GRE作文范文 Issue-1

"The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The intensity of today's media coverage has been greatly magnified by the sheer number and types of media outlets that are available today. Intense competition for the most revealing photographs and the latest information on a subject has turned even minor media events into so-called "media frenzies". Reporters are forced by the nature of the competition to pry ever deeper for an angle on a story that no one else has been able to uncover. With this type of media coverage, it does become more and more likely that anyone who is subjected to it will have his or her reputation tarnished, as no individual is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The advances in technology have made much information easily and instantaneously available. Technology has also made it easier to dig further than ever before into a person's past, increasing the possibility that the subject's reputation may be harmed.

The above statement is much too broad, however. "Anyone" covers all people all over the world. There are people whose reputations have only been enhanced by media scrutiny. There are also people whose reputations were already so poor that media scrutiny could not possibly diminish it any further. There may very well be people that have done nothing wrong in the past, at least that can be discovered by the media, whose reputations could not be diminished by media scrutiny. To broadly state that "anyone" subjected to media coverage will have his or her status sullied implies that everyone's reputation worldwide is susceptible to damage under any type of media scrutiny. What about children, particularly newborn children? What about those people whose past is entirely unknown?

Another problem with such a broad statement is that it does not define the particular level of media scrutiny. Certainly there are different levels of media coverage. Does merely the mention of one's name in a newspaper constitute media scrutiny? What about the coverage of a single event in someone's life, for example a wedding or the birth of a baby? Is the media coverage of the heroic death of a firefighter or police officer in the line of duty ever going to diminish that person's reputation? It seems highly unlikely that in these examples, although these people may have been subjected to media scrutiny, these individual's reputations are undamaged and potentially enhanced by such exposure.

Without a doubt, there are many examples of individual's whose reputations have been diminished by media scrutiny. The media's uncovering of former U.S. President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky will most likely overshadow the entire eight years of his administration. Basketball superstar Michael Jordan's sterling reputation has been tarnished more than once by the media; first by media coverage of his gambling habits, then most recently (and in a much more harmful manner) by news reports of his marital infidelities and the divorce from his wife of thirteen years. Fame and fortune can turn an ordinary individual into a media target where reporters will stop at almost nothing to "dig up dirt" that will sell more newspapers or entice more viewers to watch a television program. It could even be argued that media scrutiny killed Princess Diana as her car sped away from the privacy-invading cameras of reporters in Paris. There is no doubt that there are a large number of people who have been hurt in one way or another by particularly intense media scrutiny.

In summary, it seems impossible that for every person that is subjected to media scrutiny, his or her reputation will eventually be diminished. Millions of people are mentioned in the media every day yet still manage to go about their lives unhurt by the media. Normal individuals that are subjected to media scrutiny can have their reputation either enhanced or damaged depending on the circumstances surrounding the media coverage. The likelihood of a diminished reputation from the media rises proportionally with the level of notoriety that an individual possesses and the outrageousness of that person's behavior. The length of time in the spotlight can also be a determining factor, as the longer the person is examined in the media, the greater the possibility that damaging information will be discovered or that the individual will do something to disparage his or her reputation. But to broadly state that media scrutiny will diminish anyone's reputation is to overstate the distinct possibility that, given a long enough time and a certain level of intensity of coverage, the media may damage a person's reputation.
　 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(766words)

参考译文

"被置于媒体审视下的任何人，其名誉终将受毁损。"

　　当今媒体报道的力度，由于当今时代所能获得的媒体渠道那前所未有的数量和种类，从而被极大地增强。围绕着对最具暴露性的图片及对某一题材最新信息所展开的竞争，使哪怕是次要的媒体事件也转变为所谓的"媒体疯狂"。由于竞争的本质，记者们被迫就某一项报道作深度采访，以其窥探到一个任何其他人都无法揭示的视角。随着这类媒体报道的出现，任何被置于媒体报道之下的人，其名誉越来越有可能被玷污，因为"金无赤金，人无完人"。每个人都有可能犯错误。技术进步使大量的信息在第一瞬间便被轻易获取。技术也使媒体得以比以往任何时候更深入地去挖掘一个人的过去，从而更增加了当事人名誉受损的可能性。

