GRE作文范文 Issue-37

“If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This is a type of Machiavellian statement that has led many a leader down the wrong path to destruction. There are plenty of worthy goals that are truly desirable and that could be beneficial for the entire world. Then there are other goals that may be worthy for some but detrimental to others. Part of the problem is in defining what is a “worthy” goal. Even assuming that a goal is truly worthy, it is an extremely broad overstatement to say that just because a certain goal is worthy, then whatever it takes to reach that goal is justifiable.

To begin with, one must define what is a worthy goal. What may be a worthy goal for one person may not be a worth goal for another. Is it a worthy goal to desire to have a million dollars? Is it a worthy goal to want to own a beautiful home? What about the goal of having a beautiful rich wife or a handsome wealthy husband? Certainly as individuals we can say that these indeed are worthy goals. But when you look at these goals in the context of an entire society, these goals may not be commendable to the population as a whole and may in fact be detrimental to their individual well being, particularly when the individual tries to reach these goals.

Furthermore, some goals that on the surface may appear to be admirable and worthy may actually be for personal gain only. Consider the politician whose stated goal is to be elected to office in order to serve the needs of the people. While this would seem to be a laudable goal, perhaps something more sinister lurks underneath, such as the lust for power or an individual propensity for corruption. Additionally, there have been many examples in the past of religious leaders whose goals were praiseworthy and commendable on the outside. In several cases, however, it came to the public’s attention that the money that they had been raising for their so-called “worthy” goals had in fact been used to support their very luxurious homes and the very same self-indulgent, immoral lifestyles that they had been preaching so vehemently against. One needs to look beyond the stated goal to see what end is truly trying to be accomplished.

Finally, just because a goal is truly worthy does not justify any means to achieve it. Certainly it is a worthy goal to desire to eliminate a particular disease, but it does not mean that it is acceptable to kill every human that has the disease in order to eradicate it. It is a creditable goal to want to save the environment from pollution, but closing down all factories and industries because they pollute would be disastrous to the world. The goal of lowering birth rates in developing countries to ease the suffering of their populations may very well be a praiseworthy goal, but forced sterilization of their citizens is certainly out of the question. The elimination of deaths caused by traffic accidents is unquestionably a creditable goal, yet the elimination of all automobiles is a ludicrous proposition.

In summary, there are may be some extremely rare instances when reaching a goal may justify any means required to achieve it, but is hard to imagine what such a goal would be. It is difficult enough to come up with a goal that benefits an entire population and that is truly worthy. To say that any means are justified to reach that goal may very well be impossible when one considers that wide range of repercussions that may follow from such actions.

参考译文

如果某个目标是值得追求的，那么为了达到这个目标所采取的任何手段都是正当的。

　　这是一种马基雅维利式的说法，它导致许多领导人沿着错误的道路走下去直至灭亡。有许许多多值得追求的并且会对整个世界有益的目标。但是也有许多对某些人是有价值的但对其他人是有害的目标。问题的所在是如何界定什么才是“值得追求的”目标。即使假定某个目标的确是值得追求的，但如果有人说因为某个目标值得追求所以不管采取什么手段达到这一目标都是正当的，那么，这便是一种过于宽泛的夸张说法。

　　首先，我们必须对什么是值得追求的目标作出界定。对一个人来说能成为值得追求的目标对另一个人来说可能不能算作值得追求的目标。希望拥有一百万美元算不算一种值得追求的目标？希望拥有一个漂亮的家算不算一种值得追求的目标？想拥有一个漂亮而又富有的妻子或者一个英俊而又有钱的丈夫，这种目标又该如何看待？毫无疑问，作为个人，我们可以说所有这些都算得上是值得追求的目标。但当你把这些目标置于整个社会这一框架下加以审视时，这些目标对于所有人来说不一定全都是值得称道的目标，并实际上有可能是有害于他们的个人福祉，尤其是当这些个人企图去实现这些目标的时候。

