GREIssue寫作范文詳細解析匯總
小編這整理了Issue寫作范文詳細解析，我們一起學習一下吧，下面小編就和大家分享，來欣賞一下吧。
Issue寫作范文詳細解析
Topic
The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.
Sample Essay
In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.
First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.
Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.
Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.
To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.
In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.
(640 words)
[題目]
垃圾場安全委員會最近在全州范圍內(nèi)進行了一項調(diào)查，旨在研究垃圾場對居住在附近的居民的身體有可能產(chǎn)生的有害影響。被調(diào)查的有五座垃圾場以及300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所緊挨著垃圾場這一事實與這些居所中所居住人口發(fā)生的無法解釋的疹子之間，僅存在著一種微弱的數(shù)據(jù)關(guān)系。此外，雖然居住在最大的垃圾場附近的居民發(fā)疹的程度略高這一事實屬實，但在其他方面，垃圾場的大小與人們的健康之間毫無關(guān)系。因此，委員會可以甚為欣慰地宣布，目前這套垃圾場體制并不會對健康構(gòu)成一項重大危險。我們認為毫無必要去限制本州內(nèi)這類垃圾場的規(guī)模，也沒有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋數(shù)量。
[范文正文]
在本段論述中，委員會得出結(jié)論，認為目前的垃圾場體制并沒有對健康構(gòu)成一種重大危險，因此，毫無必要去限制垃圾場的規(guī)?；蚶鴪鲋車淖》繑?shù)量。為了支持這一結(jié)論，委員會援引了針對五所垃圾場和300位居民所作的一項研究，據(jù)此證明在住房緊挨著垃圾場與居住在那里的人中間所發(fā)生的難以名狀的疹子之間僅存微弱的關(guān)聯(lián)。此外，委員會在得出這一結(jié)論時，全然無視這樣一個事實，即居住在這類最大的垃圾場附件的人發(fā)病的機率略高。論述在邏輯思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些關(guān)鍵性的弱點。
其一，"垃圾場安全委員會"的成員沒有被清楚列舉出來，這一點可令該研究的可信度產(chǎn)生巨大的差異。一個完全獨立的委員會所提出的結(jié)論，會被視為比一個成員間可能存在著利害關(guān)系沖突的委員會所得出的結(jié)論可信度高。但是，如果組成該委員會的成員所感興趣的僅僅是去揭示出垃圾場不存在問題——例如象房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商或市政廳議員，那么，該項研究會失去某些可信度。如果對委員會成員的背景以及他們所優(yōu)先考慮的問題一無所知，則本段論述倍遭削弱。
其二，所作的研究據(jù)稱是涵蓋整個州的，但被調(diào)查的僅有五座垃圾場和300位居民。盡管平均而論，垃圾場的近距離與住所以及與居住在這些房屋內(nèi)的人之間存在一絲微弱的聯(lián)系，但由于所研究的僅是該州內(nèi)居住在垃圾場附近的很小一批人口樣本，故誤差程度可能會相當?shù)膰乐?。如果在所有垃圾場附近的人和住所當中，有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究，而不只是一個很小的百分比的話，那么，所作的調(diào)查將更具說服力。
此外，該研究僅援引難以名狀的疹子作為與健康相關(guān)的、帶有一定統(tǒng)計學關(guān)系的問題。該研究沒有提及其他類別的健康問題存在與否。情況有可能是，還存在著其他類型的、或許不是那么昭然若揭的健康問題，例如癌癥，正影響著居住在這些垃圾場附近的人們。再有，該研究所涵蓋的似乎只是一小段時間，或者至少該研究的時間跨度不曾得到討論。也許，有些長遠影響決非是一份只在短期內(nèi)進行的研究所能涵蓋得了的。這一點再度削弱了本段論述，因為可以使讀者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度進一步受損的是，該研究沒有討論各垃圾場的相對規(guī)模，也沒討論住房和居民離垃圾場到底有多近。實際上，一點都沒有數(shù)據(jù)來允許人們作出一種恰當?shù)呐袛?，是否?yīng)該去限制垃圾場的規(guī)模，也沒討論住房與垃圾場之間相隔多遠才算安全距離。至少，在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾場的人身上疹子的發(fā)生率略高這一事實表明，有必要進行更深入的研究，以證明或駁倒某種規(guī)?；蚰撤N位置的垃圾場會對健康構(gòu)成危害這一想法。 概括而論，垃圾場安全委員會的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)和研究結(jié)論所主要依據(jù)的是揣測和數(shù)量有限的說明數(shù)據(jù)。如能揭示出委員會成員的動機，研究為數(shù)更多的人口和垃圾場樣本，就其他類別的健康問題以及住房和居民應(yīng)與垃圾場之間保持怎樣的相對距離提供更進一步的信息的話，那么，作者便能作出更為充分的論述，無論是贊成還是反對對垃圾場實施限制。
Issue寫作范文詳細解析
Issue
"Some educational systems emphasize the development of student's capacity for reasoning and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them to explore their own emotions."