　　然则，上述陈述涵盖面过于宽泛。"任何人"涵盖了世界上所有的人。有些人的名誉反而会因为媒体的聚焦而陡然显赫起来。也有些人，其名声早就如此之糟糕，以致于媒体的聚焦再也无法让它受到更坏的毁损。笼统地陈述受媒体报道的"任何人"均会使其地位被玷污，这暗示着全球每个人的名声在任何种类的媒体聚焦下均易于遭诟病。那么，对于天真无辜的孩子们，尤其新生婴儿，情况会如何？对于那些其过去根本无人知晓的人来说，情况又会是什么样呢？

　　对于这样一项笼统的陈述而言，它的另一个问题是没能明晰界定媒体聚焦的具体程度。媒体的报道毫无疑问存在程度上的差别。只在报纸上提及一个人的名字，是否算作媒体聚焦？对某人一生中单独一次事件（如婚礼或孩子出生）的报道这也算媒介聚焦吗？媒体对消防队员或警官因公而死的英雄壮举进行报道，难道也会毁损该人的名声吗？在这些实例中，其名声受损的事情极不可能发生。虽然这些人可能被置于媒体审视之下，但其名声却会完好无损，且潜在地可因这些披露而得以提高。 毫无疑问，也有许多例子能证明一个人的名声会被媒体审视所毁损。媒体对美国前总统Bill Clinton与Monica Lewinsky的风流韵事的揭露极有可能会将其八年的执政生涯置于阴影之中。超级篮球明星Michael Jordan一世英名也被媒体不止一次地玷污，首先是被有关其赌习的媒体报道，其次是最近--且以一种更具致命性伤害的方式--被有关他婚姻不忠以及与其结婚13年的妻子分道扬镳的报道。当媒体记者不择手段去挖掘某些可促使其报纸销量大增的"猛料"时，或去诱惑更多的观众观看某一电视节目时，名和利就会将一个普通人转变为媒体追踪的目标。我们甚至可以提出这样一种论点，即正是媒体的审视将Diana王妃置于死地，随着她的汽车去竭力逃脱巴黎街头的记者们那侵犯隐私的相机镜头。毫无疑问，肯定有许多人被极其强烈的媒体聚焦以一种方式或另一种方式所伤害。

　　归纳而言，对于每个被置于媒体审视的人来说，其名声将最终受到毁损似乎并不可能。每天，有数百万人被媒体提到，但他们仍设法我行我素，不为媒体所伤害。被置于媒体审视之下的普通人，其名声或可得到提高，或可蒙受毁损，取决于围绕着媒体报道的具体情况。一个人的名声受媒体毁损的可能性，与所其拥有的臭名昭著的程度，及其行为的令人厌恶程度成正比。受媒体关注的时间长短同样也是一个决定性因素，因为一个人被媒体审视的时间越长，于他名声不利的信息越有可能被抖落出来，或者该人越有可能去做出某些于其名声不利的事情。但只是笼统地陈述媒体的审视终将毁掉一个人的名声，即是过分夸大这样一种显著的可能性，即在足够长的时间和一度程度的报道力度这两个条件下，媒体是有可能毁掉一个人的名声的。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-1

“Since our mechanics are responsible for inspecting and maintaining our aircraft, Get-Away Airlines should pay to send them to the Quality-Care Seminar, a two-week seminar on proper maintenance procedures. I recommend this seminar because it is likely to be a wise investment, given that the automobile racing industry recently reported that the performance of its maintenance crews improved markedly after their crews had attended the seminar. These maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do our mechanics, including refueling and repairing engines. The money we spend on sending our staff to the seminar will inevitably lead to improved maintenance and thus to greater customer satisfaction along with greater profits for our airline.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The director of personnel for Get – Away airlines has not made a very persuasive argument for sending the company’s employees to the Quality – Care Seminar in his or her letter to the president of the company.Maybe the personnel director has not thoroughly investigated this particular seminar, as there are holes in the logic used to try to persuade the president to pay to send the mechanics to this two-week seminar.

