GRE作文范文 Issue-23

"What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all people had a reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of 'human nature' as war and crime would be extremely rare."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

At first glance, this would appear to be a reasonable and correct statement. If every person in the world could share all of the world's territory and resources on a reasonable basis, there would seem to be no need for crime or war or for that matter, any relational problems between human beings. To a certain extent, human nature probably is a reflection of the inequality of the human condition. But this would seem to exclude other aspects of human nature such as ethnocentricity and racism, religious conflicts and two of mankind's greatest troublemakers: envy and greed.

Ethnocentricity is the natural favoritism of one's own ethnic group over other ethnic groups wherein the individual cultural group's values, norms and beliefs are seen as superior to all others. While not as overt as racism, it can still cause problems between members of different races or ethnic groups simply due to the fact that the person simply believes that his or her culture is better than the other. Racism obviously causes problems in a similar but more open manner. The person that looks down upon another person simply because of his or her race is bound to cause problems any time he or she interacts with another race. Neither of these problems would disappear with the equal sharing of territory and resources. A world that shares territory and resources must interact as the territory and resources are not equally distributed in every part of the world. It is within the context of that interaction that ethnocentricity and racism would continue to cause such problems as crime and war.

Religious conflicts would also not be excluded by the sharing of territory and resources. Throughout the ages, wars have been fought based almost purely on religious beliefs. The early Muslim holy wars or "jihads", the Christian Crusades and various other wars based almost entirely on a desire to convert the rest of the world to a particular religious faith have raged throughout history. There are various reasons that otherwise religious people believe that they must make war in order to fulfill their religious beliefs. Some religious writings, particularly the Quran, specifically mention making war on all "infidels" that do not believe in its teachings. An example of this is found in the Islamic extremism of Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic militants who have vowed to kill all "infidels" in declaring "jihad" on all nonbelievers. Others can take religious writings out of context to find that they "require" them to convert others by whatever means are necessary. Certainly there are many religions that focus on peace and harmony, too many to mention here. But the sheer presence of any religion that believes that others must be converted at all costs ensures that even a world with equally divided territory and resources will continue to suffer from crime and war.

Finally, mankind as a species too often suffers from the twin evils of envy and greed. From the earliest days of humans, envy and greed have caused conflict even when the two parties involved don't really have anything that the other party needs. Greed could probably be best defined as the desire to have more than you actually need. Envy can be defined as wanting something that someone else has, whether you need it or not. In a perfect world, an equal division among the world's population of both territory and resources would solve these two problems. But humans are not perfect and are not infallible. The saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" is popular for a reason. It is simply human nature to want what you don't have. Dividing all territory and resources equally cannot solve this problem.

The human condition is part of what makes up human nature but it cannot be considered as the full cause of the various actions of human beings. History has shown that there are other motivations for war and crime that spring not only from an unequal division of territory and resources. The distinctly human problems of ethnocentricity and racism, religious conflicts, envy and greed will most likely always give rise to crime and war.

参考译文

"所谓人性实际上是人类生存条件的反映：如果所有的人都可以适当地分享土地和资源，那么诸如战争、犯罪这样一些'人性'的产物就会极其罕见了"

　　乍一看，这似乎是个很有道理、很正确的论断。如果全世界的人都能够在适当程度上共享全世界的土地和资源，似乎确实没有战争和犯罪的必要，因而也就没有人际关系上的种种问题了。在某种程度上，人性可能是人类生存条件不平等的反映。然而这一说法似乎排除了人性的其他方面，比如种族优越感、种族差异论、宗教斗争以及人类两个最大的麻烦制造者：嫉妒和贪婪。
种族优越感是一种对自己种族的自然偏爱，它认为自己的种族比其他种族优越，因而自己所属文化群体的价值观、准则和信仰也要高于别的文化群体。尽管种族优越感并不像种族主义那么公开，但只要有人认为自己的文化高于其他人种的文化，它仍然会引发不同种族或不同种族群体成员之间的种种问题。种族主义引发的问题与此相似，只是表现得更为明显而已。单纯因为种族差异就轻视别人的人在处理与其他种族相关的问题时肯定会产生麻烦。这些由于种族优越感或种族主义产生的问题是不会由于土地和资源的共享而消亡的。当土地和资源不能够在世界上的每一个地方平均分配时，世界各国就必须要进行彼此交流。在这种交流中，种族优越感和种族主义仍将继续引发犯罪、战争等问题。

