GRE作文范文 Issue-35

“The material progress and well-being of one country are necessarily tied to the material progress and well-being of all other countries.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The world is undeniably involved in an apparently continuous trend towards globalization in almost every aspect of society. The advent of advanced telecommunications, transportation and possibly most importantly, the Internet, has led to all countries’ progress and welfare becoming increasingly intertwined as their population’s needs and wants become more and more similar. Whether it is by design because of a country’s need, because of consumer wants or because a country simply cannot live in isolation, the progress and well-being of individual countries is increasingly interrelated.

In the beginning, societies survived with what they had available to them in their particular area of the world. Because the world’s total population was small, the earliest societies were able to survive in isolation. As the number of the earth’s inhabitants grew, societies began to increasingly interact with one another, sharing traditions, customs and goods with one another. Early consumers began to demand the goods that other societies owned. This was of course the beginning of early tribal wars, but also the beginning of international trade. No longer could societies live in total isolation.

As civilization continued to develop, it became apparent that to continue to advance, some countries needed supplies that were available only in other countries. International trade was begun as a necessary alternative to war to allow one country or society to get what they needed. David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage states that each individual country should specialize in producing what it does best and use that production as trade for everything else. An early example of this is shown by the ancient Silk Road trade route, begun around 200 AD. Actually a series of trade routes, the Silk Road connected the mighty Roman Empire with the equally advanced Imperial Court of China, with trade conducted at all points in between. Even in those early days, the welfare and interests of the different rulers of different parts of the world depended a great deal upon each other.

Consequently through the ages, countries (with few exceptions) have been able to act unilaterally without repercussion. Continuous advances in transportation, communication and technology have led to countries becoming more and more involved with each other. Early exploration led to new trade routes, which began to tie countries closer together. Later, industrialization and the invention of the steam engine tremendously improved the speed and methods of transportation. The development of the automobile made transportation even easier and faster. Airplanes and giant ships began to cross the oceans, making the world even smaller and increasing country interdependency.

Finally, today’s technology has tremendously increased the speed of globalization. Telecommunications allow a person in one part of the world to instantaneously speak with someone in another part of the world, while satellite transmissions allow them to see one another at the same time. The Internet can theoretically connect anyone with anyone else in the world. The Internet and other technologies have allowed societies to communicate with each other in ways previously never imagined. It is easy to see that, through the development of trade, technology and transportation, each country has become aware of what the other countries possess. Whether it is because a country designs interdependence because of its own needs, or because its own consumers demand that which other countries have, or simply because a country cannot live in isolation from the rest of the world, each country’s progress and well being definitely depends on the progress and well being of all the other countries in the world.

参考译文

一个国家的物质进步和富裕，必然与所有其它国家的物质进步和富裕连结在一起。

　　世界无疑有一个明显的发展趋向，那就是社会各个层面上的全球化。先进的电信，交通，以及最主要的互联网的出现，已导致了所有国家的进步和财富愈发紧密地缠结在一起，因为各国人民的需要和需求越来越相似。无论是因为一个国家的需要，还是因为消费者的愿望，还是因为一个国家不能孤独地存活，单个国家的进步与富裕越来越与其它国家联系在一起。

　　刚开始时，各个社会的幸存，有赖于它们所在地区能够提供给它们的物质资源。因为那时世界的总人口数量很小，早期的社会可以在孤立状态下存活。随着地球上居住者的增加，社会开始逐渐地彼此交往，开始共享它们各自的传统、习惯和商品。早期的消费者开始要求其它的社会所拥有的商品。当然，这就是早期部落战争的开端，它同样也是国际贸易的开端。社会再也不能孤独地生存了。

　　随着文明不断发展，显而易见，一些国家为了继续发展进步就需要占有只能从其它国家可以获得的资源。因而，国际贸易开始成为战争的必然替代品以使一个国家或社会获得它们所需要的东西。David Ricardo的比较优势理论声称：每一个国家都应该专门生产它最好的产品并用它来换取所有其它东西。早期的实例是古代丝绸之路贸易，它始于公元200年左右。丝绸之路实际上构成若干个贸易路线，把强大的罗马帝国与同样先进的中国宫廷联系起来，之间的贸易活动涉及各个方面。即使在那时，世界上不同地区的不同统治者的财富和利益已在很大程度上彼此依赖。

　　之后世世代代，国家（少数除外）一直能够单方地活动而不受其它影响。交通、通迅、科技等持续不断的进步，使各国越来越彼此相连。早期的探险产生了新的贸易路线，这些贸易路线把各个国家更紧密地拴在一起。后来，工业革命和蒸汽机的发明，极大地改进了交通运输的速度和方式。汽车的发明，使交通更加便利和快捷。飞机和巨轮开始跨越大洋，把世界变得越来越小，增加了国家间的相互依存性。

　　最终，当今的科技已经极大地加快了全球化的速度。电信可以让人们从世界的一个地方即刻与世界的另一个地方的人通话，而卫星传播可以让人们同时相互看到。互联网在理论上可以把世界上任何一个人与任何其他人联接起来。互联网和其它技术已经使各个社会群体以各种从前想像不到的方式彼此联系交流。现在很容易看到，通过贸易、科技和交通的发展，每个国家清楚地了解其它国家有什么。无论是因为一个国家由于其自身的需要而追求互相依存，还是因为它的消费者要求获得其它国家所拥有的东西，或是因为一个国家孤立于其它国家而不能生存，每个国家的进步和富裕都毫无疑问地依赖于世界上其它国家的进步和富裕。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-35

“The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that the country of Myria charges fees for the use of national parks and reports little evidence of environmental damage. The arguer cites this as a strong indicator that the country of Illium should charge people more money for activities with heavy environmental impact when they are using national parks and wilderness areas. The arguer further states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from a lack of evidence and problematic reasoning.

