GRE作文范文 Issue-40

“Most important discoveries are accidental: it is usually while we are seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

It could be said that almost no discoveries are accidental because human beings are always looking for something, whether it is peace of mind or the answer to the origins of life itself. Humans are a curious lot – always questioning their surroundings and looking for answers. However, it cannot be denied that many times, although it is not necessarily the usual situation, we find the answer to a question when we were looking for the solution to a problem, rather than the answer to that particular question.

To begin with, history is chock full of examples of “accidental” discoveries that have played tremendously important roles in human development. While there may be an argument about whether such discoveries were truly accidents or not, one cannot deny that many discoveries were based on a series of fortuitous events that were not necessarily what the researcher had planned. However, it is difficult to ascribe to pure accident many of the most famous “accidental” discoveries.

It is true that there have been many inventions and discoveries credited to discovery by accident. Velcro, nylon, x-rays, polyethylene, vulcanized rubber and sugar substitutes have all been discovered more or less by chance, or at least by an unplanned series of circumstances. One of the all-time greatest “accidental” discoveries in this category would have to be that of penicillin. Alexander Fleming, a Scottish scientist, found that a bacterial sample that he was studying had become contaminated with mold, which inhibited the further development of the bacteria. Although the discovery of the drug penicillin itself was an accident, Fleming had previously researched the development of antibiotics during World War I. Additionally, more than three thousand years ago, Chinese people used moldy soybean curd as a poultice for boils and other skin infections. Warm earth, containing mold and other fungi, was also used by some cultures as a first-line treatment against infection thousands of years ago. Even though the final naming and refinement of the ultimate drug that we now know as penicillin was discovered by “accident”, it was more than a mere accident that led to its discovery.

Similarly, one can look at the “accidental” discovery of vulcanized rubber. An experimenter named Charles Goodyear had become interested in the substance of pure rubber, which could be used for many things but still had problems in its natural state. It would become brittle in cold weather, and melt in hot weather, which made it unacceptable for use in most climates. Mr. Goodyear began conducting many experiments on the substance, combining the pure rubber with many different chemicals. However, it was a fortuitous event that led to his greatest discovery. One experiment led him to combine sulfur with the pure rubber, whereupon he accidentally dropped the mixture onto a red-hot stove. Rather than melting, the substance formed into a disk-like object. It maintained its ability to stretch even when he put it outside into the cold winter air. Although Mr. Goodyear had been trying for five years to fix the problems with rubber, he “accidentally” discovered the process of vulcanization, which gives rubber strength, elasticity and durability.

Both of these examples are among the most widely cited “accidental” discoveries that have made great contributions to modern society. Although the actual sequence of events that led directly to the discovery could be deemed accidental, it was the search for answers to a particular problem that led the scientists or researchers to look in that general area anyway. While we may not find the answer to exactly the question we were originally concerned with, it is in the pursuit of knowledge in a particular area that we will usually find the answer to the question at hand.　

参考译文

最重大的科研发现都是随机偶然的：往往存在着这样的情况，当我们在寻找某一问题之答案时，我们碰巧获得了另一个问题的解答。

　　可以说几乎没有任何科学发现是随机偶然的，因为人类总是在为着某一事物或目标而寻寻觅觅，无论所要寻觅的东西是心境的平静，抑或是有关生命本身之起源的解答。人类实乃一充满好奇心的生物种类——总是在探究其所处的环境，寻求各种答案。然而，我们也不能否认，在许多时候，虽然并不必定是在经常性的情况下，当我们在寻找一个问题的答案时，会意外地发现另一个问题的答案，而不是原来那个特定问题的答案。

　　首先，人类历史充斥着在人类发展过程中曾发挥过极其重大作用的“偶然性”发现的实例。虽然对于这些发现是否真正属于偶然性事件可能尚有争论，但不能否认的是，许多这些发现基于一系列并非必然是研究人员计划好的巧合事件。但是，将许多最为著名的“偶然性”发现归诸于纯粹的巧合，亦是非常不切实际的。

　　诚然，有许多发明和发现已被人们归诸于随机性事件。维可牢，尼龙，X－线，聚乙烯，热补橡胶和蔗糖替代品等，无一不是通过那些或多或少是碰运气的过程而被发现的，或至少是经由一系列非人为策划的情况所致。在这一范畴中，青霉素堪称人类历史上最伟大的“偶然性”发现之一。苏格兰科学家Alexander Fleming发现他正在研究的一种细菌样本被霉菌所感染，而该霉菌遏制了细菌的进一步发育。尽管青霉素这一药物本身的发现纯属偶然，但是，Fleming在此之前已在第二次世界大战期间进行过抗菌素的研发。此外，早在三千年之前，中国人已使用发霉的豆腐作为膏药来治疗烫伤及其他各类皮肤感染。含有霉菌和其他真菌的热土数千年前也被有些文化用作防止传染的首要医治手段。尽管我们现在所知道的青霉素，其终极药物的最后命名及精炼是通过“凑巧”而被发现的，但导致其发现的并非只是一次偶然事件。

