英语写作教程 第6讲 [兼容模式]

Unit 6 Discussing ResultsObjectives:- Understand the discussion section- Learn how to present your results- Learn how to compare your results with others- Learn how to interpret your results- Learn how to express opinions in the discussionContents:- Reading and discussion: a sample result section- Language focus: comparison and contrast; strengthening or weakening a claim- Signal words of comparison and contrast- Writing practice: writing comparison and contrast, and writing a short discussion section- Classroom extension: writing a result section for a classroom experiment.1.Reading Activity1.1 Pre-reading TaskThe results section presents your research findings, and the discussion section is an analysis of those findings. You may include a discussion section at the end of your results section to explain and contemplate the results. The discussion can either be a part of the results section or a separate section of its own, which should be in line with the practice of your target journal. Sometimes, the results, discussion and conclusion sections are combined in journal articles. Most articles do not contain all three sections.The function of the discussion part is to interpret your results in light of what has already been known about the subject of the investigation, and to explain our new understanding of the problem after taking your results into consideration. TheDiscussion will always be connected to the Introduction by way of the question(s) or posed hypotheses and cited literature, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction. Instead, it tells how your study has moved us forward from the place you leave us at the end of the Introduction.Before reading the following sample discussion section, think about the following questions:How many elements does a discussion section include?What do those elements function?What expressions are typical in writing a discussion section?1.2Reading PassageIn this large, prospective investigation of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk, we found elevated risks for colorectal and lung cancer with both meat types. Red, but not processed, meat intake was also associated with increased risk for cancer of the esophagus and liver. We observed borderline statistically significant elevated risks for advanced prostate cancer with both red and processed meat intake, for laryngeal cancer with red meat, and for bladder cancer and myeloma and with processed meat intake.The cancer site most consistently associated with meat intake has been the colorectum. A recent meta-analysis reported elevated risks in the highest category of consumption of meat. Our study included 1,000 colorectal cancer cases, and it lends strong support to implicate red and processed meat as risk factors for this malignancy. Consistent with previous studies, we observed a stronger positive association for rectal than colon cancer.We found a positive association between red meat intake specifically and cancers of the esophagus and liver, and a borderline significant positive association for laryngeal cancer. The first prospective study of meat intake and esophageal cancer was published recently; that study had only 65 cases and found a positive association for processed meat, but not red meat, with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Our study suggests a threshold effect for red meat intake on esophageal cancer risk, beginning at a low level of intake, with no further increase in risk with higher intakes, as reflected in the p-trend (p = 0.13), although it is possible that the referent group had a smaller-than-expected cancer incidence by chance. Data on meat intake and cancers of the liver and larynx are limited, and our study is the first prospective investigation to report on these associations. Two case-control studies reported elevated risks for laryngeal cancer for those in the highest intake categories of red meat intake and fried beef/veal.Unexpectedly, we found an inverse association between red meat intake and endometrial cancer; this association was not attenuated by adjustment for known risk factors, such as body mass index or menopausal hormone therapy, or by fine controlfor smoking, which has been inversely associated with this malignancy. Previous studies have reported null or positive relations between red meat and endometrial cancer. We also observed inverse associations between processed meat intake and leukemia and melanoma. In contrast to our findings, childhood leukemia has been positively associated with intake of processed meats in a case-control study.Previous studies of meat intake and prostate cancer are conflicting. Some studies have reported null findings, and others suggest positive associations. Despite finding no association between red or processed meat intake and overall prostate cancer risk, we observed a suggestion of an elevated risk for advanced prostate cancer with both meat types. If the relation of meat intake to prostate cancer is confined to advanced disease, this could explain some of the inconsistencies in the literature as most previous studies have not specifically addressed advanced prostate cancer.With regard to breast cancer, a pooled analysis of eight cohort studies found no association with red meat intake; however, the two most recent prospective studies found positive associations for both red and processed meat, specifically for estrogen and progesterone receptor–positive breast cancers in premenopausal women. Although breast cancer risk related to meat intake did not appear to differ by menopausal status in our study, we had very few premenopausal cases (n = 94) and lacked information on hormone receptor status for a large number of cases.Both red meat, regardless of processing procedure, and processed meat can be linked to carcinogenesis by different mechanisms; for example, they are both sources of saturated fat and iron, which have independently been associated with carcinogenesis. Associations between saturated fat and cancer are likely to be related to energy balance in general, whereas iron is thought to contribute to carcinogenesis specifically by generating free radicals and inducing oxidative stress. Most recently, dietary fat was positively associated with breast cancer, and iron intake was positively associated with liver and colorectal cancers.This study was primarily limited by its relatively small sample size. An earlier start in data collection would have increased the time needed to survey more participants. Ideally, the number of participant would have been more evenly distributed across gender/year in population. A larger sample with diversity would have benefited our results. Other limitations of this study included some degree of possible measurement errors, although we attempted at minimizing the error in measurement and the measurement data compared very favorably to other researches. In conclusion, a diet high in red or processed meat was associated with an elevated risk of both colorectal and lung cancer; in addition, red meat was associated with an elevated risk of esophageal and liver