Sample Essay
The ability of a student to think clearly using reasoning and logical thinking is of paramount importance in order to ensure his or her success as an individual after graduation from a university. To be able to look at a situation and use logic and reason to analyze the facts and develop an opinion or solution is to have a solid foundation for success in all aspects of life. Exploring one's emotions is important, but it is outside of the realm of what can be learned in a university classroom. Emotional self-exploration is best done outside of a classroom situation, although there may be some opportunity for students in the classroom to learn a methodology for doing so.
The ability to survive and thrive in a society is based on the assumption that human beings act according to reason and logic. From a very early age, most people are taught that certain actions will bring about certain reactions, and that by using logic you can figure out what the response will be in most situations. Reasoning is also developed early on, although sometimes it is difficult to explain reasoning to a two-year old. Humans are probably born with a desire for reason and logic, as demonstrated by almost any child's incessant asking of the question "Why?". To understand the underlying reasons why something happens is a fundamental part of human nature, proven by the exploits of explorers, scientists and mathematicians over the course of human history.
As a result, the basic framework of most forms of human society requires that a person must act according to the demands of reason and logic. Rules of law are based on the concept that individuals respond to rules based on reasoning and logic. The ability to think according to logic and reason is so imperative that it is essential that it be taught to university students at even the highest levels. What if law schools and medical schools decided that it was more important to allow students to explore their own emotions at the expense of learning the latest laws or medical techniques? Perhaps one course could be taught to help students to deal with the emotional demands of being a lawyer or a doctor, but to train students to explore their own emotions at the expense of learning about logical and reasonable thinking would be to invite catastrophe in society.
One of the main problems with emphasizing to students the importance of exploring one's own emotions is that it creates a "me first" attitude towards their studies. Certainly a degree of self-introspection is necessary to deal with society, but to put emphasis on this above all else is to inculcate in the student the idea that he or she is more important than others, and that what he or she thinks matters a great deal more than it probably does in reality. Too much emotional self-exploration could create individuals who see their emotions as more important than what they contribute to society, which would damage that society as a whole.
A certain amount of self-introspection into one's emotions is probably helpful to the development of a student as an overall person. Usually this kind of activity is explored fully in basic psychology classes that most students are required to take at university. Basic courses in sociology and psychology as well as other humanities courses give students plenty of opportunity to explore their own emotions. Rather than teaching students how to explore their own emotions, it would seem to be a better idea to teach students how to deal with these emotions. Only by instructing students in reasoning and logic can they learn how to apply whatever inner emotions they may have to becoming a successful member of a society.