First of all, the personnel director has stated that the seminar “is likely to be a wise investment” but then bases that assumption on a report from the automobile racing industry that their maintenance crews’ performances had improved after attending the seminar.The letter does not state exactly what the seminar entails or whether it is specific to the proper maintenance procedures of any particular type of machine.It would be helpful had the personnel director explained in more detail the content of the Quality – Care seminar and whether it is aimed at automobiles or whether aircraft are included at all.The mechanics must learn something of value that will help them inspect and maintain the airline’s fleet of aircraft.For the seminar to be a wise investment, the net productivity and income gains must outweigh the cost of the seminar.There is no evidence to show that this is the case.

Secondly, because the personnel director refers only to a report by the automobile racing industry, it seems probable that the seminar is specific to only that highly specialized industry.It is likely that there would be no clear correlation between the duties of the maintenance crews of an airline and the maintenance crews of an automobile built for racing.The fundamental purposes behind the two types of maintenance crews are clearly different.An automobile racing maintenance crew strives to create and maintain the fastest machine possible to enable its driver to cross the finish line in first place.An aircraft maintenance crew is devoted to ensuring that the airplane can fly safely in an efficient manner to transport people and cargo crew from one place to another.Speed is the main focus of the racecar industry while cost and safety are the main focuses of an airline.

Additionally, the personnel director suggests that the automotive racing industry maintenance crews perform many of the same functions as do the airline’s mechanics, “including refueling and repairing engines”.Although in name these functions are similar, they are in actuality performed in very different manners with different purposes in mind.For example, refueling in the racing industry is done as quickly as possible in order to get the racecar driver back on the track immediately.Certainly care is taken to ensure safety but again it is speed that is the number one priority.Refueling an airplane does not have to be done in the shortest time possible.The safety of passengers and cargo is the top priority.Similarly, the repairing of engines differs in that the faulty repair of a car engine may lead to losing the race, but the faulty repair of an airplane engine may result in an aircraft falling from the sky with disastrous consequences.Chances or shortcuts that might be taken with an automotive engine cannot be performed on an aircraft engine.

Finally, the personnel director refers to the inevitability of improved maintenance thus leading to greater customer satisfaction and therefore greater profits.This is a possible chain of events, certainly not an inevitable progression.In addition to the previously noted flaws in logic, merely spending money to send the staff to the seminar will not guarantee the stated “inevitable” benefits.It is possible that even if the seminar directly addresses aircraft maintenance and repair, the company’s mechanics may already know everything that is presented, thus no improvement in maintenance will be gained.Maybe the mechanics will spend more time at the nightclubs in the area and not learn anything from the knowledge that is presented.

Furthermore, there is no direct correlation between improved maintenance and increased customer satisfaction, let alone an increase in profits.Aircraft maintenance is necessarily a “behind the scenes” activity that customers rarely notice, barring some catastrophic failure.It is doubtful that improved maintenance would lead to any recognizable increase in customer satisfaction.Additionally, customers may already be completely satisfied with Get – Away’s services, thus no greater profits are possible from increasing customer satisfaction.

It is entirely possible that the personnel director’s commitment to send the airline company’s mechanics would indeed lead to the benefits that he or she has stated in the letter to the president.If the seminar does directly address maintenance and repair issues that actually would help the mechanics to improve the performance of their work duties, it is possible that the airline would see an increase in their efficiency and productivity.But barring some extrinsic evidence that is not included in the personnel director’s letter, there are not enough facts stated to allow the president of Get – Away Airlines to make an informed decision on whether to send the mechanics to the Quality – Care seminar.

