GRE作文范文 Issue-43

“The best way to teach – whether as an educator, employer or parent – is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The cumulative benefits of praising positive actions can hardly be overestimated. People like to be recognized for the good things that they have done, whether in work, school or simply everyday life. Teaching methods should employ the praising of positive actions in the course of positive reinforcement, which has been proved to be beneficial in the learning process. While praising positive actions is beneficial and necessary, negative actions cannot be ignored without jeopardizing the entire learning process.

Firstly, one must realize that there are as many different methods of teaching as there are different types of people. Whether the teacher is an educator in a school system, an employer in a work situation or a parent training a child, the proper technique of teaching must be found for that particular person being taught. Different students learn better through different styles and methods of teaching. However, no matter what the method or style of teaching, it is fundamental that the teacher praise the positive actions of the person being taught. Positive reinforcement is an integral part of the learning process.

Though positive reinforcement can play a tremendous role as a motivator for the continuance of positive actions, negative actions cannot be simply ignored and expected to go away. Think about the situation of a small child that is being taught how to get along with other children. There is a natural tendency for children to be selfish with their things, to not want to share anything with any other child. The child may take more toys than he or she can play with at one time to keep for him or herself. Although the child may be doing everything else right, for example, playing quietly and using the toys in a proper manner, the negative action of hoarding toys cannot simply be ignored if the child is to learn to get along in society. Praising the positive actions of being quiet and playing properly with the toys will certainly encourage those positive behaviors, but this does not address the underlying problem of selfishness. To merely ignore the selfishness will not teach the child to share with others. In this case, it is easy to see that solely praising positive actions will not be the best way of teaching the child to get along with others.

Similarly, an employer cannot properly train employees by only praising positive actions and ignoring negative actions. Contemplate the situation where an employee does everything right – arrives on time for work, accomplishes tasks efficiently, never misses work and is pleasant and approachable in the work place. All of these are positive actions that should be praised and encouraged in any place of business. However, this particular employee must be told what to do for every task – the employee lacks the initiative to do anything on his or her own. This is a form of negative inaction that will keep the employee from reaching his or her full potential on the job. Simply praising the employee’s good characteristics while ignoring his or her lack of resourcefulness will never result in a better-trained employee. The boss must take a proactive stance to change the employee’s behavior and eliminate the negative action of waiting to be told what to do.

In summary, merely praising positive actions is not enough to properly teach or train a student, employee or child. Negative actions must actively be discouraged in order for the individual to learn properly. Positive reinforcement is a powerful motivator, but negative actions must be addressed to properly teach or train an individual whether in an academic, business or home environment.

参考译文

最好的教育方法——无论是作为教育者、雇主还是父母——是称赞正面行为，忽视负面行为

　　称赞正面行为所带来的整体好处，再多估量也不为过。人们做了好事喜欢得到承认，无论是在工作中、学习中还是在日常生活中皆是如此。教学方法应该运用在正强化过程中称赞正面行为这一做法，这在学习过程中被证明是有益的。虽然称赞正面行为是有益的而且是必要的，但负面行为却不应该被视而不见，因为这样会危害整个学习过程。

　　首先，我们应该认识到，有许许多多不同的教学方法，正如有许许多多不同类型的人一样。无论教育者是学校里的老师，工作环境中的雇主，还是训练子女的家长，都应该为受教育的那个人找到恰当的教育方式。不同的学生通过不同教学风格和方法可以学得更好。然而，不管教学风格和方法是什么，教育者称赞受教育者的正面行为，这是最基本的。正强化是学习过程不可分割的一部分。

　　尽管正强化作为正面行为持续存在的激励因素可以起到巨大作用，但是负面行为不能简单地被置若罔闻，以为它会自行消失。想一想一个受教育的孩子如何与其他孩子们玩。孩子们都有自私的倾向不想让其他孩子玩他们的玩具。这个孩子可能拿很多玩具，超过他/她一个人在一个时候所能玩的。虽然这孩子可能做其他事情都很正确，例如平静地玩耍以及正当地处理他/她的玩具，但是隐藏玩具这种负面行为却不应该被视而不见，倘若这孩子要学会在今后的社会里生活的话。称赞安静地玩以及正当地处理玩具这种正面行为，当然会鼓励这些正面行为，但是这并不能解决自私这一根本问题。忽视自私，并不会教育孩子与别人共享玩具。因此，很容易看清，仅仅称赞正面行为并不是教育孩子与别人和睦相处的最佳方法。

