GRE作文范文 Issue-13

"At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save an endangered species."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Certainly no one can argue that many, and perhaps most, extinct species became extinct naturally rather than due to human interference. After all, mankind's length of time on earth, when compared to the age of the planet, is very small. In some instances, mankind is probably lucky that some species became extinct long before we made our first appearance. It is difficult to imagine humans living alongside dinosaurs, for example. But to say that there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts to save an endangered species overestimates our own importance, minimizes the importance of a species, and ignores the intricate balances that all species on earth contribute to in our environment.

It is easy to make the assumption that because humans are capable of reason and thought, we are the dominant and therefore the most important species on earth. We could assume that all other species are also put here for our use, to use and abuse as we best see fit. To a certain extent, we can control almost all other varieties of life on this planet. But having that ability and exercising that ability are two different things, and who is to say exactly what our role should be on Earth? Religious theologians have different ideas as to man's place in the world, but these are all based on human ideas and thoughts. It would seem to be possible that animals and plants have ways of communicating that humans cannot recognize or understand. It is possible that there are forms of communication in this world that we do not have the capability of understanding, and it is important that we do not assume that we know everything. As the dominant species on Earth, it is our responsibility to use that position wisely and destroy as little as possible while still assuring the survival of mankind.

Taking the absolute point of view, humans would be justified in allowing any species to become extinct if it would take extraordinary efforts to save it. Of what use, for example, is the Giant Panda other than to look at as a cute and loveable creature? Or what about tigers, who can and have killed humans in the past? And why should we care about some small species of fish that may become extinct if we build a certain dam, if that dam will provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of people? Alligators have attacked people in the United States, so why should we make any effort to protect them? The answer would seem to be obvious - that eliminating these species gives us less diversity in the environment. Humans cannot exist as the lone species on this planet. The absolute importance of biodiversity is only just beginning to be understood. The extinction of a species today might lead to unimaginably negative consequences in the future. Humans can likely not determine the relative importance of any one species.

Finally, there is a very delicate balance in nature that we also cannot determine with any precision. The chains of life are intricately bound together in a beautiful pattern that we cannot see through our own myopia. While most people would agree that permanently eliminating flies and mosquitoes, for example, is a good idea, we don't know what effect that might have in the long term. Certainly flies aid in the decomposition of waste materials. Mosquitoes may be an important food source for other animals in the food chain that directly leads to food for humans. To break any one link in this or any of the possibly billions of food chains in the environment could lead to catastrophe.

As humans, we must realize that there are balances in the environment that we don't understand and that we must protect. To allow the extinction of any particular species could prove to be a fatal mistake to the long-term survival of mankind.

参考译文

在过去地质进程的不同阶段，许多物种由于自然进程而非人类进程的原因而灭绝。因此，人类社会没有任何正当的理由去作巨大的努力，尤其是在资金和劳动力方面作巨大的投入，去拯救某一濒危物种

　　许多业已灭绝的物种，或许大多数已灭绝的物种，是由于自然原因而非人类干扰的原因而灭绝，这一点肯定无人质疑。毕竟人类在地球上所存在的时间长度，相对于这颗行星的年龄而言，实乃微不足道。在某些情形中，人类可能很幸运，有些物种在我们最初出现之前早已灭绝。例如，很难想象人类和恐龙生活在一起。但如果有人说，人类社会没有任何正当的理由去作巨大的努力，拯救某一濒危动物，这便过高估计了我们自己的重要性，贬低了物种的重要性，并忽略了地球上所有物种在我们环境中所共同构建的各种错综复杂的平衡关系。

　　我们很容易作这样一种假设，即由于人类具有推理和思维能力，我们便是地球上主导的并因此是最重要的物种。据此，我们以为，其他所有物种被放在那里也是为了让人类享用，按我们的需求去使用，去滥用。在某种程度上，我们可以控制这一星球上几乎所有其他的生命种类。但是，拥有这一能力和运用这一能力完全是两码事，而又有谁能确凿无误地说明人类在地球上应扮演何种角色？宗教神学家们对于人类在世界中的地位有不同的观点，但这些均基于人类的观念和思想。动植物似乎有可能拥有人类所无法认识到或无从理解的交流方式。这个世界上有些交流方式可能是人类没有能力理解的，因此，有一点很重要，我们不应该认为我们无所不知。作为地球上的主导物种，我们的责任在于明智地使用我们的这一地位，在确保人类自身生存的条件下尽可能少地毁灭其他物种。