参考译文

　　“既然我们的机师负责检查和维修我们的飞机，Get-Away航空公司应该出钱让他们参加“关心质量”培训班，一种为期一周的讲授正确保养程序的培训班。我之所以推荐这一培训班，因为这有可能是一项甚为英明的投资，其依据是赛车行业最近称，其维修保养小组参加该培训班之后，其技术水准显著改观。这些维修小组所从事的许多职责与我们的机师相同，包括补充燃料和修理引擎。我们花钱将我们的员工送去参加该培训班，必将导致维修水准的提高，从而在为本公司带来更多经济效益的同时获得更高的客户满意度。”

　　Get-Away航空公司的人事主管在其致公司总裁的信中，没能就派遣该公司雇员前去参加“关心质量”培训班提出令人信服的论点。或许，该人事主管没能对该培训班作出充分调研，因为在用于试图说服总裁花钱派遣机师前去参加为期两周的培训班的逻辑推理中，漏洞百出。

　　首先，该人事主管陈述道，此培训班不失为一项“明智的投资”，但随后又将这一假设基于来自赛车行业的一份报告，称其维修队的表现在参加该培训班之后显著提高。信件既没能确切地说明培训班涵盖哪些方面，也没说明它是否特定针对某一具体机械类型的恰当保养程序。该人事主管如果较详细地解释“关心质量”培训班的内容，以及它是否针对汽车，还是也囊括飞机，这样便更加有用。机师们必须学习到有价值的东西，能帮助他们检查和维修航空公司的全部飞机。要想使培训班成为一项明智的投资，净生产效益和收益必须超进培训班的成本。信中无证据证明情况会如此。

　　其次，由于人事主管仅提及赛车行业的一份报告，则该培训班很有可能仅专门针对这一高度专业化的行业。在航空公司维修人员与赛车行业维修人员的职责之间，可能毫无明显的联系。这两类维修人员背后的根本目的显然不同。赛车维修人员力图去造就并维护一部最大限度快速行驶的机器，以便使其驾驶员第一个冲进终点。飞机维修人员致力于确保飞机能以一种有效的方式安全飞行，将人与货物从一地运输至另一地。速度是赛车的主要目标，而成本与安全则是航空公司的主要目标。

　　此外，人事主管表示，赛车业维修人员所从事的许多职能与航空公司的机师相同，“包括加油和修理引擎”。虽然从名称上看，这些职能相似，但实际上它们是以极为不同的方式完成的，目标也全然不同。例如，赛车业中的加油需尽快完成，以便让赛车手立刻重返赛道。当然，人们会小心行事以确保安全，但速度在这里再度成为压倒一切的因素。给飞机加油无须在最短时间内完成。旅客和货物的安全才是重中之重。同样，两者修理引擎也不尽相同，因为汽车引擎修理失误，所导致的是比赛的败北。但飞机引擎修理失误，将会导致飞机自高空中坠毁，造成灾难性后果。在修理汽车引擎时可能采用的碰运气或走捷径的做法，是断不能在飞机引擎上上演的。

　　最后，人事主管提到维修水平将不可避免得以提高，从而导致更大的客户满意度，并因此增加利润。这只能算是一种有可能的事件之链，但肯定不是一种不可避免的事态演变。除了上述所指出的逻辑缺陷以外，仅仅花钱派遣人员前去参加培训班并不能保证人事主管所陈述的那些“理所当然的”益处。即使培训班有可能是直接针对飞机的保修与维修，但公司的机师可能就早已掌握了培训班所要讲授的知识，因而不可能实现维修水准的提高。机师们也有可能将更多的时间耗费在当地的夜总会里，从所教授的知识中一无所获。

　　此外，在提高保养水平和提高客户满意度之间并无直接联系，更不用提盈利水平的提高。飞机保养无疑是一种“幕后”活动，除了发生某种灾难性的故障，客户一般是很少注意到的。保养水平的提高将导致客户满意度的显著提高，这是令人颇为怀疑的。再则，客户可能早已对Get-Away的服务完全满意，故提高客户满意度并不可能造成更多的利润。

　　人事主管致力于促成派遣航空公司机师参加培训，这是完全有可能带来在其致总裁的信中所陈述的那些益处。假如培训班所直接针对的确实是那些实际有助于机师们提高其工作责职表现的保养及修理问题，那么，该航空公司有可能发现其效率和生产能力出现一种增长。但是，除了某些外部证据以外，人事主管的信中没能陈述足够的事实。足以让Get-Away航空公司总裁就是否派遣机师参加“关心质量”培训班一事作出明智的决策。

嘉文博译郑重声明：