GRE作文范文 Issue-31

“Scandals – whether in politics, academia, or other areas – can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Charismatic leaders and ultra-popular figures in society undoubtedly have the ability to redirect our attention towards some specific problems. But there is no doubt that a scandal in any aspect of a society may be a useful and powerful attention-getter that can motivate people to sit up and take notice of a previously unknown or little-discussed problem.

To begin with, a scandal cannot actually exist if no one knows about it. Normally when one hears of a scandal, it is caused by someone’s truly outrageous behavior. It is quite often someone of a least some celebrity status that is the offender; thereby making the scandal an even bigger news story than the conduct itself would have been in the first place. Just looking at the news worldwide, one can see that, many times, the news covers a particular political or societal scandal. The very fact that a scandal mesmerizes and titillates a society makes it an ideal motivator for focusing public attention on a particular problem within that society.
As one example, the recent scandal involving sexual abuse by Catholic priests and officials focused the world’s attention on the problem of pedophiles in high-ranking positions of authority. Although there had been such allegations and even lawsuit settlements in the past, it took a large-scale scandal to really focus the public’s attention on the problem. When only a few people had previously spoken out, very little attention was directed towards the potential problems. Then a massive scandal broke out involving hundreds of priests and victims, internal cover-ups and the Church’s admission of the moving around of accused priests from parish to parish. The public was outraged, causing the problems to be addressed at the highest levels of the Catholic Church, including an announcement by the Pope, the leader of the Catholic faith.

In an example from academia, a scandal over world famous author Stephen Ambrose focused the academic world’s attention on the previously little-discussed problem of plagiarism. Although allegations of plagiarism had arisen in the past, there had been no scandal created because those accused were not well known and had mostly written little work of any consequence. On the contrary, Mr. Ambrose had been cited as an expert authority on history and had sold millions of best-selling books worldwide. The ensuing scandal that erupted over his admitted (and supposedly inadvertent) plagiarism probably focused attention on the problem of misappropriating the writings of others in a way that no individual could have done.

A further example of the impact of scandal on society can be found in the history of the public’s reaction to the AIDS virus. In the early 1980’s, the general population was not concerned about the disease as it was seen mainly as a homosexual problem with little risk to so-called “normal” people. But when famous movie star Rock Hudson died of AIDS, followed by the resulting scandal over his previously little-known sex life, the public’s attention became more focused on the plight of people with the deadly disease. Many individuals had spoken out on the potential problems caused by AIDS before his death. But it was the scandal caused by revelations over Mr. Hudson’s life and death, followed by the similarly scandalous deaths of other celebrities that tragically brought home the reality of the disease – everyone could be at risk.

In summary, there are potentially many very charismatic and influential people that can be truly motivational leaders and focus a society’s attention on a particular problem. But quite often it takes a scandal and the accompanying publicity to make the public truly take notice and actually contemplate a specific issue.

参考译文

丑闻，无论出自政治、学术，还是其它领域，都可能是有用的。它们以任何发言人和改革者都不曾做到的方式把我们的注意力汇聚于某些问题。

　　社会里具有领袖魅力的领导者和非常知名的人物，具有把我们的注意力重新导向某些具体问题的能力。但是，毫无疑问，社会里某一领域的丑闻可能成为一个有用的且有力的引人注目的事物，它可以激发人们拍案而起关注一个以前闻所未闻或很少谈论的问题。

　　首先，一个丑闻，如果不为人知，是不可能实际存在的。通常，我们所听到的丑闻往往是由于某人的无耻行为而造成的。通常，某个至少拥有一定名人地位的人是丑闻的制造者，这里，从而首先就使得这一丑闻变成一堆比那行为本身甚至远大得多的新闻猛料。看一看世界各地的新闻我们就知道，很多情况下新闻都包括一个政治的或社会的丑闻。丑闻能够吸引并激发一个社会群体的极大兴趣这一事实，使丑闻成为把公众的注意力引向某一社会问题的理想因素。

