GRE作文范文 Issue-32

“Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today’s world.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The value of something that is or is not practical in today’s world depends on whose vision you are using to look at the situation. In the richer countries of the world, frivolous and apparently useless products, ideas and services abound. But even within these wealthy countries, there are still those that are barely surviving as opposed to those who are unabashedly rich. On the contrary, for the poorer, still developing countries that comprise most of mankind, practicality is usually a necessity for survival. It is an interesting contrast between different perspectives that shows a true dichotomy between the different types of societies and the people that live within those societies.

To begin with, one should look at the idea of “practicality” from the standpoint of a person living in a rich country, such as the United States. There are poor people living in poverty in virtually every state of the union. From the barrios of California to the mountain villages of West Virginia, there are numerous people who have no need for anything that is not “practical” for them. Food and shelter are their priorities with no time to even think about owning something as frivolous as a mobile phone or satellite television. For these people, practicality is a necessity and they must use what little power or talent they have available to them to merely survive.

On the other hand, in these same United States, there are people of almost unimaginable wealth whose idea of what is “practical” is vastly different. As just one example, the billionaire Donald Trump probably believes that he could not properly go about his business without his fleet of jets, yachts and automobiles, not to mention the vast range of luxury hotels and condominiums that he owns. In his situation, what is practical is whatever makes his life more comfortable. Undoubtedly Mr. Trump owns either property or possessions that he has probably never even seen. For these ultra-rich people, the word “practicality” may not even exist, as they have more money to spend on what other people would consider to be useless items, such as a $100,000 Rolex watch. These types of assets may not be practical but they certainly have value. For the very rich, practicality gives way to wants and desires.

In contrast with the two distinct groups discussed above, people from developing nations may never have even heard of satellite television or $100,000 timepieces. For them, practicality is a way of life. If something is not useful, then it must be discarded. Their focus is on subsistence, much in the same way as those poorer people in the richer countries. In an impoverished country however, these people would likely trade the expensive Rolex watch for a goat or cow – much more practical in their situation. Whereas the people of a richer country would see an intrinsic value built into the brand name and quality of the watch, people in an extremely poor country would see only a useless piece of metal and crystal. They perhaps tell time by the sun and need no watch regardless of its so-called “value”. In these parts of the world, clearly practicality is the necessary focus that requires the devotion of all time, talent and effort to things that are useful.

In summary, how much talent and power one devotes to something will depend on the value that the individual places on the particular idea, product or service. The value of something that is not practical, and indeed what is in itself “practical” will depend solely on the individual’s point of view

参考译文

实用性是我们现在最大的偶像，我们所有的力量和才能都必须服务于它。任何不具明显实用性的事物在今天的世界上都是没有价值的。

　　一个事物在今天的世界上是否实用，其价值取决于用谁的观点去看待它。在比较富裕的国家，花哨却无实际价值的和明显无用的产品、观念和服务设施比比皆是。但是，即使在这些较为富裕的国家，仍然有一些人仅能勉强糊口存活，与那些富得荒淫无度的人们构成鲜明对照。相反，对于比较贫穷的、仍然处于发展中的国家（他们构成人类的大多数），实用常常是生存的必要条件。正是不同观点之间的一个饶有趣味的对比，才揭示出了不同类型的社会之间以及生活于这些社会中的人们之间的一个真正的两极分化。

　　首先，我们可以从生活在富裕国家——例如美国——的人们的视角来审视“实用”。实际上在联邦的每一个州，都有穷人生活于贫困之中。从加利福尼亚的市镇郊区到西弗吉亚州的山村，许许多多的人对于不“实用”的东西毫无需求。食物和住房是他们最迫切需要的东西，他们甚至没有时间考虑拥有诸如移动电话或卫星电视这类没有意义的物品。对于这些人，实用是必要条件，而且他们必须使出浑身解数以保生存。

　　另一方面，同样是在美国，有些人拥有多得难以想像的财富，而他们对“实用”的观念与前者有着天壤之别。举一例以说明，亿万富翁Donald Trump或许认为，如果没有他的飞机、快艇和汽车队伍，他就不能正常地干他的事情，且不说他所拥有的数目可观的豪华饭店和设施场所。对他来说，实用意味着那些使他生活得更舒适的东西。毫无疑问，Trump先生拥有着他甚至可能从未见过的财产或财富。对于这些极富的人，“实用”一词或许根本就不存在。因为他们拥有更多的钱能花在那些被其他人认为没有用的东西上，例如价值十万美元的劳力士手表。这类财产可能不实用，但它们的确具有价值。对于非常富有之人，实用性已让位于需求与欲望。

　　与上面谈到的两类不同的人形成鲜明对照的是，发展中国家中有些人甚至从来没有听说过卫星电视或十万美元的手表。对于他们来说，实用就是生活方式。某物如果没用，就必须被扔掉。他们的目光只是专注于生活，与富裕国家的穷人毫无二致。然而，在一个贫困的国家，这些人很可能会拿这块昂贵的劳力士手表去换一头羊或一头牛——这在他们看来要实用得多。

　　虽然富裕国家的人能意识到手表的名牌和质量包含着内在价值，但在极端贫困的人看来，它只不过是一件毫无用途的金属和晶体。他们或许利用太阳获知时间而不是借助手表，尽管手表具有所谓的“价值”。在世界的这些地区，显然实用才是他们每时每刻追求的需要，用途才是他们的才华和精力所投入其中的东西。

　　总之，人把多少才华和精力投入到一种事物，取决于一个人所赋予给某观念、产品和服务的价值。某物是否实用，以及什么东西就其本身而言是“实用的”，仅仅取决于一个人的看法。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-32

“The Department of Education in the state of Attra recommends that high school students be assigned homework every day. Yet a recent statewide survey of high school math and science teachers calls the usefulness of daily homework into question. In the district of Sanlee, 86 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week, whereas in the district of Marlee, less than 25 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. Yet the students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are the students in Sanlee. Therefore, all teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all teachers in his or her town’s high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all. The arguer bases the argument on a statewide survey showing that in the district of Sanlee, eighty-six percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week while less than twenty-five percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. The arguer claims that despite this, students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are students in Sanlee. This argument is unconvincing because the arguer ignores several possible reasons other than the number of days that homework is assigned for these discrepancies.