cancer. A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites.1.3Reading Comprehension1.3.1What are the results discussed?1.3.2Decide how many elements this sample includes and how they function.2Language Focus2.1 Cause and effect2.1.1 Read the following sentence from the text, and see the causal relations.Associations between saturated fat and cancer are likely to be related to energybalance in general, whereas iron is thought to contribute to carcinogenesis specifically by generating free radicals and inducing oxidative stress.2.1.2 Using signal words for causal relations.Emphasising causegiving rise tobringingaboutIf people smoke more, the death rate from cancer will increase.Additionally, you should be careful when using commas. Conjunctions such as therefore, consequently, as a result, and for this reason are usually followed by a comma, as in these examples:The weather was cold; therefore, Sally closed the window.The weather was cold. Therefore, Sally put on her coat.The weather was cold. Consequently, Sally put on her scarf.A blizzard hit the town. As a result, the schools were closed.2.1.3 Causal markersComplete the following paragraph by filling in missing causal words.Recurring headaches can have initiate disruptive effects in a person'slife. __(1)___, in many cases, these headaches make a person nauseous to the point that he or she must go to bed. ___(2)___, sleep is often interrupted ___(3)___ the pain. Disrupted sleep worsens the physical and emotional state of the sufferer. For those who try to maintain a normal lifestyle, drugs are often relied on to get through the day. Such drugs, of course, ___(4)___ other negative effects. Drugs can inhibit productivity on a job, perhaps even ___(5)___regular absences. Not only is work affected, but the seemingly unpredictable occurrence of these headaches ___(6)___ disruption in family life. The interruption to a person's family life is enormous: cancelling plans in the last minute and straining relationships with friends and family. It is no wonder that many of these people feel discouraged and even depressed ___(7)___ the cycle of misery reoccurring headaches cause.2.1.4Notes into a Causal ParagraphTurn the following notes into a paragraph of cause and effect.•Lack of water dryness in the soil leaves wilt death of plant.•Too much water leaves droop or become yellow death of plant.•Too strong sun baked soil roots killed death of plant.•Lack of light pale leaves & thin stems death of plant.2.2Strengthening or weakening of your statementsThe discussion sections of a research paper focus on making claims and then adding support for those claims. What are claims? Claims are statements about ideas and data from you and other people. Here is an example of a claim.Example:Basic claim: An increase in smoking among teenagers caused long-term health problems.When the proof of your idea or data is clear, you should strengthen your claim. When the evidence is less certain, you should limit or weaken your claim. Below are some examples of strengthening and limiting the above claim.Examples of Stronger Claims:Increase: a sharp increaseCaused: undeniably caused, clearly caused, undoubtedly caused, must have caused, etc. long-term health problems, widespread long-term health problemsYou could also add expressions to the beginning of the sentence:It is clear that an increase . . .A great deal of evidence leads us to conclude that an increase . . .We must conclude that an increase . . .Examples of Limited Claims:Increase: A probable increaseCaused: may have caused, seemed to have caused, contributed to, was one cause of, etc.Again, you could also add expressions to the beginning of the sentence:We have reason to believe that an increase . . .It is possible that an increase . . .2.2.1 Read the sample discussion section and look for expressions of strengthening or weakening claims.2.2.2 Strengthening or weakening of your claimsLearn the following words for strengthening or weakening a claim.Strengthening a claimNouns: certainty, evidence, the fact thatAdverbs: very, pretty, quite, clearly, obviously, undoubtedly, certainly, of course, indeed, inevitably, invariably, always, literallyAdjectives: key, central, crucial, basic, fundamental, major, principal, essential, significantVerbs: show, prove, establish, confirm, conclude, determine, it is clear that, it is obvious thatWeakening a claimVerbs: appear , argue, doubt, estimate, seen (as), seem, speculate, suggest Adverbs: largely, likely, mainly, maybe, perhaps, possible/possibly, probable/probably, rather, relatively, seemingly, somewhat, sometimesThe following text comes from an article testing the benefits of providing children under 4 years old with zinc dietary supplements. It comes from the very beginning of the discussion section, where the authors summarize the findings they have already presented in the results section. Try to fill the following blanks with a variety of expressions to show the strength or weakness of each claim.In our study, zinc supplementation did not result in a ________ reduction in ________ mortality in children aged 1–48 months in a population with high malaria transmission. However, __________ the effect varied by age, with no effect on mortality in infants, and a __________18% reduction of mortality in children 12–48 months of age (p=0·045). This effect was __________ a consequence of fewer deaths from malaria and other infections. Any effect on mortality in this trial was in addition to a __________ effect of vitamin A supplementation . . .3Writing Practice3.1Writing comparison and contrastA contrast paragraph discusses the difference between at least two things. The following is a table of differences between the two states of Arizona and Rhode Island. Write a text about the following table.States Arizona Rhode IslandPhysical size 114000 square miles 1214 square milesPopulation 4 million Less than 1 millionNatural environments Dry, large desert area Temperate zone, an average of 44inches of rain per yearlandscape Landlocked, no seashore Lies on the Atlantic Ocean,coastline3.2Writing a short discussion textWrite about the three different ways of dealing with polluted land according to the table information below.4. Writing Project4.1 Before writing a discussion section to explain your results from the research, first think about the follow questions:Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses? If so, how do you interpret your findings?Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps an unforeseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?)Regarding your conclusion, what is your new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction?If warranted, what would be the next step in your study?4.2 Work as a team.4.3 Go back to your questionnaires and results gathered respectively from Units 4 and5. Your discussion is based upon the data you collected.4.4 When you finish your writing, pool your pieces of work to polish.4.5 Present your discussion in class.5. Final ChecklistHere is a final checklist for the discussion section. Use it to check what you have written in the previous task.。

