GRE作文范文 Issue-38

“Society should identify those children who have special talents and abilities and begin training them at an early age so that they can eventually excel in their areas of ability. Otherwise, these talents are likely to remain underdeveloped.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The role of raising children is undeniably best left to the child’s parents, not society as a whole. It is not the job of society to judge what a child’s talents or abilities are, nor to train that child at an early age. However, once that child’s special skills or aptitudes become apparent, society and the parents should do everything that they can to encourage the development of such abilities as long as the child agrees and desires to participate. No child should ever be pushed into a training program or special school if they do not wish to do so.

Firstly, society does play a role in the development of a child, albeit a much smaller role than that of the child’s family. One cannot deny outside influences such as schools, churches and peer groups. But the role of the parents and siblings is paramount. It is the parent’s job to raise the children, not society’s. However, should a coach or teacher see some special talent or ability in a child, it is incumbent upon him or her to let the parents know that they have an exceptional child. Perhaps they can even encourage the child to develop those skills if the child shows an interest. But the main burden of responsibility for the child’s overall development remains with the parents.

Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, is the fact that if a child does show some special aptitude for something, they should not be forced into focusing on that particular skill if they do not wish to do so. There are far too many stories of adults who had horrible childhoods because well-meaning parents required intense training or practice for something that the child hated. Too much emphasis on one area may make the child rebel against it, even if they actually do excel at the activity. As an example, very few child actors, who are usually introduced into acting through well-meaning parents, continue with acting careers into adulthood. Additionally too many former child actors run into problems in adolescence and adulthood, often running afoul of the law with drug and alcohol problems. Although they may have truly been gifted child actors, having been forced into the profession causes too many problems later on in life.

Thirdly, all human beings have an inalienable right to self-determination, even to a certain extent as children. Children must be allowed to grow up at their own rate. Psychologists have done studies on so called “child prodigies” who show tremendous intelligence and learning aptitude at a young age. Some of these child prodigies have graduated from universities before even reaching their teen years. But studies have shown that lack of association with children their own age causes many problems. These child prodigies were forced to grow up too fast without the benefit of a normal childhood. By the time they reach adulthood, they begin to feel that they missed out on childhood and may experience psychological problems related to being pushed through school too quickly. Some of them are even ashamed of being so intelligent and try to hide these abilities later on in life. Even children with special aptitudes must be allowed to choose for themselves whether they pursue these skills or not.

To summarize, it is the parents and not a society that bears the responsibility for raising children. Should society or parents recognize some special talents or abilities in a child, every effort must be taken to ensure that the child is given the chance to develop these skills, while at the same time the child must not be forced into developing these talents against his or her own will.

参考译文

社会应该识别那些具有特殊禀赋和才能的儿童，从早期就开始教育培养他们，这样，他们就必然会在他们具有天赋的领域中脱颖而出。否则，这些天赋很有可能悉遭湮没。

　　培养孩子的任务是无可非议地交给了父母，而不是整个社会。判断一个儿童具有什么才具和能力，并不是社会的工作，对儿童早期的教育也不是社会的工作。然而，一旦儿童的特殊才能显露出来，那么社会和父母都应该尽最大力量使这样的才能得到发展，当然，是在儿童同意并期望参与的情况下。倘若儿童不情愿，他就不应该被强迫进行专门训练或进入专业学校学习。

　　首先，社会在儿童的发展中确确实实起着作用，尽管这种作用比起家庭的作用小得多。我们无法否认外界对儿童的影响，例如学校、教会、成人群体等等。但是父母和兄姊的作用是至关重要的。抚养孩子的工作应该是父母的，而不是社会的。诚然，如果某位教练或老师发现某个儿童拥有特殊的才能，他/她就有义务让其父母知道这个孩子很出类拔萃。或许，如果孩子有兴趣，父母应鼓励孩子去发展那些才能。然而，孩子全面发展的责任，自然是在父母。

　　其次，或许更重要的是，如果孩子确实表现出对某事物的特别才能，成人不应该强迫他们集中所有的精力来培养这种特别才能，如果他们不情愿的话。我们有太多的故事可说明有些成年人的童年是多么的可怕，原因就是他们好心的父母要求对孩子进行苛刻的训练，但孩子却不喜欢。对某一方面强调过分，就会使孩子产生逆反心理，即便他们实际上的确在该方面很优秀。比如，几乎没有任何儿童演员能将其演艺生涯持续到成年，这些儿童多是由好意的父母要其演戏的。此外，还有许多这样的儿童演员在青年时期和成年时期陷入麻烦，常见的是因吸毒或酗酒陷入法律诉讼。尽管他们很可能是很有才能的儿童演员，但是由于是被迫从事这个职业，所以在以后的生活中造成很多麻烦问题。