　　如果采取一种绝对的观点，那么，如果挽救某一物种需要作出巨大努力，则人类让这一物种趋于灭绝应该说不无其合理性。例如，大熊猫作为一种可爱的动物可用于观赏之外，它还能具有别的用途吗？能置人于死地且已经在过去令人类生灵涂炭的老虎，我们又该如何处理呢？如果我们筑起一条大坝，这条大坝能为成千上万的人供电，某些小鱼类会趋于灭绝，我们难道应该去关爱这些鱼类吗？在美国，鳄鱼攻击过人类，我们为何要努力去保护它们呢？答案似乎是不证自明的，那就是，灭掉这些物种就会减少我们环境的多样性。人类不能作为孤立的物种生存在这个星球上。生物多样性的绝对重要性刚开始被人认识到。某一物种今日的灭绝可能会导致未来无法想象的负面效果。人类可能无权决定任一物种的相对重要性。

　　最后，自然界中的某种微妙平衡也是我们所无法确切断定的。一条条生命之链以一种美丽无比的模式错综复杂地缠绕在一起，人类凭着短浅的目光是绝难看透这一模式的。例如，虽然人们会同意，永久性地消除苍蝇和蚊子会是一个不错的主意，但我们无法知道那样做的长远影响会怎样。苍蝇无疑有助于废物的降解。蚊子在食物链中可能是其它动物的重要食物来源，而这一食物链又能直接为人类制造食物来源。打断环境中这一食物链或数以百万计的有可能存在的食物链中的任何一个环节，都将引起灾难性的后果。

　　作为人类，我们必须意识到环境中的有些平衡关系是我们所无法理解的，但我们却必须予以保护。允许任何特定一种物种灭绝，对于人类长远的生存都将成为一个致命的错误。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-13

"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This argument states that the Promofoods company recalled eight million cans of tuna for testing after numerous complaints from consumers of dizziness and nausea. Promofoods own chemists found that samples of the recalled cans had three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but that these three are also found naturally in other types of canned foods. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on faulty reasoning; therefore the argument is unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument states that there have been "numerous" consumer complaints, obviously enough to warrant the recall of eight million cans of tuna. The arguer goes on to state that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the cans of tuna. This part of the argument has two flaws - first of all, the testers are not independent and may indeed have a duty to find that there is nothing wrong with the tuna, and secondly, the number of cans that were tested as a sample is not disclosed. The first flaw in the argument could be rectified by simply having outside, independent researchers test the samples of the recalled tuna. As it stands, the test results are somewhat suspicious due to the fact that Promofoods employees conducted the testing. The second flaw may or may not be a major problem, depending upon the number of cans that were sampled and how the sample was chosen. It could be that the defect was with only a certain production date or location, in which case the defects might not be found because the problem cans were not included in the recall or the sample. Additionally, if the number of cans sampled was too small, the sample may not have been representative of all of the cans of tuna, therefore possibly skewing the results one way or the other. To solve this problem, a statistically proper sample should be independently tested with the relative reliability of the numbers included in the argument.

Furthermore, the researchers found that three out of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were actually found in the recalled cans of tuna, but that they are also naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. This part of the argument is also very weak, for at least two reasons. First, the argument does not state what levels of these chemicals were found in the Promofood tuna as compared with other types of canned foods. It does not state whether the chemical levels were lower, the same, or higher. The absence of this information critically weakens the argument. Moreover, the argument fails to mention any other possibly hazardous chemicals that may have been found in the cans tested. The arguer merely states that five of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals were not found. This argument leaves open the possibility, if not the probability, that other chemicals could have been found but not mentioned. For both of these reasons, the argument fails to convince.

