Samples for the 14th-week Writing Assignment
本帖最后由 Cinderella 于 2011-11-22 22:47 编辑GRE Issue
People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does．
Sample Essay
Teamwork as a whole can naturally produce all overall greater productivity through the concept of "synergy"，where the total of the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts．But the idea that people work more productively in teams rather than as individuals is going to vary greatly between the types of teams that are organized，the end reward or motivation for both the team and
the individuals，as well as the individuals themselves.
Regarding individuals, some people are born with the desire to succeed，no matter what the situation or task that they are facing. These people may evolve into the classic "Type A" personalities that work ferociously because they are driven by an internal fire that says they must always be doing something，whether individually or as part of a team．Other people may desire to be less socially involved or are very highly competitive with other people. For these people，their work is most productive as individuals，because the very idea of cooperating with other people limits their effectiveness and efficiency because they simply do not want to be a part of the team．Whether this mindset is innate or developed over time does not matter，it is merely the state of their being and neither motivation nor rewards can generate inside them the desire to work collectively as a team．
Some people are highly motivated by social interaction and the desire to work with others towards a collective effort．Obviously these individuals are at their most productive when working as part of a team．Organizational behavioral studies have shown that Asian cultures are much more likely to develop this type of collective behavior as opposed to the more individualistic behavior associated with Western cultures．It could naturally be assumed then that there may be cultural values that can determine whether people are at their most productive individually or as part of a team．
Another variable is the end reward that is involved with the task at hand. Will the rewards be greater if the team works together towards a common goal，or are the rewards more geared toward individual performance? To the extent that the individual is motivated by the end reward, obviously his or her performance inside of a team may be more or less productive with respect to the entire team, depending on how the performance is rewarded．Individual goals may interfere with the group performance．Synergies may not be achieved because the individuals are not working towards a whole "sum" but rather towards an individual reward．Productivity thus will vary for each person as a team member or as an individual depending on the degree to which that person is motivated by an individual or overall team reward．
Finally，the degree of productivity of a person will depend upon the type of team that is organized. Is the group composed of equally contributing individuals? Does the group have an outstanding leader that can motivate both the individuals and the team as a whole? From a pure productivity standpoint, the presence or absence of a charismatic and exceptional leader can make all the difference whether a person would be more productive as a part of a team or as an individual．Personality types that work well together can prove to be much more productive as part of a team than as individuals, and vice versa.
Fundamentally，measures of productivity depend greatly on the individuals themselves．The dilemma facing leaders in all areas of life is how to best assess these individuals to determine how to best harness their capabilities to reach their ultimate productive capability．Whether a person is more productive alone or while working in concert with others is one of the great challenges that
leaders and managers must face to accomplish tasks effectively and efficiently. 观点陈述型作文题目
“当人们以团队的形式工作时，要比以孤军奋战的形式来得更加富有成效。团队的协同工作需要相互合作，它比个人竞争更能激励人们。”
总体而言，团队的协同工作自然能通过“增效作用”(Synergy)这一理念而带来更高程度的整体生产效率，因为在这里，整体大于个体相加之总和。然则，“当人们以团队的形式工作时，要比以孤军奋战的形式来得更加富有成效”这一观念注定会产生巨大差异，取决于所组织起来的团队的类别，团队与个人所能获得的终极回报或激励，以及个人本身。
关于个人，有些人天生就具有获取成功的欲望，无论他们所面临的情形或任务是什么。这些人会演变为工作狂这一经典的“A类”人格，因为受到一股内心的热火所驱使，这股热火时刻告诉他们必须不停地“有所事事”，无论是作为个人抑或是作为团队的一分子。另一些人则可能希望不必那么多地介入社会，或者他们倾向于与其他人激烈竞争。对这些人而言，作为个人，他们工作起来会最富有成效，因为由于他们根本就不想成为任何团队的一部分，与他人合作便会限制他们的效率。这一思想倾向是否与生俱有，还是随着时间的推移而形成，这都无关紧要。这仅仅只是他们的一种生存状态，无论是动机还是回报，都无法在其内心深处激发起作为一个团队集体工作的欲望。
有些人，由于社会互动以及与他人协作去实现某种集体努力的欲望，而具有极强的动机。显然，这些个人在作为团队的一部分进行工作时，他们便会处在其最富有成效的状态。组织行为学研究表明，亚洲文化更有可能形成此类集体性行为，与那种常和西方文化联系在一起的较为个人主义的行为构成对比。这样，人们自然会认为，某些文化价值观可以决定人们是否作为个人还是作为团队的一部分工作起来最富有成效。 GRE Argument
Topic
The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine
"The decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park，and there were abundant numbers of each species．However，in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park，and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced．The decline in Yosemite has been blamed, on the introduction of trout into the park's waters，which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs)．But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline."Sample Essay
In this argument，the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally，the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline，stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic, and suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all，the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world. Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization．One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment．
Secondly，the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology，resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast，perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.
Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the park's waters in 1920，but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to "prove a negative" is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to "prove a negative"; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated，and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof．
In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide．The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the World.
(599 words) 参考译文
题目
下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：
“全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两牺动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。”
【范文正文)
在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园一一即约塞米蒂国家公园一一内两牺动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。
首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点一一即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园一一内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。
其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，笫二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。
最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲢鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种 “prove a negative”的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，“prove a negative”是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。
概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两牺动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。 GRE Issue
"Humanity has made little real progress over the past century or so. Technological innovations have taken place, but the overall condition of humanity is no better. War, violence and poverty are still with us. Technology cannot change the condition of humanity."
The discussion of this statement turns on what is meant by "little real progress" from the first sentence, "the overall condition of humanity": in the second sentence, and "the condition of humanity" from the third sentence. To be sure, war, violence and poverty are still with us and we as mankind are probably more aware of these problems worldwide than ever before thanks to advances in technology and communication. But depending upon the definition of progress and the condition of humanity, this would appear to be an incorrect statement.
First of all, the phrase "little real progress" from the first sentence must be defined. If the author defines progress as elimination of death, war, violence and poverty, then perhaps it could be stated that humankind has not made much improvement over the past one hundred years. People are still dying, wars are still being fought, violence is present almost everywhere and there are most likely people in every country in the world living in poverty. However, if the term "progress" is defined not as elimination of these problems but rather a reduction in them, then great progress has been made over the past century. Life expectancies are up in nearly every country of the world due to improvements in medicine and the scientific study of the human body. War and violence, although still present, has been reduced and to a large part confined to certain areas of the world rather than the global wars of the past such as World Wars I and II. Poverty has also been reduced as international trade has led to economic improvements in many formerly impoverished nations. Very real progress has been made in these areas over the past one hundred years.
Secondly, the phrases "the overall condition of humanity" and "the condition of humanity" must be defined. If the terms mean that we are all still born into pain, suffer many tragedies during our lives, and still die in the end, then of course the overall condition of humanity is no better than it was one hundred or even one hundred thousand years ago. Life is still life, and no matter what technological innovations come along, it is unlikely that the basic facts of living as a member of the human race will ever change. However, if the term means how we are able to live our lives during the time that we are given, then again tremendous progress has been made during the past century. Cures have been found for many diseases, some of which have officially been completely eliminated. Medical treatments for other diseases have made them less deadly or less debilitating. For example, many cancer victims that would have died in the past can now go on living comfortably and cancer-free after treatment. Diabetics who would have died in the past can now live nearly normal lives. Even poor eyesight can be effectively eliminated through laser surgery. It would seem to be beyond argument that overall, the condition of humanity is much better now than it was one century ago.
If one takes a very narrow definition of "progress" and "the condition of humanity", it could be fairly stated that mankind has made little in the way of advancement over the past century. Millions of people worldwide still live in poverty. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is killing millions of people with no cure in sigh. War and violence continues in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. But to take this narrow point of view would be to ignore the obvious tremendous advances that have been made over the past one hundred years by the human race. As mankind continues on into the twenty-first century, it would be preferable to consider all that has been accomplished over the past one hundred years and to look ahead to future advances over the next century instead of ignoring mankind's obviously improved circumstances today.
