9月3日Patrick寫作范文：窮人的孩子早當(dāng)家

來源：環(huán)球教育網(wǎng) www.ielts.com.cn 2005-9-7

    Children who grow up in families without large amounts of money are better prepared to deal with problems in their adult life than children who are brought up by wealthy parents. Do you agree or disagree?

    題目點(diǎn)評(píng)：這道題是IELTS writing task 2當(dāng)中比較少見的“看著容易寫好太難”的題目（很多IELTS作文題目看起來很難，寫好卻不一定特別難）。咱們首先要注意區(qū)別“families without large amounts of money”和“poor families”這兩個(gè)概念的差異，前者不僅僅指“l(fā)ow-income families”還要包括 “middle-income families”，所以題目的意思和一些同學(xué)概括的“窮人的孩子早當(dāng)家”不同；另外一個(gè)誤區(qū)在于因?yàn)檫@道題目和中國文化比較貼近，很多同學(xué)會(huì)舉過多的簡單生活事例但是卻忽視了普遍性推理，導(dǎo)致論證缺乏深度。7月份寫作變題之后GZ的判分明顯不如以前嚴(yán)格，所以估計(jì)這次打分也會(huì)放松，但是我們?cè)跍?zhǔn)備寫作考試的時(shí)候不應(yīng)該降低對(duì)自己的要求。

    從論點(diǎn)上看，考慮到多數(shù)考生更熟悉中國的國情，肯定是totally agree更好寫,布什的內(nèi)閣里面現(xiàn)在也有拉洋板兒車出身的（不過在美國富豪的孩子當(dāng)中牛人還是出了不少，四十三位總統(tǒng)里面也有大量富家子弟，從整體上看在西方有錢的家長更舍得讓自己的孩子經(jīng)歷風(fēng)雨）。既然觀點(diǎn)寫一邊倒，那么結(jié)構(gòu)當(dāng)然就是五段式――開頭段轉(zhuǎn)述題目+主旨句，主體段1講一般家庭的孩子比富家孩子有更強(qiáng)的心理承受能力，主體段2講一般家庭的孩子有更強(qiáng)的獨(dú)立性，主體段3講普通家庭的家長對(duì)小孩的要求往往更嚴(yán)格，結(jié)尾段總結(jié)上文三層意思。thesis statement和topic sentences（范文里用橫線標(biāo)明）要是少了，扣分沒商量哦！

    關(guān)鍵詞：income gaps 指收入差距 income inequality 指收入不均 intergenerational兩代人之間的 turn the tables 是個(gè)idiom,有點(diǎn)像中文說的"打翻身仗" offspring 孩子counterpart 相對(duì)應(yīng)的人（或事物）meritocratic society 說白了就是“憑本事吃飯的社會(huì)“ self-restraint 自制能力infancy 嬰兒期frugality勤儉 financial strains 說白了就是缺錢，名詞 well-off / affluent（adj) / well-to-do/ well-heeled / wealthy 都是有錢的意思，實(shí)在彈盡糧絕了還可以再用一個(gè)moneyed(adj), autonomy 自己管理自己，名詞 initiative 主動(dòng)性 well-acquainted 對(duì)某事很熟悉，mitigate緩解，要說解決問題，雅思里面詞匯也特多tackle / address / solve / resolve / grapple with / combat 再加題目里的deal with,大家自己挑著用啦

    It is widely accepted that we have been living in a “the rich get richer whereas the poor get poorer” age in terms of income gaps within a generation. However , to this day, there has been no consensus yet over the extent to which income inequality is intergenerational. Some contend that the offspring of low-income and middle-income parents can largely grow up to manifest better problem-solving abilities during adulthood than their high-income family counterparts, thereby turning the tables socially and financially. Personally, I believe this is generally the case in any meritocratic society.

    First and foremost, children raised in households not in possession of a good fortune are conditioned early on in their lives to exercise self-control and self-restraint. These individuals learn from their infancy onward that not everything they crave will become theirs instantaneously. Every so often their wishes go beyond their parents’ means and they have to come to terms with the resulting sense of frustration or rejection. Throughout the childhood and early adulthood years they are tempered by the repeated experiences of parents’ denial of their requests and frugality is inculcated into their minds as a virtue. Consequently these children, for the most part, are apt to interpret scrimping and saving, emotional uneasiness, not infrequent financial strains and menial first jobs as an integral part of life rather than a devastating ordeal. Hence they end up being better able to manage stress in their adult years and less likely to panic or get daunted when problems occur. 

    Further, children brought up by parents of low or middle economic status often grow up to be physically, mentally and professionally more independent than children brought up by affluent parents. It goes without saying that children whose parents are not particularly well-off are more likely than children of affluent households to know how to get the most out of a modest allowance, if they ever get such a thing at all. To the former group of children, most desirable things in life have to be “earned”―that is, more often than not they must put forth great effort before their desire is fulfilled. On the other hand, busy, low or medium salaried parents translate into more autonomy and initiative on the children’s part. This originally disadvantaged group becomes spontaneous and handy through crafting toys on their own, resourceful by cooking their own meals, tactful with coaxing their parents into buying them gifts, intelligent thanks to the absence of private tutors, savvy in doing summer jobs, and above all, unrelenting in pursuing their dreams.

    Lastly, non-wealthy parents typically have higher and more definite aspirations for their children than well-to-do parents. Well-acquainted with all the disadvantages a meager or fair-to-middling bank account generates, many non-wealthy parents pin their hopes on their children to get their families upwardly mobile. These adults mostly have high behavioral, educational and (subsequently) occupational expectations for their children. As a result, they cannot afford to be permissive parents. Spoiling their offspring rotten is the last thing they care to do and they are always ready to discipline their children when they misbehave. They keep tabs on their children’s grades at school and do not spare the rod when their offspring do not measure up academically. The odds of children raised in such rigorous environments having good problem-solving skills are apparently better than children raised otherwise.

    To conclude, the chief determinant of individuals’ problem-solving skills is not the amount of money their parents can amass when they are little. Rather, hands-on experience in comprehending, analyzing, resolving ,mitigating or circumventing problems is more essential to the cultivation of problem-solving abilities. Hence, I am convinced that families without great wealth are more advantageous to the development of individual capacity to tackle problems。