GRE作文范文 Argument-20

　　GRE作文范文 Argument-15 “The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.” 嘉文博译Sample Essay “A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia..” (*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.) This arguer states in his or her argument that a recent study has proven that the scent of lavender flowers is an effective remedy for insomnia. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the study, which tested thirty volunteers over a three-week period in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, the volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medications and slept well but awoke feeling tired. For the second week, the medication was discontinued and the volunteers slept less soundly and felt even more tired than before. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than before. This conclusion is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince on any level. First of all, the fact that the study took place in a controlled room makes the study‘s results likely to be different than what would have been found in the volunteers’ home environments. For most people, it is difficult, at least at first, to sleep in a new bed in a different place, thus altering the normal patterns of sleeping and ultimately the results of the study. In addition, a study based on the results of only thirty volunteers over just three weeks is hardly a thorough and convincing study of an entire population. This argument is greatly weakened by both of these problems with the study method. Secondly, the study results showed that for the first week, the subjects slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. This would be expected as medication can force sleep but not the natural type of sleep that is necessary to normally refresh the mind and the body. For the second week, the medication was discontinued with the result being that the volunteers slept less soundly and were even more tired than before. Again, this would be expected as taking away the medication that normally made the volunteers sleepy had interrupted the normal sleep routine. With less sleep, of course the volunteers would feel more tired. For the third week, the study found that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than they had in the previous two weeks. Rather than attributing this to the lavender scent, the subjects in reality had been tired for the previous two weeks, including one in which they discontinued medication. It would be a natural result for them to sleep well during the third week due to being so tired from the previous two weeks. Additionally, by the third week, the volunteers would be getting familiar with their still relatively new sleeping environment, again helping them to sleep better. With so many possible other causes of better sleep during the third week, it is highly unlikely that the lavender scent had any effect on the volunteers. Because the arguer does not address these other causes, the argument here also fails to convince. In summary, the arguer has used some unconvincing anecdotal evidence to try to show a direct cause and effect relationship between the scent in lavender flowers and a cure for insomnia. To strengthen the argument, evidence must show a direct causal relationship between the lavender scent and its effect on sleep. The study presented as evidence of such a link does not isolate other possible factors that probably led to better sleep for the volunteers, and as such it does not contribute much to the arguer‘s improbable conclusion. (568 words)

　　参考译文

　　作为一种治疗失眠的民间偏方，熏衣草花卉的花香已被证明有其疗效。在近期的一项研究中，有30名志愿者--他们全都患有长期失眠症--在一间控制室内连续三周每晚都枕着有熏衣草花香的枕头就寝。科研人员对他们的睡眠状况进行了全程监测。第一星期，志愿者们继续服用他们平常服用的安眠药。他们睡得很香，但第二天醒来时感觉疲惫。第二周，志愿者们停止服用安眠药，结果是，他们睡得没有上个星期那么香，并觉得更为疲惫。至第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间比前两个星期更长，且睡得更香。这表明，在一个较短的时间内，熏衣草已治愈了失眠症

　　（注：所谓偏方常指一种基于植物的治疗形式，为传统医疗形式所普遍采用，它们形成于现代医疗服务和技术出现之前。）

　　上述论点的论述者在其论述中陈述道，近期的一项研究已证明，熏衣草花卉的芳香可有效地治愈失眠症。为了支持这一结论，论述者援引了一项研究，该研究对30名志愿者进行了为期三个星期的测验，将受测试者置于一间控制室内，对其睡眠状况进行全程监测。第一周，志愿者们继续服用他们惯常服用的安眠药，睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。第二周，志愿者们停止用药后，睡得便没有那么香，且感到比以前还要疲倦得多。第三周，志愿者们睡眠的时间较以前长，且睡得香。这一结论基于极成问题的逻辑推理，在任何层面上均无法令人置信。 　 首先，该项 研究是在某一控制室内进行，这一事实就足以使得该项研究的结果可能全然有别于在其家庭环境中进行研究所有可能发现的结果。对于大多数人来说，至少是在初期，是很难在一个全新的环境中的一张全新的床上睡好的，因此，这会改变其正常的睡眠模式，并因而会最终改变研究结果。此外，一项只是基于三十个人为期仅三个星期的研究很难成为一项面向所有人口的全面而有说服力的研究。由于该研究方法中的这二大缺陷，上述论点倍遭削弱。

