GRE作文范文 Issue-45

“In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

A strong debate has raged in recent years over the idea of whether television has led to the “dumbing down” of society by distracting its viewers away from the more educational pastimes such as reading books. It is probably true that people can learn just as much, if not more, by watching television rather than by reading books. But the true value of reading books does not lie merely in the words and information that the reader receives but rather in the act of reading itself. The knowledge that is gained from reading may sometimes be of less importance than the sheer act of stimulating the brain that is required in order to comprehend what is being read. Television requires little brainpower to understand – it is in the exercise of the mind where the true importance of reading presents itself.

First of all, if one considers the issue from a pure learning standpoint, an argument can be made that television is at the very least the equal of books in its ability to teach. As a medium, television has an almost magical capability of attracting the attention of children and adults alike. A well-produced television program can be a tremendous vehicle for teaching while simultaneously entertaining a person. For example, consider the educational value of the National Geographic television programs, as opposed to a National Geographic book. In written form, National Geographic can discuss the behavior of humans or animals and even show their behaviors in the form of pictures in the book. However, a television program can give the same discussion as the book, while at the same time use moving pictures in the form of video to vividly recreate those behaviors right in front of the viewers eyes. It is due to the superiority of moving video to still pictures that television can sometimes be a better teacher than any book.

On the other hand, it may be more important now than ever for people to read books, particularly because television is so seductive as a form of entertainment. Most of the criticism aimed at television is due to the lack of any educational content in most of its programs. Television networks thrive on advertising dollars; therefore the most popular programs are the most profitable. In general, people prefer to watch what some call “mindless” entertainment rather than a television program that actually teaches them something. Proof of this can be found in the weekly television program ratings that show the lack of popularity of educational programs as opposed to the appeal of the situation comedy or inane game show. Reading stimulates the mind while television soothes it. The true importance of reading is in the fact that it requires the brain of the reader to work. Imagination and comprehension of the written word exercises the mind, leaving the person with a better ability to think. Books have a strong power to fire the imagination of young and old alike in ways that television cannot. In this manner, books can improve the mind by forcing the reader to think, while television simply shows the viewer something without requiring him or her to think much at all.

To summarize, television and books both have their good points when it comes to the ability to inspire people to learn. Television can impart greater knowledge at times, but it can also waste time that could be better spent elsewhere. Books have the ability to make the reader think, thus allowing them to develop better brainpower. If a person truly wants to become education, he or she should use the two media as complementary resources for learning.

参考译文

在电视时代，读书不再像过去那样重要了。人们可以依靠看电视获得与他们读书同样多的知识。

　　近年来，电视是否因其把电视观众的注意力从更具教育作用的消遣方式——例如读书——分散开来而导致了社会的“沉寂”，这方面的争论一直喧嚣不已。很可能人们通过看电视可以同读书获得同样多的知识，倘若不比读书更多的话。但是读书的真正价值不仅仅在于读者所读到的词汇和信息，而且还在于读书这一行为本身。读书所获得的知识，其重要性有时不如为了理解所读内容而刺激大脑这一行为。电视需要很少的脑力劳动去理解——大脑的活动才是读书所呈现的真正意义。

　　首先，如果我们纯粹从学习的角度来考虑这个问题，那么就可以提出这样一个论点，即电视至少在教学能力上是与书籍等效的。作为一种媒介，电视几乎具有吸引儿童以及成人注意力的魔力。一个制作精良的电视节目，可以在娱乐人的同时成为教学的得力工具。例如，只需考虑一下“国家地理”电视节目的教育意义，并将它与“国家地理”之书籍相对比。以文字的形式出现，“国家地理”之书籍也可以讨论人和动物的行为，并且可以以图画的形式表现其行为。然而，电视节目可以提供与书籍一样的讨论，同时，电视还可以用活动图像逼真地再现那些行为于观众眼前。正是由于活动画面优于静止画面，有时电视才成为比书籍更好的老师。