　　同样地，我们可以来分析一下热补橡胶的“偶然性”发现。一位名叫Charles Goodyear的实验人员对纯橡胶的物质产生了浓厚的兴趣。纯橡胶可用来做许多事情，但在自然状态下仍存在诸多问题。在寒冷的气候下，它会变得易于碎裂，但在炎热气候下则易于融化，这些问题使它在大多数气候状况下无法使用。Goodyear先生开始对这一物质进行研究，在纯橡胶中加入许多不同的化学品。但是，只是出于一次偶然的幸运事件，才得以导致了他那最伟大的发现。在一次实验中，他必须将硫磺和纯橡胶混合在一起。在实验过程中，他不小心将混合剂掉到一火红的炉子上。混合剂非但没有融化，相反，它形成了一个盘状物。即使当他把这一物质放到室外寒冷的隆冬空气中，它仍保持着伸缩的特性。虽然Goodyear先生五年当中一直在努力解决纯橡胶的种种问题，但他却是“偶然地”发现了热补这一过程，使橡胶具有了力度、弹性、和耐用性。

　　这只不过是许多最广为人们津津乐道的对现代社会作出巨大贡献的“偶然性”发现中的两个实例。尽管直接导致这些发现的一系列实际事件可被视作“偶然的”，但不管怎么说，正是对某一特定问题之答案的求索才导致科学家或科研人员朝着那个大方向进行探索。虽然我们并不一定能寻找到我们原初所关注的那个问题的确切答案，但在追求某一特定领域的知识的过程中，我们往往会寻找到所考虑的那一问题的答案。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-40

"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the president of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce claims that the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, which caused an immediate decline in vandalism. The president then states that his city of Amburg began bicycle police patrols in its business district but the rate of vandalism has been unchanged. The president then comes to the conclusion that Amburg should install high intensity lighting throughout the city, as it is apparently the most effective way to fight crime, which would then lead to a revitalization of the declining neighborhoods in the city. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and it should therefore be rejected.

First of all, the arguer does not state whether Belleville only installed high intensity lighting or also made some other changes, such as more frequent police patrols. It is unclear whether the high intensity lighting was the only change made in Belleville’s central business district. There may have been factors other than just the lighting that caused the decline in vandalism, which makes this argument less believable.

Secondly, the arguer does not state whether the cities and business districts of Belleville and Amburg are similar to each other or very different. It is possible that Belleville’s central business district is very small, which would make high intensity lighting much more effective at preventing vandalism than in a very large business district. Without addressing the issue of whether the two business districts are similar or dissimilar, the arguer has further weakened his or her argument.

Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the city of Amburg has recently begun police bicycle patrols but that the rate of vandalism has remained unchanged. The arguer fails to mention how many policemen patrol the area and how often – one policeman patrolling the area one or two times every twenty-four hours would be highly unlikely to make much of a difference in the area. By failing to discuss this issue, the argument is further weakened.

In addition, the arguer comes to the conclusion that high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime. The argument is already based on weak and ambiguous information, but here the arguer makes a critical mistake by equating vandalism with crime. In the argument, the arguer discusses the rates of vandalism in both Belleville and Amburg but never mentions other violations of the law that make up “crime”. It is possible that the high intensity lighting in Belleville has reduced vandalism but that other crimes such as muggings or burglaries have remained the same or increased. A reduction in vandalism is not necessarily a reduction in the number of overall crimes committed. By discussing vandalism and crime as one and the same, the arguer has critically weakened his or her argument.

Finally, the president states that installing high intensity lighting throughout Amburg will reduce crime and thus revitalize declining neighborhoods. First of all, residents of Amburg undoubtedly do not want high intensity lighting everywhere, particularly in residential neighborhoods where the resulting “light pollution” could keep residents awake at night. Furthermore, even assuming that the lighting would reduce crime, a reduction in crime does not automatically result in a revitalized neighborhood. Less crime would be a good start but there are numerous other factors involved with actually revitalizing a neighborhood, such as renovating derelict buildings, improving the economy, etc.

In summary, the arguer has failed to address some important issues and comes to his or her conclusion based on the false analogy between vandalism and crime. To strengthen the argument, the president should present evidence that shows that Amburg and Belleville have similar business districts, that high intensity lighting is the sole reason for a reduction in all crime, and that installing the lighting throughout Amburg would both be acceptable to residence as well as reduce crime. Without such evidence, the argument is fatally weak and fails to convince on its premise.