First of all, the survey only contacted high school math and science teachers, not high school teachers in general. It is possible that there is a difference in homework assignments given by the two different districts because of a difference in subject emphasis. For example, perhaps Sanlee focuses more on science and math than Marlee and therefore requires more homework assignments of its students. A survey that covers only two subject areas in only two school districts is hardly convincing that all teachers should assign less homework.

Secondly, it is possible that homework assignments in Marlee are more extensive than those given in Sanlee, perhaps taking two or three days to complete. If the homework assignments take longer to complete, the teachers in Marlee would naturally assign homework less often, although the overall amount of homework completed would be the same as in Sanlee. Ignoring the length and difficulty of the homework that is assigned in the two different districts further weakens the argument. Simply assigning homework on more days does not necessarily mean that the total amount of homework is any different between the two school districts.

Furthermore, it is possible that the students themselves have differing levels of academic ability in Sanlee as opposed to Marlee. School districts can have a vastly different composition of students that directly affect overall grade results and whether students are more likely to be required to repeat a year of school. Students in the Marlee district may simply be brighter students than those in Sanlee, thus explaining the differences in overall grades and failure rates – it could have nothing to do with how much homework is assignment. Failing to address this possibility further weakens the argument.

Finally, it is also possible that the grading system itself is easier for the students in Marlee as opposed to the system in Sanlee. The students may be of equal academic skills, but Marlee’s grading system by design may give higher marks to students than Sanlee’s system. Furthermore, Marlee may have a policy that students never have to repeat a school year, regardless of their marks, while Sanlee may be stricter in this regard. Again, the number of days that homework is assigned has nothing to do with the student’s success; it is simply a function of the differing grading systems.

In summary, this argument is based on a very narrow study of only two subjects, in two school districts, with ambiguous results. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to directly compare all aspects of the two different districts with his or her own school district before jumping to the conclusion that all teachers in the district should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.

参考译文

　　Attra州教育厅建议，高中学生应该每天被布置做家庭作业。但是最近对高中数学和科学教师的一项全州范围的调查对每天做家庭作业的作用提出质疑。在三里区，百分之八十六的老师说每周布置三到五次作业，而在马里区，不到百分之二十五的老师说每周布置三到五次作业。但是马里区的学生总体成绩却比三里区的学生好而且较少需要留级。因此，我们高中所有老师如果真要给学生留作业的话，每周最多不应该超过两次。

　　在这一论证中，论证者说到，其城市里所有高中老师每周最多只应给学生布置两次作业，倘若真要留作业的话。他/她的论证是基于一次全州范围的调查，该调查说三里区百分之八十六的老师每周布置三到五次家庭作业，而在马里区不到百分之二十五的老师每周布置三到五次家庭作业。论证者声称，尽管这样，马里区的学生总体成绩比三里区的好，而且较少需要留级。这一论证没有说服力，因为论证者忽视了其他几个可能的原因，而仅仅列举了留家庭作业的天数作为学生差距的原因。

　　 首先，调查只涉及高中数学和科学教师，而不是普遍的高中教师。很可能，由于两区对科目重视不同而造成家庭作业不同。例如，或许三里区比马里区更强调数学和科学，从而要求给学生布置更多的家庭作业。仅从一个或两个区两个科目的调查就得出结论，说所有教师应该少布置家庭作业，这是不能让人信服的。

　　第二，很可能，马里区的家庭作业比三里区的范围更广泛，或许需要花两三天才能完成。如果家庭作业需要花更长的时间完成，马里区的老师自然就会减少布置作业的次数，尽管所完成的家庭作业的总量会与三里区的相同。由于忽视两区所布置作业的数量和困难程度，该论证的力度遭到进一步削弱。仅仅留作业次数多，并不必然意味着两区的家庭作业的总量有何不同。

　　再者，很可能三里和马里两学区的学生学术能力程度不同。不同的学区可能具有完全不同的学生构成，这直接影响到学生的总体成绩以及学生是否更可能需要留级重读。马里区的学生可能比三里区的学生更聪明些，因此可以解释两区在总体成绩和不及格率方面的诸多差异——这些差异可能与家庭作业的数量毫无关系。由于没有探讨这种可能性，该论证显得苍白无力。

　　最后，还有可能马里区学生的评分标准比三里区的较为容易。学生的学习能力可能是相同的，但马里区设计的评分标准给学生评定的分数可能会比三里区的高。此外，马里区可能有一项政策，即不管学生成绩如何，都不必留级重读，而三里区在这方面可能较为严格。再一次，留作业的数量与学生的成绩无关；这只是由于不同的评分标准所致。

　　总之，这一论证只是以两个学区对两门课程范围很窄的调查为基础，而且其调查结果也含混不清。为了加强其论证，论证者需要将这两个不同学区的所有方面与他/她所在的学区进行直接比较，而不是简单地得出结论说，其学区所有的教师都应该每周只布置两次家庭作业，如果真要留作业的话。

嘉文博译郑重声明：