SAT寫作分析《Bag Ban Bad For Freedom and Environment》

Adapted from Adam B. Summers, 「Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.」 ?2013 by The San Diego Union-Tribune, LLC.

Californians dodged yet another nanny-state regulation recently when the state Senate narrowly voted down a bill to ban plastic bags statewide, but the reprieve might only be temporary. Not content to tell us how much our toilets can flush or what type of light bulb to use to brighten our homes, some politicians and environmentalists are now focused on deciding for us what kind of container we can use to carry our groceries.

首先我們看一下標題，「Bag Ban Bad for Freedom and Environment.」 作者明顯對禁塑令持否定態度，而且可以大體推斷出作者對於觀點的論證一定會圍繞「Freedom」和「Environment」展開，我們拭目以待。

在文章的開頭段我們嗅到了明顯的諷刺語氣，判斷是要有證據支撐的，先一起分析幾個小詞。第一個詞「dodge」本意是「閃開，躲避（通常是空間上的物體）」，但放在這句話里就增加了很多趣味性。首先，這裡加利福尼亞州人民躲避的並不是汽車或者人流而是「regulation」這個抽象概念，與「regulation」常用搭配詞「evade」相比，「dodge」能幫助讀者更生動形象地（figuratively）感受到加利福尼亞州人民暫時不用遵守這條規定是多麼幸運。

第二個詞「nanny」是「保姆，阿姨」的意思，把一個州政府比作「保姆」(此處是暗喻metaphor)還是比較少見的，保姆在大眾心目中通常來家裡干一點雜活的中老年婦女，讀到這句還很難理解其中的精妙之處，我們暫時放一放，看後半句。

「Reprieve」這個詞大多說同學不太熟悉，它是「緩刑」的意思，在這裡作者用意比較明顯：將議案（bill）尚未通過的這段窗口期比作「緩刑」(此處是暗喻metaphor) 來告誡讀者，特別是加利福尼亞州人民，如果日後這個議案通過的話大家就要像被抓到監獄裡服刑的犯人一樣失去自由。咦？貌似跟文章題目中的「freedom」呼應哈，真是妙！這一段的第二句話可以大致翻譯成：「一些政客和環保主義者已經不滿足於告訴我們家裡的馬桶可以沖多少水，或者用什麼類型的燈泡照明，他們甚至想要幫我們決定買菜的時候用什麼袋子。」大家讀中文可以比較容易地感受到字裡行間嘲諷的語氣，同時也理解了「nanny」的用意。作者用「nanny」以及第二句話的描述來嘲諷加利福尼亞州政府提出這項議案是多管閑事，過多干預公民日常生活。作者沒有明說自己的想法，但是首段句句精闢，巧妙地暗示了作者對於這項議案的不滿態度。

The bill would have prohibited grocery stores and convenience stores with at least $2 million in gross annual sales and 10,000 square feet of retail space from providing single-use plastic or paper bags, although stores would have been allowed to sell recycled paper bags for an unspecified amount. The bill fell just three votes short of passage in the Senate ... and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, who sponsored the measure, has indicated that he would like to bring it up again, so expect this fight to be recycled rather than trashed.

第二自然段描述了如果禁塑令推行帶來的最直接的影響：禁止提供一次性塑料袋。這句話說前半段還是挺客觀的，但最後一處短語「for an unspecified amount」暴露了作者的態度(attitude)：從此就可以無限量賣可回收紙袋了。這一處短語赤裸裸地嘲諷了這個政策的荒謬可笑。

接下來作者詳細介紹了議案的審議過程，最終雖然失敗了，提出議案的人不會就此輕易善罷甘休。「fight」這個詞用地非常精妙，形象地展現出議案討論過程中雙方劍拔弩張的氣勢。

