GRE作文范文 Issue-12

"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: how many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

嘉文博译Sample Essay

To discuss this statement, one must begin with the assumption that resources are limited, as they almost always are, and that therefore research priorities must be set based on those finite resources. Those resources would include the total number of researchers as well as the money available for the research. As an absolute statement, using the basis of the total number of lives improved would at first glance appear to be a simple and clear cut method to determine what priorities are given to what types of research. But in reality, politics, the number of available researchers in a given field and the total funding available all determine to a large extent where research priorities must lie.

Unfortunately, in a great deal of instances, research priorities are increasingly intertwined with governmental politics. As one example, when the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) first appeared, it was seen primarily as a homosexual disease or a disease that afflicted very poor Africans. As a result, politicians saw little reward in pushing for money to fight the disease. In the beginning, very little money was spent on researching the causes and potential cures for this deadly disease. As more and more cases were diagnosed, it eventually became clear that the disease was not limited to poor Africans and homosexuals and it was in fact increasingly spreading to the rest of the population. This motivated politicians to act to spend more money on research to combat AIDS, but it is likely still not enough. If research priorities were based purely on the number of people's lives that could be improved, one would be hard pressed to find a higher priority. The number of people that are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is in the hundreds of millions. But as the disease is still seen primarily as one affecting mainly poor Africans, politicians have been reluctant to significantly increase spending on researching the deadly disease.

Another factor that must be considered is the number of researchers available in a given field. If politicians could actually be persuaded to focus on AIDS as their top research priority and dedicated unlimited funding to the project, maybe this would benefit the most people throughout the world. Yet without enough properly trained researchers, all of the money in the world cannot move the research along any faster. Perhaps the money could be used to encourage more highly trained people to enter the field, but that would take years of training before the benefits could be seen.

Finally, the amount of funding available for research has a clear impact on where the research priorities will lie. Politics, the number of researchers and funding are all interwoven together in an inseparable bundle that makes a simple goal such as improving the highest number of people's lives impossible to reach. In many countries, there is simply no money available for research of any kind as they are merely subsistent countries that even lack adequate funding to properly feed their own populations. Other countries may simply lack the desire to spend money on research, preferring to spend money on construction projects or other areas. Without adequate funding where research is done, only certain types of basic level research can be performed. Priorities must be made according to what the government can afford and where its highest potential lies, rather than the absolute number of people that can benefit from such research.

In theory, assigning research priorities by the number of people that will benefit is a practical and simple way to make a decision. In reality, defining which benefits are most important, politics, the number of researchers available and funding make the decision much more difficult. Maybe someday in the future, with technological advances, mankind can afford to make this theory become a reality.

参考译文

当我们为科学、教育或任何其他领域确定研究优先权时，需要考虑的一个最重要的问题是：如果研究结果获得成功，有多少人的生活将由此得以改善

　　要讨论上述论题，我们必须首先作出这样的假设，即资源是有限的，因此，研究优先权的确定必须基于这些有限的资源。这些资源将囊括全体研究人员及可用于研究的资金。作为一项绝对陈述，将得以改善的生活的数量作为基础，这初看上去不失为一种简单和不言而喻的方法，用来确定哪些优先权应该被赋予哪些类研究。但在实际上，政治，某一特定领域中所能获得的研究人员数量，以及所能获得的全部研究经费都在很大程度上决定着优先权应赋予何种研究。

　　不幸的是，在诸多情形中，研究优先权越来越与政府政治交织在一起。例如，当艾滋病最初出现时，这种病主要被视作一种同性恋病症或一种非洲穷人所患的病。这样政客们便觉得竭力去弄钱来对付这种疾病没有太大的回报。起初，用于研究这一致命疾病的病因和潜在疗法的资金少得可怜。随着越来越多的病例被诊断出来，人们最终恍然大悟，这种病并非仅限于非洲穷人和同性恋者，并且它实际上正越来越扩散至其他群体的人身上。这促使政客们行动起来，将更多的钱应用于对付艾滋病的科研上，但现在看来依然远远不够。如果研究优先权纯粹基于能得以改善的生活数量上，我们就会尴尬地发现，全世界数百万人受此病毒感染。但由于这一疾病仍基本上被视为主要影响非洲穷人的一种疾病，政客们一直不愿意大规模增加对这一致命疾病的研究经费。

