GRE作文范文 Issue-39

“Too much time, money, and energy are spent developing new and more elaborate technology. Society should instead focus on maximizing the use of existing technology for the immediate benefit of its citizens.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

There is certainly something to be said in favor of a society trying to take full advantage of current technology to benefit its citizens. Too often there are too many people that are left behind by technology, and they therefore realize few if any advantages from the gains of science. But it would be a very shortsighted society that decided to cut back on research into new technologies to devote resources to ensuring that all of its citizens benefit from the state of current technologies.

First of all, it must be noted that any society must strive to ensure that as many citizens as possible benefit from advances in technology. The knowledge and expertise that are gained from science should not just benefit the privileged few. Leaders have realized this, and quite often social programs aim at providing access to the latest in technology for even the poorest members of society. As one example, many local governments in the United States fund social programs that provide free access to computers and the Internet through local libraries and community outreach programs for underprivileged citizens. Hospitals and clinics also provide the latest in health care technologies at reduced prices or even free to those who could not otherwise afford it. It would be ill advised or even misanthropic for a society to not endeavor to share technology within all levels of the community.

Secondly, research and development must continue in order to ensure that a civilization continues to advance and develop. Reducing the focus on development to make sure that everyone in society benefits from current technology would be equivalent to claiming that we know all that we need to know, so we should make sure that everyone learns and benefits from the current state of knowledge. However, is must be realized that the benefits that a society gains from the development of technology far outweigh its expenditures. As an example, consider the technological developments of the United States’ space program. Although originally developed for use in space travel and exploration, a tremendous amount of space technology has been adapted for use in normal, everyday products that have improved the quality and safety of people’s lives. Smoke detectors, Teflon non-stick coating, cordless power tools and a variety of protective clothing have all been developed using NASA technology. One of the latest advances is a miniature, implantable heart assist device based on space shuttle fuel pumps that can help patients with heart problems to survive and even live normal lives. These are but a few of the benefits that have been realized by an intense focus on researching and developing new technologies.

It is a tough argument to make sometimes when certain pressure groups or activists point out how much money is spent on technological research and development as opposed to how much money is spent on community and welfare programs. These groups are very vocal in quoting raw financial numbers that on the surface do seem to make it appear that the government cares more about technology than its people. But what these groups fail to note are the overall benefits that are gained from the technology that is developed from this research. It is impossible to put a dollar figure on the lives that have been saved or improved by developments in technology.

It is imperative that a society continue to devote as much time, money and energy as possible to the research and development of new technology. What we learn from this research today may turn out to save all of our lives or even the earth itself in the future.

参考译文

过多的时间、资金和精力都花在了开发新的和更为复杂的技术上。反之，社会应该把目光集中在最大限度地应用现有技术，以便使其公民获得直接利益。

　　我们当然可以说社会已经做了一些事情来充分利用现有的技术为公民谋取利益。常常是，有许多人被科技抛在了后边，因此，他们对科技给人们带来的好处认识不多。然而，如果一个社会群体决定切断对新技术的研究以便把所有的资源用于保证每一位公民都受益于现有的技术，那么可以说，这是一个目光短浅的社会群体。

　　首先，应该注意到，任何社会群体都必须努力保证尽量多的公民能从科技进步中获益。从科技中获得的知识和技能，不能只让少数特权阶层享受。领导者已经认识到这一点，而且常常有社会活动旨在为社会中甚至最贫穷的人提供掌握最新技术的机会。例如，美国许多地方政府资助某些社会项目，通过当地图书馆和社区扩大服务计划向弱势民众提供免费的电脑和因特网使用。医院和诊疗所降价提供最新的保健技术，而且甚至为负担不起降价费用的人们提供无偿服务。一个社会如果不努力在其所有阶层分享技术将是不明智的，甚至是不人道的。