「recycle」和「trash」這兩個詞 (diction/word choice) 很容易被大家不小心忽略掉，已經經歷過TOEFL和SAT閱讀的磨礪，大多數同學對這種形象化的語言「Figurative Language」早已見怪不怪了，也可以輕鬆解讀出這句話的意思是提出議案的人會想辦法通過這條議案。我們仔細來思考一下，這兩個動詞通常搭配的名詞對象（collocation）是什麼？是垃圾。作者用這兩個詞來描述這場「fight」，就是想藉助這兩個詞語的引申義（connotation）告訴讀者他認為這場鬥爭就像垃圾一樣，日後通過這條議案只能對人們的生活無用甚至有害。

While public debate over plastic bag bans often devolves into emotional pleas to save the planet or preserve marine life (and, believe me, I love sea turtles as much as the next guy), a little reason and perspective is in order.

作者在論證自己觀點前首先提出，公眾對於禁塑令的態度往往與保護環境的感情有關，同時表達自己也非常喜愛海洋動物。不少同學會在課上問我，阿倫老師為什麼作者在第三段要替對方說話呢，直接展開攻擊豈不是更好？我總會給同學舉一個生活中的例子來解釋。我們在微信朋友圈中經常能看到長輩分享類似「一天喝八杯水保健康純屬扯淡」，「只有女人能生孩子只是謠言」之類的文章。我們看到的第一反應一定是：這尼瑪是騙子吧，或者就是一個軟文，文章結尾肯定會推薦我喝它們公司產的果汁。當我們遇到自己認定的常識遭人質疑和挑戰的時候，我們內心總會有些非善意的猜忌。與之相類似，大部分讀者發現塑料袋有害壞境這條常識遭受質疑時，也會對作者有類似的想法。所以本文作者在文章論證之前，先表明自己的道德立場（moral stand），自己並非說出一件驚天大事嘩眾取寵，博取眼球。作者強調在情感上與讀者站在一起，但是情是情，理是理，作者想從理性的角度幫讀者進行分析(rational analysis)。

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic bags, sacks, and wraps of all kinds (not just grocery bags) make up only about 1.6 percent of all municipal solid waste materials. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags, which are the most common kind of plastic grocery bags, make up just 0.3 percent of this total.

第四自然段作者用準確的數據（statistics）告訴讀者，塑料袋其實並沒有大家想像地那麼污染環境，它在城市固體廢料中所佔比例微乎其微。這是作者幫讀者糾正的對於塑料袋的第一個錯誤認識(misconception)。

The claims that plastic bags are worse for the environment than paper bags or cotton reusable bags are dubious at best. In fact, compared to paper bags, plastic grocery bags produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, require 70 percent less energy to make, generate 80 percent less waste, and utilize less than 4 percent of the amount of water needed to manufacture them. This makes sense because plastic bags are lighter and take up less space than paper bags.

在第五自然段作者指出，塑料袋相比紙袋和棉布袋更加污染環境的觀點也是站不住腳的：無論是在生產過程中溫室氣體排放，水資源的消耗還是廢料的產生環節都比所謂的「環保袋」更加環保。同時塑料袋更加小巧易攜帶。讀到這，我相信不少讀者已經會逐漸感覺自己確實對塑料袋存在偏見(prejudice)。

Reusable bags come with their own set of problems. They, too, have a larger carbon footprint than plastic bags. Even more disconcerting are the findings of several studies that plastic bag bans lead to increased health problems due to food contamination from bacteria that remain in the reusable bags. A November 2012 statistical analysis by University of Pennsylvania law professor Jonathan Klick and George Mason University law professor and economist Joshua D. Wright found that San Francisco』s plastic bag ban in 2007 resulted in a subsequent spike in hospital emergency room visits due to E. coli, salmonella, and Campylobacter-related intestinal infectious diseases. The authors conclude that the ban even accounts for several additional deaths in the city each year from such infections.

