2003年考研英语真题 Section II Part A (3)

文章通过列举 coal, chemicals, and grain 这些 heavy bulk commodities 作为 concrete examples，来支撑 trucking is too costly 这个论点。这种 specific illustration 让抽象的 monopoly threat 变得 tangible and convincing，直接证明了 shippers 在面对 long-distance transportation 时确实 have no choice but railroads，从而强化了 railroads have them by the throat 这个 central argument about monopolistic control。

信号词 such as for example for instance including like take...for example to illustrate namely specifically

仿写： 当你想 prove 某个 general statement 时，问自己：能否找到 2-3 个 representative examples？这些 examples 应该是 readers 熟悉的或容易 visualize 的。比如要论证 online shopping 的便利性，可以举 books, electronics, and groceries 作为 specific categories。模版：For [general category] such as [example 1], [example 2], and [example 3], [consequence/characteristic] is [adjective], therefore [conclusion]。

文章引用了 Washington lawyer Martin Bercovici 的 rhetorical question: 'Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?'。这个 authoritative voice 作为 third-party perspective 增强了文章的 objectivity and persuasiveness。Bercovici 作为 frequently represents shippers 的 legal expert，他的 questioning 直接 challenges railroads' justification，把 technical debate 升级为 ethical concern about market fairness，呼应了文章主旨中的 market fairness concerns。

信号词 asks argues says states claims notes points out emphasizes according to as...puts it in the words of

仿写： 选择 quotations 时要考虑 speaker's credibility 和 relevance。先介绍 who the person is 和 why their voice matters，然后 present the quote。提问式 quote 比 declarative statement 更能 engage readers。模版：[Title/Role] [Name], who [credentials/experience], [verb like 'asks' or 'argues'], '[direct quotation that challenges or supports your point]'。注意 quote 应该 concise and punchy，避免 overly long passages。

文章在 第1段 中对比了 1995 年 top four railroads 的 under 70 percent market share 和 next year 预期的 well over 90 percent 这两个 contrasting statistics。这个 stark comparison 通过 quantitative evidence 展现了 dramatic consolidation trend，让 monopoly threat 从 abstract concept 变成 concrete reality。数字的 sharp contrast 使 heightened concerns 显得 completely justified，直接支撑了文章主旨中 railroads dominating freight transportation 的论断。

信号词 as recently as while whereas in contrast on the other hand however but yet compared to unlike conversely

仿写： 构建 contrast 时要选择 comparable elements 并使用 parallel structure。可以对比 time periods (past vs. present), alternatives (option A vs. option B), 或 expectations vs. reality。使用 numerical data 能让 contrast 更 striking。模版：As recently as [time/situation], [subject] [verb] [lower/different state]. [Time marker], [subject] [verb] [higher/opposite state]。确保 two elements being compared 在 same dimension 上，这样 contrast 才 meaningful。

第4段 展示了 clear causal chain：If railroads charged all customers the same average rate (cause), then shippers who have options would switch to trucks (intermediate effect), leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost (final consequence)。这个 logical progression 解释了 railroads' rationale for rate discrimination，虽然文章最终 challenges this justification，但这个 causal reasoning 展现了 issue 的 complexity。它说明 monopolistic behavior 并非 purely malicious，而是有其 economic logic，这让后续对 market fairness concerns 的批判更加 nuanced and credible。

信号词 if because since as therefore thus consequently as a result so leads to causes results in due to

仿写： 构建 causal argument 时要 identify clear triggers and outcomes。使用 conditional structures ('if...then') 或 result indicators。确保 logical chain 是 reasonable and traceable。可以用 multiple-step causation 来展现 complexity。模版：If [action/condition], [subject] would [immediate consequence], [result marker like 'leaving' or 'causing'] [final outcome]。注意避免 oversimplification；承认 complexity 反而能 strengthen credibility。

第2段 使用了 vivid metaphor 'have them by the throat'，这个 figurative expression 把 railroads 对 shippers 的 control 比作 physical choking。这个 powerful image 让抽象的 monopolistic power 变得 visceral and threatening，instantly conveys 一种 helplessness and danger。相比 dry economic terms，这个 metaphor 激发 emotional response，让 readers 感受到 shippers 的 desperation，直接强化了文章主旨中 railroads imposing excessive charges on shippers with no alternatives 的严重性。

信号词 like as as if 似乎 metaphorically figuratively speaking

仿写： 选择 metaphors 时要找 readers 熟悉的 physical experiences or vivid images。好的 metaphor 应该 instantly recognizable 且 emotionally appropriate。避免 mixed metaphors 或 overused clichés。模版：[Subject] have/hold [object] by the [body part suggesting control]，或 [Subject] [action verb] [object] into a [restrictive space/situation]。确保 metaphor 的 emotional tone matches 你想 convey 的 message severity。

第3段 对比了 'captive' shippers 被 charge 20 to 30 percent more 和那些有 competing railroad 的 shippers 的 rates。这个 price differential 直接 quantifies unfairness，用 concrete numbers 证明了 monopolistic pricing practices。这个 comparison 不仅 demonstrates discrimination exists，更通过 significant percentage gap 展现其 severity，让 captive shippers 的 exploitation 从 subjective complaint 变成 objective fact，有力支撑了文章主旨中 excessive charges 的指控。

信号词 more than less than compared to in contrast to while whereas unlike rather than instead of as opposed to

仿写： 构建 contrast 时要选择 comparable elements 并使用 parallel structure。可以对比 time periods (past vs. present), alternatives (option A vs. option B), 或 expectations vs. reality。使用 numerical data 能让 contrast 更 striking。模版：[Group A] are charged [amount/percentage] more than [Group B] when [different condition exists]。确保 comparison 是 apples-to-apples，这样 disparity 才 meaningful and convincing。

第5段 建立了 causal connection：railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another (cause)，导致 carrying costs 远超 Conrail's operating income (intermediate consequence)，最终 captive shippers will pay for the rest (predicted outcome)。这个 financial logic chain 通过 concrete numbers ($10.2 billion bid vs. $427 million income) 展现了 unsustainable economics，预测 future rate increases 不是 speculation 而是 inevitable mathematical result。这个 cause-effect reasoning 直接支撑文章主旨中的 concerns about future rate increases。

信号词 therefore thus as a result consequently so leading to resulting in who's going to will because

仿写： 构建 financial causal argument 时要 present concrete numbers 来 show gaps or imbalances。Use rhetorical questions 像 'Who's going to pay?' 来 make implicit causation explicit。模版：[Subject] continue to [costly action], with [evidence of high cost]. [Income/resource] was just [lower amount], less than [fraction] of [higher cost]. Who's going to [bear the consequence]? [Predicted outcome]。让 numbers speak for themselves，让 conclusion 显得 inescapable。