原题
"How far do you agree with the view that the Cold War developed at the end of the Second World War due to the economic rivalry of the USA and the USSR?" Explain your answer using Extracts 1 and 2 and your knowledge of the issues related to this controversy.
Extract 1 — C S Maier (2010)｜Extract 2 — J B Freeman (2012)
| Level | 分数 | Descriptor 要点 | 你的达成情况 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1–4 | 对 Extract 理解有限；知识只作信息呈现；判断流于断言 | 远超 |
| 2 | 5–8 | 尝试分析 Extract；知识缺深度广度；判断支撑有限 | 远超 |
| 3 | 9–14 | 分析关键解读点并指出差异；用知识链接 Extract；尝试建立判断标准 | 已达 |
| 4 | 15–20 | 理解 Extract、分析解读问题并做比较；用足够知识探讨辩论主要方面（部分可能欠深）；整合 Extract 与 own knowledge；建立并应用有效标准，得出有支撑的判断（讨论可能不均衡） | ✅ 精准命中 |
| 5 | 21–25 | 自信精准解读 Extract，理解两位作者的论证基础；精准选用足够知识充分探讨；持续评估性论证，应用有效标准 | 差 3 处（见第四节） |
L4 描述里那两句限定语——"部分可能欠深"和"讨论可能不均衡"——几乎是给你这篇写的：P2（Extract 1）写得很扎实，P3（Extract 2）却漏掉了最关键的一段论据，这就是"不均衡"；P4 提出"意识形态是根源"这个好论点，却只给 3 句支撑就走人，这就是"欠深"。
...were significant as well 是并列语气，没有分出高下。题目问的是 "How far"，它要的是比较两者的解释力，不是各打五十大板。"Extract 2 is more persuasive, because the crises that actually broke relations in 1945–46 — Poland, the atomic bomb, the occupation of Japan — were geopolitical, and economic rivalry followed them rather than caused them."
一句话把标准说清：先看时间先后，再看谁能解释谁。有了这个标准，后面每一段都能往上面挂。
Mts Marshall plan（笔误）、persue→pursue、These analysis→This analysis、through trades→through trade。prefered→preferred、the US was panic of→the US feared / was alarmed by、made the Western states failed to build up→which made the Western states fail to build up、These shows→This shows、conceming→concerned、vaccum…rigion→vacuum…region、Mid-European→Central and Eastern Europe。played at a short-term catalyst→played the role of a short-term catalyst。"The economic division of Europe followed, rather than preceded, the political and military confrontation. The Marshall Plan was announced in 1947 and Comecon was established in 1949 — well after Yalta, Potsdam, the Poland crisis and the atomic bomb diplomacy. If economic rivalry had been the primary cause, economic measures would have come first; instead they came last, cementing a division that security fears had already created."
Extract 2 cored more about→cared more about、were important either→were important as well、Ultimatly→Ultimately、the sig single fundamental cause（多余字符）。| 原文 | 修正 |
|---|---|
| one of the significant factor | one of the significant factors |
| the rival between planned and market economy | the rivalry between planned and market economies |
| tried to persue political advantage | tried to pursue political advantage |
| such as Mts Marshall plan | such as the Marshall Plan |
| interest through trades | interest through trade |
| Soviet leaders prefered | Soviet leaders preferred |
| the US was panic of the spread | the US feared / was alarmed by the spread |
| made the Western states failed to build up | which made the Western states fail to build up |
| These shows that | This shows that |
| were conceming about | were concerned about |
| value the vaccum of power ... significant | valued the power vacuum ... as significant |
| over the rigion | over the region |
| played at a short-term catalyst | played the role of a short-term catalyst |
| the sig single fundamental cause | the single fundamental cause |
| Extract 2 cored more about | Extract 2 cared more about |
| were important either | were important as well |
| Ultimatly | Ultimately |
把"美国把苏联排除在原子弹管制与对日占领之外"写进去，并点明：原子弹是战略工具不是经济工具，它无法被经济竞争的框架解释。这一条同时补了 own knowledge 的广度（AO1）和对 Extract 的完整使用（AO3）。
1945–46：雅尔塔、波茨坦、波兰危机、原子弹外交——全是政治军事。
1947–49：马歇尔计划（1947）、经互会（1949）——经济分裂在后。
若经济竞争是主因，经济措施本该先出现；它们却最后才来，只是把安全恐惧早已造成的分裂固化。这就是"经济是后果不是原因"的硬证据。
Extract 1（Maier）："a competition of different economic systems"；"to resist the attraction of the Marshall Plan"（用这句说明苏联是被动反应方）。
Extract 2（Freeman）："above all else, cared about national security"；"no particular plan ... what economic system should be dominant"（这是对 Maier 的直接反驳）。
引完必须跟一句分析——这句话说明了作者怎样的论证基础，否则引了也白引。
明确写出"我用什么标准判断哪个因素更重要"。推荐双标准：时间先后（谁先出现）+ 解释力（谁能解释谁）。标准一旦立住，后面每段都往它上面挂，论证自然就从"描述"变成"持续评估"——这正是 L5 的核心要求。
这是一篇思路清楚、判断明确的作文，最难得的是你有两处已经超出 paraphrase 层次的分析：一是"双方用经济地位追政治优势"，二是"经济只是短程催化剂"——这两句是真正属于你自己的历史判断，也是你将来拿 L5 的本钱。
现在的差距不在脑子，在手上：该引的原话没引，最锋利的论据（原子弹、对日占领）整段漏掉，明明知道年份却没拿来做因果方向论证。这三点补上，同样一篇作文就能到 20–22 分。
下次动笔前先花 2 分钟做这件事：把 Extract 2 逐段编号，确保每一段至少有一句进入你的作文。这一条习惯，比多背十个史实都管用。