(696 words) 观点陈述型作文/题目
“在过去约一个世纪的时间中，人类几乎没有实现真正的进步。技术创新确实发生了，但人类的总体状况毫无改观。战争、暴力，以及贫穷仍然伴随着我们。技术无法改善人类的生存状况。”
上述陈述中的探讨所围绕的是这样三个概念的含义，即第一句中的“little real progress”，第二句中的“the overall condition of humanity”，以及第三句中的”the condition of humanity”。毫无疑问，战争、暴力以及贫穷仍然伴随着我们，并且，作为人类，由于技术与通信的进步，我们可能比以往任何时候都更深切地意识到了这些问题。但除非将“progress”和“the condition of humanity”这样的概念进行清晰界定，否则，上述陈述将是相当谬误的。
首先，第一句中的“little real progress”必须予以界定。如果作者将“progress”定义为拔除死亡、战争、暴力以及贫穷，那么或许可以这样说，人类在过去的100多年中并未取得太大的进展。人们仍在不断死亡，战争仍在进行，暴力几乎到处存在，世界每个国家都有人生活于贫困之中。但是，如果“progress”这一术语并非被定义为对上述问题的消除，而是对这些问题的削减，那么，过去一个世纪中人类确实取得了重大进步。由于医学和对人体科学研究水平的提高，全世界几乎每个国家中人类寿命都呈上升趋势。战争与暴力，虽然仍然存在，却已被减少，且在很大程度上都被限制在世界的某些地区，而再也不是像第一、第二次世界大战那样波及全球。随着国际贸易在许多以前的贫穷国家导致了经济改善，贫困也得以减轻。在过去的100年中，这些领域中已取得了极为真实的进步。
其次，“the overall condition of humanity”以及“the condition of humanity”必须予以界定。如果这些术语指的是我们所有人仍然降生于痛苦之中，一生中蒙受着许多悲剧，并最终仍然死去，那么，毫无疑问，人类的总体状况丝毫不比100年或甚至10万年之前来得更好。生活依然是生活，无论产生怎样的技术创新，作为人类的一员，生活的某些基本事实依旧不变。如果该术语指的是我们是如何在被赋予的生存时间中得以生活的，那么我们可以再一次说，人类在过去的世纪中取得了巨大的进步。对许多疾病，人类已找到了治愈方法，某些疾病已正式被彻底消除。对某些疾病的医治已使这些病症变得不再那么致命，不再那么毁灭性。例如，在过去有可能死去的许多癌症患者，现在经治疗之后可继续舒服地生活下去，摆脱癌症的折磨。在过去可能会死去的糖尿病患者，现在也能过上几乎正常的生活。即使视力障碍也能通过激光手术被有效去除。总体而言，人类状况现在远好于一个多世纪之前，这似乎应是不争的事实。
如果从狭义上去理解“progress”和“the condition of humanity”，则人们可甚为合理地说，人类在过去的一个多世纪中几乎没有取得任何进步。全球数以百万计的人仍生活在贫困之中，爱滋病正在夺走无数人的生命，而治愈方法遥遥无期。战争与暴力在中东，非洲以及阿富汗持续不断。然则，持此狭隘的观点则有可能使人无视人类在过去一百年中业已取得的昭然若揭的巨大进步。随着人类继续迈进2l世纪，较为可取的做法应该是，我们应充分意识到在过去100年中人类业已取得的全部成就，并展望人类在下一个世纪中所可能取得的未来进步，而不是对人类今日显著改善的生存状况视而不见，置若罔闻。 GRE Argument
A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia．Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression.
In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that North Americans suffer from an amazingly higher rate of fatigue and chronic depression than people in Asia. From an unknown source, the arguer states that Asians eat much more soy than North Americans, who eat almost none, and that soy contains disease-preventing properties. The arguer then concludes his or her argument by stating that North Americans should consider regularly eating soy as a means of battling fatigue and depression. This argument suffers from at least four critical fallacies.
For the sake of this argument, we will assume that the studies and the statistics about North Americans' and Asians' soy eating habits are correct, and that isoflavones have been found to have disease-fighting properties．Given that, there is still a problem with the arguer directly correlating the eating of soy with the prevention of disease and depression. First of all, simply because soy may have disease-preventing properties, that does not mean that it can therefore fight chronic fatigue and chronic depression. Fatigue and depression may not actually even be considered as "diseases", therefore even given the fact that soy has disease-fighting properties, it would have no effect on the "non-diseases" of fatigue and depression.
Secondly, even assuming that fatigue and depression are diseases, they are not specifically mentioned as diseases that soy or isoflavones are able to prevent. Perhaps soy can help prevent osteoporosis (bone loss), mumps or even chicken pox, but that does not mean that it can specifically address the problems of chronic fatigue and chronic depression. These two critical weaknesses alone make the argument unconvincing.
Furthermore, the arguer's conclusion is based on the idea that diet alone can prevent fatigue and depression by comparing the diets of North Americans and Asians. It is highly unlikely that diet alone is responsible for the tremendous difference in the rates of fatigue and depression between the two populations. Other factors such as lifestyles, occupations, residence in city or rural areas and levels of stress may play a much bigger factor than diet. Additionally, the arguer states that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which supposedly have disease-preventing properties．What is not stated, however, is whether these isoflavones are contained in a form in soy that is usable by the human body. It is possible that the particular configuration of the phytochemicals found in soy products is not usable by the human body, thereby producing no beneficial effects by people eating more soy products．In and of themselves, isoflavones may prevent certain diseases, but perhaps those found in soy are of no benefit to humans. By failing to
address these possibilities, the arguer has presented an unconvincing argument.