　　再其次，每个人都有自主的权力。这是一种不可剥夺的权力，在某种意义上儿童亦复如此。儿童应该遵循其自身的发展而成长起来。心理学家对所谓的“神童”进行了大量的研究，这些所谓的“神童”在早年表现出异乎寻常的智力和学习能力。这类神童中的有些人在到达青少年年纪前就已大学毕业。但研究表明，因为他们缺乏与其同龄人的交往，产生了许多问题。这些天才儿童没能经历正常的童年而被迫成长过快。当他们成年后，就开始感到他们错过了儿童时代，因而会经历与过快度过学校时光相关的心理障碍。有些甚至为聪明而倍感羞愧并且试图在以后的生活中埋藏其才能。所以，即使是具有特殊才能的儿童也应该自主选择是否应该追求这些技能的发展。

　　总之，是父母而不是社会应该对培养孩子负责。倘若社会或父母发现孩子具有某种特殊天赋或才能，应该尽最大努力以保证孩子有机会发展这种才能。同时，不应该强迫孩子违背自己的意愿去发展这种才能。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-38

“Society should identify those children who have special talents and abilities and begin training them at an early age so that they can eventually excel in their areas of ability. Otherwise, these talents are likely to remain underdeveloped.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"At the small, nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda, the average length of a patient's stay is two days; at the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville, the average patient stay is six days. Also, the cure rate among patients in the Saluda hospital is about twice that of the Megaville hospital. The Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the hospital in Megaville, and there are few complaints about service at the local hospital. Such data indicate that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals."

This story concludes that treatment in smaller, nonprofit hospitals is more economical and of better quality than treatment in larger, for-profit hospitals. As evidence, the writer compares the average length of a patient’s stay between the small nonprofit hospital in the town of Saluda and the large, for-profit hospital in the nearby city of Megaville: two days for Saluda patients and six days for Megaville patients. Additionally, the writer claims that the cure rate for Saluda patients is about two times that of Megaville patients and that the Saluda hospital has more employees per patient than the Megaville hospital with fewer complaints about the service. This argument is based on problematic reasoning that possibly misinterprets the information, thus leading to the wrong conclusion.

The first claim of the arguer compares the average length of a patient’s stay between the two hospitals, with an average of six days for the Megaville hospital and two days for the Saluda hospital. However, this does not take into account the reasons that the patient’s are in the hospitals in the first place. It is highly likely that the worst cases go to the nearby and larger Megaville hospital as it likely has more facilities and a better capability for dealing with difficult medical cases. As a small nonprofit hospital, it is likely that Saluda is not equipped to handle cases other than minor emergency cases. Furthermore, because Saluda is a small hospital, they may be forced to discharge patients sooner whether they are ready to be sent home or not. When severity of the patients’ conditions is taken into account, as well as capacity limitations, it is clear that length of stay is not a proper indicator of a hospital’s economic performance or quality of care.

The arguer also claims that the cure rate among Saluda patients is about twice that of Megaville patients. One problem with this claim is that “cure rate” is not defined – is a woman that gives birth “cured” once she is discharged? Once a broken arm is set in the emergency room, has that patient been “cured”? Perhaps as a small nonprofit hospital, Saluda treats mainly minor emergency injuries such as sprains and fractures while Megaville treats major illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. It is likely that the so-called cure rate is dramatically affected by Saluda either not accepting the much more serious cases or referring them to the nearby Megaville hospital for treatment, which severely weakens the writer’s argument.

Furthermore, the arguer states that Saluda has more employees per patient with fewer complaints about service. Firstly, the number of employees per patient is not necessarily an indicator of better quality care – Saluda may have more administrative staff per patient than Megaville but fewer doctors and nurses that actually deal with each patient. Secondly, patients know that Saluda is a small nonprofit hospital and therefore do not have high expectations as they do at the larger, for-profit hospital at Megaville. Patients are very aware of the adage “you get what you pay for” and are therefore much less likely to complain at the smaller hospital. It is also possible that because the cases are much more minor and the average stays much shorter at the Saluda hospital, patients have less opportunity for complaining.

