GRE作文范文 Issue-24

"A person from one culture has no right to judge the actions or values of a person from a different culture."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Virtually every person throughout human history has been required to look at different cultures of the world through his or her own cultural paradigm. It is practically impossible to separate one's cultural upbringing from an individual's true identity to allow for a perfectly subjective outlook on a culture different from one's own. Based on the assumption that all cultures should be considered truly equal, no person from one culture should have the right to judge the actions or values of a person from a different culture. However, there may be basic human rights that should not be violated that could allow an individual to at least judge some of the actions and/or values of an individual from another culture.

Cultural imperialism has been a factor in human civilization probably since time began. Stronger cultures have either converted or assimilated weaker cultures from the time when man still roamed the earth in nomadic tribes. Darwin's theory of evolution could probably applied to the human species' various cultures, as "survival of the fittest" certainly seems to describe the development of early cultures in particular. Natural selection allowed those early tribes to either learn and grow or fail to learn and die off as a culture. In the beginning, it seems likely that the cultural traditions that allowed human beings to survive in their environments the best were probably the ones that were kept, regardless of what other cultures thought of them or what traditions those other cultures were practicing themselves. A low population density probably kept most cultures from even coming into contact with one another.

As mankind developed and became more advanced, it is also likely that the cultural traditions that did not necessarily mean the difference between survival and death began to develop. Different regions began to produce different cultures depending upon their local conditions, their environment and the technologies available to them. As populations increased and travel technologies improved, cultures began to interact. The idea of ethnocentricity, the belief that one's own cultural values, beliefs and traditions, etc. are superior to others, would naturally have led people to view other cultures as inferior, even though they most likely were merely different. Obviously just being different does not make a culture inferior just as it does not make another culture superior.

It is difficult to determine what aspects of human behavior could be considered to be superior to others. It might be helpful to start with what might seem to be a simple question: What is the difference between right and wrong? But such a seemingly simple question again comes back to the problem of ethnocentricity and cultural bias - whose standards are to be used to determine this apparently simple question? Right or wrong even within a single culture is almost never a purely black and white issue, and that issue only becomes infinitely more complex when different cultures are compared.

There are probably some cultural values that are common enough among different societies that a judgment might be made by one culture of another. The killing of innocent men, women and children by whatever means and for whatever reason would seem to be a universally deplored offense. After that, the actions of a culture seem to move up the scale towards a gray area rather than being a purely black and white, right or wrong issue. Most people would agree that torture and rape are wrong, yet both are tolerated in many cultures. Again we must ask the question, whose values do we use to judge a culture's actions and values?

The right of an individual from one culture to judge the actions of another culture is very much open to debate. Some basic human rights would seem to be required of all cultures, but in many that is not the case. Until such a day as the world's population truly becomes one culture and each culture is entirely assimilated into the other, an answer to the question of who is to judge can probably never be answered.

参考译文

来自一种文化的人，没有权力评判来自另一种不同文化的人的行为和价值观

　　实际上，纵观人类历史，每一个人都需要透过他/她自己的文化模式来观照不同的文化。把一个人自己的文化背景与其真正的身份割裂开来从而对与自己的文化完全不同的文化形成绝然主观的看法，这是完全不可能的。按照所有的文化都应被视为是平等的这一说法，任何来自一种文化的人都没有权力评判来自另一种　文化之人的行为和价值观。然而，可能存在着某些基本的人权，它们允许一个人评判来自另一种不同文化的人的至少某些行为和/或价值观，这些基本的人权是不容践踏的。

　　或许，从远古伊始，文化帝国主义一直是人类文明的一个因素。从人类以游牧的方式浪迹于地球之日起，强大的文化就一直改变或吸收着弱小的文化。达尔文的进化论，完全可以应用于人类不同的文化，因为"适者生存"无疑可以描述早期文化的发展状况。物竞天择迫使那些代表一种文化的早期部落要么学会适应并发展起来，或者学不会适应而堕落灭亡。很可能，在早期能够使人类在其环境中最大限度地生存下来的文化传统，是那些得以保存下来的文化，这些文化不会顾及其它文化对它们有什么看法，也不顾及其它那些文化在实践着什么样的传统。一个很低的人口密度，很可能使大多数文化甚至无法彼此接触往来。

　　随着人类的发展进步，更有可能，那些并不意味着非生即死的文化传统开始产生。不同的区域开始依据其地方条件和环境以及它们所能使用的技术创造出不同的文化。随着人口增加，随着旅行技术的改进，文化开始相互影响。种族优越感，自己的文化价值、信念和传统优于其它的文化价值和传统之先入之见，会很自然地致使人们视其它文化为劣等文化，尽管这些文化最有可能只是不同而已。显然，仅仅不同并不意味着一种文化为劣等文化，正如不同并不意味着一种文化为优等文化一样。

　　确定人类行为的哪些方面可以被认为是优于其它方面的，这是一件不易之事。或许，从一个简单的问题开始不无裨益：正确与错误之间有什么不同？但是，这样一个貌似简单的问题又回到了民族优越感和文化偏见这一问题上：用谁的标准来衡量这一简单的问题呢？甚至在同一种文化内，正确与错误也决不仅仅是一个黑白分明的问题，而且，当不同文化比较时，这一问题越发复杂。 极有可能，

　　有些文化价值在不同社群中非常相似，从而一种文化与价值判断可适用于另一种文化。杀戮无辜的男人、女人和儿童，无论是以何种方式或出于任何原因，都是一种普遍受到谴责的罪行。在此之后，一种文化的行为，似乎逐级上升变得灰蒙蒙的，而不是一个纯粹的黑白或正误问题。