　　宗教战争也不会因土地和资源的共享而消失。纵观各个历史年代，有许许多多的战争纯粹是由于宗教信仰的不同而激发的。早期的穆斯林圣战或称"吉哈德"、基督教的"十字军东征"以及各种其他战争（几乎全部基于一种想要迫使全世界的其他所有地方都皈依到某一特定宗教信仰这一欲望）在人类历史长河中风起云涌。有着不同宗教信仰的信徒也出于不同原因相信他们必须通过战争成就自己的宗教追求。一些宗教文献，尤其是古兰经，特别指出要与异教徒战斗到底。本·拉登和其他伊斯兰好战分子等极端主义者就是一个例子。他们以"吉哈德"的名义向所有不信伊斯兰教的人宣战，发誓杀净一切异教徒。还有些人断章取义地理解宗教文献，认为为了使别人皈依自己的宗教就可以不择手段。当然，有很多很多宗教是强调和平与和睦的，这里就不一一列举。然而，即使实现了土地和资源的共享，只要还存在着一种认为可以不择手段转变别人信仰的宗教，世界就仍然会有犯罪和战争。

　　最后，整个人类，作为一个物种，在太多的时候极易为嫉妒和贪婪这对孪生罪恶所累。从人类最早的历史开始，嫉妒和贪婪就常使两方相互争斗，即使他们之间并没有什么东西值得你争我夺。对贪婪最好的解释可能就是一个人想要拥有比实际需求更多的东西，而嫉妒可以被定义为对别人拥有的东西的一种觊觎，无论你对这个东西有没有实际上的需要。在一个按照世界人口平均分配土地和资源的完美世界，这两个问题都有可能得到解决。然而，人无完人，孰能无错。俗话说："栅栏那边的草总比自己这边的绿"，这句话如此流行是有道理的。想要得到自己没有的东西就是人类的天性。平均分配土地和资源也无法根除这个问题。

　　人类的生存条件是构成人类本性的一个部分，但它不足以成为人类诸多行为的解释。历史表明，除了领土和资源划分上的不平等，战争和犯罪还有其它的原因。种族优越感、种族差异论、宗教斗争、嫉妒和贪婪等等这些人类存在的突出问题很可能会一直导致犯罪和战争。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-23

The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"One recent research study has indicated that many adolescents need more sleep than they are getting, and another study has shown that many high school students in our city are actually dissatisfied with their own academic performance. As a way of combating these problems, the high schools in our city should begin classes at 8:30 A.M. instead of 7:30 A.M., and end the school day an hour later. This arrangement will give students an extra hour of sleep in the morning, thereby making them more alert and more productive. Consequently, the students will perform better on tests and other assignments, and their academic skills will improve significantly."

In this argument, the letter writer argues that the high schools in his or her city should begin classes at 8:30 a.m. rather than 7:30 a.m. and end the school day an hour later. The writer cites as reasons two separate studies: one indicating that adolescents need more sleep than they have been getting and the other showing that many high school students in this city are dissatisfied with their academic performance. The writer further argues that starting classes an hour earlier will make students more alert and productive, thus leading to better performance on tests and other assignments with a significant improvement in academic skills. The argument sounds good, but it is based on problematic reasoning and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the writer is combining two separate and unrelated research studies to arrive at his or her conclusion. There is no correlation demonstrated between the two studies. The writer simply assumes the relationship between the two studies for the sake of his or her argument without any evidence that the two are in fact related.

Furthermore, the writer states that many high school students are dissatisfied with their own academic performance. The writer does not state the number of students that are actually dissatisfied - how many is "many"? It is only natural that unless the students are at the top of their classes and receiving perfect marks, they will be dissatisfied with their academic performance. Citing this rather vague idea of dissatisfaction with academic performance does not advance the writer's argument.

