各位周末好，欢迎来到作文专栏的第二期。关于该系列的第一篇可见怎样写一篇作文？
在上一期的分析中有不少人提出了这样一个问题：怎样判断一个词使用是否准确？对此最简单的方法是：查词典。对于不确定的词一定要多翻翻它在词典中的释义以及搭配，切忌望词生义，比如 disinterested，看表面意思我们很容易将其理解为“不感兴趣的”，实际上它的含义是“客观的，公正的”。对于搭配问题也是如此，比如“做生意”是 do business, 而不是 make business, 这些问题都可以在词典中找到答案。
另外一个是简洁问题。句子的目的应该是为文章主题服务，因此与文章主题无关的句子尽量不要出现，不要为了凑字数而写作文。此外，要避免出现堆砌句式表达的现象，比如：
English becoming the dominant language around the world, the minority languages are comforted with an endangered situation.
这里并没有必要使用独立主格结构，句子直接写成下面这样会更加自然：
Minority languages are at risk as English becomes world-dominant.
要写出简洁的句子需要通过大量的模仿和练习（例如《经济学人》文章就是一个很好的模仿对象）。写作时拥有这个意识，已经踏出了第一步。
今天要分析的文章题目是：
A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
这是原始作文版本：
文/小蔡
Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use animals as we desire for food and research. This essay will discuss both points of view.
With regard to the exploitation of animals, some people believe their various needs should firstly be met. That is because humans are absolutely vital beings on the planet, and everything, from food, clothing, shelter to transportation etc., must be done to ensure human survival. If killing animals can provide humanity with food; if experimenting on animals can find cures for diseases; if employing animals can satisfy humanity’s survival needs, this humanity’s rights must take priority over animal suffering. Additionally, supporters of such opinions believe that animals do not feel any pain as humans do; therefore slaughtering, eating, testing animals and the other use of animals for any needs is morally acceptable.
However, I believe these above arguments cannot hold water. It is because the human can think and feel the pain that they are complexly evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis. Similarly, animals are also works of the demiurge and able to think and are certainly able to feel pain, so non-human animals should also have the same rights as humans. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, soaps and shampoos rather than finding cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Furthermore, with the state-of-the-art technology development, humans could get the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables, fruits, and other man-made organic compounds. At the same time, it has also been proven that a vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of disease like high blood pressure, cancer and heart disease. Therefore, still killing animals for food is beyond all reason.
In conclusion, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is acceptable, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
点评版本：
Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way as humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use animals as we desire for food and research. This essay will discuss both points of view.
With regard to the exploitation of animals, （套话，可去除）some people believe their various needs should firstly be met. （firstly 改为 first，即 should be met first）That is because humans are absolutely vital beings on the planet, and everything, from food, clothing, shelter to transportation etc., must be done to ensure human （human 改为 their）survival. If killing animals can provide humanity with food; if experimenting on animals can find cures for diseases; if employing animals can satisfy humanity’s survival needs, this humanity’s rights must take priority over animals' suffering. Additionally, supporters of such opinions believe that animals do not feel any pain as humans do; therefore slaughtering, eating, testing animals and the other use of animals for any needs is morally acceptable.
However, I believe these above arguments （改为 these arguments above）cannot hold water. It is because the human （改为 humans）can think and feel the （the 去掉）pain that they are complexly evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis. （accord 与 right 搭配不妥，可写成 are granted rights）Similarly, animals are also works of the demiurge （demiurge 这个词用在这里很别扭，直接改成 nature）and able to think and are certainly able to feel pain, so non-human animals （没有 non-human animals 这个说法，改成 non-human species）should also have the same rights as humans. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, soaps and shampoos rather than finding cures for diseases, （这一说法不符合常理，很多动物实验都是用于医学研究）so this is unnecessary. Furthermore, with the state-of-the-art technology development, （用词过于拖沓，可改成 with technological advances）humans could get the nutrients and vitamins that （that 可去除）they need from green vegetables, fruits, and other （other 用词有误，man-made organic compounds 与前面的 vegetables, fruits 并不属于同一类别，可直接将 other 删去）man-made organic compounds. At the same time, it has also been proven that a vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of diseases like high blood pressure, cancer and heart disease. Therefore, still killing animals for food is beyond all reason.（改成 Employing animals to satisfy humans' needs is reasonable. 此外，这一段论证有问题。题干要求是 Discuss both views and give your opinion. 但文章到这里只讨论了支持利用动物的人以及作者自己的观点，并没有讨论反对利用动物的人的观点）
In conclusion, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is acceptable, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
总结：
这篇文章出现的问题主要有两大类：用词搭配以及论证逻辑。
用词方面出现的问题是过于单一，全篇出现了大量的 human 以及 animals，可以采取替换的方面来增加用词多样性，比如 animals 可以换成 wildlife, living creatures, living things 等。此外，还有部分搭配较为别扭，例如 who are accorded rights, still killing animals for food is beyond all reason, 这部分问题可以通过查词典来解决。
论证上出现的问题是只阐述了其中一方以及自己的观点，没有给出另外一方的看法，属于审题不严谨。
下面是我写的同题作文。
主要思路如下：
（1）论述支持赋予动物人类权利一方的理由：
（a）动物也会感到疼痛，道德上剥削动物不合适。如果赋予他们人类权利，就可以保护它们；
（b）剥削动物可能会破坏生态平衡，危及到人类自身生存；
（2）论述反对赋予动物人类权利一方的理由：
（a）权利与义务是对等的，动物没有付出义务，就不能得到权利；
（b）动物是重要的食物来源，禁止屠杀动物会带来严重后果；
（c）动物实验对于医学研究来说同样意义重大；
（3）给出自己的立场：可以利用动物，但是要适度
文/魏剑峰
Opinion is divided as to whether animals should be entitled the same rights as humans. While the argument that animals ought to be treated as equals may seem morally correct, careful employment of them to meet our demands is defensible and necessary.
Supporters of animal rights have a point. Animals, they argue, can feel pain when torture is inflicted upon them, just like humans do. Thus, any kind of exploitation, for example imprisonment, castration and laboratory tests, is tantamount to cruelty. If living creatures were granted human rights, such brutal treatment could be spared. Another reason why other species should have equality is they are an indispensable part of ecosystems. Exploiting wildlife, or even putting them under existential threat would upset the ecological balance of our planet, causing knock-on effects on mankind’s survival.
Those who consider such entitlements undeserving may argue on practical grounds. For every human right there is a corresponding responsibility, for instance paying taxes, participating in local community and obeying laws, none of them within the reach of animals. In this regard, granting them the privilege man enjoys would be unfair to dedicated citizens. Moreover, farm animals such as poultry, cattle and pigs are an important source of food supply in many parts of the world. Banning the slaughter of them would come as a blow to the lives of hundreds of millions, leading to hunger and malnutrition. Laboratory animals also contribute to the advances of modern medical technologies. Without lab mice and rabbits, scientists would have difficulty in developing new drugs patients are desperately in need of. It is pragmatic and justifiable, therefore, to make good use of these living things.
My view is that humans can employ animals for practical purposes, but should do so in moderation. At the same time, society should make an effort to rein in animal cruelty and preserve endangered species, so as to make sure all creatures great and small are treated in a humanitarian way.
