有必定难度。
起首，肯定准确选项：A：Teach an Abusive Writer’s Work?（要传授举动粗暴的作者的作品吗？） 由于第1段，第2段作者都提出了这个问题，但后面也没有谜底。阐明这就是作者文章的中间：提出一个如许的狐疑。这篇文章的关头词是“writer”，这个词必定会包括在准确谜底中。
其次，设计滋扰选项：
所有滋扰项设计采纳了统一个计谋，就是从段首句找夺目词。选项B是第3段的开首，但Writer in Print and Person只是作者开设的一门课程的名称。选项C操纵Syllabus一次将考生眼光引向第1段，但第1段作者提出Syllabus（纲领）的问题，只是作为弁言，引发大师想象，若是纲领里不少作品的作者都有问题，那末纲领岂不要重写了吗？就像叠叠高游戏同样，不少支持木块都抽掉后，叠叠高的塔就倒掉了。选项D操纵regret一词将考生眼光引向最后一段，但这一段只是作者的感伤。
英汉比照：
1 When you are a writer who learns a beloved author has a dark side, you experience(v.) waves of disillusionment. When you teach that author’s work, you feel an additional stab of concern: What about my syllabus? As intellectual propertygoes, a great syllabus is a gold mine. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be a Jenga Game. Take away too many supporting pieces and the whole thing will topple.
当你是一名作家，晓得了某位受人恋慕的作家有暗中的一壁，你会履历一波破灭的海潮。当你讲解这位作家的作品时，你会感触分外的担心：我的讲授纲领怎样办？跟着常识产权的成长，优异的讲授纲领就是金矿。或许更好的暗喻是一种叠叠高游戏。拿走太多的支持物，全部塔就会倾圮。
2 Do we continue to teach the work of people we now suspectof behaving unethically or abusively? News stories have suggested prominent writer Díaz may have acted in predatory ways. The Pulitzer Prize Board has launched an investigation of past Pulitzer winner Díaz regarding allegations that include forcibly kissing one author and verbally bullying another. As a reader, I’m devastated. As a teacher, I’ve got decisions to make.
咱们继续讲解那些人的作品，那些让咱们如今猜疑举动不品德、粗鲁的人的作品吗？消息报导已表示闻名作家迪亚兹可能有强横式举动。普利策奖委员会开展了调核对曾的普利策奖得主迪亚兹，查询拜访关于某些指控，包含强吻一位作者和口头唾骂另外一位作者的指控。作为一位读者，我很是震动。作为一名西席，我必需做出决议。
3 “Writers in Print and Person,” my class at American University,where I often adjunct, invites undergraduates to alternate sustained analysis of a book with the opportunity to meet and question the author. Most of our craft learning is subsequently channeled through eight to 10 books assigned for annotation, a selection tailored to students individually. Because of the particular scope of my responsibilities, and these modes of student learning, I have always emphasized the writer as a fully dimensioned being. What do I do when those dimensional flaws are revealed?
“作品中的作者和真实的作者”是我在美国大学上的一门课，在那边我常常兼职，并约请本科生对一本书举行瓜代延续的阐发，让他们有机遇去熟悉和质疑作者。然后，让学生读八到十本书并做注释，咱们大部门写作技能的进修是经由过程这八到十本书的指导举行，这些书构成的选集是针对学生个性化定制选择的。因为我的职责的特定范畴，和学生进修的这类模式，我一向夸大作者是一个全方位的存在。当那些有瑕疵的维度被揭穿时，我该做甚么？
4 Here’s what I can’t do: pretend that this is not happening. Much of the economy surrounding a contemporary writing career rests not just in what that author does on the page but what the person says at the microphone and in the classroom. I’ve never been a full-time academic. Yet I’ve served as a writer-in-residence four times. In other words, I cross paths with thousands of students, many of whom tell me about their aspirations of becoming writers.
我晓得我不克不及做甚么：伪装这一切都没有产生。环抱着今世写作生活的很多经济效益不但仅在于作者在书上写了甚么，并且在于他在话筒和课堂里说的话。我历来不是全职的学术型学者。但是，我曾四次作为住校作家。换句话说，我和不计其数的学生萍水相逢，他们中的很多人奉告我他们有想成为作家的志向。
5 These are students who wait in line afterward, sometimes for hours, so that the author can sign their copy of the book we put on the syllabus. These are the students who nervously apply fora faraway workshop, and then hustle to cover the expenses, so that they can work with a celebrated writer. These are the students who trust in both that writer’s aesthetic expertise and best intentions.
这些学生是有时列队等待几个小时，只为了让讲授纲领上的某本书的作者可以或许签上名字。
这些学生严重地申请一个远在外埠的事情坊，然后赶快付出用度，以便能跟一名闻名作家进修。这些学生既信赖作家的美学常识，又信赖他们的最好用意。
6 I look back with deep regretat times I’ve reco妹妹ended someone as a mentor, editor or visiting writer, unaware of a history of abusive attitudes.
我转头想一想，深感遗憾的是，有时我举荐或人做导师、编纂或拜候作家，并无意想到他立场粗暴的曩昔。
