GRE作文范文 Issue-14

“The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

A society is made up of individual people, no two of whom are exactly alike. Some are smarter, some have more money, and some are docile and blindly follow leaders while others are more vocal in addressing the topic of authority. In most cases, it is better when many of a society’s people are questioning authority. Generally, the more the people that are questioning authority, the more the society’s people care about what that authority is doing. Centuries ago, there were many reasons why a society should not question the controlling authority. Even today there may be some cases where fewer questions are better, but for the majority of the world’s people, it is true that a society is made better by asking questions of the authorities that control them.

In the past, emperors, kings and queens controlled much of the world with an authority that could not be questioned. In some cases, the leaders were deemed o be heavenly deities that could do no wrong, therefore purely blind allegiance was both expected and demanded. In some cases, the entire existence of a society would depend on the unquestioning loyalty of the leader’s subjects. Hundreds of years ago this type of leadership made sense as people were generally poorly educated and would have been much worse off without such a strong leader. Uneducated peasants were mainly farmers and could hardly be expected to know how to keep a society together. Their leaders were expected to protect and defend the society from roving gangs and armies from other countries. The sustained success of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and centuries of rulers in China and Japan show the necessity of having authority that was beyond question.

As time passed and people became better educated, the reasons for having such leaders became fewer and fewer. Along with the Industrial Revolution came the need for more and more people to have a voice in their own governments and chosen leaders. No longer bound to one particular piece of ground by the earth that they farmed, people could move about and learn more about what was happening both in their own societies and those nearby. Feudal kingdoms began dying out. People began to realize that their leaders were not “heavenly chosen” but merely fallible human beings just like themselves. With the growing realization that these leaders were not perfect came the idea that questioning authority might not be such a bad thing after all.

Certainly in the past one hundred years there have been continuing dictatorships that have suppressed millions by wielding absolute authority. In some cases, people were executed for daring to question authority. Even recently, the Taliban in Afghanistan ran an oppressive form of government that was beyond question to its society. If no one ever dared to question the authority, people would have less reason to believe that anything was wrong with their government. But every time one person would speak out, another person or two was probably inspired to do the same. One voice could inspire many other voices. Man’s right to self-determination should be an inalienable right, but remaining silent is not the way to assert that right. One voice or a few voices may be silenced, but eventually the authority being questioned will be forced to answer.

In general, the more people that question authority, the more likely the society is to get real answers. Questioning authority is the best way to keep a government honest and accountable. No government official should be afraid to answer the question “Why?” If a society has people that are willing and able to question authority, they are much more likely to determine the course of that society. People in a self-determining society have the best opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

参考译文

“当社会中的许多民众敢于对当权者提出质询时，整个社会的福祉便能得以提高。”

　　社会是由个人组成的，他们中绝无二人是截然相同的。有些较为聪明，有些较为富有，有些较为驯顺，会盲目追随领袖人物，而有些则在对待政府当局这一论题上显得更能言善辩。普遍而言，对政府当局质疑的人越多，这表明社会民众就越关注政府当局在做些什么。数个世纪以前，存在着许多的理由，致使一个社会无法对控制着政权的政府进行质疑。即使在今天，可能在某些情形中，人们提出的质疑越少越好。但对于世界大多数的民众而言，有一点似乎是确凿无疑的，即整个社会通过对控制着他们的政府当局提出诸多质询，这个社会就会变得更好

