GRE作文范文 Issue-9

"It is primarily through identification through social groups that we define ourselves."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

As primarily social animals, human beings naturally seek out different groups to which they feel they have a certain sense of belonging. But there are two different aspects of this issue involved: identifying oneself with a social group for its social implications and identifying oneself with a social group for internal needs. A person can have two different identities, one that involves an individual's self-perception and the way that others see that particular individual. There is a natural dichotomy between the two sides of one's personality that is usually displayed between the different types of social groups with which an individual may identify oneself.

Self-definition can either be honest or dishonest. A person may join a social group because he or she thinks that the people that belong to this type of group are the same as he or she, whether it is true or not. The important detail to the individual is that he or she would like to be the same as the people that belong to this particular social group. As one example, consider a person who grew up poor and poorly educated, but became wealthy through the luck of the lottery or an inheritance from an unknown but wealthy relative. This individual then joins a wine-tasting club and buys season tickets to the local Philharmonic Orchestra and opera house. Although this individual knows nothing about wine, orchestras or opera, he or she is seeking to identify him or herself as a culturally literate person simply because the person is now wealthy. Through joining these social groups, the individual is seeking to define him or herself as socially elite, although the only difference now is that the person has great wealth and in reality probably does not fit in with the other members of the groups. In this case, one's self-definition by identifying with social groups does not match up with how society still identifies the individual.

On the other hand, there are individuals that very clearly demonstrate who they are by their identification with certain social groups. At a very basic level, younger people may join gangs based on a sense of identification with certain gang members or gang ideas. By displaying different identifying tattoos or certain colors, these people clearly identify who they are and what they stand for by the particular to which they belong. Certain religious groups also give a clear identity to their members. Joining an Islamic fundamentalist group such as the Taliban or an Orthodox Jewish organization indicates a certain identity that is common to all of its members. Political organizations such as Greenpeace and the National Organization for Women also make a certain statement about the identity of an individual member. In all of these cases, an individual's self-perception and how others view that individual are probably very similar. These types of organizations speak to a person's very fundamental values and joining one is probably that person's way of saying to the world "this is who I am".

Joining other types of groups may or may not indicate a person's self-identification. Being a Republican or a Democrat, for example, may just be a matter of whichever party your parents belong to. Spending time with a particular group of friends may only mean that you like only one of the people in the group or you have nothing better to do, it may have nothing to do with your self-identification. People that belong to these groups do not necessarily belong to any one social group for identification purposes; it may be only a matter of convenience.

It depends on the individual and the particular social group under discussion as to whether we primarily identify ourselves through association with social groups. Once the individual or the social group has been identified, a determination must still be made as to whether the individual has joined for self-identification purposes or to impress upon others a certain image of that individual.

参考译文

我们主要通过与社会群体的认同而来界定我们自身

　　作为具有显著社会性的动物，人类自然会去寻觅某些他们觉得与其存在某种归属感的不同群体。但这个问题涉及两个方面：基于某一社会群体的社会含义而认同该群体，以及出于某些内在需要而认同某一社会群体。一个人可以拥有两个不同的身份，一种身份涉及到个人的自我感受，另一个所涉及的是他人对这个特定个人的看法。在一个人性格的这两方面之间，存在着一种自然的两分法。个人的性格一般就体现在这一个人所可能认同的不同社会群体之间。

　　自我界定可以是诚实的，亦可以是不诚实的。一个人之所以加入某一社会群体，可能是因为他（她）认为属于这一群体的那些人与他（她）相同，无论这是真还是假。对于这个个人具有重要性的一个细节是，他（她）希望与属于这一特定社会群体的人们相同。例如，我们不妨考虑一下这样一个人，他出身贫穷，没能受过良好的教育，但通过彩票的运气或由于继承了一位无名但却有钱的亲戚的遗产而一夜暴富。此人然后加入一个品酒俱乐部，并购买当地爱乐乐团和歌剧院的季票。虽然此君对酒、乐队或歌剧一窍不通，但他（她）却竭力将自己表现为有文化修养的人，仅仅因为他（她）现在很有钱。通过介入这些社会群体，此人力图将自己界定为社会精英，虽然现在唯一的区分是，这人极其有钱，而实际上他（她）与这些群体内的其他成员格格不入。在此情形中，通过认同某些社会群体而来进行自我界定，这与社会如何看待这个人仍然相去甚远。