　　另一个必须考虑的因素是某一特定领域中所能获得的研究人员的数量。如果政客们实际上能够被说服将艾滋病当作其首要的研究课题并为该项目提供无限的科研经费的话，这或许能使世界上最多数量的人从中获益。但倘若没有足够数量受过恰当训练的研究人员，再多的资金投入也无法推动这项研究朝着更快的方向发展。经费或许能用来鼓励更多受过高端训练的人们进入这一领域，但这得进行多年的训练，然后才有望从中受益。

　　最后，所能获得的研究经费的数额也对确定研究优先权存在明显的影响。政治、研究人员的数量、以及经费不可分割地全都交织在一起，从而使改善最多数量的人们的生活这一简单的目标都无法得以实现。在许多国家，根本弄不到任何资金来进行任何性质的研究，因为这些国家只是些勉强维持生存的国家，甚至还缺乏充足的资金来使其人口得以果腹。另有一些国家根本就缺乏将资金用于研究的欲望，更愿意将钱花在房屋建设项目或其他领域。在没有充足的资金进行研究的情况下，就只能从事某些基本层面上的研究。优先权只能依据政府所能拿得出来的钱的数额以及这笔钱所能发挥的最大潜在作用来确定，而不是依据所能从研究中获益的绝对人数。

　　从理论上讲，依据受益者的人数来划分研究优先权，这不失为一种实用而又简单的决策方式。但实际上，确定哪些效益最为重要，政治因素、所能获得的研究人员的数量、以及研究资金都致使这一决策变得远为困难。或许有朝一日，随着技术的进步，人类能使这一理想变作现实。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-12

"Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space"

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This argument states that a famous architect that is known for futuristic and experimental buildings should be commissioned to build student housing for Claitown University as a means of gaining affordable housing for its students as well as funding the project. The arguer states that tourists would want to visit such student housing buildings and that the income from tourist fees would soon pay for the building. The arguer also states that the building would attract new students and donations from alumni, and that part of the oversized building could be used as office space. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince for several reasons.

First of all, the arguer assumes that because some of a famous architect's other buildings attract tourists and fees, tourists will also pay money to visit the new student housing building built by him or her. There is no justification for such reasoning. It is likely that such other buildings were built in tourist-type areas with the specific purpose in mind of attracting tourists. Examples of such buildings abound: the Empire State Building and the former World Trade Centers of New York, the Oriental Pearl of Shanghai, the Louvre museum building in Paris - all were built with the intention of attracting tourists. These buildings and their surrounding areas all have some intrinsic tourist value. It is highly likely that no matter how unusual the building, very few tourists would go out of their way to a college campus to see a student dormitory building. The argument lacks credibility from this standpoint.

Secondly, hiring a famous architect will likely be prohibitively more expensive as such architect's services are in constant demand across the entire world, and only so many buildings can be designed in a certain period of time. The additional fee that the architect alone can command, combined with the likelihood that a futuristic or experimental design will also be tremendously more expensive, makes this idea unworkable. The arguer must be assuming an enormously large income from tourist's fees, which as stated before is extremely unlikely. This second point critically weakens the argument.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to consider the viewpoint of the students that would be living in the futuristic or experimental housing. He or she assumes that such a building would attract students to the university, just as it would supposedly attract tourists. Even assuming that it would attract tourists, what student, or person for that matter, wants to live in a home that is constantly toured by strangers? Furthermore, there are safety factors to consider. How safe can a futuristic or experimental building be? This argument must be rejected on safety grounds if for no other reason as an "experimental" building is simply not appropriate for use as student housing.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the building would attract donations from alumni. On the contrary, the opposite is more likely. An expensive architect building an expensive student housing project is likely to anger alumni, not please them - it would be seen as a waste of money and they would refuse to donate any more to the school. Additionally, without any basis in fact, the arguer states that the building would be much larger than current student housing needs, but that the extra room could be used for office space. This suggests that the arguer has already seen some plans or made some plans, indicating that there may be a conflict of interest here that should be investigated further.

In summary, without actual cost and income estimates, this argument is based on nothing more than pure speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. The argument at best is unconvincing - at worst it reeks of conflict of interest that may warrant investigation into the motives behind the argument.