　　例如，最近的丑闻涉及天主教教士和官员的性伤害，它把整个世界的注意力集中在上层权威人士中恋童癖患者的问题上。尽管从前曾经有过指控甚至诉讼判决，但是，只有对丑闻的大规模宣传才能把公众的注意力集中到这一问题上来。过去只有小部分人仗义执言时，也只有很少的注意力被引向这一潜在问题。之后，一个巨大的丑闻爆发出来，涉及数百名教士和受害者，内部的掩饰，以及教会允许受指控的教士从一个教区转到另一个教区继续任职等。公众被激怒了，问题被提交到天主教会的最高层来处理，其中包括由代表着天主教信仰的领袖教皇所发表的声明。

　　在一个学术领域的案例中，涉及世界知名作家Stephen Ambrose的丑闻，把整个学术界的注意力汇聚于以前很少探讨的剽窃问题。尽管对剽窃的指控以前曾经有过，但是并没有造成丑闻，因为那些被指控者大都不太知名，而且也没有写过有什么影响力的作品。Ambrose先生被公认为史学界的权威专家，有数百万册畅销书在全世界销售。接蹱而来的便是有关他已承认的（而且据称是非故意的）剽窃所引起的丑闻，这一丑闻可能以前所未有的力度使人们关注盗用他人写作成果这一问题。

　　另一个说明丑闻对社会影响的例子，是公众对爱滋病毒的反应。在20世纪80年代早期，大众并不关心这一病症，因为它被认为主要是同性恋问题，对所谓的“正常”人并没有什么危险。但是当著名的电影明星Rock Hudson死于爱滋病，紧随着是他从前鲜为人知的性生活的丑闻的披露，公众的注意力才更多地汇集到患有这一致命疾病的人们所处的困境。在Hudson死之前，许多人已直言爱滋病所引起的潜在问题，但是正是有关Hudson先生的生活和死亡的丑闻的披露，以及随之披露的其他名人要员的类似丑闻，才悲剧性地揭示出这一疾病的现实：每个人都有可能受其危害。

　　总之，潜在地会有许多具有领袖魅力和有影响力的人物可能成为真正的激发人们兴趣的引导者，把人们的目光聚集到某个特定的问题。但通常，需要一个丑闻以及相应的宣传才能使公众真正地注意并认真地思考某个具体问题。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-31

"Over the past few years, the number of people who have purchased advance tickets for the Glenville Summer Concert series has declined, indicating lack of community support. Although the weather has been unpredictable in the past few years, this cannot be the reason for the decline in advance ticket purchases, because many people attended the concerts even in bad weather. Clearly, then, the reason for the decline is the choice of music, so the organizers of the concert should feature more modern music in the future and should be sure to include music composed by Richerts, whose recordings Glenville residents purchase more often than any other contemporary recordings. This strategy will undoubtedly increase advance ticket purchases and will increase attendance at the concerts."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This argument addresses the problem of a declining number of people purchasing advance tickets for the Glenville Summer Concert series, which the arguer states indicates a lack of community support. The arguer states that bad weather cannot be the reason for the decline because even though the weather had been unpredictable over the past few years, people attended the concerts even in poor weather. The arguer then concludes that the problem must lie with the choice of music, and that more modern music as well as recordings by Richerts, whose recordings are purchased more often by Glenville residents than any other contemporary recordings, should be included to increase advance ticket sales and increase attendance. This argument is unconvincing because the arguer reaches the conclusion based on faulty logic.

In the first place, the writer of the letter states that the decrease in the number of people who purchase advance tickets for the event indicates a lack of community support. A simple decline in advance ticket sales does not necessarily indicate a lack of community support; it may just be that there is no benefit to buying the tickets in advance. It is possible that more people will continue to attend the concert than ever before by buying tickets at the gate rather than in advance. There may be other reasons instead of a lack of community support for the decline in advance ticket sales. For example, in the past there may have been a discount given for buying the tickets in advance. Perhaps in the past there was a "rain-out" provision where advance ticket holders could get a refund if the weather was bad. The dropping of these advance ticket benefits would explain the decline in the number of people buying them. If there is no benefit to buying advance tickets, there is no reason for the community to buy the tickets early. The arguer fails to take these possibilities into account, thus weakening his or her argument.