　　同样，一位雇主不可能靠仅仅称赞正面行为和忽视负面行为来恰当地培训雇员。想一想这种情况，一个雇员任何事情都做得不错——准时上班、效率很高、从未耽误工作，而且在单位与他人相处很好。所有这些在任何行业都是值得称赞和鼓励的正面行为，但是，这位雇员必须得有人告诉他该干什么——这位雇员缺乏工作的主动性。这是负面惰性的一种形式，它使雇员在工作中不能充分发挥潜力。仅仅称赞雇员的优点而忽视他缺乏主观能动性，永远也培养不出一个更加训练有素的雇员。老板必须采取积极的立场以改变雇员的行为，消除他等待吩咐这种负面行为。

　　总之，仅仅称赞正面行为不足以恰当地教育或培训一个学生、雇员或孩子。负面行为必须被正面地制止以便让受教育者正确地学习。正强化是一种有力的激励因素，但负面行为必须予以解决以便正确地教育或训练一个人。无论在学术领域，工作单位还是在家庭环境，皆是如此。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-43

"In order to prevent conflicts in the workplace, Rifco Computer Company should require all its employees to attend workshops that teach the technique of active listening, a technique in which people express feelings without assigning blame. This technique has clearly benefited Terland Publishing Company: five years ago, two hundred recently hired Terland employees volunteered to participate in a one-day active-listening workshop. Five years later, only five percent of these employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department, whereas the company as a whole had a fifteen percent complaint rate during that period."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

This argument is an attempt by the human resources department of Rifco Computer Company to persuade the company president that the company should require all employees to attend workshops that teach the technique of active listening to prevent conflicts in the workplace. As evidence, the arguer states that Terland Publishing Company has clearly benefited from sending two hundred employees to a one-day active listening workshop five years ago because only five percent of those employees had filed formal complaints with the human resources department while the company as a whole had a fifteen percent complaint rate during the same period. This argument is based on flawed logic and should be rejected.

First of all, the reason that the human resources department cites for sending all employees to the active listening workshop is to prevent conflict in the workplace. There is no evidence presented to support the idea that either attending the workshops or that the technique of active listening itself actually prevents conflicts. There could be several other reasons for the results indicated by the Terland Publishing Company’s active listening workshop experience. The fact that fewer employees percentage-wise that attended the workshop had filed formal complaints with the human resources department means nothing – it has no bearing on whether the workshop prevented conflicts in the workplace at Terland Publishing. The nature of the formal complaints gives no indication of whether they were conflict-based or of another type. A simple reduction in complaints does not mean that conflict was prevented by the workshops or by workers engaging in active listening. Additionally, there may have been an increase in informal complaints, as opposed to formal complaints. Again, a reduction in formal complaints does not mean that conflict was prevented in the workplace at Terland. Moreover, there may have been an increase in complaints of whatever nature to a department other than the human resources department. All of these possibilities serve to critically weaken the argument.

Secondly, the argument ignores the fact that the two companies are different types of businesses and therefore have employees with different characteristics. Even assuming that the active listening workshop did actually lead to a reduction in complaints, and that this is an indication that conflicts had been prevented in the workplace at Terland, it does not follow that Rifco Computer Company would have similar results simply because Terland Publishing employees attended a similar workshop with the given results. Furthermore, the two hundred Terland employees that attended the workshop were both recently hired and volunteers, most likely making them even more different than the majority of the employees of Rifco Computer Company. These dissimilarities in the employees of the two companies further weakens this argument.

Finally, even assuming that the complaints were based on workplace conflict, that an active listening workshop does serve to reduce workplace conflict, and that Terland and Rifco employees would respond similarly to such a workshop, there could be an even simpler reason that there were fewer complaints from the Terland employees that attended the workshop – they simply left the company either on their own or were laid off as the newest hires and had no occasion to file complaints of any kind with any department at Terland. Combined with the other possibilities for the reduced number of complaints, it becomes obvious that this factor is irrelevant to the argument.

In summary, this argument is based on problematic reasoning and evidence that does not support its conclusion. Without direct evidence that an active listening workshop would reduce conflict at Rifco, even assuming that conflict is a problem there, this argument should be rejected.