Additionally, by beginning classes an hour later, it may give the students an extra hour of sleep but it does not automatically mean that they will be more alert or productive. As just one example, the students may stay up an hour later at night and be just as tired and non-alert as they were when classes began at 7:30 a.m. Even assuming that the students would be more alert and productive during the day, this does not necessarily equate to better performance on tests or other assignments or any significant improvement in academic skills. It takes more work on the students' part than just being more alert and productive - they must study harder to improve academic performance. Starting the school day one hour later does not necessarily transform poorly performing students into brilliantly performing ones.

In summary, the writer's argument is based on faulty logic. Simply starting the school day one hour later does not mean that the students will do better on their exams and assignments or become more skilled academically. To strengthen the argument, the writer should provide evidence that the two studies are related, and that an extra hour of sleep in the morning would actually benefit the students in their studies. Without such proof, the writer is attempting to apply to separate and unrelated studies to the student's situation. The result is an unpersuasive argument, because it simply does not follow that beginning classes at 8:30 a.m. rather than 7:30 a.m. will make students more alert and productive. Even assuming that they would be more alert and productive, it again does not necessarily indicate that they would do better on tests and assignments, nor that they would significantly improve their academic skills.

参考译文
下述文字摘自一封致某家市报的信函：

　　"最近一项调查研究表明，许多青少年需要得到比他们现在更多的睡眠；另一项调查表明，我市许多高中生实际上对他们自己的学业并不满意。作为解决这些问题的方法，我市高中应该在上午8:30开始上课，晚一个小时放学。这一安排将在早晨给学生提供多一个小时的睡眠，从而使他们更精力充沛、学习更加有效。这样，学生将在考试和其他作业上表现得更好，他们的学业将会极大地改观。"

　　在这段论证中，信函作者说到，其市的高中应该在上午8:30而非7:30开始上课并推迟一小时放学。作者引用两个不相关的调查作为理由：一个调查表明青少年需要比他们实际睡眠时间更多的睡眠，另一项调查显示该市的许多高中生对他们的学业不满意。作者进一步声称，晚一个小时上课会使学生更精力充沛、学习更有效，从而使学生在考试和其他作业上表现更佳，会极大地增进学业。此论证听起来似乎合情合理，但是它的基础却是错误的推论，因而是不能令人信服的。 首先，作者把两个彼此分离的、没有联系的调查研究放在一起以便得出他/她的结论。作者没能在两项调查之间证明有任何的联系。作者只是假设了两者间存在着某种关系来支持他/她的论证，但并没有提出任何证据说明两者真有联系。 再者，作者说到，许多高中生对他们自己的学业不满意。作者并没有说明不满意的学生的数目--多少是"许多"呢？自然，除非学生在班里名列前茅而且成绩优秀，否则，他们都会对自己的学业不满意。引用这一含混不清的学业不满意作为例证，并不能增强作者的论点。

　　 此外，晚一个小时上课，可以让学生多睡一小时，但这并不自然而然地意味着他们会更精力充沛或学习更有效率。例如，学生晚上晚睡一小时，他们就会与7:30上课时一样没精打采。即使我们假设学生在白天会更精力充沛、学习更有效率，但这并不必然等于他们会在考试和其他作业上做得更好，或者在学业上会有很大进步。要做到那些需要学生更多的付出，而不仅仅是更精力充沛、学习效率更高--他们必须更努力地学习来改进学业。晚一个小时上课并不必定能把表现不好的学生改变成表现优秀的学生。

　 总之，作者的论证是基于错误的逻辑。单单晚一个小时上课并不意味着学生在考试和做作业时会有更佳的表现，也并不意味着他们会在学业上更棒。要使其论证更有力度，作者应该提供证据证明这两项调查是相关的，以及早晨多睡一小时会有利于学生的学习。没有这样的证据，作者只是试图把彼此无关的调查研究强行应用于学生的实际境况。结果只能是一篇不能令人信服的论辩，因为它不能说明在8:30而不是在7:30上课将会使学生更精力充沛、学习效率更高。即使我们假定学生会更精力充沛、学习效率更高，那也并不能必然地说明他们在考试和作业上能更加出色，更不能说明他们可极大地改进学业。

嘉文博译郑重声明：