参考译文
下述文字摘自Amburge商会主席的一份书面建议:

　　“去年10月，Belleville市在其中央商务区安装了高密度的照明系统，那里毁坏公共设施的行为几乎即刻下降。Amburg市最近已开始实行警察骑着自行车在其商务区进行巡察的制度，但毁坏公共设施的比例依然居高不下。既然高密度照明系统显然是最有效的方法来与犯罪行为作斗争，我们就应该在Amburg市的所有地方安装此类照明系统。通过以这种方式减少犯罪，我们便能为本市越来越不景气的各个社区重新注入活力。”

　　在以上论述中，Amburg市的商会主席称，Belleville市在其中央商务区安装了高密度的照明系统，从而致使毁坏公共设施的罪行立刻下降。这位主席先生接着宣称，虽然他所在的Amburg市已在其商业区实施警察自行车巡察制度，但毁坏公共设施的犯罪率一如既往地居高不下。这位主席最后得出结论，认为Amburg市应在全市所有地段安装高密度的照明系统，因为它显然是对付这种犯罪的最佳途径，而这又可以使市内越来越不景气的各社区重新恢复活力。然而，我们可以发现这种论述完全基于颇成问题的逻辑推理，故理应予以摈弃。

　　 首先，论述者没能陈述清楚Belleville市是否仅安装了高密度的照明系统，还是也进行了某些其他方面的改进，诸如更为频繁的警察巡逻。我们无法明确知道高密度照明系统的安装是否是Belleville市在中央商务区所作的唯一改进。除了照明系统本身以外，可能还有其他因素导致了毁坏公物罪行的下降。这一点就足以使该论述不那么可信了。

　　第二，论述者没有陈述清楚Belleville和Amburge这两个城市及其商业区是否相似还是绝然不同。情况有可能是，Beleville市的中央商务区规模非常小，这就使得高密度照明系统比在大型商业区更能有效地防止毁坏公共设施行为的发生。由于没能澄清两个商业区是相似还是相异这一问题，论述者进一步削弱了其自己的论点。

　　再者，论述者提到，Amburg市最近也开始实行警察自行车巡逻制度，但毁坏公物的犯罪率却仍然没有变化。论述者没有提到有多少警察在巡视这一地区以及巡逻的频繁程度如果——如果只有一个警察每24小时只在一地巡逻一次或二次，是极不可能产生太大变化的。由于没有探讨这一问题，这一论述遭到了进一步的削弱。

　　此外，论述者得出这样一个结论，即高密度照明系统显然是打击犯罪的最有效途径。我们发现，该论述早就是基于缺乏力度的和模棱两可的信息，但即使在这里，论述者由于将毁坏公共设施行为与犯罪行为混为一谈，又犯下了一个殊为严重的错误。在其论述中，论述者讨论了Belleville和Amburg两市毁坏公共设施行为的比例，但却从来没有提到其他一些足以构成”罪行”的违法行为。情况有可能是，Belleville市的高密度照明系统已减少了毁坏公共财物的行为，但诸如从背后袭击并抢劫、入室偷盗等其他犯罪行为却依然如故，或有所增加。毁坏公共财物这一犯罪行为的减少并不必定等于所犯罪行的总量已经减少。由于将毁坏公共财物的行为与犯罪当作同一概念来讨论，论述者甚为严重地削弱了自己的论述。

　　最后，商会主席称，在Amburg全市安装高密度照明系统将能降低犯罪率，并由此而重振一个个不景气的社区。首先，Amburg市民肯定不希望市内每个地方都出现高密度照明系统，尤其是在居住区，因为随之而来的“光污染”终将使小区居民整夜无法入睡。另外，即使我们假定照明系统可以降低犯罪率，但犯罪率的降低并不会自然而然地带来社区的重振与繁荣。犯罪的减少不失为一个良好的开端，但要真正恢复社区的繁荣还涉及到许多其他因素，诸如改造被人遗弃的危旧楼房，以及改善经济状况等。

总而言之，论述者没能探讨某些重要问题，只是基于毁坏公共财物行为与犯罪之间的虚假类比而得出了他/她的结论。若欲使其论点更具力度，商会主席应该拿出证据来说明，Amburg与Belleivlle两市拥有相似的商业区，高密度照明系统是减少所有罪行的唯一原因，以及在Amburg全市安装这种照明系统不仅能让全市居民们接受，而且亦能减少犯罪。在没有这些证据的情况下，商会主席的论述带有致命薄弱的逻辑缺陷，且无以让人信服其命题。

嘉文博译郑重声明：