觀點陳述型作文/[題目]
"有些教育強調(diào)發(fā)展學生的邏輯和思維能力，但一種也能教學生去探索其自我情感的教育，可使學生們獲益更多。"
[范文正文]
一個學生運用邏輯推理和思維進行清晰的思索，這一能力對于這位學生大學以后的個人成功具有至高無上的重要性。能夠?qū)徱暷骋惶囟ㄇ樾危瑧?yīng)用邏輯和理性，對事實展開分析，并形成觀點或解決方法，這對于在生活中的任何方面獲得成功，都能奠定一個堅實的基礎(chǔ)。探索個人的情感無疑是重要的，但它外在于大學課堂的教學范圍。個人情感探索最好是在課堂情景之外的地方來完成，雖然學生在課堂內(nèi)可能有機會學到這樣做的某種方法。
在社會中得以生存和飛黃騰達，這一能力基于這樣一個前提，即人類須按照理性和邏輯來行動。從孩提時代起，大多數(shù)人就被告知，自己的某些行為會造成他人的某些反應(yīng)，通過應(yīng)用邏輯分析，你就能推斷在大多數(shù)情形中他人的反應(yīng)會是什么樣的。推理的能力在小時候也得以培養(yǎng)起來，盡管有時候向一個2歲的小孩解釋推理甚為困難。人類對于理性和邏輯的欲望可能生而有之，舉例來說，幾乎任何一個孩子都會"為什么……?"地問個沒完。要弄懂事情發(fā)生的基本原因是人性的一個基本部分，這一點可從人類歷史進程中探險家、科學家和數(shù)學家們的功績中得以證明。
由此看來，大多數(shù)形式的人類社會的基本架構(gòu)要求人們按照理性和邏輯的要求行事。法律的規(guī)則基于這樣一個概念，即個人須遵循基于邏輯和理性思維的規(guī)則。必須按邏輯和理性來思索，這一能力是如此至關(guān)重要，以至于即使處在最高層次上的大學生，也必須被授以這一能力。試想一下，如果法學院或醫(yī)學院認為，讓學生去探索其情感，而放棄學習最新的法律和醫(yī)療技術(shù)，其結(jié)果將會怎樣?或許，可以開設(shè)一門課來幫助學生處理當律師或大夫的情感要求。但是，以學習邏輯和推理思維為代價，訓練學生去探索其情感，這意味著在社會中招致災(zāi)難。
向?qū)W生強調(diào)探索其情感重要性，這一做法的諸多主要問題之一是，它會造成學生對其學習產(chǎn)生一種"唯 我獨尊"的心態(tài)。當然，一定程度上的自我反省對于和社會打交道是必要的，但將它凌駕于其他一切之上將會在學生的內(nèi)心灌輸這樣一種理念，即他(她)要比他人更為重要，他(她)的想法極為重要，而實際上或許并非如此。過多的自我情感探索所造就的將是這樣一些個人，他們會將其情感視為比他們對社會的貢獻更為重要，而這于整個社會都是有害的。
一定程度上的對個人情感的自我反省或許有助于學生整體人格的發(fā)展。一般而言，這種活動大多數(shù)學生在大學期間必須選擇的心理學基礎(chǔ)課程中可得到充分探索。社會學和心理學的基礎(chǔ)，以及其他人文學科的課程，賦予學生大量的機會去探索其個人情感。相對于去教授學生如何去探索其個人情感，教授學生如何去處理這些情感或許更為有益。只有通過教育學生提高其邏輯推理和分析能力，才能使學生學會去應(yīng)用他們所擁有的任何內(nèi)心情感，去成為社會的成功一員。
Issue寫作范文詳細解析
As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.
In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.
First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.
Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.
Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.
In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.