参考译文

　　Claitown大学需要为学生提供较为廉价的住房，以及需要寻找到一种方法，来为建造此类住房提供资金。解决这一问题的最佳方案是将建筑设计委托给一位以实验性和未来主义建筑风格著称的建筑设计师。众所周知，观光旅游者均愿意花钱去游览该建筑师设计的某些建筑，因此，我们可以预料，游人将会参观这一新建大楼。从向游人收取的费用中产生的收益将很快就涵盖建造成本。此外，这样一座建筑将吸引新学生来就读，也能吸引校友的捐款。虽然这样一座建筑规模之大会超出我们目前学生住房的需要，但大楼的部分区域可以用作办公空间。

　　本项论述宣称，一位以未来主义和实验性建筑风格著称的著名建筑师应被授予委托，去为Claitown大学设计建造学生住房，作为一种手段来为其学生获取廉租房，并为该建设项目筹得资金。论述者宣称，旅游者们将希望来参观这样的学生住房建筑，并且从旅游者收费中所产生的收益将很快就可以支付大楼的建设成本。论述者还称，该建筑还将吸引新生入学，吸引校友捐款，并且大楼规模超大部分可用作办公空间。上述论述所依据的是相当成问题的逻辑推理，由于多方面的原因而无法令人信服。

　　 首先，论述者假定，由于一位著名建筑师其他一些建筑物中的有一些曾吸引过旅游者和收费来源，故旅游者们同样也会花钱来参观由这位建筑师所设计建造的这幢新的学生公寓楼。这样一种逻辑推理缺乏丝毫理据。情况有可能是，其他此类建筑建造于旅游区，建造时带着专门吸引旅游者的设想。此类建筑实例比比皆是：纽约的帝国大厦和前世贸大厦，上海的东方明珠塔，巴黎的卢浮宫博物馆建筑--所有这些建筑的建设意图就是为着吸引旅游者。这些建筑以及它们的周边地区都具有一定内在的旅游价值。非常有可能出现的情形是，无论所造的大楼多么的非同异常，很少会有旅游者特意去往一所大学校园，去观赏一幢学生的宿舍楼。从这一观点判断，上述论述缺乏可信度。

　 其次，雇佣一位著名建筑师将会昂贵至极，因为这样的建筑师，其服务在全球范围内供不应求。这位建筑师一个人所值的额外费用，加诸未来派或实验性设计的费用也将极其高昂这一可能性，使得这一想法无法操作。论述者必定是假定向旅游者收取的费用能带来极为巨大的效益。但这一点我早已陈述过是极为不可能的。这第二点也严重地削弱了论述者的上述论点。

　　第三，论述者也没有考虑到入住到这座未来派或实验性建筑中的学生的看法。这位论述者自以为这样的一座大楼会吸引学生来该大学入学，如同论述者所假设的能吸引旅游者那样。即使我们假定这幢大楼真的能吸引旅游者，但哪一个学生，或哪一个人会愿意居住在一个不断被陌生人浏览观光的居室里呢？此外，还需要考虑安全因素。一座未来派或实验性质的大楼，其安全程度如何？即使不是因为其他缘由的话，单纯基于安全因素的考量，上述论述亦必须予以推翻，因为一座"实验性质的"大楼根本就不宜用作学生住房。

　　最后，论述者假设所要建造的大楼将能从校友们那里吸引捐款。相反情况更有可能适得其反。聘请一位收费高昂的建筑师来设计建造一座费用高昂的学生公寓，这一工程可能令校友们怒发冲冠，而不是取悦于他们--这会被视作浪费钱财，他们有可能拒绝再向该校提供任何捐助。此外，在没有任何事实依据的情况下，论述者陈述道，拟建的大楼将会规模庞大，超出目前学生的居住需求，但多余的空间可用作办公空间。这暗示论述者早已预见到了某些计划，或已制定出了某些计划，表明这里存在着某种利害关系的冲突，而这一点正是需要作进一步调查的。

　　总而言之，在没有实际的成本和收入估计的情况下，上述论述仅仅是基于纯粹的臆测，以及或许是一厢情愿式的思维模式。该论述充其量也是无法令人置信的--从最不利的一方面看，它带有利害关系冲突的色彩，使人觉得有必要调查本项论述背后所隐匿的真实动机。

嘉文博译郑重声明：