In summary, the wording of the argument suggests that there is something more to what the chemists found in the cans of tuna than was disclosed in the article in the business magazine. To be more persuasive and to end speculation, Promofoods should have a statistically relevant sample of all cans of its tuna tested by independent testing labs, with a full report released listing all chemicals found in the cans and their relative levels, not just what was not found in an unknown number of cans.

参考译文

　　鉴于消费者对头晕和恶心进行了诸多投诉，Promofoods公司去年要求将8百万听金枪鱼罐头回收进行检测。Promofoods公司的检测结论是，这些听装仪器确实不含有可构成健康危险的化学物质。这一结论所依据的是这样一个事实，即来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师对回收的听装金枪鱼进行了抽样检测，结果发现，在被普遍被认为会导致头晕和恶心症状的八种化学物质中，有五种被发现根本不存在于任何所被抽检的听装鱼中。这些化学分析师确实发现剩下的三种涉嫌化学物质可自然而然地发现于所有其他任何种类的听装食物中

　　上述论述陈述道，Promofoods公司回收了在消费者对其听装金枪鱼进行头晕和恶心的诸多投诉后回收了八百万听金枪鱼进行了检测。Promofoods公司自己的化学分析师发现，回收的听装金枪鱼样品中含有八种最普遍被认为会引发头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中的三种，但这三种也同样自然地发现于其他类型的听装食物中。Promofoods公司的结论是，这些听装食物并不含有任何对身体健康构成威胁的任何化学物质。这一论述基于甚为谬误的逻辑推理，因此所述论点全然无法令人信服。

　　 首先，上述论述陈述道，已出现了"诸多"消费者的投拆，数目之众显然足以有必要将八百万听金枪鱼收回。论述者接着陈述道，来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师抽查了听装的金枪鱼。论述中的这一部分含有两个缺陷。其一，检测者不是来自独立的机构，甚至他们有义务不要去查找出金枪鱼有任何的问题。其二，所被检测的听数没有得到披露。论述中的第一个缺陷较易于纠正，只要邀请外部的独立的研究人员来检验收回的金枪鱼样品即可。但就目前情况来看，由于来自Promofoods公司的员工自己在进行检验，故检验结果会相当令人怀疑。第二个缺陷可能是也可能不是一个重大问题，取决于抽查的金枪鱼罐头数量有多少，以及样本是如何选取的。情况有可能是，产品缺陷仅存在于某些生产日期或生产地点的产品，在这种情况下，由于有问题的罐装金枪鱼没能被囊括在回收的产品中或样本中，故产品的缺陷就无法被查出。此外，如果所抽查的听数太少，则该样本可能就无法来典型地代表所有的金枪鱼罐头，从而有可能以一种方式或另一种方式使检测结果发生偏差。要解决这一问题，应独立检测一份在统计学意义上恰当的样本，其数量的相对可靠性也应囊括在上述论述中。

　 另外，研究人员发现，在八种最普遍地被认为导致头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中，有三种确实在回收的金枪鱼产品中被发现，那些化学物质相对于其他类型的罐头食品而言，其含量如何。它没有明确陈述化学物含量较低，还是相同，还是较高。这些信息的缺乏严重削弱了该项论述。此外，该项论述没有提及在所被检测的罐头中可能被发现的其他任何可能具有危险的化学物质。论述者只是陈述道八种最普遍被认为有问题的化学物中。有五种未被发现。论述者置这样一种可能性--如果说不是或然性的话--于不顾，即其他化学物早已被人发现，但却没被提及。由于这样的一些原因，该项论述无法令人信服。

　　总之，该项论述中的措辞暗示，化学分析师在金枪鱼罐头中所发现的东西远不止这份商业杂志中的披露的内容。为了更具说服力并终止人们的猜测，Promofoods公司应拿出其所有金枪鱼罐头在统计学意义上相关的一份样本，由独立的检测实验室来检验，并发布一份翔实的报告，将罐头中所发现的全部化学物质及其含量一一列举出来，而不是仅令列举出数量不明的罐头中未被发现的物质。

嘉文博译郑重声明：