　　总而言之，有些目标表面看来是很高尚的也是值得追求的，但实际上可能仅仅关涉个人利益。请看一个政客，所宣称的目标是为了当选以便服务于民众的需要。尽管这一目标表面看来可称可赞，但是其后很可能隐藏着某种阴险邪恶的企图，例如权力欲或者腐败倾向。此外，过去已有许多宗教领袖的实例可证明这一点。这些人的目标从外面看来的确可称可赞。然而，公众却注意到他们在募集金钱时是为了所谓的“有价值有意义的”目标，但这些钱实际上却被用于支付他们奢侈住宅的费用，满足他们荒淫的、不道德的生活方式，而这些恰恰是他们在布道时最激烈反对的。所以，我们需要透过人们口头所声称的目标来看清人们意欲达到的真正目标。

　　最后，仅仅因为一个目标是有价值的，并不能作为人们为达到该目标就采取任何手段的正当理由。诚然，试图消除某种疾病是一个有价值的目标，但是这并非意味着为了消除该疾病而杀死每个患者是可以接受的。想拯救环境免受污染是一个值得称颂的目标，但是因为工厂污染环境就关闭所有的工厂却是人类的灾难。发展中国家降低出生率以缓解其人口的苦难，这一目标是值得称赞的，但强迫公民做绝育手术却是不可取的。消除交通事故所造成的伤亡，无疑是一个很好的目标，但是将所有的汽车赶尽“杀”绝却是一个荒唐的主意。

　　总而言之，可能有一些极个别的例子说明目标的实现可以证明所采用的手段是正当的。然而我们很难想像这是一个什么样的目标。提出一个目标，它既能有利于人类，又的确有价值有意义，这不是那么容易的。当我们考虑到任何行动所产生的广泛影响时，我们就不会说为了达到某一目标采取任何手段都是正当的了。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-37

“ Humans arrived in the Kaliko Islands about 7,000 years ago, and within 3,000 years most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests of the Kaliko Islands had become extinct. Yet humans cannot have been a factor in the species' extinctions, because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Further, archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where the bones of fish had been discarded, but they found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals, so the humans cannot have hunted the mammals. Therefore, some climate change or other environmental factor must have caused the species' extinctions.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that humans arrived on the Kaliko islands seven thousand years ago and within three thousand years, most of the large mammal species that had lived in the forests there had become extinct. The arguer attempts to convince the reader that it was not humans that caused the extinction but that it was climate change or some other environmental factor that caused the species’ extinction. For support, the arguer claims that there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the animals. The arguer also claims that archaeologists have discovered numerous sites where fish bones have been discarded but no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore humans could not have hunted the mammals. This argument unconvincingly attempts to apply ambiguous evidence to prove the point but fails to address other possibilities that explain such evidence.

In the first place, the arguer states that humans cannot have been a factor simply because there is no evidence that the humans had any significant contact with the mammals. Simple logic would indicate that significant contact was likely. First of all, an island is a closed environment so it is likely that humans and the mammals would be forced to interact at some point during their four thousand year period of coexistence. Secondly, a lack of evidence after thousands of years have passed does not mean that humans cannot have been a factor – such evidence could have easily disintegrated or disappeared over such a long time. Finally, assuming that there was no significant contact between humans and mammals, the humans could have caused the mammals extinction without ever even touching them by destroying their food sources or natural habitats. Many species today are facing extinction due not to the animals being killed by humans, but by the elimination of their food sources and living environments. Failing to address these possibilities critically weakens the argument.

Furthermore, the arguer cites numerous sites where archaeologists have uncovered discarded fish bones, but that the archaeologists have found no such areas containing the bones of large mammals; therefore indicating that humans cannot have hunted the animals. Again, the arguer jumps to an illogical conclusion by failing to address other possibilities explaining the situation. First of all, it is possible that the humans did indeed hunt the large mammals for food, and ate the bones as well so that none were left behind as evidence. Many cultures today eat the bones (as well as all other parts) of mammals so it is a distinct possibility that there was simply nothing left of the mammals to be found by the archaeologists. Another possibility is that the humans discarded the bones in another manner where they could not be found by archaeologists, perhaps by burning them or throwing them into the ocean. The mere lack of a site containing the bones of large mammals proves nothing. By ignoring these other very viable possibilities, the argument again fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer jumps to the conclusion that humans cannot have been responsible for the extinction of the large mammals of the Kaliko Islands based on ambiguous evidence that does not prove anything with certainty. To make the argument stronger, the arguer should include direct evidence that proves that humans did not hunt the animals to extinction, nor did they destroy the mammals’ food supplies and natural habitat. Without such information, the argument is pure speculation and nothing more than a statement of the arguer’s opinion.

