GRE作文范文 Issue-27

"Laws should not be stationary and fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people that the laws are enforced upon. For a legal system to work for a society, the laws must be knowable, fair and implemented equally among the population. Compliance is impossible without knowing the laws, and knowing the laws is impossible without them being relatively stationary and fixed. The rule of law as a system requires not only the written laws themselves, but also the institutions and people that enforce the laws and adjudicate those accused of breaking those laws. At the enforcement and judgmental stages, the law can become more adaptable to the particular circumstances.

In the beginning, laws became necessary as civilizations began to develop. One of the earliest known set of laws was known as Urukagina's Code, developed in 2350 B.C. by Mesopotamian kings. These were the first known laws that allowed normal citizens to know what types of actions would be punished and the penalties that could be expected for violating those laws. From that time onward, human societies have tried to perfect a legal system through such famous documents as the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States of America, and more recently, the World Trade Organization's international trade agreements. Despite the centuries that separate them, they all have in common that they were written down as rules of law and relatively fixed and unchangeable. This allowed the members of a society to know how they were expected to behave, and in most cases, what rights they had under that particular governmental system.

Furthermore, these written documents showed that as a general rule of fairness, the laws had to be knowable and at least in theory, equally applicable to certain segments of the population. The popular expression "ignorance of the law is no excuse" would not be practicable if the laws were not written and available for those who are to comply with them. Without written and published laws, ignorance of the law would be an excuse, for an individual would have no way of knowing what the laws required. In addition, the laws needed to be fixed and stable so that they could be equally applied (in theory) to everyone. Frequent changes, especially those that were made in response to particular circumstances, times and places, would make for an unworkable legal system. No one could no what to expect from the law because no one could no what the law would be on a certain date or under certain circumstances.

However, in reality, the law is adaptable and flexible in certain situations, places and times. Although the written rules of law must be fixed and seldom changed, the people that enforce the laws, as well as those who judge those who break the laws, have a certain amount of built-in discretion to see that justice is done. A policeman can usually decide, depending on the particular circumstances of a situation, whether to make an arrest or give a verbal warning. Once charged with a crime, the prosecutor can make the decision whether to prosecute the offense or dismiss the charges. Even during a trial, the judges and juries have wide discretion in most cases to adjust the punishment to the individual situation. It is in the enforcement and judicial stages that laws and punishments can be made flexible to allow justice to be served.

In conclusion, without fast and hard rules of law, a society cannot be expected to be able to comply with those laws. Certain standards for enforcement and judgment must of course be followed, but with a certain amount of discretion allowed to make sure that, although justice is blind, it is not stupid.

参考译文

法律不应是一成不变的。反之，法律应该是灵活的，以便考虑到不同的环境、不同的时代和不同的地域

　　法律的本质功用是给被实施法律的民众带来稳定和秩序。为了使一个法律体系对社会产生作用，这个体系的法律必须是可被人知晓的，公平的，可以在民众当中平等地实施的。不知晓法律，则守法是不可能的；法律不相对固定，则人们知晓法律是不可能的。作为一个体系的法治不仅需要书面的法律条文，而且需要实施法律及判决那些被控告违法之人的机构和人员。在执法和裁决的阶段，法律可以根据特殊的环境更具变通性。

　　在最初的时期，随着文明的发展，法律变得十分必要。已知的最早的一套法律是Urukagina法典，公元前2350年出自美索不达米亚历代国王。这就是已知的最早法律，它使普通公民了解什么样的行为将受到惩处以及违反法律将被处以什么样的刑罚。从那以后，人类社会一直努力通过各种条文完善法律体系，例如十诫、大宪章、美国宪法以及最近国际贸易组织的国际贸易协定等。尽管这些条文相隔几百年，但是有一点是共同的，这就是，它们都是作为法律条文形诸文字而且是相对固定和不变的。这就允许社会成员知晓他们应该怎样行为以及在大多情况下他们在某个特定的政府体制里拥有何种权利。

