“Some people think that young students (between the age of 5 and 10) should have the class that is shorter than one hour. Others think that those young students should focus for a longer period.
Which of the two views do you agree with?”
【为什么不可以“开门见山”，在全文的第一句话就明确自己的立场呢?当然可以啊!】 For a class teaching students of young ages, the length of one hour is just right 【本文立场】. 【然后，做一些必要的“补充”以简要“强化”自己的立场。】 In fact, in many countries, the time varies between 40 minutes and 60 minutes, and the arrangement has been practiced for years. Alterations happened during the years but never prolong the time to more than one hour.
首先，尝试理解我们的对立面：Those who expect children to focus for a longer period of time obviously want to stretch children’s attention span. 然后，果断提出第一个疑问： And the immediate question is for how much longer we should expect our pupils to focus. Is the time 10 minutes or 20 minutes? At this point, we may find that the expectation is bare criticism about the current arrangement and without any constructive suggestion. 紧接着，提出第二个疑问： In addition, is it legitimate to sit our child students at their desks by the simple yet arbitrary extension of a class? Shouldn’t educators and parents follow the law of children’s nature? 最后，提出第三个疑问，也是最重要的疑问：Here follows another point of doubt, which may be most important. Isn’t one hour already longer than the time for which children are able to concentrate?
1) Is the time 10 minutes or 20 minutes? 【疑问句的语气很强，用于强化我们的质疑。】
2) Is it legitimate to sit our child students at their desks by the simple yetarbitrary extension of a class? 【疑问句的语气很强，用于强化我们的质疑。】
3) Shouldn’t educators and parents follow the law of children’s nature? 【反问句的语气很强，用于强化我们的驳斥和反对。】
4) Isn’t one hour already longer than the time for which children are able to concentrate? 【反问句的语气很强，用于强化我们的立场。】