GRE作文范文 Issue-29

"The way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of personality than training. Different interpretations come about when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The underlying theory of how students and scholars interpret whatever materials they are working with is a subject of debate among psychologists and sociologists, similar to the debate over the "nature versus nurture" theory of some other forms of human behavior. In my opinion, whether personality or training plays a bigger factor in interpreting information will depend not only on the individual involved, but also the academic field that is being studied. Additionally, different interpretations arise even when people with the same personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data or events. This phenomenon is a fundamental part of human nature, not just a function of different personalities.

First of all, analysis and interpretation of information is going to depend a great deal upon the individual involved. Some people are much more emotional than others, which can lead them to act on their emotions in spite of their training. Other people may have a personality that can be subjugated to his or her training, no matter what the situation. Emotions are an integral part of one's personality. For example, a highly trained police officer with a hot temper may go beyond the bounds of his training and beat a suspect if provoked enough by that suspect. The officer had been fully trained while at the police academy on how to deal with hostile suspects during an arrest, and he knew exactly what the proper procedure was. However, the taunting of the suspect caused the temperament part of the officer's personality to take over and lash out, in spite of his regimented training.

On the other side of the spectrum, an individual with the very same training, perhaps from the same class as the hot-tempered policeman, may have viewed the situation in a very different manner and simply ignored the taunts of the suspect. This officer's personality allowed him to take provocation and insults without feeling it personally and to therefore follow his training in the situation. In the latter case, it was the training that was used to handle the problem. In the former, it was purely personality that caused the policeman's behavior. For the first officer, personality was more important, while for the second officer, training provided the basis for action.

Secondly, the type of academic field that is being studied also plays a big part in whether personality or training is the foundation for interpretation. Certain academic fields demand that the student or scholar act based on training, while others require the personality of the individual to guide interpretation. Perhaps the simplest example is the difference between a mathematics student and a student of the arts. The mathematics student will analyze the data being studied by using his or her training with formulas and numbers; there is very little personality involved in the study and application of mathematics. However, each and every art student will approach a painting or a sculpture from an almost purely personal point of view, which depends almost exclusively on that student's personality. Perhaps artistic training will give the art student the vocabulary to describe the object, but in this case it is personality that gives the basis for analysis.

Finally, it must be said that there are not just the two variables involved that give people different views of the exact same situations. A crime may have one hundred people as eyewitnesses, and investigators will get one hundred different descriptions. Although some of those people almost certainly have the same or similar personalities, other human variables distort what actually happened. Human nature is much too complex to ascribe different viewpoints or analyses based on the training versus personality argument.

参考译文

学生和学者解释他们在其学术领域所用材料的方式，与其说是训练的结果，不如说是个性使然。当不同个性的人们观察完全相同的事物、事实、数据或事件并看到不同的东西时，不同的解释便告产生

　　关于学生和学者是如何来解释他们研究中所用的材料，这方面的基本理论是心理学家和社会学家所争论的一个题目，它与有关人类行为其它某些方面关于"天生相对于培养"之争十分相似。以我之愚见，个性和训练哪个在解释信息中起着较大的作用，这不仅取决于所涉及的个人，而且也有赖于所研究的学术领域。另外，即使同样性格之人观察完全相同的事物、事实、数据或事件，也会产生不同的解释。这一现象是人性的一个基本部分，而不仅仅是不同个性的结果。

　　首先，对信息的分析和解释在很大程度上取决于所涉及的个人。有些人较他人更加感情用事，这使他们在行动时易受情绪支配，尽管他们受过某种训练。有些人所拥有的性格，可以受到其训练的制约，无论在何种境况下亦复如此。情绪是个性的内在部分。例如，一个受过严格训练但脾气暴燥的警官，可能会不顾自己所受的训练去殴打一个嫌疑犯--倘若该嫌疑犯触怒了他。警官在警察学校曾受过充分的训练，知道在执行逮捕时如何对付怀有敌意的嫌疑犯，他也清楚知道正当的程序应是如何。但是，嫌疑犯的嘲讽使警察性格中的急燥脾气取代理性并暴发出来，从而不顾自己所受的严格训练。

　　另一方面，一个具有完全相同的训练--或许与那位脾气暴燥的警官在同一个班上--之人，可能会以完全不同的方式处理这一情况并且根本不理睬嫌疑犯的嘲讽。这位警官的性格使他能够忍受挑衅和侮辱，不从个人的角度看待这些，而是依照他受的训练去行事。在后者，是用所受的训练去处理这个问题。在前者，完全是性格导致了警官所采取的那种行动。对于前者，个性占据了上风，对于后者，训练为行为提供了基础。

　　其次，所研习的学术领域的类别，也在决定是个性还是训练成为解释的基础这个问题上起着重要的作用。有些学术领域要求学生或学者按照所受的训练行事，而其它一些学术领域却要求一个人的个性来指导对事物的解释。或许，最简单的例子是数学专业与艺术专业的学生之间的不同。数学专业的学生会用他/她所受训练的方式和数字去分析所研究的数据。在对数学的研究和应用过程中很少牵涉个性。然而，每一位艺术专业的学生都会从几乎完全是个人的视角看待一幅油画或一尊雕像，这几乎完全取决于那位学生的个性。艺术训练或许会给艺术专业的学生提供用以描述对象的语汇，但在这种情况下，是个性提供了分析解释的基础。 最后，应该说明的是，并非只有以上所谈的这两种因素使人们对相同的事情有不同的看法。一起犯罪活动可能有一百个目击者，调查人员就可能得到一百个不同的描述。尽管他们当中一些人肯定具有相同的或相似的性格，但是人类身上其它的可变性因素都会歪曲所发生的事件。人的本性太复杂了，因此我们不能仅仅根据训练相对于个性的说法去划分不同的观点或不同的分析解释。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-29

"The way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of personality than training. Different interpretations come about when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa options--- a painkiller---to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.

