GRE作文范文 Issue-2

People work more productively in teams than individually. Teamwork requires cooperation, which motivates people much more than individual competition does."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Teamwork as a whole can naturally produce an 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 capabilities. 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.

参考译文

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作文范文 Argument-2

"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."

嘉文博译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.
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

参考译文

　　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栖动物物种仅为四类，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

　　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――即约塞米蒂国家公园――内两栖动物的数量锐减。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――即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园――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，第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年将鲑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。该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栖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。

嘉文博译郑重声明：