"Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy."
Everyone has the right to keep his/her privacy, including the public figures. People have the nature to learn others privacy, especially those of the celebrities for various reasons, such as reverance and curiousness, but it doesn t follow that they are entitled to pry others private life, and it is really unfair to say that any public figure choose to expose his/her privacy by himself/herself as long as he/she seek a public role.
In the current days, it is a widely spread atmosphere that people take a strong interest in talking about the private life of celebrities, they even rival each other in the fact that who knows more about a common interested celebrity. To cater such a taste, more and more mass media try their best to collect each aspect of a public figure s private life with an interest even exceeding that of making known their work. When we read a entertainment paper or magazine, we are certain to find that most of the content are the private life of singers and stars, such as someone got a divorce with his/her ex-girlfried/ex-boyfriend and is now keeping contract with someone else, etc.
All that exists is not valid, we couldn t say that it is in reason to spy into others privacy just because most people prefer to do so, and we should not just accept a unfair fact without exert any effort to change the circumstance. To put your own feet in the shoes of the public figures, do you feel comfortable to be watched everywhere you go, and find a lot of affair news about you in the media especially when most of the news are made out by the pressmen? If your answer to this question is no, you should aPTEe that we are obliged to do something to change the current situation about the private lift of public figures. Special laws should be enacted to discipline the prying into privacy of the mass media, sound should be heared arguing again people s interest in celebrities private life.
Only when the public figures are librated from the harassment of worrying about their privacy protection, we can expect a better service from them, and in that case, more capable people will be attract to pursue a public role. Suppose that if a singer is followed everywhere he/she goes, how can he/she lead a normal life as common people, how can he/she gets a relaxation? He/she must be cautious when he/she every words, he/she can t expect a casual and relaxing atmosphere as every common people can enjoy. It is difficult for him/her to concentrate all their energy in working, as a consequence, we would lose some more brilliant performance we can expect otherwise.
In summary, we should call on the public to cease to spy into the celebrities privacy and pay more attention to their public life, only in that way can the public figure enjoy their life better and can we expect a better service from them. (496 words)
(2)回应的原则：“攻其一点，兼顾其余”。也就是说，回应要找准重点，其余部分只须略微带过，作到“回应重点突出而全面”，这点在ISSUE和“ARGUMENT”中都是普遍适用的大前提原则，也是“高分作文”的要领之一。这里我们已经知道作这篇文章要从“公众人物”自身出发，以他们的角度来看待自己隐私是否该暴光的问题，这样我们就找到中心回应点是“should expect”,对象是“public figures”,而例证可以充分利用话题的友好提示：列举的三种人，选择熟悉易于表达的来充实论证，免了自己的劳神工夫，这种资源一定要善加利用，一方面可充实论据，另一方面，作到了兼顾其他，全面回应的原则。下面的范文采取APTEE的态度，采用should类文章的清晰“套路”，作到了合理回应，请读者就这方面仔细分析。
A million times I have heard the accident regarding a certain famous star shouted to separate fervid journalists and interviews from various media outside his or her door, which finally results a farce of quarrel and fight. Sometimes I really hate those drab reporters, who surprisingly have the endless power and fresh tricks to snatch almost each shadow of celebrities together with the innate ability to embellish them so "fascinating". At the same time those public figures shriek for their overexposure of privacy I am always pity for their embarrassment, for their career they really have no better choice but to tolerate, for their legitimate rights they had better struggle against the privacy revelation. But most of them, in the end, choose the former despite without any mustered negotiation.
It is obvious to take into mind that being a public cynosure the first thing one has to be even eager to sacrifice is the privacy, in that the quality of public is just the opposite of privacy, in the rim of relationship, either one can only be maintained. The fundamental aim for a celebrity is to stand strong in the sight of public and win over the precious approbation from his or her fans. So packing oneself in his single world can help nothing to add his reputation, what he strives to do is the reverse-anatomize oneself in front of the public stares and acclaim for his names being praised or criticized in the sun-then can he make himself known out of the nonplus of being forgotten and lose his prestige in public. As a result, the condition of privacy being traced and published is no more a paramount incidence but under the prediction of them; after all, no reports, no celebrities.
Hence, if a public figure intends to preserve his title, no grouch he ought to hang at lips, on the contrary, he might be thankful to these indefatigable journalists and reporters for their free propaganda of his talk and behavior pattern. Take the teenage star-backstreet boys for instance; with the sales of their albums skyrocket, their reputation is more and more stentorian, following the trend of their ordinary life becoming an incandescent focus attracting public eyes. Then as we all know, backstreet clothes have been prevalent, backstreet sneakers also is in heat sale, and personal parlance begins to appear some exotic features commonly shared by teenagers just because backstreet boys ever talked like that. A five-boy chorus can influence so many groups of people by what they said and what they did, the feeling of satisfaction and proud could be no better to describe their elation of success than for the byproducts of the privacy publicized, this time they probably even couldn t help to rush up to the media reporters and proffer their kisses.
