https://x.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1919517481313427594
Last edited by @suen 2025-05-08T12:51:51Z
1 Like
@Creative
分析教育部長信件的語法和其他表述是否存在問題，對信件寫作，以滿分10分給出打分並說明理由。
1 Like
好的，針對這封美國教育部長給哈佛大學校長的信件，從語法、表達方式等角度進行分析，並給出作文打分。
信件分析：
這封信的內容充滿了強烈的批評和指控，語氣極其嚴厲且帶有高度的攻擊性。如果從「訊息傳達」的角度看，它的確非常直接地表達了作者對哈佛的憤怒和不滿。然而，如果從「正式文書」或「作文」的標準來看，存在不少問題：
- 語氣與正式性（Tone and Formality）： 作為一封來自國家教育部長給頂級大學校長的正式信函，其語氣顯得極為非正式、口語化且情緒化。使用了許多在正式場合不恰當的詞彙和表達，例如稱納稅人為「patron saint」（守護神），指控哈佛有「so much HATRED」（如此多的仇恨），將哈佛管理層比作「hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation」（僱傭鐵達尼號船長來教導航），稱其為「bloated bureaucracy」（臃腫的官僚機構）。這種語氣完全偏離了正式公文應有的客觀、嚴謹和專業。
- 語法與句子結構（Grammar and Syntax）： 紅色註解版指出了不少問題，例如「run on sentence」（連句）、句子不完整（incomplete sentence）、連接詞使用問題（conjunction）、措辭awkward（phrasing）、結構鬆散（loose structure）等。雖然信件大致能被理解，但這些語法和結構問題使得閱讀體驗不流暢，也顯得不夠專業和精鍊。一些句子冗長，表達不夠清晰。
- 修辭過度（Overly Rhetorical）： 信件中使用了大量強烈的修辭手法，旨在引起共鳴和製造政治影響，而非理性論證。例如大量的詰問式語句（Where do many of these ‘students’ come from… the biggest question of all is, why will Harvard not give straightforward answers…？），以及帶有強烈感情色彩的形容詞和名詞。這使得信件更像一篇充滿控訴的政治聲明或社論，而非旨在解決問題的正式溝通。
- 缺乏公文的條理與格式要求（Lack of Formal Structure）： 雖然有標準的信件格式，但內容的組織方式更像是逐條列出不滿和指控，而不是按照公文的邏輯結構進行論述。
打分：
如果將這封信視為一篇「作文」或「正式文書」，以滿分10分來評估其寫作質量（不考慮內容的政治正確性，僅評估寫作本身），我會給出 4分。
理由：
- 不及格的主要原因： 嚴重的語氣失當（非正式、攻擊性強）、詞彙使用不恰當、語法和句子結構問題（如紅字標註所示，儘管程度可能需更仔細檢查原文，但標註本身指向了寫作上的瑕疵）、過度依賴煽動性修辭而非嚴謹論述，完全不符合正式公文或高質量學術寫作的要求。它的寫作質量甚至可能達不到大學生普通寫作的及格標準，更不用說是一位國家部長的正式信函。
- 得分的考慮： 雖然寫作質量很差，但信件的核心意思尚能被理解，作者想要表達的強烈立場和不滿是清晰的。這點避免了它得到更低的分數（例如1分或2分，那意味著幾乎無法理解）。
總體來說，這封信在內容上極具衝擊性，但在寫作形式和語文質量上，可以說是反面教材，充斥著非專業和低級的錯誤與不當表達。
1 Like
特朗普的忠犬是这样的，和他的主人一样毫无理性可言。
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20202
May 5, 2025
Dr. Alan Garber
Office of the President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Garber,
The Federal Government has a sacred responsibility to be a wise and important steward of
American taxpayer dollars. Harvard University, despite amassing a largely tax-free $53.2 billion
dollar endowment (larger than the GDP of 100 countries), receives billions of dollars of taxpayer
largess each year. Receiving such taxpayer funds is a privilege, not a right. Yet instead of using
these funds to advance the education of its students, Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of
violating federal law. Where do many of these “students” come from, who are they, how do they
get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE? These are
questions that must be answered, among many more, but the biggest question of all is, why will
Harvard not give straightforward answers to the American public?
Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system. It has invited
foreign students, who engage in violent behavior and show contempt for the United States of
America, to its campus. In every way, Harvard has failed to abide by its legal obligations, its
ethical and fiduciary duties, its transparency responsibilities, and any semblance of academic
rigor. It had scrapped standardized testing requirements and a normalized grading system. This
year Harvard was forced to adopt an embarrassing “remedial math” program for undergraduates.
Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly
so hard to get into this “acclaimed university”? Who is getting in under such a low standard
when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of
mathematics, are being rejected?
Harvard has even been embroiled in humiliating plagiarism scandals, exposed clearly and plainly
in the media, with respect to your then University President, who was an embarrassment to our
Nation. Much of Harvard’s hateful discrimination was revealed, last year, by the great work of
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, and her Committee. As if it were trying to embarrass itself even
further, Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst
mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country’s history, to supposedly teach
“leadership” at their School of Public Health. This is like hiring the captain of the Titanic to
teach navigation to future captains of the sea.
This incomprehensible failure becomes more understandable after reviewing Harvard’s
management. The Harvard Corporation, which is supposed to competently and professionally
manage Harvard’s vast academic, financial, and physical resources, is run by strongly left-
leaning Obama political appointee Penny Pritzker, a Democrat operative, who is catastrophic and running the institution in a totally chaotic way. Harvard alumnus and highly successful hedge
fund manager Bill Ackman noted that, under her leadership, Harvard has become “a political
advocacy organization for one party.”
Ackman has called for the resignation of Pritzker, concluding that the “[the mismanagement
here is Penny Pritzker” and noting that any serious corporation would have removed her after a
litany of recent failings and the fact that, incredibly, “Harvard is not in a good financial
position.” According to Ackman, one of the world’s foremost finance experts, Harvard’s so-
called $53 billion endowment is “massively overstated as far as what it’s really worth,” and
Harvard has irresponsibly taken out $8 billion in debt.
If this is true, it is concerning evidence of Harvard’s disastrous mismanagement, indicating an
urgent need for massive reform-not continued taxpayer investment. If Harvard prefers not to
change, then Harvard should have no problem using its overflowing endowment to fund its
bloated bureaucracy.
At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation, and enlighten the
thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates. But Harvard has betrayed
this ideal.
Perhaps most alarmingly, Harvard has failed to abide by the United States Supreme Court’s
ruling demanding that it end its racial preferencing, and continues to engage in ugly racism in its
undergraduate and graduate schools, and even within the Harvard Law Review itself. Our
universities should be bastions of merit that reward and celebrate excellence and achievement.
They should not be incubators of discrimination that encourage resentment and instill grievance
and racism into our wonderful young Americans.
The above concerns are only a fraction of the long list of Harvard’s consistent violations of its
own legal duties. Given these and other concerning allegations, this letter is to inform you that
Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be
provided. Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution, and can instead operate as a
privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment, and raising money from its
large base of wealthy alumni. You have an approximately $53 Billion head start, much of which
was made possible by the fact that you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the
prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your
students to despise.
The Administration had previously been willing to maintain federal funding to Harvard, so long
as Harvard committed to complying with long-settled Federal Law, including to protect and
promote student welfare and the landmark decision of our Supreme Court against racial
preferencing. The proposed common-sense reforms - which the Administration remains
committed to - include a return to merit-based admissions and hiring, an end to unlawful
programs that promote crude identity stereotypes, disciplinary reform and consistent
accountability, including for student groups, cooperation with Law Enforcement, and reporting
compliance with the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Agencies. The Administration’s priorities have not changed and today’s letter marks the
end of new grants for the University.
