GRE作文范文 Argument-7

“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. ”

嘉文博譯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)

參考譯文

垃圾場(chǎng)安全委員會(huì)最近在全州范圍內(nèi)進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，旨在研究垃圾場(chǎng)對(duì)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(chǎng)以及300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所緊挨著垃圾場(chǎng)這一事實(shí)與這些居所中所居住人口發(fā)生的無(wú)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(chǎng)附近的居民發(fā)疹的程度略高這一事實(shí)屬實(shí)，但在其他方面，垃圾場(chǎng)的大小與人們的健康之間毫無(wú)關(guān)系。因此，委員會(huì)可以甚為欣慰地宣布，目前這套垃圾場(chǎng)體制并不會(huì)對(duì)健康構(gòu)成一項(xiàng)重大危險(xiǎn)。我們認(rèn)為毫無(wú)必要去限制本州內(nèi)這類垃圾場(chǎng)的規(guī)模，也沒(méi)有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋數(shù)量。

在本段論述中，委員會(huì)得出結(jié)論，認(rèn)為目前的垃圾場(chǎng)體制并沒(méi)有對(duì)健康構(gòu)成一種重大危險(xiǎn)，因此，毫無(wú)必要去限制垃圾場(chǎng)的規(guī)模或垃圾場(chǎng)周圍的住房數(shù)量。為了支持這一結(jié)論，委員會(huì)援引了針對(duì)五所垃圾場(chǎng)和300位居民所作的一項(xiàng)研究，據(jù)此證明在住房緊挨著垃圾場(chǎng)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(huì)在得出這一結(jié)論時(shí)，全然無(wú)視這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即居住在這類最大的垃圾場(chǎng)附件的人發(fā)病的機(jī)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(diǎn)。

其一，"垃圾場(chǎng)安全委員會(huì)"的成員沒(méi)有被清楚列舉出來(lái)，這一點(diǎn)可令該研究的可信度產(chǎn)生巨大的差異。一個(gè)完全獨(dú)立的委員會(huì)所提出的結(jié)論，會(huì)被視為比一個(gè)成員間可能存在著利害關(guān)系沖突的委員會(huì)所得出的結(jié)論可信度高。但是，如果組成該委員會(huì)的成員所感興趣的僅僅是去揭示出垃圾場(chǎng)不存在問(wèn)題--例如象房地產(chǎn)開(kāi)發(fā)商或市政廳議員，那么，該項(xiàng)研究會(huì)失去某些可信度。如果對(duì)委員會(huì)成員的背景以及他們所優(yōu)先考慮的問(wèn)題一無(wú)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(gè)州的，但被調(diào)查的僅有五座垃圾場(chǎng)和300位居民。盡管平均而論，垃圾場(chǎng)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(chǎng)附近的很小一批人口樣本，故誤差程度可能會(huì)相當(dāng)?shù)膰?yán)重。如果在所有垃圾場(chǎng)附近的人和住所當(dāng)中，有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究，而不只是一個(gè)很小的百分比的話，那么，所作的調(diào)查將更具說(shuō)服力。

此外，該研究?jī)H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(jì)學(xué)關(guān)系的問(wèn)題。該研究沒(méi)有提及其他類別的健康問(wèn)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(wèn)題，例如癌癥，正影響著居住在這些垃圾場(chǎng)附近的人們。再有，該研究所涵蓋的似乎只是一小段時(shí)間，或者至少該研究的時(shí)間跨度不曾得到討論。也許，有些長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)影響決非是一份只在短期內(nèi)進(jìn)行的研究所能涵蓋得了的。這一點(diǎn)再度削弱了本段論述，因?yàn)榭梢允棺x者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度進(jìn)一步受損的是，該研究沒(méi)有討論各垃圾場(chǎng)的相對(duì)規(guī)模，也沒(méi)討論住房和居民離垃圾場(chǎng)到底有多近。實(shí)際上，一點(diǎn)都沒(méi)有數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)允許人們作出一種恰當(dāng)?shù)呐袛啵欠駪?yīng)該去限制垃圾場(chǎng)的規(guī)模，也沒(méi)討論住房與垃圾場(chǎng)之間相隔多遠(yuǎn)才算安全距離。至少，在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾場(chǎng)的人身上疹子的發(fā)生率略高這一事實(shí)表明，有必要進(jìn)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(chǎng)會(huì)對(duì)健康構(gòu)成危害這一想法。 概括而論，垃圾場(chǎng)安全委員會(huì)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)和研究結(jié)論所主要依據(jù)的是揣測(cè)和數(shù)量有限的說(shuō)明數(shù)據(jù)。如能揭示出委員會(huì)成員的動(dòng)機(jī)，研究為數(shù)更多的人口和垃圾場(chǎng)樣本，就其他類別的健康問(wèn)題以及住房和居民應(yīng)與垃圾場(chǎng)之間保持怎樣的相對(duì)距離提供更進(jìn)一步的信息的話，那么，作者便能作出更為充分的論述，無(wú)論是贊成還是反對(duì)對(duì)垃圾場(chǎng)實(shí)施限制。