Joy English · 레벨 C2 · 논증 에세이joy-english.com

효율과 공적 삶에 관한 논의형 에세이

이름:날짜:

논의형 에세이에서 균형 잡히고 단정을 피한 논증을 구성합니다. 양보하고, 단서를 달고, 절제된 판단으로 결론을 맺습니다.

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.

입장, 완곡 표현, 문체

격식 있는 논의형 에세이에 가장 알맞은 선택지를 고르세요.

Which sentence hedges most appropriately?
- a) Efficiency destroys public life.
- b) Efficiency may well be eroding public life to some extent.
- c) Efficiency is definitely the only reason public life is declining.
___ its undeniable convenience, the system carries costs that are easily overlooked.
- a) Notwithstanding
- b) Albeit
- c) Whereas
- d) Lest
Which linker signals that the writer is about to qualify their own argument?
- a) Likewise,
- b) That said,
- c) Consequently,
- d) Incidentally,
Which is the most suitable way to open a final paragraph?
- a) All in all, I reckon
- b) On balance, then,
- c) So yeah,
- d) To cut a long story short,
Which sentence is the most appropriately impersonal and cautious?
- a) You can say the benefits are overrated.
- b) I think the benefits are overrated, to be honest.
- c) It could be argued that the benefits are overstated.
Efficiency, ___ valuable it may be, should not be pursued at any cost.
- a) however
- b) although
- c) despite
- d) whatever
Which sentence rejects an opposing view without overstating?
- a) That is rubbish.
- b) Only a fool would believe that.
- c) Such a view is hard to sustain.

에세이 표현 완성하기

각 문장을 완성하도록 한 단어 또는 괄호 안의 형태를 입력하세요.

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.

쓰기 과제

일부 사람들은 도시를 편리함과 속도를 중심으로 완전히 재설계해야 한다고 주장합니다. 이 주장에 어느 정도 동의하는지에 관한 논의형 에세이를 쓰세요. 반대 견해에 최소 한 가지는 양보하고, 완곡 표현을 사용하며, 절제된 판단으로 마무리하세요.

280–340단어

내 글 확인

주제를 진술하는 대신 의문을 제기할 만한 생각으로 시작했습니다.
타당한 점을 인정한 뒤에 단서를 달았습니다.
절대적 주장 대신 완곡 표현(may, appears to, it could be argued)을 사용했습니다.
각 단락에는 중심 생각이 하나씩 있고 다음 단락과 논리적으로 이어집니다.
문체는 격식 있고 비인칭적이며 축약형이 없습니다.
결론은 절제된 판단을 제시하며 서론을 단순히 반복하지 않습니다.

정답

입장, 완곡 표현, 문체

b) Efficiency may well be eroding public life to some extent.May well과 to some extent는 주장을 적절한 수준으로 유지합니다. 나머지는 절대적이어서 주장을 과장합니다.
a) NotwithstandingNotwithstanding은 in spite of라는 뜻이며 명사구가 뒤따릅니다. Albeit는 형용사나 구가 필요하고, whereas는 절이 필요하며, lest는 우려되는 결과를 이끕니다.
b) That said,That said는 단서를 도입합니다. Likewise는 비슷한 점을 더하고, consequently는 결과를 나타내며, incidentally는 곁다리 언급입니다.
b) On balance, then,On balance, then,은 논증을 저울질하는 격식 있는 방식입니다. 나머지는 비격식이거나 수다스럽습니다.
c) It could be argued that the benefits are overstated.It could be argued that은 비인칭적이고 신중합니다. 나머지는 개인적이거나 구어적입니다.
a) howeverHowever + 형용사 + 주어 + may be는 “아무리 가치 있다 해도”라는 뜻입니다. Although와 despite는 이 구조를 취하지 않으며, whatever는 여기서 형용사 앞에 올 수 없습니다.
c) Such a view is hard to sustain.Hard to sustain은 단호하되 절제되어 있습니다. 나머지는 모욕적이거나 무시하는 표현입니다.

에세이 표현 완성하기

admittedly / undeniably / undoubtedly / certainly / grantedAdmittedly(및 비슷한 부사)는 글쓴이가 단서를 달기 전에 한 가지 점을 인정합니다.
yet / but / and yet / though / althoughYet(또는 but, though)은 문장의 두 부분 사이의 대조를 나타냅니다.
toWould do well 뒤에는 to부정사가 옵니다.
thanLess ... than은 강조점을 옮기는 비교 구조입니다.
however / nevertheless / nonetheless / thoughhowever 같은 대조 부사가 단서를 도입합니다.
withTo be left with는 나머지를 잃은 뒤에 무언가와 함께 남는다는 뜻입니다.
ofStrip something of something이 고정된 구조입니다.

모범 답안

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.