　　昔日，皇帝、国王、王后们控制着整个世界的大部分，其权威不容置疑。在有些情形中，这些领袖人物被视若上界的神灵，绝不可能铸成任何错误。这样一来，臣民们不仅仅被期望，而且亦被要求去对领袖们绝对盲目地效忠。在某些情形中，社会的全部存在完全有赖于领袖人物的臣民们不加质疑的绝对忠诚。数百年之前，当民众普遍没有接受过良好的教育时，这样一种类型的执政风格尚有其合理之处。设若没有这样一个强有力的领袖人物的话，整个社会的状况可能会糟糕得多。我们不可能期望那些没有受过教育的农民去懂得如何来统辖整个社会。这样，这些农民的领袖们则被期望去保护和防卫这个社会，使其免受匪邦或敌国军队的侵扰。罗马帝国、奥托曼帝国以及中国和日本数个世纪的统治者们持久的成功表明了拥有一个不容置疑的政府当局的必要性。　　 随着时间的推移以及人们日趋受到良好的教育，拥有昔日那种领袖人物的理由也变得越来越少。伴随着工业革命，对越来越多的人来说，有必要在其自己的政府中和他们所选择的领袖们身上体现出自己的呼声。由于不再为他们所耕种的大地羁绊于任何一片特定的土地，人们可以自由流动，并更多地了解到有关他们自己社会中以及邻近社会中所在发生的一切。封建王国开始分崩离析。人们开始意识到他们的领袖并非是“神授”的，而只是一些也有可能失误的凡夫俗子，与他们自己毫无二致。随着人们渐趋意识到这些领袖人物们并非完美无缺，一种新的理念便告诞生，即对政府当局进行质疑或许并非是一件十分糟糕的事情。　　毫无疑问，在过去的一百年中，出现过持续不断的专制政体，通过行使绝对权力而压迫天下百姓。在某些情形中，人们若敢质疑政府当局，便会遭到处决。即使在不久之前，阿富汗塔利班实行一种镇压民众的统治形式，不容社会有所质疑。如果没人敢质疑政府当局，人们就越是没有理由去相信其政府运转正常。但每当一个人敢于直抒己见时，另外一二个人或许会受到感染而同样行事。一个人的声音会唤起无数其他人的声音。人类自决的权力应成为一种不容剥夺的权力，而保持沉默永远也无法行使这一权力。一个人的声音或少数几个人的声音可以被扼制，但最终，遭到质疑的政府当局将被迫作出回答。

　　普遍而言，人们越是质疑政府当局，一个社会就越有可能获得真正的答案。对政府当局质疑是使一个政府诚实和负责的最佳途径。所有政府官员都不应惧怕去回答“为什么？”这一问题。如果一个社会拥有愿意且能够质疑政府当局的民众，他们就更有可能确定该社会的发展方向。生活在一个自治社会中的人们享有最好的机会去追求生活，追求自由，追求幸福。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-14

“The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Cold-Away is “clearly” a more effective over-the-counter cold medication. To support this conclusion, the arguer states that the brand Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. The arguer further states that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people because it is used by more hospitals than the other brand and it has also been on the market for much longer. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies and is ultimately unconvincing.

First of all, one wonders who the writer is of such a one-sided argument. The argument states that each brand has “accused” the other of causing well-known and undesirable side effects, then states that Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. Coldex does not cause high blood pressure, it is said to merely contribute to an existing medical condition. The wording of the argument could lead a casual reader into believing that Coldex causes high blood pressure, which is a much more serious side effect than drowsiness in most situations. This brings up the possibility that this particular argument was written by an employee or paid copywriter of the Cold-Away company. No evidence other than the statement of the author is given to support the allegations of side effects, which further weakens the argument.

Secondly, the arguer states that for most health-conscious people, it should be a clear choice in choosing Cold-Away because it has been on the market much longer and is used by more hospitals than Coldex. First of all, simply being on the market longer in and of itself is not indicative of what medication a health-conscious person should choose. Indeed, many drugs that are new to the market have been developed with fewer and less serious side effects yet with greater efficacy of treatment. Secondly, there are a multitude of reasons that more hospitals might use one medication rather than another. It may be less expensive, which is important to the evermore cost-conscious hospital industry. The Cold-Away company may provide far and away more free samples, so that it costs the hospital nothing to dispense to patients, thereby increasing its use. Or perhaps the Cold-Away company simply has better marketing, thus giving the perception that it is better for health conscious people; therefore more hospitals use it. By neglecting to address these possibilities, the argument fails to convince that Cold-Away is clearly better for health-conscious people.

Furthermore, the arguer concludes: “Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective.” There is absolutely no evidence of any kind presented in the argument that addresses the idea of which cold medication is more effective. Side effects are discussed, and (specious) reasons are given why Cold-Away should be chosen by health conscious people. However, even assuming that all statements in the argument are true, there is nothing in the argument that discusses whether Coldex or Cold-Away is more effective. Again, length of time on the market is not an indicator of effectiveness, indeed it is extremely likely that a more recent market entry would be more effective (in this case Coldex) due to developments in medical technology. Similarly, if more hospitals are using Cold-Away than Coldex, there are factors other than effectiveness that could be the cause.

To summarize, a careful reading of the argument shows that there is no solid evidence presented to warrant the conclusions that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people or that it is more effective than Coldex. This “argument” reads more like advertising copy written by the Cold-Away company marketing department.

