「ライティングを考える。」ReasoningはSVOで考えよう！の巻

Q:今日はどうしたんですか？
A:昨日採点終わったじゃない？で、どうしても気になってるのが「理由づけ」Reasoningなのよ。
Q:どうしても日本人の思考的には周辺情報から核心、いやむしろその核心は周辺情報から察して「皆まで言わせない文化」ですからね。英語と逆ですよね.
A:それはよく言われてたことだからわかるんだけど、その核心をどう切り取るか、作法として「SVCじゃなくてできるだけSVOで発想するように訓練したほうがいい」んじゃないかと思ってる。
Q:ほう、それはなぜですか？
A:最大の理由はSVCって、advantage （利点）を受ける受益者やdisadvantage（不利な点）を被る対象に目がいきにくい構造になってる。たとえばオンラインショッピングの是非を問うた場合、

Online shopping is good because it is cheap.

こういう文章が出てきます。当然出てきます。
なーんと無く聞いてる、読んでると右から左へすーっと通り過ぎてしまうと思うんですよ。ですけど、本当にこれっていいのかな？って思うのですよ。何が安いか？って、
「オンラインショッピングで売られている品物の値段」
が安いわけですよね？なんかこんなこと言うと、本当に日本では嫌われる原因になりかねないのですが、そう言うことだと思うんですよ。ですけど、この辺りって「基本スルー」されます。多分。で、色々今まで読んで考えてきたのと、英語ディベート（特に、高校生英語ディベート大会で有名なHEnDAの方式）でよく言われるのが、
Q:The strength of argument
     = possibility × Impact　
つまり発生確率と起きた場合の影響の大きさですよね。
A:そうそう。で、そのImpactもよく考えると
Target（受益者）の数と、その影響の掛け算だ、って言うこともわかる。となると、最初っから
誰々が（Target)、得るから、「利点・不利益な点」を
って言うSVO型で発想するほうがこの辺りが明確に思考しやすくなると思うんだよね。でも、あまりそう言うことを書いてる書籍って出会えていない気がしますな。
Q:それで緊急的にこれを記事にしたわけですね？
A:うん。で、今朝、ChatGPTと対話したのが以下の通りなのだけども、かなり考えさせられたこともあってね。
Q:長いですけど転載しておきます。
A:ではでは！

以下、ChatGPTとの対話を転載。
You are a professional English teacher, and analyze the following statement from the point of grammar and communication. "Online shopping is good because it is cheaper than shops. Also, we don't have to go out to buy something."

From a grammatical perspective, the statement is well-formed and follows standard English syntax. The sentence is a compound sentence consisting of two independent clauses joined by the coordinating conjunction "also."

In terms of communication, the statement effectively conveys the writer's opinion that online shopping has advantages over traditional shopping. The writer presents two main reasons to support their claim: that online shopping is cheaper than shopping in physical stores and that it is more convenient because it does not require leaving the house.

Overall, the statement is clear and concise, making it easy for readers to understand the writer's position. However, it could benefit from additional elaboration or examples to further support the writer's argument.

"Online shopping is good because it is cheaper than shops. Consumers can compare prices of goods because of the search engine. So they can find cheaper items online than at real shops.

From a grammatical perspective, the statement is well-formed and coherent. The writer uses clear and concise language, and the sentence structure is easy to follow.

In terms of communication, the writer effectively presents an argument in favor of online shopping based on its cost-saving benefits. They explain that online shopping is cheaper than traditional shopping because consumers can use search engines to compare prices and find the best deals. This logical argument could persuade readers to consider online shopping as a viable alternative to physical shopping.

However, the statement could be improved by providing more specific examples or data to support the claim that online shopping is cheaper than shopping in physical stores. Additionally, the writer could address potential counterarguments, such as shipping costs or the lack of physical interaction with products before purchase, to further strengthen their argument. Overall, the statement effectively communicates the writer's perspective on online shopping's cost-saving benefits but could be further developed to make a more persuasive argument.

As a professional English teacher, which sentence is better? Please add some reasons why you judge like that.

Without any context or specific sentences to compare, it is difficult to determine which sentence is better. However, a good sentence should generally be clear, concise, grammatically correct, and effectively communicate the intended message to the reader.

A clear sentence is easy to understand and does not contain unnecessary words or phrases. A concise sentence conveys the message in a brief and efficient manner. A grammatically correct sentence follows standard rules of English grammar and syntax. Finally, an effective sentence communicates the intended message to the reader and achieves the writer's purpose.

So, judging a sentence based on these criteria is essential to determine which sentence is better.

"Online shopping is good because it is cheaper than shops. Also, we don't have to go out to buy something."and "Online shopping is good because it is cheaper than shops. Consumers can compare prices of goods because of the search engine. So they can find cheaper items online than at real shops." Please analyze them and judge which is better.

Both sentences effectively convey the message that online shopping is cheaper than traditional shopping. However, the second sentence is more specific and provides additional information to support the writer's claim.

The second sentence explains that consumers can compare prices using search engines to find the best deals, which provides more specific and detailed information than the first sentence. By including this information, the writer strengthens their argument and provides evidence to support their claim.

Additionally, the second sentence uses more precise language by replacing the vague term "something" with the specific term "goods." This makes the sentence more precise and specific.

Therefore, based on these factors, I would judge that the second sentence is better than the first one. It is more detailed, and specific, and provides additional evidence to support the writer's argument.

Again, I've been repeatedly thinking about the sentence "Online shopping is cheap." Prices of products sold at stores must be cheap; however, if I hear "Online shopping is cheap," it slightly sounds wired instinctively. Maybe I can guess what the speaker intends to say, so, in terms of communication, I think it is ok, but I guess we might have a more accurate or "to-the-point" way to express the meaning. Do you have any recommendations?

You are correct that the sentence "Online shopping is cheap" might sound a bit odd or imprecise because it does not specify what is cheap about online shopping. Here are some alternative sentence options that could express the intended meaning more accurately:

1. "Online shopping can be cheaper than shopping at physical stores."

2. "You can often find better deals shopping online than in physical stores."

3. "Online shopping offers cost savings compared to traditional shopping methods."

4. "Online shopping is often more affordable than shopping in person."

All of these sentences communicate the idea that online shopping can be cheaper than traditional shopping, but they provide more specific information and context to help the reader understand the writer's intended meaning.

If I hear no.1, it still sounds strange because it's not still clear what is cheap about online shopping, as you said. What do you think?

You make a valid point that the sentence "Online shopping can be cheaper than shopping at physical stores" may still not provide enough clarity on what exactly is cheaper about online shopping. To address this, you could modify the sentence to make it more specific. Here are a few options:

1. "Online shopping can be cheaper than shopping at physical stores due to lower overhead costs."

2. "Online shopping can be cheaper than shopping at physical stores because of discounts and promotions available exclusively online."

3. "Online shopping can be cheaper than shopping at physical stores thanks to the ability to compare prices across multiple retailers easily."

Adding these details makes the sentences more precise and effectively communicates the intended meaning.