　　另一方面，有些人则通过他们与某些社会群体的认同而明白无误地来表明他们是何种人。在某个甚为基本的层面上，青少年会基于他们与某些帮派成员或帮派理念的认同感而参加某些帮派。通过展示与众不同的认别性纹身图案或某些颜色，这些人明确表明他们是谁，以及他们代表着什么。某些宗教团体也会赋予其成员以某个明白无误的身份。加入诸如塔利班一类的伊斯兰原教旨主义团体或者正统派犹太教组织标志着其成员普遍共有的某种身份。像"绿色和平"以及"全国妇女组织"等政治团体也在就某个个体成员的身份作出某种陈述。在所有这些情形中，个体的自我感受，以及他人对其所形成的看法，二者可能甚为近似。这些类型的组织诉诸于一个人极为基本的价值观，而加入这样的一种组织可能就成为这个人向世界表明"我就是这样一个人"的一种方式。

　　加入其他类别的组织可能表明，但也不一定表明一个人的自我认同。例如，成为共和党还是民主党成员，这可能只与你父母属于哪个政党有关。与特定一群朋友在一起，这可能只意味着你只喜欢该群体中的一个人，或者因为你除此之外无所事事。这与你的自我认同毫无关系。属于这些群体的人并非必定出于认同的目的而属于任一社会群体。这可能只是一种权宜之计而已。

　　至于我们是否主要通过与社会群体的联系而来表明我们的身份，这取决于个人以及所涉及的特定社会群体。即使个人或社会群体得以被判明，我们还有待于去确定，一个人加入某一社会群体，究竟是出于自我认同的内在目的呢，还是为了将其个人形象烙在他人心头。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-9

"In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This argument is based on two separate surveys of the citizens of Leeville, conducted by the University of Leeville. In the first survey, most respondents said that their preferred reading material was literary classics. A follow-up study by the same researchers found that mystery novels were the most frequently checked out books from each of the public libraries in Leeville. The arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study therefore misrepresented their own reading habits. This argument does not follow the facts and is therefore unconvincing due to several flaws in logic.

First of all, it is possible that none of the citizens who responded to the first survey were participants in the second survey. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the first survey contained a greater majority of literary classics readers than are present in the general population of Leeville. The difference in the first study and the study of the books that were actually checked out from the library may purely be that the respondents had different interests in literature, therefore disallowing the arguer's conclusion that the first group misrepresented its preferred reading material.

Secondly, it is possible that the difference in the survey results could be attributed to the lack of availability of literary classics in the Leeville public libraries. Simply put, the library may have thousands of mystery novels available for checkout but very few literary classics in their collections. Leeville citizens may actually prefer to read literary classics - the public libraries simply may not have them for the citizens to check out and read. Another possibility is that the Leeville public libraries restrict the checkout of literary classics - perhaps treating the books as a type of "reference" material that must be read inside the library and cannot be checked out. Furthermore, it is possible that no matter how many literary classics the Leeville public libraries have, the citizens have read them all in the past, perhaps many times over, and they are therefore not checked out. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

Thirdly, literary classics are the type of book that people tend to buy for personal collections rather than checking them out of a library. It is a distinct possibility that the citizens of Leeville purchase literary classics to read and then keep in home libraries rather than checking them out of the library. Leeville citizens may prefer to read literary classics and therefore buy them for their own personal collections, thus checking other types of reading materials out of the library rather than buying them to own forever. The arguer's conclusion that the first set of respondents misrepresented their reading habits is critically weakened by this possibility.