In summary, the writer fails to consider the other possible reasons for the information presented in the argument. Without addressing such considerations as the severity of the patients’ illnesses or injuries and whether a hospital’s employees are administrators or are actually involved in direct patient contact, the argument is weak and does not convince the reader that smaller, nonprofit hospitals give more economical and higher quality treatment than larger, for-profit hospitals.

参考译文
下述文字摘自某报纸主题故事。

　　在Saluda镇那座规模不大的非盈利性医院，病人住院的平均长度仅为两天；而在邻近的Megaville市的那家大型盈利性医院，病人住院的平均长度则是6天。此外，Saluda医院的病人治愈率大约是Megaville市医院的两倍。Saluda医院里员工与病人的比例也高于Megaville市医院，并且在这所地方医院，患者对服务质量的投诉也极少。所有这些数据均表明，小型非盈利性医院的医疗要比大型盈利性医院的医疗来得更加质优价廉。

　　上述故事的结论是，小型非盈利性医院的医疗服务要比大型盈利性医院的医疗服务来得更加质优价廉。作为证据，故事的作者将Saluda镇那所小型的非盈利性医院和附近Megaville市的那所大型盈利性医院在病人住院治疗的平均长度方面进行了比较——Saluda镇医院的病人为两天，Megaville市医院的病人则为6天。此外，故事作者称，Saluda病人的治愈率约为Megaville病人治愈率的两倍；并且，Saluda医院内职员与病人的比例高于Megaville医院，对服务质量的投诉亦较少。这段论述完全基于成问题的逻辑推理，很有可能误解了原有信息，因此导致了错误的结论。

　　 论述者的第一个论点将两所医院中病人平均住院时间的长度进行了比较，Megaville市医院为6天，而Saluda镇医院仅为2天。但是，这首先就没有考虑到病人入院治疗的原因。极有可能的是，最严重的病例会前往附近较大的市医院求治，因为它可能拥有更多的设备，且更能处理高难度的治疗个案。作为一所小型的非盈利性医院，Saluda可能除了处理一些轻微的急诊个案外，没有条件来处理其他个案。此外，由于Saluda只是一所小医院，他们可能被迫让病人更早办理出院手续，不管这些病人是否适宜被遣送回家。当病人身体状况的严重性和医院医疗能力的局限性全部被考虑在内之后，显而易见，住院时间的长短并不能恰当地表明一所医院的经济表现或医疗质量。

　　论述者此外还宣称，Saluda病人的治愈率约为Megaville病人治愈率的两倍。这一论点的其中一个问题在于，“治愈率”未得到清晰的定义——一位产妇的出院可否被视为“治愈”呢？手臂骨折后在急救室里进行处理，可否能将病人形容为“已被治愈”？或许，作为一家小型的非盈利性医院，Saluda主要治疗轻微的急诊个案，如扭伤和骨折，而Megaville则主要治疗重大疾病，如癌症和爱滋病。很有可能的是，由于 Saluda既不接受远为严重的个案，或将它们转往附近的Megaville医院进行救治，故它所谓的治愈率便受到了戏剧性的影响。这便严重地削弱了作者的论点。

　　另外，论述者称，Saluda的职员对病人的比例高于Megaville，且较少遭到服务质量方面的投诉。首先，医院职员对病人的比例并非必定标志着更好的医疗质量——Saluda可能是行政人员对病人的比例高出Megaville，而实际治疗病人的大夫和护士却数量来得较少。其次，病人们知道Saluda只是一所非盈利性小医院，因此他们对它并不会有太高的期望。而病人对Megaville较大的盈利性医院则不然。病人们都强烈地意识到“物有所值”这一至理名言，因此对小医院远不太可能进行投诉。也有可能是，由于在 Saluda医院各种个案远为轻微，且平均住院时间极短，故病人没有那么多的机会来进行投诉。

　　总而言之，故事作者没有考虑论述中所列举的信息的其他可然性原因。由于没有探讨这样一些必须考虑的因素，如病人疾病或受伤的严重程度，以及一所医院的职员是属于行政人员还是属于实际与病人直接打交道的医务人员，所以该段论述显得软弱无力，无法让读者相信，规模较小的非盈利性医院比规模较大的盈利性医院提供着更为质优价廉的医疗服务。

嘉文博译郑重声明：