In summary, the argument fails due to four major flaws in logic. First, "disease-preventing" properties does not mean "fatigue and depression" preventing properties. Secondly, fatigue and depression may not even be considered as diseases．Thirdly, the arguer ignores the probability that diet alone is not the sole reason behind the increased rates of fatigue and depression for North Americans as opposed to Asians. Finally, isoflavones as found in soy may not produce the same beneficial effects as when it is found in other forms. To strengthen the argument and conclusion，the arguer should present evidence that directly links diet to fatigue and depression as well as evidence that shows that soy can specifically prevent chronic fatigue and chronic depression in North Americans.
(576 words) 参考译文
【题目】
一项最近的研究表明，居住在北美大陆上的人们要比居住在亚洲大陆上的人们患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例分别超出9倍和31倍。有意思的是，亚洲人平均每天只吃20克的大豆，而北美洲人却几乎一点都不吃。研究表明，大豆含有被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，这些植物化学物经科学家研究，发现拥有防病特性。因此，北美洲人应该考虑经常性地吃大豆，以此作为一种防止疲劳和压抑的方法。
【范文正文】
在本段论述中，论述者援引了一项研究来证明，北美洲人患慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症的比例要比居住在亚洲的人令人惊讶地高。从一项来源不明的资料中，作者陈述道，亚洲人所吃的大豆要远多于北美人，而北美人则几乎一点都不吃，而大豆却含有防病的特性。论述者在其论述的结束处陈述说，北美人应考虑经常性地吃些大豆，以此作为一种抗疲劳和抗忧郁的方法。本段论述至少犯下了四个关键性的逻辑谬误。
为了论述的缘故，我们假定关于北美人和亚洲人吃大豆的习惯这方面的研究和数据是完全正确的，并且异黄酮确实被科学家发现具有防病功效。即使在承认这些条件的情况下，论述者将食用大豆与防止疾病和抵抗忧郁直接联系起来，这一做法本身仍存在着问题。首先，即使大豆有可能具备防病特性，但这并非意味着它因此就能抵抗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。疲倦和忧郁实际上甚至还不可能被视作“疾病”，因此，尽管大豆具有防病作用属实，但它对于疲倦和忧郁这些“非疾病”可能毫无作用。
其次，即使我们假定疲倦和忧郁可被视为疾病，但它们没有被具体提到是属于大豆或异黄酮所能预防的那类病症。或许，大豆可以预防骨质疏松症，流行性腮腺炎或甚至是水痘，但这并非意味着它能具体地治疗慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症这样一些问题。这二个关键性的弱点本身就足以使得该论述缺乏可信度。
进而言之，论述者的结论所依据的是这样一个理念，即通过比较北美人和亚洲人的饮食，饮食本身可以来防止疲倦和忧郁。但很难想象饮食本身造成了两类人口之间患上疲倦和忧郁症比例方面的巨大差异。其他诸多因素，如生活方式，职业，居住在都市还是乡村，以及压力程度所产生的影响可能要比饮食大得多。此外，论述者陈述道，大豆含有一种可被称为异黄酮的植物化学物，据称具有防病功效。但论述者没有作出陈述，即这些异黄酮是否是以一种被人体使用的方式被包含在大豆中。有可能是，大豆产品中所发现的植物化学物，其特定的结构并不能为人体所利用，从而对食用较多大豆产品的人并不能产生任何益处。就其本身而言，异黄酮或许可能预防某些疾病，但大豆中所发现的异黄酮对人类毫无益处，这也是有可能的。由于没有探究这些可能性，论述者所摆出的这段论述便失去了说服力。
总的说来，本段论述因为四大逻辑缺陷而难以站得住脚。首先，“防病”特性并不能等同于“疲倦和忧郁症”预防特性。其次，疲倦和忧郁甚至还不能被视为疾病。第三，论述者忽视了这样一种可能性，即饮食本身并不是造成北美人相对于亚洲人疲倦与忧郁症比例上升的唯一原因。最后，大豆中所被发现的异黄酮可能并不能产生与在其他形式中所发现的异黄酮相同的益处。若要增强其论点和结沦的力度，论述者应该拿出证据，将饮食与疲倦及忧郁直接联系起来，且提证据来证明大豆能具体地防止北美人的慢性疲倦和慢性忧郁症。
页:
[1]