手惰市安逸阳光实验学校第六讲万能句型，充实各种书信文体Ⅰ.邀请信1．常用开头句式(1)I'm writing to invite you to come to my home to celebrate the Spring Festival on January 19.我写信邀请你1月19日来我家庆祝春节。

(2)We are planning to hold a charity sale and we feel it a great idea if you can join us.我们计划举行一次慈善义卖活动，如果你能来参加就太好了。

(3)The following are some details about this activity./Here are some details about this activity./Some details about this activity are as follows.活动的细节如下。

(4)I'm Li Hua.I'm writing to invite you to see the Chinesepaper­cutting exhibition.我是李华，我写信邀请你参观中国剪纸艺术展。

(5)I am Li Hua.I am writing to tell you some good news that the Student Table Tennis Team of our school is recruiting new members right now.我是李华。

我写信告诉你，我们学校乒乓球队正在招收新队员的好消息。

(6)I would like to invite you to join in this activity，since you are good at table tennis，and you are the most suitable person.我想邀请你参加这项活动，因为你擅长乒乓球，是最合适的人选。

Unit 6Keys for 1.3.1Keys for 1.3.22.1.1Cause: ironEffect: carcinogenesis2.1.31. Firstly;2.Furthermore;3. because of;4. can lead to;5. causing;6. cause;7. due to2.1.4Notes into a Causal ParagraphThere are several factors to be taken into account when studying why some plants become weak or die. One reason is lack of water. Dryness in the soil causes the leaves to wilt, and may give rise to the death of the plant. On the other hand, too much water may result in the leaves drooping, or becoming yellow. While sunshine is necessary for plants, if it is too strong, the soil may be baked and the roots killed. However, if there is no light, the leaves will become pale and the stems thin. Consequently the plant may die.Keys for 2.2.1Examples of strengthening a claim:We observed borderline statistically significant elevated risks for …It lends strong support to …We observed a stronger positive association for …We found a positive association between red meat intake specifically and cancers of the esophagus and liver,…In contrast to our findings, childhood leukemia has been positively associated with intake of processed meats in a case-control study.Examples of weakening a claim:Our study suggests a threshold effect for red meat intake on esophageal cancer risk,…It is possible that the referent group had a smaller-than-expected cancer incidence by chance.We observed a suggestion of an elevated risk for advanced prostate cancer with both meat types. This could explain some of the inconsistencies in the literature as most previous studies have not specifically addressed advanced prostate cancer.Although breast cancer risk related to meat intake did not appear to differ by menopausal status in our study, we had very few premenopausal cases (n = 94) and lacked information on hormone receptor status for a large number of cases.Associations between saturated fat and cancer are likely to be related to energy balance in general, whereas iron is thought to contribute to carcinogenesis specifically by generating free radicals and inducing oxidative stress.An earlier start in data collection would have increased the time needed to survey more participants. Ideally, the number of participant would have been more evenly distributed across gender/year in population. A larger sample with diversity would have benefited our results.A decrease in the consumption of red and processed meat could reduce the incidence of cancer at multiple sites.Keys for 2.3In our study, zinc supplementation did not result in a significant reduction in overall mortality in children aged 1–48 months in a population with high malaria transmission. However, there was a suggestion that the effect varied by age, with no effect on mortality in infants, and a marginally significant 18% reduction of mortality in children 12–48 months of age (p=0·045). This effect wasmainly a consequence of fewer deaths from malaria and other infections. Any effect on mortality in this trial was in addition to a possible effect of vitamin A supplementationKeys for 3.2Even though Arizona and Rhode Island are both states of the U.S., they are strikingly different in many ways. For example, the physical size of each state is different. Arizona