Joy English · Livello C2 · Saggi argomentativijoy-english.com
Un saggio discorsivo sull'efficienza e la vita pubblica
Nome:Data:
Costruisci un'argomentazione equilibrata e prudente in un saggio discorsivo: concedi, precisa e concludi con un giudizio misurato.
Efficiency and the quiet erosion of public life
It is a commonplace of contemporary life that time saved is time gained. Yet the relentless pursuit of efficiency, so often presented as an unqualified good, may be quietly eroding the unplanned encounters on which a healthy public life depends.
The case for efficiency is, admittedly, not easily dismissed. Automated ticket machines, self-service checkouts and online appointment systems spare us queues and paperwork, and the hours they release can be spent on pursuits we value more highly. Nor should we romanticise inefficiency: a slow bureaucracy has seldom enriched anyone's existence, least of all those with the least time to spare.
Nevertheless, what is gained in speed is frequently lost in incidental contact. The conversation with a pharmacist, the passing remark of a neighbour in a queue, the shared grumble about a delayed train: none of these appears on any balance sheet, yet together they weave the loose fabric of trust that binds strangers. Remove the occasions for such exchanges and one is left with a society that functions smoothly but knows itself less well.
It would be mistaken, however, to conclude that technology is the culprit. The fault lies less in the machines than in the assumption that every transaction is merely a means to an end, to be completed at the lowest possible cost in minutes. Where institutions deliberately preserve a human option, as some libraries and post offices have done, people appear to value the choice even when they seldom exercise it. That reluctance to see the option disappear suggests that we sense, if only dimly, what is at stake.
On balance, then, efficiency deserves to be treated as a servant rather than a master. Planners and employers would do well to ask not only how quickly a process can be completed but also what, if anything, will be lost along the way. A public life stripped of friction may prove, paradoxically, a good deal poorer for it.
Posizione, attenuazione e registro
Scegli l'opzione migliore in un saggio discorsivo formale.
- Which sentence hedges most appropriately?
- ___ its undeniable convenience, the system carries costs that are easily overlooked.
- Which linker signals that the writer is about to qualify their own argument?
- Which is the most suitable way to open a final paragraph?
- Which sentence is the most appropriately impersonal and cautious?
- Efficiency, ___ valuable it may be, should not be pursued at any cost.
- Which sentence rejects an opposing view without overstating?
Completa il linguaggio del saggio
Scrivi una parola, oppure la forma indicata tra parentesi, per completare ogni frase.
- The case for efficiency is, ___, not easily dismissed. (a concession adverb)
- None of these appears on any balance sheet, ___ together they weave the loose fabric of trust.
- Planners would do well ___ ask what will be lost along the way.
- The fault lies less in the machines ___ in the assumption behind them.
- It would be mistaken, ___, to conclude that technology is the culprit. (a contrast word)
- Remove those occasions and one is left ___ a society that functions smoothly.
- A public life stripped ___ friction may prove a good deal poorer.
Compito di scrittura
Alcune persone sostengono che le città dovrebbero essere riprogettate interamente attorno alla comodità e alla velocità. Scrivi un saggio discorsivo in cui spieghi fino a che punto sei d'accordo. Concedi almeno un punto al punto di vista opposto, usa l'attenuazione e concludi con un giudizio misurato.
280–340 parole
Controlla il tuo testo
- Ho aperto con un'idea su cui vale la pena interrogarsi, non con un'enunciazione dell'argomento.
- Ho concesso un punto ragionevole prima di precisarlo.
- Ho usato l'attenuazione (may, appears to, it could be argued) anziché affermazioni assolute.
- Ogni paragrafo ha un'idea principale e si collega logicamente al successivo.
- Il mio registro è formale e impersonale, senza forme contratte.
- La mia conclusione offre un giudizio misurato e non si limita a ripetere l'introduzione.
Soluzioni
Posizione, attenuazione e registro
- b) Efficiency may well be eroding public life to some extent.May well e to some extent mantengono l'affermazione proporzionata. Le altre sono assolute ed esagerano.
- a) NotwithstandingNotwithstanding significa «nonostante» ed è seguito da un sintagma nominale. Albeit richiede un aggettivo o un sintagma, whereas richiede una proposizione e lest introduce un esito temuto.
- b) That said,That said introduce una precisazione. Likewise aggiunge un punto simile, consequently dà un risultato e incidentally è un'osservazione a margine.
- b) On balance, then,On balance, then, è un modo formale di soppesare l'argomentazione. Le altre sono informali o colloquiali.
- c) It could be argued that the benefits are overstated.It could be argued that è impersonale e cauto. Le altre sono personali o colloquiali.
- a) howeverHowever + aggettivo + soggetto + may be significa «per quanto prezioso». Although e despite non ammettono questa struttura, e whatever non può precedere un aggettivo qui.
- c) Such a view is hard to sustain.Hard to sustain è fermo ma misurato. Le altre sono offensive o sprezzanti.
Completa il linguaggio del saggio
- admittedly / undeniably / undoubtedly / certainly / grantedAdmittedly (e avverbi simili) concede un punto prima che chi scrive lo precisi.
- yet / but / and yet / though / althoughYet (o but, though) segna un contrasto tra le due parti della frase.
- toWould do well è seguito dall'infinito con to.
- thanLess ... than è la struttura comparativa per spostare l'enfasi.
- however / nevertheless / nonetheless / thoughUn avverbio di contrasto come however introduce la precisazione.
- withTo be left with significa restare con qualcosa dopo aver perso il resto.
- ofStrip something of something è la struttura fissa.
Risposta modello
Few would deny that a city in which every journey is swift and every service immediate has its attractions. Yet a city designed solely for convenience may turn out to be one that nobody much wants to linger in.
The argument in favour of speed is a serious one. Congestion costs time and health, and those who depend on public transport are the first to suffer when it fails. Wide, fast routes and well-timed connections can therefore be defended as a form of fairness as much as of comfort, and it would be perverse to romanticise the delays that the poorest commuters endure.
Even so, convenience is a narrow measure of what a city is for. Streets built to move people as quickly as possible tend to treat them as freight, to be delivered rather than to be met. The pavement café, the market stall and the bench beside a fountain all slow the pedestrian down, and it is precisely this slowness that gives a neighbourhood its character. Where such features have been removed in the name of flow, residents often report that the place has become easier to cross but harder to belong to.
There is, moreover, a practical objection. A city that is optimised for one purpose is seldom robust. Roads widened for peak traffic invite more vehicles; the extra capacity is absorbed within a few years, and the congestion returns, now accompanied by noise and pollution. Planners who pursue speed alone may thus end up with neither speed nor pleasure.
The sensible course lies between the extremes. Rapid, reliable transport for those who need it should coexist with streets that reward the unhurried, and decisions about each should be tested against a broader question: not merely how quickly can people move, but what kind of life does the movement serve? A city that can answer that question has little to fear from the stopwatch.