GRE作文范文 Issue-26

"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before: it means putting old ideas together in new ways."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

There are at least two different ways of looking at the concept of originality, and neither of these ways is mutually exclusive as proposed by the above statement. Both approaches to what constitutes "originality" - thinking up something entirely new that no one else has ever thought of before, and combining previously discovered ideas in new ways - have the word "new" in common. One can look at the two schools of thought and see that they are complementary rather than at odds with each other. Both are absolutely necessary for maximizing innovation and discovery.

First, let's consider the first phrase of the statement - "Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before". Coming up with something that has never been thought of before is probably the absolute pinnacle of originality. What could be more original than something that has never before presented itself to the human mind? History is rife with examples of such inventiveness and imagination. People have become rich on even very simple ideas that make one exclaim: "Why didn't I think of that?"

Brand new ideas are often scoffed at or ridiculed in the beginning. The idea that the world was flat was taken as a given until a group of explorers with a novel idea proved that the world was indeed round by circumnavigating the globe. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity had never been thought of before - can anyone honestly say that this was not an "original" idea? Thomas Alva Edison's entire (and quite amazing) career was based on thinking of things that no one had ever thought of before. Can anyone claim that his inventions lacked originality? On the contrary, thinking up ideas that have never been thought before would seem to the "purest" sense of originality as something that is wholly and entirely brand new to the human species.

Similarly, putting together previously thought of ideas in news ways is just another branch of the notion of originality. Looking back to the example of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there have been tremendous strides made throughout the sciences using his theory as a basis for theoretical and physical research and development. Combining Einstein's theories with theories on different subjects and areas that had never been looked at before also represents "originality" as they are used to develop new ideas and concepts. Edison is credited with more than one thousand patented ideas. These ideas have been combined with other people's ideas in creative and imaginative ways that Edison never could have imagined. From Edison's invention of the phonograph, we now have compact disks and MP3 digitized music files. The combination of Edison's never-before-thought-of ideas and the technology behind the digital revolution has led to the development of innovative and original methods of listening to music.

Finally, one need to only think about the concept that "originality means combining previously thought of ideas in new ways" to see that it is fundamentally in error. The statement presupposes that all basic ideas that could be thought up have already been proposed, and that there are no new ideas that have never been thought of before. This brings to mind the infamous statement made by the director of the United States Patent Office to U.S. President McKinley in 1899: "Everything that can be invented has already been invented." Concepts that we cannot even imagine will continue to be thought of for as long as people have the capability of thought. The true definition of originality must include both brand new, previously unheard of ideas as well as the later combination of those ideas in new-fangled ways to create something innovative.

参考译文

原创性并非意味着思考以前从未被思考之事物：原创性指的是用新的方法将各种旧思想综合起来

　　至少有两种看待原创性的方式，而且这两种方式并非彼此互不相容，如上面引文所言。两种探讨"原创性"实质--思考以前从未被思考过的新事物以及用新方法综合以前已被发现的思想--的方法，都同样以"新"为其特点。我们可以看一下这两种思想方法，发现它们是互补的，而不是互斥的。对于最大限度地革新和发现，它们均是绝对地必需。

　　首先，我们考察一下上述引文的第一个命题："原创性并不是思考以前从未被思考之事物"。能构想出以前从未被思考过的事物，这或许是原创性的峰巅。还有什么能比为人类揭示出人类未知的事物更具原创性的呢？人类的历史就是一部此类发明和思想的历史。人们甚至会因为非常简单的想法--简单得以致于有人会说："我怎么会没有想到呢？" --而成为富人。

　　崭新的思想在开始时常常受到取笑甚至嘲弄。地球是平的这一观念被认为是铁定的，直到一群拥有新看法的探险家环球旅行证明地球确实是圆的，这一观念才被推翻。Albert Enstein的相对论以前从未有人想到。能有人诚实地说这不是"原创性的"吗？Thomas Alva Edison的整个（且非常令人惊奇的）一生，都是在思考以前从未被人思考过的事物。能有人说他的发明没有"原创性"吗？相反，想到以前从未被人思索过的思想，似乎是原创性"最纯粹"的含义。原创即是指对人类来说纯粹和彻底的新事物。 同样，以新的方法把旧的思想融合在一起是原创性的另一方面。回顾Einstein的相对论，在整个科学史上有许多人运用他的理论作为理论研究或物理研究的基础，从而获得巨大成就和进步。把Einstein的理论与以前从未提出或探讨的学科或领域的理论结合起来，同样体现出"原创性"，因为它们是用来发展新的思想和新的观念。Edison有一千多项专利发明。这些发明已与其他人的思想创造性地、富有想象力地结合起来，而这些思想是Edison所想像不到的。从Edison所发明的留声机，我们现在拥有了激光唱机和MP3型数字音乐唱机。Edison的"从未想到的"想法与数字革命以后的技术相结合，导致了富有革新意义和原创意义的聆听音乐方法的产生。

　　最后，我们只需考虑一下"原创性指的是用新的方法将各种旧思想综合起来"这一说法，就会发现这种说法完全是错误的。这一说法假定所有能想像到的想法都已被提出，而且已经不存在以前还未被想到的新思想了。这使我们想起1899年美国专利署署长对美国总统Mckinley所说的不知天高地厚的话："所有能被发明的已全被发明"。只要人类还具有思想的能力，我们现在甚至还无法想像到的思想将永远会不断地被构　想出来。原创性的真正定义，必须既包括全新的、前所未闻的思想，又囊括后来用新奇的方法把旧思想综合起来而创造的事物。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-26

"There are at least two different ways of looking at the concept of originality, and neither of these ways is mutually exclusive as proposed by the above statement. Both approaches to what constitutes "originality" - thinking up something entirely new that no one else has ever thought of before, and combining previously discovered ideas in new ways - have the word "new" in common. One can look at the two schools of thought and see that they are complementary rather than at odds with each other. Both are absolutely necessary for maximizing innovation and discovery

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."

