本次写作部分的考试延续了之前几次考试的一贯风格, 从话题内容上来看, 依然选择了政治正确的女性主义内容，作者是Meredith Wadman, 选自2013年Times的一篇文章, 名为 “How to Increase the Number of Women Winning Nobel Price”, 文章主要探讨了女性在科学研究领域中所遇到的重重困难, 解释了女性在实现个人科学追求时所面临的家庭及学术的双重压力. 文章的主旨在题目中的argument中直接体现: “science careers should be more achievable for women who wants toraise families”. 整篇文章的内容比较简单，词汇语法上面的难度也不高，找各类要素的难度也不大，非常清晰。
文章以描绘诺贝尔医学奖获得者Carol Greider的一个日常生活中的画面开篇, 表现了女性科学家在日常生活中除了学术压力外, 还需要承担更多家庭事务的责任. 这使用到了example的写作手法.
接下来, 文章中的第二段, 以 “unfortunately”一词直接表现了在众多获得诺贝尔奖的科学家中, 女性人数所占比重非常小. 此处是一个明显的对比，而这个对比除了有内容上证明作者所描述的观点确实存在这一现象之外，还兼备引起读者兴趣的作用。所以在写作的时候，记得要将结构上的作用写上去。
第三段中, 大量的例子及数据使用表现出在过去的诺贝尔获奖史中, 女性获得奖项的比重. 例如, “two physics laureates have been women”, “four of the 165”, “5percent of”. 这一点的话主要也是为了证明女性在科研方面所得到了成就不够多。通过数据直接证明了作者的观点。
第四段中, 作者呈现了数位历史上获得奖项的女科学家她们在日常生活中所面临的压力, 诸如, “secretly conducted experiments in her bedroom”, “whose father thought a women’s place was in her home”, “prevented from attending college by her mother”.这里主要通过事实来表明女性在生活中的压力。与之前讲过的内容合为一体，很好得证明了作者所要说明的观点。
第六段中, 作者通过一个rhetorical question “what, specifically, should institutions do tooffer such support?”引出各个机构应该采取措施帮助女性科学家实现科学研究的梦想. 记得rhetoric question中需要写到问题的答案。
文章最后一段, 作者提出了直接的号召, 倡导社会共同建立一个利于女性科学家发展的环境. 这一写作手法同样契合我们之前遇到的大部分文章的结局. 这里更多的就是appeal to emotion了。
总体来说, 这篇文章的写作手法比较丰富, 易于大家发现并且进行分析.
How To Increase the Number ofWomen Winning Nobel Prizes
By Meredith Wadman Oct. 24, 2013, Time
1. The mother of tweens was foldinglaundry at 5 a.m. before going to an early spinning class when the phonerang. It was October 2009 and Carol Greider, a biologist atJohns HopkinsUniversity, picked up and heard a voice from Stockholm. She had won thatyear’s Nobel Prize in medicine.
2. Unfortunately, Greider remains ararity in the pantheon of Nobel scientists. And that’s partly because wehaven’t done enough to help young female scientists balance the demands ofacademic research with the pull of family responsibility. That needs tochange.
3. Admittedly, today’s situation is better than it was when Greider entered grad school in the early 80s , never mind in the dark days of the preceding decades. Then, when women were scarcelyto be found at undergraduate lab benches, the results in the rarefied reachesof Stockholm couldn’t help but be dismal. Since the awards were launched in1901, two physics laureates have been women: Marie Curie in 1903 and MariaGoeppert Mayer in1963. In chemistry,four of the 165 winners have been women. (Marie Curie was one of them, in 1911;she is the only woman to have wontwo Nobels.) Women have won 5 percent of the coveted awards in physiologyor medicine. And it was 2009 before Elinor Ostrom,of Indiana University and Arizona StateUniversity, became thefirst-ever female laureate in economics.
4. In fact, 2009 was something of abanner year for women — Greider shared her award with her mentor, ElizabethBlackburn, of the University ofCalifornia at San Francisco; and Israel’s AdaYonath shared the prize in chemistry. Since then, men have continued to sweepthe science awards.
To be a female Nobel winner has not only required brilliance, but also preternatural determination in the face of cultural, social and political obstacles. The Italian neurologist RitaLevi-Montalcini secretly conducted experiments in her bedroom in Mussolini’s Italy. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the Parisian who co-discovered the AIDS virus– and whose father thought a women’s place was in the home –was in the lab onher wedding day. Her fiance had to call her to remind her to turn up at the ceremony. Barbara McClintock, the U.S.geneticist who won the prize in 1983, was nearly prevented from attending college by her mother. She was afraid higher education would make her daughter unmarriageable.
5. All of this was decades ago, before recent campaigns to encourage more young women to choose STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) careers; and, in the US, before the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action and Title IX. What’s the excuse in 2013?
6. What, specifically, should institutions do to offer such support? Universities can make meaningful policy changes, such as allowing women with young children to stop the tenure clockfor a period of time — an option available at some but not all academic centers. They should ensure that young female scientists have dedicated,top-notch mentors. And they can guarantee paid maternity land parent all eave—something that’s woefully lacking for junior scientists at most U.S.institutions.
7. Federal agencies also have a roleto play. Big funders, led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have already implemented policies like no-cost grant extensions that allow scientists with family obligations extratime to complete a project, and othersthat allow fellowship periods to be extended or deferred for childcare purposes. But agencies can, and should, do more. One task the government is especiallysuited to is longitudinal data collection on those family-friendlypolicies. Such data isn’t being collected systematically,and without itwe can’t know what policy changes are working, and which ones aren’t.
8. If we want top-drawer women to stayin science careers — and this country, beset by daunting, and growing, globalscience competition, could certainly use them – institutions of all stripesneed to show a far more serious commitment to supporting them.
9. To put it another way, if we wantto see more women celebrating inStockholm, we should strive to build a world inwhich the likes of Carol Greider are hardly ever to be found folding thelaundry at 5 in the morning.
Meredith Wad man is a Future Tense Fellow at New America and an Oxford-educated physician. This article was written for the New America Foundation’s Weekly Wonk.The views expressed are solely her own.