参考译文
下述文字摘自Rifco电脑公司人力资源部致公司总裁的一份备忘录。

　　"为了避免工作场所的人际冲突，Rifco电脑公司应要求所有员工参加一个旨在传授积极聆听他人意见之技巧的讲习班，这种技巧可使人们在并不责备他人的情况下表达自己的感受。该技巧显然已使Terland出版公司获益匪浅：五年前，200多名新雇用的Terland公司职员自愿参加了为期一天的“积极聆听讲习班”。五年后，这些员工中仅有5%的人向人力资源部提出过正式投诉，而整个公司在那一时期仅存在15%的投诉率"

　　在上述论述中，Rifco电脑公司的人力资源部试图使公司总裁相信，该公司应该要求所有职员参加一个讲习班，以学习积极听取他人意见的技巧，来避免工作单位中的矛盾冲突。作为证据，论述者指出，Terland出版公司由于在5年前曾派遣200名员工前往参加一个为期一天的“积极聆听讲习班”而显著地获益匪浅，因为该公司仅有5%的员工向人力资源部提出过正式投诉，而整个公司在同一时期仅存在15%的投诉率。对本项论述稍加分析即会显示，它纯粹基于漏洞百出的逻辑推理，应该予以摈弃。

　　 首先，人力资源部门提出派遣所有职员前往参加“积极聆听讲习班”，动机是为了防止在工作单位发生人际矛盾。但论述者丝毫没有拿出什么证据，来支持这样一种观念，即无论是参加讲习班这一行为，还是积极聆听他人意见的技巧本身，果真能在实践中防止人际矛盾。对于Terland出版公司“积极聆听讲习班”经验所得出的结果，可能存在着多方面的原因。从百分比角度来看，在参加过讲习班的员工中，已没有那么多的人向人力资源部提出过正式投诉。但这一事实本身说明不了任何问题，它与讲习班是否已成功地防止了Terland出版公司这个工作单位中的人际矛盾全然无关。正式投诉的性质无法清晰地表明，这些投诉是否基于人际矛盾，还是属于其他类型。单纯的投诉数量的减少并不意味着人际矛盾是由讲习班防止的，也不意味着是由进行积极聆听的员工防止的。此外，与正式投诉相比，非正式投诉的数量有可能上升。须再一次指出的是，正式投诉的减少并不意味着人际矛盾在Terland公司的工作环境中已被防止。还有，向人力资源部之外的某一部门提出的其它性质的投诉可能已呈上升趋势。所有这些可能性有助于严重削弱本项论述的逻辑性。

　　第二，本项论述忽略了这样一个事实，即两家公司代表着全然不同的两类业务，因此各自的员工有着全然不同的特点。即使我们假定“积极聆听讲习班”果真使投诉量下降，并且这一点可表明在Terand公司的工作场所人际冲突已被遏制，但这并不是说，纯粹因为Terland出版公司的员工曾参加过一个带有特定结果的类似讲习班，所以Rifco电脑公司也将取得类似的结果。此外，参加讲习班的200名Terland员工既有近期雇佣的，也有志愿人士，这一点极有可能使他们甚至更加不同于Rifco电脑公司的大多数员工。两家公司的雇员身上所存在的这些相异之处可以进一步削弱该项论述的逻辑性。

　　最后，即使我们假设，那些投诉是基于工作场所人际冲突的，并且“积极聆听讲习班”确实有助于减少工作场所的人际冲突，以及Terland和Rifco两家公司的员工会对这种讲习班作出类似的反应，但有一个甚至更为简单的原因可用来解释参加过讲习班的Terland员工为什么投诉不多：他们要么已主动离开了那家公司，要么已被解雇，因此没有机会向Terland公司的任何部门作任何性质的投诉。与其他使投诉量减少的可能性结合起来考虑，情况很显然，这一因素与本项论述毫不相关。

　　归纳而言，本项论述基于有问题的逻辑推理和证据，无法来佐证其结论。即使我们假定人际冲突在Tifco在公司确实是个问题，但由于缺乏直接的证据来证明“积极聆听讲习班”可减少该公司的人际矛盾，故此项论述应予摈弃。

嘉文博译郑重声明：