　　其次，必须持续不断地进行研究开发，以保证一个文明社会能持续不断地进步和发展。减少对研发的投入以便保证社会中的每个人都能得益于现有的技术，这等于声明我们已经知道了我们所需知道的全部知识，因此我们应该保证每个人都学会并受益于现有的知识。然而，我们必须认识到，一个社会群体从技术研发中所获得的利益远远超过其在技术研发上所投入的花费。我们不妨看一下美国航天计划中所进行的技术研发。尽管航天技术最初的研发是用于宇宙航行和宇宙探索，但是现在大量的航天技术被应用于日常的普通产品，从而极大地改善了人民生活的质量和安全。烟雾探测器、聚四氟乙烯不沾性涂料、无绳式电动工具，以及各种各样的防护衣，都是利用美国国家航空和航天局的技术开发而成的。最近的一项进步是微型可移植心脏助博器，它是基于航天飞机油泵研制而成的，可以用来帮助心脏病患者存活甚至过上正常人的生活。这些仅是研究和开发新技术所带来的诸多裨益中的几个例子。

　　当某些施压集团和活动家把新技术研究和开发所用花费与用于社区建设和福利项目的花费进行比较时，进行正当的辩论就很困难。这些集团在引用原始财政数字说明政府更加关注技术而不是关注其人民时显得非常具有煽动性，因为这些数字表面上看确实如此。但是这些集团所未能看到的却是从新技术研发中所获得的整体利益。从技术开发中所拯救的人类生命以及所改善的人民生活，是不可能用小数字计算出来的。

　　一个社会群体，必须持续不断地付出尽量多的时间、资金和精力进行新技术的研究和开发。我们从今天的研究中所获得的知识，可能在将来拯救我们所有人的生活，甚至拯救我们的地球本身。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-39

"With continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets, and with new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, nationwide demand for sugar will no doubt decline. Therefore, farmers in our state should use the land on which they currently grow sugar cane to grow peanuts, a food that is rich in protein and low in sugar. Farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year, and their total revenues from that crop were quite high."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the writer claims that nationwide demand for sugar will decline due to continuing publicity about the need for healthful diets and new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar. The writer then concludes that farmers in his or her state should grow peanuts rather than sugar cane. As further support for the argument, the writer claims that farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year and had quite high total revenues from that crop. This argument is based on faulty logic and fails to convince the reader of its conclusion.

First of all, publicity about the need for a healthful diet and new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar do not necessarily indicate that the nationwide demand for sugar will decline. People in general ignore what is necessary for a healthful diet and eat what they like. Furthermore, it is not stated whether this state’s population currently eats too much sugar. It is possible that the sugar intake of the population is not a problem, therefore there does not need to be a reduction in the amount of sugar eaten. With no need to reduce the amount of sugar eaten, demand is unlikely to decline. The arguer states merely a conclusion that demand for sugar will decline without demonstrating a direct cause and effect relationship between that demand and the publicity about the need for a healthful diet and/or the new research about the harmful effects of eating too much sugar. This greatly weakens the writer’s argument.

In addition, the writer assumes that the farmers can actually grow peanuts on the same land on which they currently grow sugar cane. No such evidence is presented in the argument. The two are very different crops that likely require very different types of climate and soil. Without demonstrating that the farmers can make this transition, the writer again fails to support his or her conclusion.

Furthermore, peanuts and sugar are in no way substitutes for one another. The writer assumes that a decrease in demand for sugar will result in an increase in demand for peanuts, which is not true. Peanuts may be low in sugar content and high in protein, but they are also high in fat, which is not good for a healthful diet. Even assuming that this state’s population is concerned about a healthful diet or the harmful effects of eating too much sugar, there is no basis presented for the growing of peanuts instead of sugar. Again, the writer fails to make a direct connection between the evidence presented and his or her conclusion.

Finally, the writer mentions that farmers in the neighboring country of Palin greatly increased their production of peanuts last year and that their total revenues from that crop were quite high. Total revenue is the total amount of money brought in by the crop, without factoring in the farmers’ expenses. It is possible that although the total revenues were quite high, the farmers’ net income was quite low or may have even been net loss. In addition, the neighboring country of Palin may not be comparable to the writer’s state – demand for peanuts may be higher there, the climate and soil may be more suitable for growing peanuts, etc. It does not automatically follow that what happened in a neighboring country could be repeated in the writer’s home state.