参考译文

　　下述文字摘自某份地方报纸。

　　民众不应该被Coldex和Cold-Away这两种药品之间的广告竞赛所误导，这两者均是任何人可在任何商店不需要大夫处方便可直接购买的、时下甚为流行的感冒药。每一种药都指责对方会引起某些众所周知的、令人生厌的副作用：Coldex会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away则会引起嗜睡症。但是，对于大多数健康意识强烈的人们来说，他们所应作出的选择将是不言而喻的：Cold-Away药进入市场的时间比Coldex远长得多，且在更多的医院推广使用。显而易见，Cold-Away药具有更好的疗效。

　　 在上述论述中，论述者的结论是，Cold-Away药“显然”是一种更为有效的、不需要大夫的处方便可直接购买的感冒药。为了支持这一结论，该论述者陈述道，Coldex品牌的同类药物会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away只是引起嗜睡症而已。该论述者进一步陈述道，Cold-Away药更宜于健康意识强的人们，因为它比另一种品牌的药被更多的医院所使用，并且它上市供应的时间要长得多。该项论述含有某些关键性的逻辑谬误，因而无法令人信服。

　 首先，我们疑惑的是，持如此片面论点的一位作者竟是何许人也！该段论述宣称，每一品牌的药品均“指责”对方会引起众所周知的和令人生厌的副作用，接着陈述说，Coldex会使既有的高血压症每况愈下，而Cold-Away药只会引起嗜睡症状。Coldex不会导致高血压症，而是被说成仅仅是在使某种既有的医疗状况每况愈下。该论述的措辞很有可能会导致一位心不在焉的读者相信，Coldex实际上会导致高血压症，而在绝大多数情况下，这与嗜睡症状相比实乃一种严重得多的副作用。这就引出了这样一种可能性，即本篇论述可能是出自一位Cold-Away制药公司的职员，或是出自一位被Cold-Away制药公司收买的广告文字撰稿人。

　　其次，论述者陈述道，对于大多数具有极强健康意识的人们来说，选择Cold-Away药不啻是一种“不言而喻”的抉择，因为它上市销售的时间要比Coldex远长得多，并被更多的医院所使用。首先，上市销售的时间更长这一事实就其本身而言并不能表明它必然就是有着较强健康意识的人们所应选择的一种药物。实际的情况是，新上市销售的许多药品，在其研发过程中，其副作用被处理成比另一种药更少，更轻微，但疗效更好。第二，一种药被更多的医院所使用，这可以有无数的原因。它可能是因为较为廉价，这一点对于永远具有强烈成本意识的医疗行业来说殊为重要。Cold-Away公司可能提供了远来得多的免费试用品，因此各大医院可以在不支付任何成本的情况下让病人服用这些药品，从而扩大该药的使用范围。再者，Cold-Away公司可能拥有更好的销售体系，因此仿佛给人一种感觉，好像它的药品更宜于有较强健康意识的人们，故而有较多的公司在使用该药。由于没能探究这些可能性，该论述便无从让我们相信，Cold-Away的药品显然更宜于有着较强健康意识的人们。

　　此外，该论述者还得出结论说，“显而易见，Cold-Away药具有更好疗效。”但原文中绝对没有列举出任何证据来探讨这样一个问题，即哪一种感冒药疗效更好。确实，该论述者讨论了这两种药品的副作用，并给出了一些（似是而非的）理由来说明Cold-Away药应成为有健康意识的人们的共同选择。但是，即使我们假设原文中的所有论点均真实无疑，该论述也根本没有讨论Coldex与Cold-Away两种药之间何者更为有效。必须再度强调的是，上市销售的时间长短并不能等同于一种药物的有效程度。实际上，极有可能的是，一种药越是新近进入市场，由于其研发技术的提高，其疗效可能会更好（在此情形中，疗效更好的药应属于Coldex）。同样地，如果说Cold-Away药真的比Coldex药被更多的医院采用的话，个中的原因应是疗效之外的其他因素。

　　总而言之，对原文论点细加体会，便可揭示出，原文作者没有拿出确凿的证据来论证这样的一些结论，即Cold-Away药品更适用于有着较强健康意识的人们，以及其疗效优于Coldex药品。这一“论述”读上去更像是Cold-Away公司的销售部门炮制的一种广告册。

嘉文博译郑重声明：