　　再者，这些形诸文字的法律文件表明，法律作为表现公平的一般原则必须是易于令人知晓的，而且至少在理论上是平等地适用于各个阶层的民众的。倘若法律没有形诸文字，那些守法遵律的人不能了解它们，那么我们常说的"对法律无知并不是借口"就不能成立。如果没有形诸文字并公开发表的法律，"对法律无知"就能成为一个借口，因为一个人就没有办法知晓法律所要求的是什么。另外，法律也需要是固定和稳定的，这样它们就可以平等地（在理论上）应用于每一个人。经常变化--尤其为了适应特殊的环境、时期和区域而做出的变化--将会导致产生一个无法操作的法律体系。没有人能够知晓从法律中期待什么，因为没有人知晓在某个日子或在某种情况下法律会变成什么样子。

　　然而在现实生活中，法律在某些情况下，在某些地区和某些时期是可以变通的。尽管形诸文字的法律条文必须是固定的，且几乎是不变的，但是执法的人员以及裁决那些违法之人的人员具有某种程度的法定酌处权，以保证正义得到申张。一位执法的警员根据某个特殊的情况决定执行逮捕还是口头警告。一旦提起公诉，公诉人可以决定是起诉这个违法事件还是撤消公诉。甚至在审判期间，法官和陪审团在大多数情况下具有很大的酌处权，针对个别情形对惩处进行调整。正是在执法和司法阶段，法律和量刑可以灵活变通以保证正义得到申张。

　　总之，没有牢固且严厉的法律条文，一个社会群体就不可能指望能够遵法守律。当然，进行执法和审判的某些准则是必须要遵奉的，但是那必须是允许有一定的酌处权以保证公正实施得不愚蠢，尽管公正的原则是不分你我的。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-27

The following is a recommendation from the director of personnel to the president of Profession Printing Company.
"In a recent telephone survey of automobile factory workers,older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor increases their productivity. Among workers aged 18 to 29,27 percent said that they are more aged 30 or over,and only 8 percent for those aged 50 or over. Cleaarly,if our printing company hires mainly older employees, we will increase productivity and save money because of the reduced need for supervisors."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

With this argument, the director of personnel is trying to convince the president of the Profession Printing Company that older employees are lesslikely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity.The personnel director then conclueds that the printing company should therefore hire mainly older employees to incresse productivity and save money because money because of the reduced need for supervisors.This argument is based on a false analogy and suffers from several other critical flaws.

Firstly,there is no evidence presented that the telephone survey of automobile factory workers is reliable.It id not clear how the survey was performed, the number and job titles of those who were surveyed,or what is the margin of error.Furthermore, the director of personnel only states"older employees were less likely to report that having a supervisor present increases their productivity" This is not the same as saying that older employees are in fact more productive without a supervisor or even that they are equally productive with or a supervisor present.In addition, the survey shows that only 8 percent of wokers aged 50 or over said that they are more productive in the present of a supervisor, but it does not state what the other 92 percent of these worker does not need supervision. The wording of the telephoto survey is a problem,leading to the director of personnel's blind assumptione that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisord.There is no such evidence  presented in the argument.

Furthermore, even assuming the validity of the study , the argument is based on the false analogy that automobile factory workers and printing company employees are the same.In an automobile factory, it is likely that the workers perform repetitiouswork and become quite skilled over time at their jobs lessening the need for immediate supervision.With a printing company ,however,nearly every job is different than the last,making it more difficult to become proficient.It is easy to see that older automobile factory workers would become expert at assembly line work,for example, and therefore believe that they need no supervision to do their work.With a printing company,perhaps older workers would not be suited to this type of work and automobile manufacturing are clealy two very different types of requiring distinct types of work skills. It does not follow that because older automobile workers feel they don't need supervision that the same theory would apply to printing company employees. The director of personnel merely assumes that the workers would be the same in both industries without providing any proof that this is true.

