GRE作文范文 Argument-19

　　GRE作文范文 Argument-19 “We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially.” 嘉文博译Sample Essay This argument discusses the proposition whether a century-old, all-female college should change its admissions policy and allow men to enter into its programs. Although a majority of the faculty members voted in favor of the change for coeducation, the president and administrative staff note that eighty percent of the students that responded to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female as did over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey. The arguers then state that keeping the college all female will therefore improve morale among students and convince the alumni to continue supporting the college financially. This argument is unconvincing due to several critical flaws. First of all, the main support that the president and administrative staff rely on is the two surveys conducted by the student government of the current students and alumni. It is possible that the survey itself was flawed, perhaps asking leading questions that subliminally led the respondents to answer in favor of keeping the current all female admissions policy. However, even assuming that the survey was neutrally worded, it remains problematic to rely on it as evidence that there is widespread support for continuing as an all-female college. Firstly, the people that actually take the time to respond to surveys usually have a strong opinion one way or the other. In this case, it is likely that those that feel that the tradition of the school is being threatened by the possibility of admitting men to the college are the ones who would respond to the survey. Those that have a neutral opinion, or that would actually like to see the college opened to men, may not have a strong enough opinion to take the time to respond to the survey. The total number of surveys conducted by the student government is not mentioned in the argument. It is possible that very few people actually responded to the survey, which would indicate that most students actually don‘t care one way or the other. Similarly, with the alumni survey, the arguers only mention those who answered the survey, but don’t mention how many total surveys there were or how many people did not answer the survey. For these reasons, the argument is not well supported by the surveys. Secondly, by surveying only current students and alumni, the pool of those sampled is limited to those who previously accepted the all-female admissions policy of the school and thus are much more likely to support its continuance. Current students and alumni applied to and attended the school with its current policy in place, thereby prejudicing their own opinions as to what is best for the school. Additionally, with the survey limited to only current students and alumni, the student government did not poll those whose opinion matters the most - potential students. A college cannot survive based on its past successes - it is the future that will determine the long-term viability of the college and potential students are the most important part of that future. It is much more important to determine how many students would attend the college if the policy were changed. Furthermore, the arguers ignore the opinion of a vital part of the college, that of the majority of its faculty members who probably have a better overall view of the situation than students or alumni. Finally, there is no evidence presented to show that keeping the college all female will improve morale among the students or keep the alumni donations coming in. This statement has no causal relationship demonstrated in the argument, whether the results of the survey are accurate or not. Had the question been asked in the survey- whether keeping the admissions policy the same would improve students‘ morale and keep alumni financial support intact - there may have at least been some basis for this statement, but without it the statement is groundless. In summary, the argument is based on only two surveys of a limited sample of people with a built-in bias towards keeping the status quo. Without further evidence and a more fairly distributed survey, the argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise. (697 words)

　　参考译文

　　下面的建议是格罗夫学院--一个私有机构--院长和管理人员写给学院和管理委员会的。

　　我们建议，格罗夫学院坚持其具有百年传统的全女生教育，不接受男生入学。的确，大多数教师表决赞成男女同校，说这样可以鼓励更多的学生申请就读于格罗夫学院。但是，由学生管理机构进行的调查表明，百分之八十的学生希望学校坚持全女生教育，而且在另一个单独的调查中，过半的校友反对男女同校。因此，保持学院全女生教育，会在学生中振奋精神面貌，并确使校友继续从财力上支持学院。“

　　这一论点讨论的命题是，一所具有百年历史的全女生学院是否应该改变其招生政策，允许男生就读该校。尽管教师中大多数表决赞成改为男女同校，但是院长和管理人员注意到在学生管理机构进行的调查中，百分之八十的学生希望学校继续保持全女生教育，在另一个分别进行的调查中有过半的校友亦复如此。该论点进一步指出，保持学院全女生教育因而会在学生中振奋士气并确使校友继续从财力上支持该学院。这一论点因为几处重要的缺陷而显得不能令人信服。

　　首先，院长及管理人员所依赖的主要佐证论点是由学生管理机构所进行的在校生和校友的调查。很可能调查自身是有缺陷的。或许所问的主要问题都下意识地引导调查对象的回答有利于维持现行的全女生入学政策。但是，即使假设调查所使用的语言是中性的，依赖它来证明对维持一所全女生学院的广泛支持仍然是有问题的。首先，实际上对调查作出回应的人们常常具有三种倾向性。这样，很有可能那些认为学校的传统正在受到招收男学生的可能性威胁的人会积极参与调查。那些具有中立观点的人，甚至那些实际上愿意看到学校向男生开放的人，可能没有强烈愿望花时间去认真对待调查。学生管理机构所进行的调查人数，在论证过程中没有提及。可能只有极少数人对调查作了回答，这表明大多数学生实际上不关心只收女生还是男女同校。同样在校友调查中，论证者在提到那些对调查作出回应的人，却并没有提到受调查的总人数以及多少人没有对调查作出回应。因此，论点并没有得到调查的有力支持。

　　其次，只是对在校生和校友进行调查，取样范围仅限于那些以前接受学校全女生招生政策的人，因此他们更可能支持继续这种作法。在校生和校友都是在现政策实施时申请入学和上学的，因而他们对于学校怎样才好抱有偏见。此外，因为调查仅限于在校生和校友，学生管理机构没有对那些潜在的学生进行民意测验，而他们的观点才是最重要的。一所大学不能靠过去的成功生存，而未来才决定学校的长期活力，潜在学生是未来最重要的组成部分。更为重要的是确定在政策改变之后有多少学生将会上学。再者，论证者忽视了学校里关键成份的意见--那些很可能比学生和校友对全局具有更正确看法的大多数教师的意见。

　　最后，论证中并没有提供证据来证明保持全女生学院会振奋学生的士气或确保校友的捐助。无论调查的结果准确与否，这一说法与论点都缺乏因果关系。倘若调查中包含有这样的问题--保持原有的招生政策是否会振奋学生的士气并维持校友财力上的支持--那么这种说法还有点依据。但是并没有提出这样的问题，所以这一结论是毫无根据的。

　　总之，论点只是基于两个抽样有限的调查，而且具有保持现状的内在偏见。在没有进一步的调查以及一个分布更合理的调查情况下，论证完全没有为其命题提供充分的依据。