is large, having an area of 114,000 square miles, whereas Rhode Island is only about a tenth of the size, having an area of only 1,214 square miles. Another difference is in the size of the population of each state. Arizona has about four million people living in it, but Rhode Island has less than one million. The two states also differ in the kinds of natural environment that each has. For example, Arizona is a very dry state, consisting of large desert areas that do not receive much rainfall every year. However, Rhode Island is located in a temperate zone and receives an average of 44 inches of rain per year. In addition, while Arizona is a landlocked state and thus has no seashore, Rhode Island lies on the Atlantic Ocean and does have a significant coastline.Keys for 3.3The following is taken from a discussion section of a research paper.DiscussionA thorough analysis of both ‘worst’ and ‘best’ rankings shows that the onsite containment technique leads to the best LCA result in the light of the taken hypotheses. Unlike other treatment techniques, onsite containment requires not only few materials (geosynthetics only) but also small-scale excavation works. Actually the more a technique includes heavy technical operations involving materials and equipment, the worse the result of LCA is. This is the case for bio-leaching and offsite landfilling, which include, on the one hand, setting up the bio-leaching device, the treatment of leachates with lime, disposal of waste and cleaning of the site, and on the other hand, removal of soil and the transportation of huge quantities of materials over large distances.As mentioned above, besides the LCA, it is necessary to take into account the ability of techniques to substitute for each other as well as the environmental burdens which may be associated with them. Viewed in this light, it is worth noticing that bio-leaching and offsite landfilling provide complete remediation of the site, contrary to other treatment techniques. Bio-leaching consists of a real onsite decontamination of the polluted soil, which enables bequeathing of a clean site to coming generations. Nevertheless, in addition to a bad LCA result, this emergent technique is still poorly known and its efficiency is not quite proven for large-scale applications as yet. As regards offsite landfilling, if the site is left usable without any risk, the huge quantities of non-stabilized waste, which have to be disposed of in landfill, may disturb the organization of local waste management. This point emphasizes the bad result of LCA.In return, if the favorable LCA result of onsite containment is due to light treatment operations, this very thing brings environmental issues up into the long term. Indeed, only setting-up of awater-resistance device entails onsite storage of huge quantities of non-stabilized soil, meaning that the initial problem is actually postponed, but not solved.As regards liming, which gives intermediate LCA results, an embankment of stabilized soil plays an important part in site rehabilitation. Indeed, in the absence of embankment, liming offers no chanceof reuse for the whole site, whereas the site becomes partly reusable when an embankment of limed soil is achieved. However, stabilization provided by the liming technique is not reliable in the long term and it cannot be assured that the site will be safe for coming generations.To conclude, with the view to treating the site contaminated by sulfur in the short-term, the LCA has been a useful tool in determining the most environmentally friendly technique: onsite containment has been revealed to offer the best resource productivity.On the basis of these interesting results, it would be useful to take into account a wider range of environmental flows in order to get a more exhaustive inventory. And furthermore, a more conventional LCA format could be achieved by using impact categories (global warming, acidification…) as inputs in the multicriteria analysis, instead of environmental flows.Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)。