These requests will advance the best interests of Harvard University, so it can reclaim its status
as a respected educational institution for the future leaders of America. Thank you for your
attention to this matter!
Sincerely,
Linda E. McMahon
Secretary of Education
@grok-3-mini-latest
分析教育部長信件的語法和其他表述是否存在問題，對信件寫作，以滿分10分給出打分並說明理由。
1 Like
GPT 4o：
這封由美國教育部長 Linda E. McMahon 發給哈佛大學代理校長 Alan Garber 的公開信，其語法、邏輯、語氣和修辭層面均存在多重問題。以下為分析及評分：
總體評分：
4/10
一、語法層面問題（得分：2/3）
優點：
- 全文語法基本正確，少有明顯拼寫或結構錯誤。
- 使用了正規書信格式，如稱謂、日期、落款等，符合官方文件規範。
問題：
- 混合句式混亂：如 “Where do many of these ‘students’ come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard…” 此句為多重疑問句，結構鬆散，邏輯不清。
- 錯用標點或不當斷句：例如 “this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.” 中的“GRANTS”大寫顯得突兀、不專業。
- 某些句子冗長，缺乏修辭重點控制。例如：“You have an approximately $53 Billion head start…” 這句中的 “an approximately” 屬於語法錯誤，應為 “approximately a”。
二、語氣與修辭表現（得分：1/3）
優點：
- 行文風格強烈，語氣鮮明，有一定感染力。
- 運用了修辭對比（如 “Harvard hired…to teach ‘leadership’… like hiring the captain of the Titanic…”）以增強諷刺效果。
問題：
- 語氣過於攻擊性，多次使用如“mockery”、“incomprehensible failure”、“disastrous mismanagement”、“hate”等情緒化詞語，這種語氣在正式行政溝通中極不恰當。
- 人身攻擊傾向明顯：例如直接批評 Penny Pritzker 為“catastrophic”、把前校長稱為“an embarrassment to our Nation”，不僅不符合官方語境，也容易引發訴訟風險。
- 比喻失當：如“captain of the Titanic”雖然形象，但在正式信件中用於羞辱雇員，顯得不合適且失禮。
三、邏輯與結構（得分：1/2）
優點：
- 概念鏈接清晰：信件有明確的邏輯框架，從經費問題、學術標準、種族政策、領導階層到法律合規性依次展開。
問題：
- 主張與證據斷裂：多處批評（如關於種族偏好、經費管理、學生背景等）缺乏具體案例或引用資料支持。
- 訴求與處分不成比例：信中指出的部分問題（如“ remedial math”）不一定構成取消全部聯邦資助的正當理由。
- 重複指控：多次重複同一批評點（如關於校長與董事會成員的政治背景），但無新增內容，顯得贅述。
四、行文風格與公文體例（得分：0/2）
問題：
- 這封信幾乎完全脫離了聯邦部門正式文件的標準語域。應有的客觀性、公正性、審慎用語都未體現。
- 缺乏建設性語言：儘管提及“改革建議”，但語氣上更像最後通牒而非磋商，毫無教育部應有的促進、監督與合作精神。
- 有些語句彷彿出自媒體社評或政黨演講稿，而不是部長官方信函，如“teach your students to despise [the US free-market system]”。
總結建議：
| 領域 | 建議改進 |
|---|---|
| 語法 | 精簡句式、避免錯用修飾詞與標點 |
| 語氣 | 去除個人攻擊語言、改用中立而有力的陳述方式 |
| 結構 | 提高邏輯關聯、使用實證數據支持批評 |
| 體裁 | 嚴守官方信函體例，避免情緒化修辭和俚語 |
這封信若出自教育部長之手，將被批評為違反行政專業倫理與書信外交的最基本原則，也容易削弱聯邦政府的道德與法律立場。
是否需要我幫你草擬一封更符合官方體例的版本？
1 Like
感觉像是左撇子写出来的字
2 Likes
不禁让我想起A1教育lol
1 Like