Oh, well, to the scandals mostly reported in any entertainment channel, these figures ultimately reaches a top limitation of inured tolerance, especially those survive by their shingles of excellent prestige, such as those politicians. In the period of election of presidents or senators, the most headache those participants suffer is the side report, which has the overwhelming clout to remove his precious stake to his adversary s side. Then the only thing they must remember is the discretion of their words and behaviors either in public case or merely in private room. There is no absolute stalwart wall that can resist the strong blast, and the unique paper that can wrap the burning flame. According to this principle, the expectation for their privacy no longer staying for himself is no doubt fathomable to them, astonishment is just an effete struggle.
To sum up, being an illustrious man have to pay his privacy for the undertaking brilliance, and he should understand without the public desire to delve their everyday life instead of merely relying on their limited published works, they convincingly cannot earn such a lot from their maniac supporters, who also need them to care for and give enough regards as feedback. Once this complex relationship being disentangled, I think, the public figures and populace will make a balance on the scale of privacy revelation. (690 words)
在切实掌握好这些技巧之后，后续的问题也会接踵而来，很多考生在认识到问题的严重性之后，不知道如何从开始回应起就把握好文章的走向而不跑题，作好条理性的框架是必须的，但是最简便的方法就是——将话题的内容编成问句，自己的每段回应编成回答，如果作到有问必答，那么你就没有跑题，否则就要重新构思回到正轨上来。这个方法在备考初期研究题库预先构思时尤为重要，他能检验你提纲的合理性，否则一旦到了考场，你来不及重新构思而盲目照搬，后果不堪设想。希望这里的这点提醒能够引起各位考生足够的重视，不要白白无谓牺牲。而这个问题对于ARGUMENT来说，情况要好得多，一方面由于ARGUMENT回应方式比较固定且其较 ISSUE来说约定俗成的高度模式化，另一方面是由于ARGUMENT的易于操作性和熟悉性，利用的资源都来自题干本身，因而考生在这篇作文上很少看走眼。但是也有些题目，由于脱胎于ETS惯常的逻辑单题模式，本身语言饶口，且容易将论据与结论混淆，从而导致一定程度的攻击失误，虽然不至于像ISSUE 那样导致全盘失误，但是毕竟在最好拿分的项目上失分无疑是给原本脆弱的分数雪上加霜。
The article entitled Eating Iron in last month s issue of Eating for Health reported that a recent study found a correlation between high levels of iron in the diet and an increased risk of heart disease. Further, it is well established that there is a link between large amounts of red meat in the diet and heart disease, and red meat is high in iron. On the basis of the study and the well-established link between red meat and heart disease, we can conclude that the correlation between high iron levels and heart disease, then, is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.
析题：仔细读过，发现这道题有点绕，很多考生曾经有过这样的困惑：“我没有理解最后一句话的意思is most probably a function of the correlation between red meat and heart disease.是说high iron level于heart disease之间的关系是red meat与heart disease之间有关的结果那作者到底是认为high iron level和heart disease之间有没有关系阿?”再读之下，我们会发现作者其实做了一个顺接推论：red meat引起心脏病------------> red meat里面还有大量的铁-----------> 高铁引起心脏病，就是这么一个简单的推论过程，关键认清谁推出谁，就要在审题时注意到关键的这么看似不经意却被友好的ETS“重复两次”的短语“well established”，也就是说“大量红肉与心脏病之间一定有联系”是不容质疑的论据，即本题论据是不容批驳的，关键问题在于由论据推导出结论的时候犯了“Implicit causal claims”和“gratuitous assumptions”(详细逻辑谬误分类见后文“七宗罪”)，因而我们就可以以次展开攻击。很多来自网上的文章和提纲在本题上颠倒了推导对象，把“高铁引起心脏病”作为论据来推出“red meat引起心脏病”，结果导致文章失误。下面读者可通过以下范文检验一下该论证过程和思路：
The correlation of the high irons level and heart disease the arguer trying to prove is not as perfect as he assumes. Although at first glance, his cause-and-effect analysis seems quite cogent, yet it can t stand much reexamination.
I aPTEe to the well-established theory concerning the necessary relation between the large amount of red meat in people s diet and heart disease, but no other possibilities can be ruled out except for one of the inPTEdients-iron. It is obvious that the arguer constructs his building of conclusion on the basis of the conviction of the deleterious function stems from the iron. While not only a single iron does red meat contain, as we all know, many other components also have the influential role once being indigested into human body. For instance, some type of particular protein it might include, instead of the iron, is the substantial root of heart attack. So the arguer s peroration has no convincing power for this gratuitous assumption.
Moreover, even though his deduction does really derive from some passage of authoritative researches he has no opportunity to list below, the assertion about the high levels of iron related to the possibility of heart disease cannot be got through by merely so qualified the evidence exhibited here. According to the arguer s elicitation, we believe the red meat doescontain large amount of iron, however, we might ask ourselves such questions enlightened by our common sense, "Does the amount of iron involved in red meat reach the dangerous level enough to lead to heart disease?" The answer we can t obtain through this short argument, thus directly make us doubt the whole fruits the arguer attained.
As it stands, the study reported on the published media Eating for Health is inevitable filled with some lethal logic fallacies, which finally weakens the cogency of the whole claims. To such a paramount and sensitive issue relative to people s health and life, scrutiny is not allowed to be neglected; and it is just for this point, I m afraid, no people could ultimately abjure for eating red meat as a result of reading this ridiculous article. (352 words)