　　另一方面，与以往任何时候相比，现在人们去读书会显得更为重要，尤其是因为电视是一种如此具有诱惑力的娱乐形式。大多数对电视的批评是说电视的多数节目缺少教育内容。电视网络绞尽脑汁做广告挣钱，因而最受欢迎的节目往往也是最赚钱的。总的看来，人们喜欢看所谓“不动脑筋”的娱乐节目，而不喜欢看具有教育内容的电视节目。每周的电视节目评估可证实这一点：教育节目收视率低而情景喜剧和无意义的游戏却很受欢迎。读书激活大脑，而电视却使大脑碌碌无为。读书的真正意义在于它需要读者的大脑进行工作。对文字的想像和理解可以活跃大脑，培养人们更好的思维能力。书籍具有点燃青年人甚至老年人想像力的力量，而电视却没有。因此，书籍由于强迫读者思考而增强脑力，而电视只是让观众观看而不需要他/她进行思索。

　　总而言之，当涉及激发人们学习时，电视和书籍均不乏其优点。电视有时可以传授更多的知识，但它又可能浪费原本可以花在其它活动上的时间。书籍具有激发读者思索的功能，从而开发读者的脑力。如果一个人确实想受到教育，那么他/她应该利用这两种媒介作为互补的学习资源。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-45

The following is a letter to the editor of a news magazine.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"Clearly, the successful use of robots on missions to explore outer space in the past 20 years demonstrates that robots could be increasingly used to perform factory work more effectively, efficiently, and profitably than human factory workers. The use of robots in factories would offer several advantages. First, robots never get sick, so absenteeism would be reduced. Second, robots do not make mistakes, so factories would increase their output. Finally, the use of robots would also improve the morale of factory workers, since factory work can be so boring that many workers would be glad to shift to more interesting kinds of tasks."

In this argument, the writer of the letter to the editor states that because robots have been used successfully on outer space exploration missions, robots can also be used to replace human factory workers and perform work more effectively, efficiently and profitably. To support the argument, the writer states that robots never get sick, thereby reducing absenteeism; that robots do not make mistakes, thereby increasing factory output; and that factory workers’ morale would be improved as they would be freed from boring work to focus on more interesting kinds of tasks. There are numerous flaws in the writer’s logic with no evidence whatsoever provided to demonstrate that this proposition is correct.

First of all, the use of robots on missions to explore outer space is not the same as using robots to perform factory work – the two jobs are vastly different. The dangers inherent in outer space exploration make it much more feasible to use robots rather than humans for such dangerous work. On the contrary, most factory work is not dangerous, thus reducing the need from a humane standpoint of replacing factory workers with robots. Additionally, there is no evidence provided that robots can actually perform any type of factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human workers, although it is highly likely that this is so. It is equally probable, however, that there are just as many types of factory work that can be done more effectively, efficiently and profitably by human workers rather than robots. The writer’s argument is greatly weakened by the lack of examples of factory work where robots are better than humans.

Secondly, the writer mentions that robots never get sick, which is true, but he or she fails to mention that they do break down and wear out. A robot may not actually be physically absent from the workplace but it may still be unable to perform its assigned duties. Furthermore, robots are generally more difficult to repair or replace when compared to calling in a human replacement when a worker is absent from the job. Human beings are also much more flexible and able to perform an endless variety of tasks whereas robots can only do what they have been programmed to do. A mere reduction absenteeism does not provide solid evidence for the proposition that robots would be better than humans for factory work.

Thirdly, robots may not make mistakes but they can certainly malfunction or be programmed incorrectly by their human “masters”. It simply does not follow that there would be an increase in output in these unidentified factories because robots do not make mistakes. In addition, robots are not necessarily better or faster at all kinds of tasks – with some factory work, the flexibility and “fuzzy logic” of the human mind can not be replaced by machinery. The writer’s failure to supply evidence of how factories can increase their output by replacing human workers with robots further weakens the argument.

Finally, the writer states that factory workers’ morale would be improved by the use of robots, the reasoning being that workers could shift to more interesting tasks rather than boring factory work. On the contrary, it is likely that morale would be dampened because there would be less human interaction with more robots in the workplace. Furthermore, the remaining workers would be worried about how soon their own jobs would be eliminated through the use of even more robots. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that there would be “more interesting” tasks available for factory workers with the use of more robots.

In summary, the argument is too broadly based in covering all types of factory work, and it is based on problematic reasoning. The writer fails to mention any specific examples or evidence where robots can perform any type of factory work more effectively, efficiently and profitably than human workers. Without such support, the argument must be rejected.