Finally, this argument does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. There is no indication given about how many people were surveyed, the demographics involved, or the specific locations involved. For example, richer people would tend not to visit public libraries but they are possibly more predisposed to reading literary classics. Similarly, people who visit public libraries may be more predisposed to reading mystery novels than literary classics. Without knowing the relationship between those first surveyed and those who visit the public libraries, it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion about the accuracy of the first group's statements.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince by jumping to a conclusion that fails to hold up to analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to find further research that eliminates these other possibilities that preclude the judgment that the first group of respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

参考译文

　　在一项由Leeville大学就Leeville市民阅读习惯所作的研究中，大多数受访对象称,他们偏爱将文学名著作为其阅读材料。但是，由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查却发现，每个公共图书馆外借得最频繁的图书均为志怪小说类。因此，我们可以得出这样的结论，即第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述出他们的阅读习惯

　　上述论断基于由Leeville大学对Leeville市民所从事的两项互为独立的调查。在前一项调查中，大多数受访对象称他们较为偏爱的阅读材料是文学名著。由相同的研究人员所作的一项跟踪调查则发现，志怪小说是Leeville市每个公共图书馆外借频率最高的一类图书。论述者便据此得出结论认为，这样看来，第一项研究中的受访对象没能如实地描述他们自己的阅读习惯。这段论述没能遵循事实，因而由于逻辑方面某些缺陷而无从令人置信。

　　 首先，有可能是，对第一项调查作出问卷回答的公民，没有一个人参加了第二项调查。从统计角度而言，完全有可能的情形是，第一项调查涵盖了一个比Leeville总人口中所存在的来得更大的文学名著多数读者群。第一项研究与其后对图书馆实际外借的书所作的那项研究，二者间的差异可能纯粹是因为受访对象对文学拥有全然不同的兴趣，因此否定了论述者所谓第一组受访对象没有如实表述其所喜爱的阅读材料的结论。

　 其次，两项调查结果之间的差异或许可以归诸于这样一个原因，即Leeville市的公共图书馆内缺乏文学名著。说得简单一点，图书馆可能有数千册志怪小说供外借但却没能收藏多少册文学名著。Leeville市民实际上可能甚是偏爱阅读文学名著，但公共图书馆就是没有此类图书外借供市民阅读。另一个可能性是，Leeville公共图书馆限制文学名著的外借--可能只将这类图书当作"参考"资料，只允许在馆内阅读，不得外借。进一步而言，也有可能是，无论Leeville公共图书馆藏有多少册文学名著，市民们在过去已将它们悉数读完，甚至读过许多遍，因此，这些书便不再有人借阅。这些可能性也进一步削弱了第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的论点。

　　第三，对于文学名著这类书，人们往往购买来作为个人藏书，而不太倾向于从图书馆借阅。一个显著的可能性是，Leeville市民购买文学名著来阅读并随后将它们收藏于家庭图书馆而不再去公共图书馆借阅。Leeville市民可能喜爱阅读文学名著并因此购置它们作为个人藏书，因此只从图书馆借阅其他类型的阅读材料，而不是去购买这些材料来永久地拥有。论述者关于第一组受访对象没有如实表述其阅读习惯的结论，由于这一可能性而遭到致命的削弱。

　　最后，这段论述没有解释这样一种可能性，即调查样本本身带有缺陷。论述者没有摆出任何资料表明到底有多少市民接受了调查，或所涉及的人口统计学方法是什么，或所涉及的具体地点。例如，较富有的人往往不太会光顾公共图书馆，但他们可能更喜爱阅读文学名著。同样地，光顾公共图书馆的人可能更喜爱阅读志怪小说而不爱读文学名著。如果不知道第一组受访群体与光顾公共图书馆的群体之间的关系，就不可能就第一组群体的人的陈述的精确性得出一个恰当的结论。

　　总而言之，论述者没有能说服我们，因为他（她）过于匆促地得出的结论无法经得住推敲。若要使其论点更具分量，论述者需要寻找出进一步的研究，排除掉其他那些会否定掉第一组受访对象没能如实地表述其阅读习惯这一判断的可能性。

嘉文博译郑重声明：