In this argument, the arguer cites a new report suggesting that men and women experience pain very differently from one another and that doctors need to consider these differences when prescribing pain medicine. The arguer cites as evidence the results of the study, which indicated that when giving a painkiller called kappa opioids to twenty-eight men and twenty women who were having wisdom teeth taken out, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men with the easing of the pain also lasting longer in women. The arguer then concludes that this same painkiller should always be prescribed for women when painkillers are required, and that men should be given some other kinds of pain medications. The arguer finally concludes that researchers should study the effects of all medications on men versus women. This argument is not convincing because it contains several critical fallacies.

In the first place, this was a very small study - just twenty-eight men and twenty women so it is possible that the sample of people studied is not representative of the entire population. It may also be that the men's wisdom teeth extractions were much more difficult cases than that of the women, so naturally the pain was worse, either because the small sample size contained a disproportionate number of difficult men's cases or because men's wisdom teeth are physically more problematic to remove. In either case, a small study like this is not enough on which to base such a broad conclusion.

Furthermore, the arguer states that the researchers administered the same dosage to both the men and the women. Men are normally physically bigger in body size than women, thus making the same dosage more powerful in the smaller women when compared with its effect on the larger men. It is likely that a dosage that takes relative body size into account would provide similar levels of pain relief for both men and women, therefore it is not necessary to use a different drug on men but rather a larger dose to reflect their larger physical size.

In addition, the arguer concludes that women should be given kappa opioids whenever pain medication is required. This fallacy ignores critical factors such as the possibility of side effects of the medications in some women, such as women who are pregnant. Simply because one small study appeared to show that the medication worked better for women than men does not mean that it should always be used for pain relief for women. This part of the argument also fails to take into consideration that there are other, even better pain medications that could also be used rather than kappa opioids.

Finally, the arguer says that researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women. This simply does not follow as there is no evidence presented to warrant such research. This was a small and probably misleading report on only one type of painkiller. It would be foolish to launch such a broad and expansive research study on all medications and their effects on the different sexes. Instead, medications should be prescribed and adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending on the patient's needs, not by gender.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on groundless conclusions that don't really prove anything. Without a broader study that takes into account body size, other types of pain medications and the severity of the medical procedure, this argument will remain unconvincing and should be ignored.

参考译文

　　一篇新的报告表明，男人和女人感受疼痛的方式彼此不同，因此医师在开具处方治疗头痛时应考虑到这些差异。当研究人员给拔智齿的28位男性和20位女性用同样剂量的卡巴止痛药时，女性反映说她们受的疼痛比男性少，而且缓解疼痛的时间在女性身上比较长。这一研究表明，当需要止痛药时，卡巴止痛药应该给女性服用，而男性应该服用其他类型的止痛药。此外，研究人员应该根据男女差异重新评估所有药物的疗效

　　在这篇论证中，论证者引用一篇新的报告，说男性和女性感受疼痛的方式彼此不同并且说医师在开具处方时需要考虑到这些差异。论证者还引用了一项研究作为证据，说明当给28位男性和20位女性服用名叫卡巴的止痛药拔智齿时，女性反映她们遭受的疼痛比男性少，而且缓解疼痛的时间在女性身上较长。论证者接着得出结论：当需要使用止痛药时，这种止痛药应该总是给女性服用而男性应该服用其他类型的止痛药。最后论证者还说，研究人员应该根据男女的差异去研究所有药物的疗效。这一论证由于存在几处严重的错误，所以不能令人信服。 首先，这项研究所涵盖的范围太小--只有28位男性和20位女性，因而很可能研究对象的整个抽样不能代表全体患病人口。也可能拔男性的智齿要比拔女性的困难得多，所以很自然男人的疼痛更厉害一些，或者是因为很小的抽样范围中只包含了拔牙困难的男性的一个不成比例的数量，或者是因为男人的智齿从生理上讲更难拔出。但无论属于何种情形，这样小范围的研究不足以作为这样重要结论的基础。

　　 再者，论证者声称，研究人员给男性和女性使用同样剂量的止痛药。男性比女性在身材上更大，所以与大个儿的男性相比，同样剂量的药物在小个儿的女性身上会更有效。把身材大小考虑进去的剂量可能会对男性和女性产生同样程度的疼痛缓解效果，因此，不必要对男性使用另一种不同的药物，而只需对身材较大者使用较大剂量即可。 此外，论证者的结论是，当女性无论何时需要止痛药时，都应该服用卡巴。这一谬误忽视了某些重要的因素，例如该药可能会对某些女性产生副作用，如孕妇。仅仅由于一个涵盖范围很小的研究似乎说明这种药物在女性身上比在男性身上更有效，这并不意味着女性应该永远用它来缓解疼痛。论证的这一部分同样也没能考虑到会有其他的、甚至比卡巴更有效的止痛药可用。 最后，论证者提出，研究人员应该重新评估所有药物在男性身上相对于在女性身上所产生的疗效。这一论点显得毫无依据，因为论证者没能提供证据来证明进行这一研究的合理性。这是一份仅涉及到一种止痛药的研究范围甚为狭窄且可能带有误导性质的报告。依据这份报告来对所有药物及对男女患者不同疗效展开如此广泛、如此大规模的研究，无疑会显得愚蠢。相反，大夫应该依据病人的具体需要，而不是依据性别，来对单个病例逐个开列药方，并不断作出调整。

　　总之，论证者的论证，是建立在什么也证明不了的、毫无根据的结论之上。如果没有一项将身材、其它止痛药、医疗程序的严重程度考虑进去的范围较广的研究，该论证将是没有说服力的，应该不予理睬。

嘉文博译郑重声明：