参考译文
下述文字摘自一封致某新闻杂志编辑的信函。

　　"显而易见，在过去20年中，人类成功地使用机器人执行探索外层空间的使命足以证明，机器人可被越来越多地用来从事工厂工作。与工厂的人类工人相比，机器人的工作将更为有效、高效和划算。机器人在工厂中的使用将会带来诸多裨益。首先，机器人永远也不会生病，因此旷工现象将会减少。其次，机器人不可能失误，因此工厂可提高产量。最后，机器人的使用也能改善工厂工人的士气，因为工厂的工作会如此枯燥乏味，以致于许多工人会非常乐意转而去从事更有意思的工种"

　　在以上论述中，这封致编辑的信函的作者称，由于机器人已被成功地应用于外层空间的各项探索使命，机器人也能用来替代工厂的人类员工，它们工作起来会更加有效、高效和划算。为了支持这一论点，信函作者指出，机器人从不会患病，因此可减少旷工行为;并且，机器人不可能失误，因而可提高工厂产量；还有，工厂工人的士气将会得到改善，因为他们可以从枯燥乏味的工作中解脱出来，投入到更有意思的工种上去。信函作者的逻辑推理中含有诸多漏洞，没有提供任何证据来证明这一命题是正确的。

　　 首先，使用机器人去从事探索外层空间的使命不同于使用机器人去从事工厂工作——这两种工作存在着天壤之别。探索外层空间活动中所固有的危险使应用机器人而非人类去从事这类危险的工作变得较为可行。相反，大多数工厂工作并无危险，因此从人道的角度看，减少用机器人取代工厂工人这一做法有着其必要性。此外，文中没有列举出证据来证明机器人实际上可比人类工人更加有效、更加高效、且更加划算地去从事任何类型的工厂工作，尽管这很有可能确实如此。但是，同样也有可能的是，也存在着许许多多的工作种类，由人类工人来完成要比由机器人来完成会来得更加有效、更加高效、且更加划算。信函作者的论述遭到了很大程度上的削弱，因为论述中缺乏机器人能比人类工人更好地从事工厂工作的实例。

　　第二，信函作者提到，机器人从不患病，这确实如此。但他（或她）却没能提到，机器人确实也会发生故障并变得陈旧没用。机器人实际上可能不会从其工作岗位上缺席，但它仍可能无法来履行它所被指定去完成的职责。此外，当一个人类工人从其工作岗位上缺席时，只需叫另一个人来接替他（或她）就行了。与此相比，去修理或替代机器人一般会来得更加困难。还有，人类更加灵活机动，能从事形形色色、不尽相同的工种，而机器人却只能去从事程序已经将它们设定好的那些工作。纯粹减少旷工现象不足以提供有力的证据，来证明机器人比人类能更好地从事工厂工作这一命题。

　　第三，机器人有可能不会失误，但它们肯定会出现功能障碍，或被其人类“主人”设置不正确的程序。在这些未经确认的工厂中，不能说因为机器人不会失误，其产量自然而然就会增长。此外，机器人并不必定能更快或更好地从事所有工种——对于某些工厂工作来说，人类大脑的灵活性和“模糊逻辑”是无法被机械所取代得了的。信函作者由于没能提供证据来证明，工厂通过机器人来取代人类工人就能增加其产量，故进一步削弱了其论点。

　　最后，信函作者称，工厂工人的士气会由于机器人的使用而得到提高，其推理过程是，工人们可转换到更有意思的工种，而不必受枯燥乏味的工厂工作的限制。但相反的是，由于工作环境中机器人越来越多，人际互动越来越少，故工人的士气有可能会遭到挫伤。此外，那些得以留下来的工人也会惶惶不可终日，不知道他们自己的饭碗何时会因为机器人越来越多的使用而被剥夺。再者，没有任何迹象可表明，随着机器人越来越多的使用，对工厂工人而言还会有什么“更有意思”的工种。

　　总而言之，此项论述涵盖面过于宽泛，囊括了所有类别的工厂工作，并且，它还基于极成问题的逻辑推理。信函作者没有给出任何具体的实例或证据来证明机器人在从事任何类别的工厂工作时可比人类工人来得更加有效，更加高效，且更加划算。由于没有这些依据，该项论述不足为信，应予摈弃。

嘉文博译郑重声明：