　　GRE作文范文 Argument-20 “All students should be required to take the driver’s education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem.” 嘉文博译Sample Essay In this argument, the writer argues that all students should be required to take the driver‘s education course at Centerville High School. The writer’s reasoning is based on several accidents in and around Centerville over the past two years that involved teenage drivers, and that parents have complained that they are too busy to teach their own teenagers to drive. The writer also states that although there are two driving schools in Centerville, some parents cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. The writer‘s argument is based on faulty logic and suffers from several critical flaws. In the first place, the writer cites several accidents over the past two years in and around Centerville involving teenagers as evidence that they should be required to take a driver’s education course at the high school. The writer assumes that these accidents were caused by the teenagers‘ lack of driver’s education, which may or may not be the case. There is no evidence presented that directly shows a causal link between the teenagers‘ lack of driver’s education and the cause of the accidents. It is entirely possible that these teenagers had already had the driver‘s education courses, and that the accidents were simply unavoidable or even the other driver’s fault. Without further direct causal evidence, the writer‘s argument fails to convince that all teenagers should be required to take the driver’s education course. Secondly, the writer produces no evidence that shows a direct link between the driver‘s education course at Centerville High School and the prevention of accidents involving teenage drivers. The writer assumes such a causal linkage but delivers nothing other than his or her personal opinion as evidence that the driver’s education course helps prevent accidents. Furthermore, the writer states that all students should be required to take the driver‘s education course. The writer fails to take into consideration students that do not drive, as well as students that may have already taken a driver’s education course elsewhere. Even assuming the value of the high school‘s driver’s education course, there will obviously be no reduction in teenagers‘ accidents if the students do not drive in the first place. Additionally, it is doubtful that repeating the driver’s education course will result in any further reduction in accidents involving teenagers. For these reasons, the writer‘s argument again falls short of convincing the reader of the value of mandatory high school driver’s education. Finally, the writer states that an effective and mandatory driver‘s education program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem. Again, the writer falsely assumes that the only cause of such accidents is the lack of teenagers’ driver‘s education, for which there is no support whatsoever in the argument. A better course of action would be to determine the true cause of such accidents, then tailor a solution to address the specific causes of the problem, rather than imposing a mandatory driver’s education program on all students. Perhaps mandatory driver‘s education for all drivers would be a better solution, but there is no basis present in the argument on which to single out students and their lack of driver’s education as the source of the problem of accidents in Centerville. In summary, the writer‘s argument looks logical at first glance, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic. There is no evidence presented that a lack of driver’s education for students is the cause of the problem in Centerville; therefore there is no basis for forcing all students to take the program. To strengthen the argument, the writer should show a direct correlation between the automobile accidents and a lack of driver‘s education among Centerville High School students. Without such evidence, the argument is groundless. (632 words)

　　参考译文

　　下文出自一封致森特维尔镇学校董事会的信函： 　　“所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生，都要求修司机教育课程。在过去的两年里，在森特维尔镇内或周围所发生的几起事故，都是十多岁的青少年司机。由于森特维尔的一些父母抱怨说，他们太忙不能教他们十几岁的孩子开车，因此其它某个机构就有必要采取措施保证这些十几岁的司机是安全的。尽管在林特维尔有两所司机学校，但是经济拮据的父母付不起学习开车的费用，因此，我们高中开设一门有效的且必修的课程，是解决该严重问题的唯一办法。”

　　在这一论点中，作者声称所有在森特维尔高中就读的学生都应该修司机教育课程。作者推理的基础是，在森特维尔镇内和周围过去两年多十几岁司机所发生的事故，以及父母抱怨说他们太忙而没有时间教他们十几岁的孩子开车。作者还提到，尽管森特维尔镇有两所司机学校，但有些父母付不起学开车的费用。作者的论点是建立在错误的逻辑基础上的，而且有几处关键的问题。