To begin with, there is no supporting evidence that the countries of Myria and Illium have the same types of national parks or that they are comparable in any other manner. It is possible that Myria is a sparsely populated country with very few visitors to its national parks, while Illium may be heavily populated with millions of visitors to its national parks. For example, it is possible that Myria’s national parks are not attractive to its own residents or tourists while Illium’s national parks may be wildly popular with visitors. With few visitors to Myria, it is unlikely that there would be much evidence of environmental damage. Furthermore, the arguer states that the country of Myria reports little evidence of environmental damage, whether to its national parks or otherwise. There may actually be tremendous environmental damage in Myria that the country simply does not report for political or economic reasons, for example.

In addition, there is no mention of how much the country of Myria charges as fees for the use of national parks. Their fees may actually be dramatically lower than what Illium is already charging as fees to use its national parks. The simple fact that Myria charges a fee for using its national parks does not suggest that Illium should charge more money when using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact – this is not logical reasoning. Moreover, Illium may already be charging a very high fee for this type of park use – simply charging more may not make any difference as far as how the areas are used.

Finally, the most glaring flaw in this argument lies with the reasoning in the last sentence. The arguer states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. The fact of the matter is that simply collecting fees from people who overuse public lands will do nothing to preserve the lands – the fees must be used in some constructive manner to actively protect those particular environmental areas. The argument is fatally weakened by merely calling for the collection of such fees without indicating how those fees will be spent to safeguard the future of the national parks and wilderness areas of Illium.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on scant evidence and a false analogy between two possibly very different countries. Very little factual information is included in the argument to persuade the reader that charging park users more money for activities with heavy environmental impact will prevent environmental damage in the country of Illium. Furthermore, proposing that simply collecting higher fees from people who overuse public lands will conserve such lands critically weakens the argument. Without presenting concrete evidence that shows a direct correlation between collecting higher park usage fees and the country’s ability to preserve its national parks and wilderness areas, the argument fails to deliver on its premise and should be rejected.

参考译文

　　对使用国家公园实施收费政策的Myria国，据称几乎找不到毁坏环境的迹象。这有力地表明，对于Illium国来说，保护公共土地的最佳方法是，当人们使用国家公园和野地从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动时，就应该向这些人收取更多的费用。通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国将能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地

　　在本项论述中，论述者称，Myria国对使用国家公园实行收费，且几乎不存在环境遭毁坏的迹象。论述者将此援引为一种强有力的标志，说明Illium国应该向人们收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会产生沉重环境后果的活动。论述者进一步称，通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国就能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。以上的这番论述难以令人置信，因为它为证据的缺乏和成问题的逻辑推理所累。

　　 首先，没有任何佐证性证据能表明，Myria国和Illium国拥有相同类型的国家公园，或者这两个国家在任何方面具有可比性。情况有可能是，Myria国是一个人口稀少的国家，前往国家公园游玩的游客寥寥无几，而Illium国则有可能人口众多，有数以百万计的游客会去游览国家公园。例如，Myria国的国家公园可能对本国居民或旅游者不具吸引力，但Illium国的国家公园却可能广受游客们的喜爱。由于Myria国游客稀少，毁坏环境的迹象自然就不太可能出现。此外，论述者称，Myria国据报道几乎没有任何环境遭破坏的证据，无论是对其国家公园还是对于其他地方。实际上，Myria国可能发生过巨大的环境破坏，只不过出于诸如政治或经济的原因而没有将其公诸于众罢了。

　　此外，文中没能提及Myria国对使用国家公园究竟收取了多少费用。它所收取的费用可能要比Illium国早就在收取的国家公园使用费远低得多。Myria国对使用国家公园收取费用，这一事实本身并不意味着Illium国就应该收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动。如果这样的话，这绝不是一种合乎逻辑的推理。除此之外，Illium国有可能对这类公园用途早就在收取一种非常高昂的费用。纯粹收取更高的费用，无论土地如何被使用，均无法显示出任何差别。

　　最后，这段论述中最为突出的漏洞在于最后一句中的逻辑推理。论述者宣称，通过向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用，Illium国将有助于为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。整个问题的关键事实在于，单纯向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用对于保护土地而言无济于事——这些费用应该以某种富有建设性的方式积极用来保护这些特定的环境区域才会有益。如此看来，这项论述受到了致命的削弱，因为它仅仅号召去征收这些费用，却并不表明，这些费用将如何被用来保护Illium国的国家公园和荒郊野地的未来。

　　总而言之，论述者将其论点建立在极为贫乏的证据和两个可能是迥然有别的国家之间的某种虚假类比之上。论述中几乎不含有任何事实性的信息来使读者相信，向使用公园者收取更多的费用，以同意他们从事某些带有沉重环境后果的活动，这样做就可以防止Illium国的环境遭到破坏。此外，论述者所提出的建议，即仅靠向过度使用公共土地的人们征收更高的费用将有助于保护这些土地，又极其严重地削弱了此项论述。如果不拿出确凿的证据来证明，收取较高公园使用费与该国保护其国家公园和荒郊野地的能力之间存在着直接关联，那么，这一论述便无法论证其命题，故应予摈弃。

嘉文博译郑重声明：