参考译文

　　人类约在7,000年之前抵达Kaliko群岛，在3,000年不到的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种已宣告灭绝。然而，人类的存在不可能是导致这些物种灭绝的一个因素，因为没有任何证据可证明人类与哺乳动物之间有过任何重大的接触。此外，考古学家还发现了多个有鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但他们却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址，故人类不可能曾猎杀过哺乳动物。因此，肯定是某种气候变迁或其他的环境因素导致了这些物种的灭绝。

　　在以上述论中，论述者称，人类在7,000年之前就已抵达Kaliko群岛，而在不到3,000年的时间内大多数栖息在Kaliko群岛森林中的大型哺乳动物物种便已宣告灭绝。论述者试图让读者相信，导致这一灭绝的因素不是人类，而是某种气候变迁或者其他某些环境因素。为了提供依据，论述者宣称，没有任何证据可证明人类曾与动物有过重大的接触。论述者此外还宣称，考古学家已发现了多处鱼骨遭弃置的遗址，但却没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址；因此，人类不曾猎杀过哺乳动物。这一论断难以令人信服地试图用模棱两可的证据来证明其论点，但却没能探讨有可能解释这类证据的其他可能性。

　　 首先，论述者宣称，人类不可能是动物灭绝的一个因素，仅仅是因为没有证据能表明人类曾与哺乳动物有过重大的接触。哪怕是最简单的逻辑推理便可表明重大的接触有可能发生过。首先，任何一座岛屿均是一个封闭的环境，因此人类和动物有可能在其共处的4,000年期间的某些时候被迫发生过互动。其次，在数千年的时间已过去之后，证据的缺乏并不意味着人类不可能成为动物灭绝的一个因素——这类证据可能在如此漫长的时间内已经很容易地消散或消失。最后，即使假定人类和哺乳动物之间真的没有过重大的接触，人类也可以在甚至根本不触及哺乳动物的情况下，通过破坏其食物来源或自然栖息地而导致它们的灭绝。时至今日，许多物种濒临灭绝，不是因为动物正在遭到人类的捕杀，而是因为它们的食物来源和生存环境正在被毁灭。该项论述因没有探讨这些可能性而遭到削弱。

　　此外，论述者还列举了考古学家已发现存在鱼骨的多处遗址，但同时又指出考古学家根本没有发现含有大型哺乳动物骨头的这类遗址。据此，论述者指出人类不可能猎杀过动物。这里，论述者再度过于轻率地得出了一个有悖逻辑的结论，因为他（或她）没能去探讨有可能解释这一情形的其他可能性。首先，人类有可能确实猎杀过大型哺乳动物以获取食物，并把动物的骨头一起吃掉，因此就没有任何骨头遗留下来可充当证据。在当今社会的许多文化中，人们都有吃哺乳动物的骨头（以及身体的所有其他部分）的习俗，因此，一个显著的可能性便是，哺乳动物身上就只能没有任何东西遗留下来供考古学家去发现。另一种可能性是，人类以另一种方式来弃置动物的骨头，从而使考古学家无从发现，可能是将骨头焚毁，或丢入大海。缺乏含有大型哺乳动物骨头的遗址，纯粹这一点不能证明什么。由于忽略了这样一些甚为可行的其他可能性，这一论断又一次无法令人信服。

　　总而言之，论述者过于草率地得出结论，说人类对Kaliko群岛大型哺乳动物的灭绝不负有责任，因为它所依据的是无法确凿证明任何东西的模棱两可的证据。若要使这段论述更具力度，论述者应该囊括直接的证据来证明，人类没有将动物猎杀到灭绝的境地，并证明人类也没有破坏哺乳动物的食物供给和野外栖息地。没有此类信息，该段论述纯属臆想和推测，所陈述的仅是论述者的主观看法而已。

嘉文博译郑重声明：