In this argument, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building states that one month ago, the showerheads on the first five floors of the building were changed to restrict the flow of water to one third of its original force. The owner argues that the change will result in saving a considerable amount of money for the company because the corporation pays for the water each month. The owner further states that other than a few complaints about low water pressure, there have been no problems with the showers reported since the change. The owner then concludes that all twenty floors of the apartment building should have restricted water flow to further increase the corporation's profits. This argument is based on faulty logic and fails to convince that the change will increase the corporation's profits.

First of all, it is possible that there will actually be no water savings at all due to the modification of the showerheads. It is quite a reduction in water flow, down to one third of its original force, so it is likely that it takes Sunnyside's tenants much longer to take a shower. If it takes the tenants three times as long to take a shower, there will be no net savings of water at all, and therefore no cost savings. Because the actual "before and after adjustment" water usage statistics are not available, it is purely speculation that less water will be used.

Secondly, showers are only one use of water and perhaps not even the biggest use at that. Considerable amounts of water may be used for washing clothes, for example. The percentage of water used by taking a shower may in fact be a very small proportion of the total water usage. Reducing the flow of water through the showerhead may result in very little overall water savings. Furthermore, it is possible that most of the tenants of the apartment building take a bath rather than a shower. There would be absolutely no water savings by changing the showerheads in apartments where the tenants take a bath instead of a shower. If there is no or very little water saved by making the change to restrict the flow of water through showerheads, there will obviously be very little increase of profits due to the lower cost of water usage.

Thirdly, the owner states that there have been only a few complaints about low water pressure, and no problems with showers having been reported since the adjustment. The owner doesn't state exactly how many complaints there have been related to how many apartments have had their showerheads modified. For example, if five out of a total of ten tenants have complained, a "few" is a significant percentage of those that live there. Additionally, it is likely that many more tenants don't like the change but have not had the time or the willingness to complain. Rather than complain, it is possible that they will simply move out. If tenants begin to move out because of the poor performance of their showers, profits for Sunnyside will decrease rather than increase. Fewer tenants paying rent would have a far more negative impact on profitability than any positive impact by the lower costs of reduced water usage. The owner should make further inquiries as to whether the modified showerheads have caused problems rather than waiting for complaints to come in before changing over all the showerheads in the building.

To summarize, the owner is not looking at the big picture but rather basing his argument on assumptions that have no basis in fact. Without providing evidence that the tenants are indeed not bothered by the change and that reducing water usage will actually further increase profits, the owner's argument remains unconvincing.

参考译文
下文取自阳光塔公寓业主给其经理的一封信

　　"一个月前，阳光塔公寓五层以下所有人的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的近三分之一。尽管在改装之前和之后的实际用水的读数目前尚未获得，但是这一变化显然会为阳光公司节省大笔开支，因为公司必须每月支付水费。除了几起投诉说水压低之外，自调整改装之后，还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。显然，对阳光塔公寓全部20层实施限水，将进一步增加我们的利润。"

　　在这一论证中，阳光塔公寓的业主声称一个月前五层以下的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的三分之一。业主说到，这一改装将为公司节省大笔开支，因为公司每月须支付水费。业主进而言道，除了几起投诉说水压较低以外，改装之后还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。业主接着得出结论，公寓的全部20层都应该限水，以便进一步增加公司的利润。本段论证的逻辑基础是错误的，并不能使人确信改装将会提高公司的利润。

　　 首先，很有可能由于淋浴喷嘴的改装而一点也不能节水。把水流控制在原水流的三分之一，水流肯定减弱了许多，因而很可能阳光公寓的房客冲淋浴的时间延长了许多。倘若房客洗淋浴的时间是原先的三倍，就不会节水，因而也不会节约费用。由于"改装前和改装后"的实际用水量尚无记录，用水少纯粹是臆断。

　 第二，淋浴只是用水的其中一种方式，或许甚至不是最主要的方式。例如，大量的水会用来洗衣。淋浴用水的百分率，实际上可能是总用水量中的很小一部分。在喷嘴上减少水流，可能会有少量的节水。再者，有可能公寓的房客洗盆浴而不是冲淋浴。这样，在房客洗盆浴而不洗淋浴的公寓改换淋浴喷嘴，根本就不会节水。如果改装淋浴喷嘴限制水流并没能节水，那么也就不会因为降低用水成本而增加利润。
第三，业主说道，只有几起投诉抱怨水压低，而且自改装之后还没有报告说淋浴有问题。业主没有精确无误地陈述有多少起投诉与多少间改装淋浴喷嘴的公寓有关。例如，如果10个房客中有5个投诉，那么"几起"就是居住在那里的房客总数中的一个很高的百分比。此外，有可能许多其他的房客不喜欢这一改装但没有时间或不愿意投诉。他们没有采用投诉这一形式，而是可能搬出去。倘若房客因为淋浴问题而搬迁出去，那么阳光公司的利润不但不会增加反而会减少。租房的房客减少，会因为减少水量对总体利润产生负面影响而非正面影响。业主在把公寓所有的淋浴喷嘴改装之前应该作进一步调查，以便弄清楚改装的淋浴是否已造成问题，而不应该等待人们前来投诉。

嘉文博译郑重声明：