(633 words)
[題目]
隨著人們?nèi)諠u衰老，一種被稱為PEP的酶會不斷地分解學習與記憶過程中所涉及到的神經(jīng)肽化學物。但現(xiàn)在，研究人員已發(fā)現(xiàn)了可阻止PEP致使神經(jīng)肽分裂的化合物。在測試中，這些化合物幾乎在老鼠身上能完全恢復缺失的記憶。這些化合物的運用應(yīng)該也推廣到記憶力衰弱或?qū)Ｗ⒘τ欣щy的學生身上，不然將會造成學業(yè)表現(xiàn)上的嚴重問題?？茖W終于解決了那些令家長和老師束手無策的問題。
[范文正文]
在本段論述中，論述者指出，研究人員已發(fā)現(xiàn)了某些化合物，可以阻止一種被稱為PEP的酶的物質(zhì)將神經(jīng)肽予以分解，而神經(jīng)肽則是學習和記憶過程中所需涉及到的物質(zhì)。論述者還宣稱，檢測結(jié)果表明，這些化合物幾乎完全恢復了老鼠身上缺失的記憶。因此這些化合物應(yīng)該讓那些記憶力差和難于集中注意力的學生服用。這段論述缺乏說服力，因為它包含著某些邏輯推理方面甚為嚴重的缺陷。
首先，論述者稱，隨著人們漸趨衰老，PEP 會分解學習和記憶過程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學物。確實，隨人們漸趨衰老，他們往往會在學習和記憶方面遭遇諸多問題。但是，在神經(jīng)肽化學物的分解以及學習能力與記憶力喪失之間，卻沒有提到任何直接的聯(lián)系。除此之外，論述者提及被PEP所分解的幾種神經(jīng)肽化學物。但研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的只是一種可阻止神經(jīng)肽不致于分裂的化合物。這是兩種不同性質(zhì)的物理作用：神經(jīng)肽化學物的分解有別于神經(jīng)肽自身的分裂。
此外，原論述并未陳述這兩種物理作用中的那一種與學習能力和記憶能力的喪失相涉。論述者沒有明確陳述化學物的分解導致了學習能力和記憶能力的喪失，而只是陳述這種情形只是隨著人們?nèi)遮吥赀~而發(fā)生。原論述中也沒有確切地陳述神經(jīng)肽自身的分裂是否會導致記憶缺失或?qū)W習能力下降。如果無法在阻止神經(jīng)肽分裂所能產(chǎn)生的作用與減少記憶能力和學習能力喪失之間證明某種直接的聯(lián)系，那么，化合物的效用將令人質(zhì)疑。
第二，也是極為明顯地，化合物只是在老鼠身上進行了測試。雖然老鼠與人類具有類似的基因結(jié)構(gòu)，但它們無論如何并不等同于人類。對于學習和記憶問題，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人類所遇到的原因。在沒有作進一步的研究來估評化合物對人類所產(chǎn)生的總體效果的情況下，就去提倡將這些化合物供學生服用，甚至假設(shè)它們有助于學生提高其學習效果，這實乃荒.唐至極。即使不是出于其他原因的話，就這一特定事實本身，該段論述根本就站不住腳。
進一步而言，論述者在其論述的開始陳述道，"隨著人們漸趨衰老"，PEP會將學習和記憶過程中所涉及的神經(jīng)肽化學物進行分解。在論述的結(jié)尾之處，論述者倡導將那些可阻止PEP致使神經(jīng)肽分裂的化合物推廣至那些記憶力和專注力差的學生身上。學生普遍而言都是年輕人，而不是老年人。論述者沒有拿出任何證據(jù)來證明究竟是什么原因?qū)嶋H導至學生們記憶力和專注力下降。較有可能的是，是那些課外活動，或缺少充足的睡眠，導致了學生身上的這些問題。
即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止與衰老相關(guān)的記憶缺失問題和學習能力下降問題，它們也極不可能也能為學生帶來任何的裨益。 總而言之，論述者沒能用其提出的論據(jù)來說服我們。若要使其論述在邏輯上成立，論述者必須在神經(jīng)肽的分裂與記憶能力和學習能力的缺失之間證明某種直接的聯(lián)系。此外，論述者必須證明學生記憶能力差和注意力難以集中均是同一過程造成的，并且研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的化合物對人類所產(chǎn)生的效果會對老鼠似乎所產(chǎn)生的效果同樣的好。
GRE Issue寫作范文詳細解析匯總相關(guān)文章：