　　来自一种文化之人评判另一种文化的行为的权力，仍是一个争论不休的问题。有些基本的人权，似乎是所有文化所必备的，但是在许多方面情况并非如是。除非有朝一日全世界的人口实实在在成为一种文化，而且每一种文化都完完全全地同化为它种文化，否则由谁来评判这一问题，恐怕是不会得到答案的。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-24

"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish margarine from butter, or they use the term "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. "

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer explains that butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. The arguer then contends that only two percent of customers have complained, therefore 98 out of 100 people are happy with the change. The arguer further states that a number of customer do not complain when they are given margarine when they ask for butter, so these customers either cannot distinguish the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either real butter or margarine. The arguer then comes to the conclusion that the restaurant chain should make this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. This argument is not convincing because it suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer states that because only two percent of customers have complained, the other ninety-eight percent must be happy. This clearly is faulty logic. There is no indication what the other ninety-eight percent of the people think because they simply do not say anything. While some of the people truly may not care, it is far more likely that they are not happy but choose to say nothing at all. People in general are reluctant to complain - rather than complain about margarine instead of butter, it is likely that they would just never return to the restaurant chain. Additionally, people may have noticed that the taste of the food is different, possibly even worse than before, but don't know exactly why and therefore cannot complain about the change. Merely assuming that the people who do not complain are happy is a critical flaw in the argument.

Secondly, the arguer states that many servers have reported that "a number" of customers who still ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead; therefore they must not be able to distinguish between the two or use the word "butter" to refer to either butter or margarine. Here again the argument is baseless or very weak at best. As stated before, people in general are reluctant to complain, especially in the situation where they have "bothered" someone in the first place by requesting butter. To complain again that the server has brought margarine rather than butter might make them feel as if they are being difficult customers. To assume that they do not know the difference between margarine and butter is to assume that the customer is satisfied, which could be a fatal mistake leading to declining business and revenue. It is not a simple choice between whether they cannot distinguish between butter and margarine or that they use the word "butter" to refer to either one. There are many other possibilities, the worst-case scenario being that the customer does not like the food because of the taste of margarine rather than butter and never comes back. This is another critical flaw in the argument.

Finally, the arguer states that the Happy Pancake House should extend the cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well. There is no evidence presented in the argument that margarine is actually less expensive than margarine. Although the restaurant will avoid the expense of purchasing butter, they will still have the expense of purchasing margarine. Furthermore, even assuming that ninety-eight percent of the customers are happy with the change, these particular customers are located in the southwest United States. People in the southeast and northeast may have different tastes and a different reaction to butter being replaced by margarine.

In summary, the argument is based on mere assumptions - there is no direct evidence showing that Happy Pancake House customers are actually happy with the change from butter to margarine. It is highly likely that the arguer has it all wrong, and the restaurant chain should do some serious market research in all of its restaurants to determine the true impact of such a change.

参考译文
下述文字摘自一封致某家市报的信函：

　　在美国西南部幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋(人造黄油)所取代。只有约百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，换言之，100个人中有98人对这种变化都感到满意。再者，许多服务生声称，一些仍然要黄油的顾客在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满。显然，这些顾客要么是不能区别麦淇淋和黄油，要么就是他们用"黄油"一词既表示黄油又表示麦淇淋。因此，为了避免购买黄油的昂贵花费，幸福饼屋公司应该把这一节省费用的变化推广到东南部和东北部的餐馆

　　在这段论证中，论证者指出，在美国西南部的幸福饼屋餐馆里，黄油已被麦淇淋所取代，他/她然后高兴地说只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，因而100个人中有98个人都对这一变化感到满意。论证者进而说道，一些顾客要黄油时，虽然被提供麦淇淋，但也并不抱怨，所以这些顾客要么是无法区别两者，要么就是用"黄油"一词既表示真黄油，也表示麦淇淋。他/她最后得出结论：该连锁餐馆应该在东南部和东北部推广这一节省费用的变化。这一论证不能令人信服，因为它含有几处严重的谬误。

　　 首先，论证者说因为只有百分之二的顾客有不满之辞，所以其余百分之九十八的人肯定是满意的。这在逻辑上是错误的。没有证据说明其余百分之九十八的人是怎样想的，因为他们什么也没有说。尽管有一些人对此的确漠不关心，但是很可能他们既不满意又没说什么。一般地，人们是不愿意把不满表达出来的。 他们可能不会抱怨吃了麦淇淋而没有吃到黄油，但他们更可能干脆再也不来这家连锁餐馆用餐了。此外，人们可能已注意到食物的味道变了，可能比以前更糟了，但不能确信为什么，所以不能对这样的变化表示不满。将不抱怨的人都假定为是满意的，这是该论证的一个严重失误。

　 其次，论证者声称，许多服务生说一些顾客仍然要黄油，但在被提供麦淇淋时并没有表示不满之辞，因此他们肯定是不能区别两者，或用"黄油"一词既表示黄油，也表示麦淇淋。这里，论证再次不合逻辑，或者充其量也是非常无力。如前所述，一般地，人们是不愿总把不满表达出来的，尤其是在他们已经要了黄油"麻烦"了他人的情况下。如果抱怨说服务生给他们端来的是麦淇淋而不是黄油，这会令人感到他们是难以侍候的顾客。论述者假定顾客不知道麦淇淋和黄油之间的区别，并且由此假定顾客是满意的，这是一个致命性错误，会导致生意和收益的下降。顾客是否能将黄油和麦淇淋区分清楚，以及他们是否用"黄油"一词既指真黄油又指麦淇淋，在此之间决不是一个简单的选择问题。会有许多其他的可能性，最糟糕的情况是顾客由于麦淇淋替代了黄油而不喜欢这种食物，因而再也不来这里就餐了。所以论证者的这一说法，又是一个严重的错误。

嘉文博译郑重声明：