Furthermore, the writer states that although the weather has been unpredictable in the past few years, this cannot be the reason for declining advance ticket sales because people still attended even in bad weather. Those that attended in bad weather probably only had two choices: attend the concert and suffer through the weather or stay at home, thus wasting the money that was spent on the tickets. Once they attended in the concert in bad weather and had a terrible time, it is likely that they decided that it was not worth it to buy tickets in advance and therefore decided to wait until the day of the show to purchase them in the future. Additionally, it does not follow that the decline is due to the choice of music at the concerts - there is no evidence presented that modern music would attract more advance or regular ticket purchasers or that Richerts' compositions would get more people to buy tickets in advance or attend the concerts. Simply because Glenville residents buy more Richerts recordings than any other contemporary recordings does not mean that they would like to see them performed at the Glenville Summer concert series; in fact, there may be more out-of-town residents that usually attend the concerts than Glenville residents. Again, the writer fails to address these factors in his or her argument.

In summary, the letter writer reaches his or her conclusions based on poorly interpreted information. Without providing direct evidence that the music included is to blame for the decline in advance ticket sales and that changing the music would increase those sales as well as overall attendance, the writer's argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.

参考译文
下述文字摘自一封致某地方报纸《格兰维尔报》编辑的信函：

　　"在过去的几年里，预购格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会门票的人数有所下跌，这说明社区的支持力度不够。尽管在过去的几年里天气变化出人意料，但是这并不是预购门票下跌的原因，因为许多人甚至在坏天气时照样去听音乐会。显然，下跌的原因在于对音乐的选择，所以音乐会的组织者在未来应该演奏更多的现代音乐，应该保证演奏里查兹谱写的乐曲，因为比起任何其他当代作曲家的唱片，格兰维尔的居民更经常地购买他的唱片。这一策略将保证增加门票的预购数，并将增加听音乐会的人数。"

　　这一论证陈述道，格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会预购门票的人数下降，论证者认为这表明社区的支持力度不够。论证者声称，坏天气不可能是人数下降的原因，因为尽管在过去的几年里天气变化出人意料，但是人们在出现坏天气时照样去听音乐会。论证者接着得出结论：问题在于对音乐的选择，应该演奏更为现代的音乐以及里查兹谱写的乐曲，因为格兰维尔的居民购买他的唱片比购买任何其他当代作曲家的唱片更为频繁，这样便能增加门票的预购数以及听音乐会的人数。这一论证缺乏说服力，因为论证者所得出的结论是基于错误的逻辑。

　　 首先，信函作者声称预购音乐会门票的人数下跌表明社区的支持力度不够。单凭预购门票的下降，并不能完全说明社区的支持力度不够。很可能是因为预购门票没有什么益处。也可能与以往任何时候相比，更多的人会随时在售票处购票而不是预购门票来继续听音乐会。可能存在其他原因导致预购门票下降，而不是因为社区的支持力度不够。例如，过去，可能预购门票可以获得打折。或许过去有"遇雨取消"的规定，如果天气不好预售票持有者可以退票。这样的预售门票裨益的取消，可以解释预购门票人数下降的原因。倘若预购门票没有益处，也就没有理由让社区居民提前购票了。论证者没有把这些因素考虑在内，因此削弱了他/她的论证。

　　再者，信函作者说道，尽管在过去的几年中天气变幻无常，但这不能构成预售票下降的原因，因为人们在遇到坏天气时照样去听音乐会。那些在坏天气去听音乐会的人可能只有两个选择：去听音乐会并忍受坏天气，或者呆在家里并浪费门票钱。一旦他们在坏天气去听音乐会而且过得很不愉快，他们很可能会认为不值得提前买票，从而决定在将来要等到演出那天才去买票。此外，说预购门票数量的下降是由于音乐会对音乐的选择所造成的，这也没有道理--没有证据表明现代音乐会吸引更多的预购门票和普通门票的购买，或者说里查兹的曲目会让更多的人预购门票和听音乐会。只是因为格兰维尔居民购买里查兹的唱片比购买其他当代唱片多，并不能意味着他们喜欢看到他的这些音乐在格兰维尔夏季系列音乐会上被演出。实际上，经常性听音乐会的城外居民可能要比格兰维尔的居民来得多。信函作者又没能在其论证中探讨这些因素。 总之，信函作者只是凭借没有经过恰当解释的信息得出其结论。因为没有提供直接的证据证明音乐会所选择的曲目是预售票下降的原因，以及改变音乐会的曲目会增加预售票和听音乐会的人数，信函作者的论证最终无法自圆其说。

嘉文博译郑重声明：