In summary, the director of personnel's argument fails to convince because it is based on a false analogy as well as problematic reasoning .He or she directly compares automobile factory workers to potential employees of a printing company,which require very different job skills.Furthermore, the more, the study itself may have been misinterpreted,as it merely states that only 8 percent of workers aged 50 or over are more productive in the presence of their immediate supervisor.It expressly does not say what other 92 percent of that group of workers reported.There is no evdence presented by the director of personnel that hiring mainly older employees will increase productivity and save money due to a reduced need for supervisors, and his or her argument should be rejected.

参考译文
下文是人事部主任给职业印刷厂公司总裁的建议：

　　“在最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查中，说有工头在场就能提高生产效率的年龄较大的员工相对较少。在年龄为18岁至29岁的工人当中，有27%的人说当着他们顶头上司的面工作起来会更有效率；相对而言，年龄为30岁及以上的工人，这样说的仅有12%；年龄为50岁及以上的人仅为8%。显然，倘若我们印刷公司主要雇佣年岁较大的雇员，那么我们将会提高生产效率，并因减少工头儿节省费用。”

　　凭借上述论证，人事部主任试图让职业印刷公司的 总裁相信，最近一次对汽车工厂工人的电话调查表明，年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有工头在场会提高生产效率，并且，因为不再需要那么多工头，从而得以节省费用。这一论证是建立在错误的类比之上的，而且存在几处严重的错误。

　　 首先，没有证据说明对汽车工厂的电话调查时可信的。我们不清楚调查时如何进行的，那些被调查者的数目和工种是什么，以及误差的幅度是多少。再者，人事部主任只是说“年岁较大的雇员更有可能不会说有什么工头在场会提高生产效率”。这与下述说法并不完全相同，即实际上年纪较大的雇员在没有工头在场的情况下会有更高的工作效率；他甚至与下述说法也不相同，即无论是有没有工头在场，他们的生产效率同样高。另外，调查显示，50岁及以上的工人只有8%的人说工头在场会使生产效率更高，但没有说明另外92%的工人说了些什么。并不能假定他自然而然地意味着这一年龄段的工人不需要监督。电话调查的措辞也是一个问题，他使人事部主任盲目假定，主要雇佣岁数较大的雇员就能提高生产效率，而且因为减少对工头的需要而节省费用。论证中并没有提出这方面的证据。

　 其次，即使我们承认该项调查的有效性，它仍然是基于错误的类比——把汽车工厂的工人等同于印刷公司的雇员。在汽车工厂，很可能工人从事重复性的工作，一段时间以后就对工作熟练了，所以就减少时比较困难的。例如，我们很容易见到，汽车工厂岁数较大的工人成为装配线上的专家，从而相信他们不需要有人来监督他们的工作。但在印刷公司，岁数较大的工人或许不适合这类工作，所以生产效率会降低而不是提高。印刷工作和汽车制造显然是来那个种完全不同的工种，需要不同的技能。我们并不能说因为岁数较大的汽车工人觉得不需要监工，因而这套理论也同样适用于印刷公司的雇员。人事部主任只是臆断这两种行业的工人是同样的，因为它没有提供任何证据来证明这一点。

　　总之，人事部主任的论证没有说服力，因为它的类比基础是谬误的，推理也是成问题的。他简单地把汽车工厂的工人比作印刷公司的潜在雇员，但这两者实际上需要非常不同的工作技能。再者，调查本身被曲解了，因为它只是说50岁及以上的工人仅有8%的工人当着其顶头上司的面会有较高的生产效率。显然他并未说明其余92%的工人的反映为何。人事部主任也没有提供证据证明，主要雇佣岁数较大的雇员会提高生产效率，以及由于减少对监工的需要而能节省费用。因此，他的论证应予摒弃。

嘉文博译郑重声明：