下面的原文属于议论文体，也是逻辑关系最清楚的文体。论说类文章的作者在阐述自己的观点时多力求周密、深入、避免疏漏，因此文章逻辑性较强，注重发展层次和谋篇布局。翻译时，需要把逻辑关系捋清，使译文语篇形成清晰的逻辑连贯。
(1)It is simple enough to say that since books havees --fiction, biography, poetry -- we should separate them and take from each what it is right that each should give us.(2) Yet few people ask from books what books can give us.(3) Most commonly we come to books with blurred and divided minds, asking of fiction that it shall be true, of poetry that it shall be false, of biography that it shall be flattering, of history that it shall enforce our own prejudices.(4)If we could banish all such preconceptions when we read, that would be an admirable beginning. (5)Do not dictate to your author; try to become him. Be his fellow-worker and accomplice.
(6) If you hang back, and reserve and criticize at first, you are preventing yourself from getting the fullest possible value from what you read. (7)But if you open your mind as widely as possible, then signs and hints of almost imperceptible fineness, from the twist and turn of the fist sentences, will bring you into the presence of a human being unlike any other.(8)Steep oneself in this, acquaint yourself with this, and soon you will find that your author is giving you, or attempting to give you, something far more definite.
上面这段文字的叙述方式和推进层次是按照下面的顺序进行的：（1）文章分类和读者从书中应得的东西（2）事实上没有人做到（3）先入为主的想法（4）放弃这些想法（5）应有的做法（6）做不到的结果（7）（8）做到的结果。把整个段落的这种逻辑关系和推进层次先理清，试着进行翻译：
书既然有小说、传记、诗歌之分，就应区别对待，从各类书中汲取其各自应该给与我们的东西，这话说来很简单。然而鲜有人探究书中精义。最为常见的是，我们在读书时一些模糊的观念已先入为主：逢小说便求其真实，看诗歌又愿其虚幻，认定传记必然褒扬过分，史书则必然会加深我们已有之偏见。只有在阅读时彻底摒弃这些成见，才可说是读书的良好起点。不要对作者发号施令，而应与之感同身受，共谋合作。若起始即固步自封，处处设防且动辄挑剔，便无从获取书中蕴含的最大价值。而若能广开心胸，虚怀若谷，则从开卷之初迂回曲折的字里行间，便可感受到那极为深邃微妙的迹象与暗示，进而深入一个与他人迥然而异的内心世界。沉入其中，百般品味，你很快就会发现，作者给予你或想给予你的东西比你预料的要明确得多。