　　首先，作者引用过去的两年里在森特维尔镇及其周围地区十几岁司机所发生的几起事故作为要求他们在高中修司机教育课程的根据。作者假定，这些事故是因为十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育而导致的。这可能是也可能不是真正的原因。论证过程中并没有提供证据表明十几岁的青少年缺乏司机教育与事故原因之间的因果关系。极有可能这些十几岁的青年已经修了司机教育课程，而事故完全是不可避免的，或者完全是其他司机的责任。由于没有进一步直接的因果关系，作者的论点不能被人相信所有十几岁的青少年都必须修司机教育课程。

　　其次，作者没有提供证据表明森特维尔中学开设司机教育课程与防止十几岁的司机发生事故的直接联系。作者假定了这样一种因果关系，并且仅仅用他/她自己的观点来证明司机教育课程有助于防止事故。再者，作者说道，所有的学生应该修司机教育课程。作者没有考虑到那些不开车的学生以及那些在其他地方已经修过司机课程的学生。甚至，仅仅开设高中司机教育课程，并不会明显地减少十几岁司机的事故，倘若学生根本就不开车。加之，令人怀疑的是，重申司机教育课程将能进一步减少十几岁司机的事故。由以上理由可见，作者的论证再次没能使读者相信在高中开设司机教育必修课的价值。 最后，作者声称，在高中开设有效的、必修的司机教育课程，是唯一解决这一严重问题的方法。这里，作者又错误地假定事故的原因是缺乏十几岁司机的教育课程，但他/她并没有在论证中提供任何证据。一个更值得采取的行动是确定此类事故的真正原因，然后制定一个解决方法以处理该问题的具体原因，而不是给所有学生强加一门司机教育必修课。或许，所有司机必须接受司机训练将是一个更好的方法，但是在论证中没有任何的依据使我们得以确认学生及其司机教育的缺乏是森特维尔镇交通事故的原因。

　　总之，作者的论证乍看起来似乎合乎逻辑，但仔细审视就会发现，它基于错误的逻辑推理。它没有提供证据证明学生缺乏司机教育课程是森特维尔镇事故的原因；因此没有理由强迫所有学生修学该课程。若要使该论证更具力度，作者应该提供汽车事故与森特维尔镇高中缺乏司机教育之间的直接联系。没有这样的证据，论证成为无根之木、无源之水。

　　其次，该项研究的结果表明，第一周内，受试者们睡得很香，但醒来时甚感疲倦。这可以被视作意料之中的事，因为药物可强制人们入睡，但这种睡眠不是一种自然的睡眠，不是用来放松身心的一种正常手段。第二周内，药物的使用被停止，其结果是，志愿者们没能睡得那么香，且感到比以前甚至更疲倦。这又是情理之中的事。因为拿走那些通常会使志愿者们感到困倦的药物会打断其惯常的睡眠习性。由于睡得较少，志愿者们当然会感到更为倦乏。至第三周，该项研究发现，志愿者们的睡眠与以前的二周相比时间变长了，且睡得更香了。我们不应将这一点归诸于熏衣草的芳香。实际上，这是由于受试者们二个星期以来已甚感困倦，其中包括停止服用药物的那个星期。由于在第二周中是如此疲倦，因此，他们在第三周中睡得很香应是顺理成章。此外，至第三周，志愿者们已越来越适应了他们仍然相对陌生的睡眠环境，这一点也可以帮助他们睡得更香。由于第三周中志愿者睡眠状况的改善存在着如许多其他的可然性原因，因此，熏衣草的芳香极不可能对志愿者们产生了任何影响。由于论述者没有涉及这些其他的原因，故所持论点在这里再次无法令人信服。

　　概而言之，论述者利用某些缺乏说服力的、轶事趣闻性质的证据，试图来证明在熏衣草花香和医治失眠症之间存在着某种直接的因果关系。若要使其论点更具力度，就必须拿出证据来证明熏衣草的芳香和它对失眠的疗效之间有着直接的因果联系。作为这一联系的证据而摆出的该项研究，没能分离出其他某些有可能致使志愿者们改善其睡眠状况的或然性因素。如此看来，该项研究无法起到太大的作用来支持论述者所提出的那种极不可能的结论。