文章在第六自然段沒有正面討論塑料袋，轉而講述可回收袋的弊端。不僅僅是前一段談到的碳排放的問題，可回收袋甚至會導致嚴重的健康問題。作者引用(quote)權威機構的調查結果(survey)，強調可回收紙袋會導致急診室中感染病人的增加，甚至要為幾例死亡病例承擔責任。健康是人民生活的頭等大事，即使那些缺乏公民意識(sense of citizenship)不在乎環境問題的人，看到用紙袋會讓自己患病，他們也一定會大吃一驚，甚至產生恐懼的心理。恐懼(appeal to fear)往往是最具有說服力的寫作技巧。

The description of plastic grocery bags as 「single-use」 bags is another misnomer. The vast majority of people use them more than once, whether for lining trash bins or picking up after their dogs. (And still other bags are recycled.) Since banning plastic bags also means preventing their additional uses as trash bags and pooper scoopers, one unintended consequence of the plastic bag ban would likely be an increase in plastic bag purchases for these other purposes. This is just what happened in Ireland in 2002 when a 15 Euro cent ($0.20) tax imposed on plastic shopping bags led to a 77 percent increase in the sale of plastic trash can liner bags.

剛從上一段的緊張情緒中剛剛緩過來，讀者就在本段中被告知塑料袋只用一次的說法也有問題。事實上大部分人都會反覆使用塑料購物袋，比如套垃圾桶，遛狗時盛小狗的便便。如果塑料購物袋被禁止了，人們會去買更多的其他種類的塑料袋，這樣即使出台了禁塑令也治標不治本(scratch the surface)。

段尾作者用在愛爾蘭實際發生的例子(example)告訴讀者這並不是危言聳聽,而是確鑿的事實(This is not alarmist talk, but a hard fact)。

And then there are the economic costs. The plastic bag ban would threaten the roughly 2,000 California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry, although, as noted in the Irish example above, they might be able to weather the storm if they can successfully switch to producing other types of plastic bags. In addition, taxpayers will have to pony up for the added bureaucracy, and the higher regulatory costs foisted upon bag manufacturers and retailers will ultimately be borne by consumers in the form of price increases.

這一段作者預測(predict)了禁塑令如果出台可能對經濟上產生的影響。無論是對於塑料袋生產廠商，工人就業還是消費者都不是一個好消息。

我們不放看一下我用下劃線標註的這六處單詞或短語(word choice/diction)：「threaten（威脅）」，「weather the storm （渡過暴風雨）」，「pony up （付錢）」，「added bureaucracy （額外的官僚機構）」，「foist upon （強加）」，「be borne by (忍受)」。這些短語無一例外都表現出作者對於禁塑令給企業和人民經濟生活帶來的負面影響的擔憂(concern)，相同的情感也會通過這些短語傳遞(transfer)到讀者。

Notwithstanding the aforementioned reasons why plastic bags are not, in fact, evil incarnate, environmentalists have every right to try to convince people to adopt certain beliefs or lifestyles, but they do not have the right to use government force to compel people to live the way they think best. In a free society, we are able to live our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. That includes the right to make such fundamental decisions as 「Paper or plastic?」

作為一篇標準的駁論文，作者在結尾段首先對前文的討論進行了總結：塑料袋真心不是一件壞東西。接下來作者做了讓步(concession)並提出環境學家有權利說服別人接受某種理念或者生活方式；話鋒一轉，作者又強調他們不能用政府力量強制人們遵循所謂的最佳生活方式。這種先讓步後反駁（refute）的寫法能夠讓站在兩方立場的讀者都能獲得尊重，從而更容易被說服 （convince readers on both sides of the argument）。同時「一揚一抑」能讓後面的反駁更加客觀(objective)有力(forceful)。

最後作者把文章主題升華到個人自由層面，用一個問題與開頭呼應（correspond）並圓滿地總結了文章主旨。

以上是我對文章的分析，希望大家看得還過癮。我們在分析新SAT寫作文章時雖然不用像我一樣把文章中的所有技巧點都找出來，但是至少三四個技巧點還是要能做到快速識別和作用分析的。

以上文字摘自我SAT寫作課堂講義，需要完整電子版的同學可以私信我郵箱，我會郵件發送給大家。