In summary, the writer bases his or her conclusion on vague and ambiguous evidence. There is no convincing support given that shows that sugar demand will decline statewide, nor that farmers should grow peanuts instead of sugar. Without demonstrating such a cause and effect relationship, the writer’s argument fails to convince on its premise and should be rejected.

参考译文
下述文字摘自一封致某农村出版物的编辑的信函。

　　“随着持续不断的有关健康饮食必要性的宣传，以及对食用过多糖份所带来的有害后果所作的新研究，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。因此，本州农民应该将目前用来种植甘蔗的土地改为种植花生这种蛋白质含量高而糖份含量低的作物。邻国Palin的农民去年大幅度增加了其花生的生产，且他们从这一作物中获得的总收益十分可观。”

　　在以上论述中，信函作者称，由于有关健康饮食必要性的持续不断的宣传，以及对食用过多糖份的有害后果所作的新研究，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。这位作者随接得出结论认为，他（或她）所在的州的农民应该种植花生而非甘蔗。作为其论点的进一步依据，该作者称邻国Palin的农民去年大规模增加了其花生的生产并在该作物上获得了极为高额的总体收益。我们不难发现这段论述所依据的是漏洞百出的逻辑，无法让读者信服其结论。

　　 首先，有关健康饮食必要性的宣传以及对食用过多糖份的有害后果所作的新研究并不必定表明，全国范围内对糖的需求量将会下降。普通人是不会去管健康饮食包括哪些必要的东西；他们只是喜欢什么就吃什么。此外，信函中没有陈述该州的人们目前是否在食用过多的糖。有可能的是，这些人的糖份摄入量并不存在问题，因此没有必要减少所食用的糖量。在没有必要减少所食用的糖量的情况下，需求量就不可能下降。论述者仅仅陈述了糖的需求量将会下降这一结论，而没能证明在糖的需求量和有关健康饮食必要性的宣传及/或有关食用过多糖份的有害后果的新研究之间，存在着直接的因果关系。这一点就足以大大地削弱信函作者的论点。

　　此外，信函作者认为，农民们在他们目前种植甘蔗的土地上实际上也能种植花生。这方面的证据在文中无处可觅。这两种作物非常不同，可能需要非常不同的气候和土壤。在没能证明农民们可改种花生的情况下，信函作者又一次没能为其结论提供依据。

　　进一步而言，花生和甘蔗绝不可能互相替代。信函作者认为对糖需求量的下降必将导致对花生需求量的上升。这一点并不属实。花生有可能含糖量低，蛋白质含量高，但它们脂肪含量同样也很高，不宜于健康饮食。即使假定该州的人口非常关注健康饮食，以及食用过多的糖确实会造成有害后果，但文中没有任何依据可表明应种植花生来替代甘蔗。信函作者再度没能在所列举的证据和他（或她）所得出的结论之间建立起直接的联系。

　　最后，信函作者提到，邻国Palin的农民去年大幅度增加了花生的生产，并从该作物上获得了十分可观的总收益。总收益指的是由作物所带来的全部货币量，而没有计入农民的开支。情况有可能是，虽然总收益十分可观，但农民们的净收入却十分低，或甚至出现净亏损。还有，邻国Palin可能与作者所在的州不具可比性——那里对花生的需求量可能较高，气候和土壤有可能更宜于种植花生，等等。但这一点并不能让我们自然而然地得出结论，认为邻国所发生的一切可在信函作者自己的州内重演。

　　归纳而言，信函作者将其结论基于模糊不清的和模棱两可的证据。该作者没能举出令人信服的依据来证明全州范围内对糖的需求量将会下降，也没能证明农民们应该种植花生来替代甘蔗。在没能证明这样一种因果关系的情况下，该作者的论述无法让人相信其命题，故应予摈弃。

嘉文博译郑重声明：