GREIssue写作范文详细解析汇总Issue写作范文详细解析TopicThe Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study ofpossible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living nearthe sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were e_amined. The studyrevealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the pro_imityof homes to garbage sites and the incidence of une_plained rashes among peopleliving in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living nearthe largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there wasotherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people shealth. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the currentsystem ofgarbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need torestrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on thenumber of homes built near the sites.Sample EssayIn this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the currentsystem of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and thattherefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or thenumber of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the councilcites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only asmall correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and theincidence of une_plained rashes among those people living there. Additionally,the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people livingnear thelargest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argumentsuffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.First of all, the members of the Trash-Site Safety Council are notlisted, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study.Atruly independent council could produce results that could be considered muchmore reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest.However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest infinding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or citycouncilmen, for e_ample - then the study would lack some credibility. Withoutknowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument isgreatly weakened.Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites andthree hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a smallstatistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and thehomes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large dueto studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in thestate. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes andpeople near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage. Furthermore, the study cites only une_plained rashes as a health-relatedproblem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of othertypes of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that therewere other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such ascanceraffecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears tocover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is notdiscussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by astudy conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument byleaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way oranother.To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relativesize 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 maderestricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located nearthe trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higherincidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates aneed for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of acertain size or location are health hazards.In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Councilare based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. Thedisclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of thepopulation and trash sites, and further information on other types of healthproblems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites wouldgive a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the suchsites.(640 words)[题目]垃圾场安全委员会最近在全州范围内进行了一项调查,旨在研究垃圾场对居住在附近的居民的身体有可能产生的有害影响.被调查的有五座垃圾场以及300多位居民.研究表明,平均而言,居所紧挨着垃圾场这一事实与这些居所中所居住人口发生的无法解释的疹子之间,仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系.此外,虽然居住在最大的垃圾场附近的居民发疹的程度略高这一事实属实,但在其他方面,垃圾场的大小与人们的健康之间毫无关系.因此,委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布,目前这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险.我们认为毫无必要去限制本州内这类垃圾场的规模,也没有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋数量.[范文正文]在本段论述中,委员会得出结论,认为目前的垃圾场体制并没有对健康构成一种重大危险,因此,毫无必要去限制垃圾场的规模或垃圾场周围的住房数量.为了支持这一结论,委员会援引了针对五所垃圾场和300位居民所作的一项研究,据此证明在住房紧挨着垃圾场与居住在那里的人中间所发生的难以名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联.此外,委员会在得出这一结论时,全然无视这样一个事实,即居住在这类最大的垃圾场附件的人发病的机率略高.论述在逻辑思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些关键性的弱点.其一, 垃圾场安全委员会的成员没有被清楚列举出来,这一点可令该研究的可信度产生巨大的差异.一个完全独立的委员会所提出的结论,会被视为比一个成员间可能存在着利害关系冲突的委员会所得出的结论可信度高.但是,如果组成该委员会的成员所感兴趣的仅仅是去揭示出垃圾场不存在问题——例如象房地产开发商或市政厅议员,那么,该项研究会失去某些可信度.如果对委员会成员的背景以及他们所优先考虑的问题一无所知,则本段论述倍遭削弱.其二,所作的研究据称是涵盖整个州的,但被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300位居民.尽管平均而论,垃圾场的近距离与住所以及与居住在这些房屋内的人之间存在一丝微弱的联系,但由于所研究的仅是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的很小一批人口样本,故误差程度可能会相当的严重.如果在所有垃圾场附近的人和住所当中,有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究,而不只是一个很小的百分比的话,那么,所作的调查将更具说服力.此外,该研究仅援引难以名状的疹子作为与健康相关的.带有一定统计学关系的问题.该研究没有提及其他类别的健康问题存在与否.情况有可能是,还存在着其他类型的.或许不是那么昭然若揭的健康问题,例如癌症,正影响着居住在这些垃圾场附近的人们.再有,该研究所涵盖的似乎只是一小段时间,或者至少该研究的时间跨度不曾得到讨论.也许,有些长远影响决非是一份只在短期内进行的研究所能涵盖得了的.这一点再度削弱了本段论述,因为可以使读者信服的信息被疏忽了.使可信度进一步受损的是,该研究没有讨论各垃圾场的相对规模,也没讨论住房和居民离垃圾场到底有多近.实际上,一点都没有数据来允许人们作出一种恰当的判断,是否应该去限制垃圾场的规模,也没讨论住房与垃圾场之间相隔多远才算安全距离.至少,在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾场的人身上疹子的发生率略高这一事实表明,有必要进行更深入的研究,以证明或驳倒某种规模或某种位置的垃圾场会对健康构成危害这一想法.概括而论,垃圾场安全委员会的研究发现和研究结论所主要依据的是揣测和数量有限的说明数据.如能揭示出委员会成员的动机,研究为数更多的人口和垃圾场样本,就其他类别的健康问题以及住房和居民应与垃圾场之间保持怎样的相对距离提供更进一步的信息的话,那么,作者便能作出更为充分的论述,无论是赞成还是反对对垃圾场实施限制.Issue写作范文详细解析IssueSome educational systems emphasize the development of student s capacityfor reasoning and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from aneducation that also taught them to e_plore their own emotions.Sample EssayThe ability of a student to think clearly using reasoning and logicalthinking is of paramount importance in order to ensure his or her success as anindividual after graduation from a university. To be able to look at a situationand use logic and reason to analyze the facts and develop an opinion or solutionis to have a solid foundation for success in all aspects of life. E_ploringone s emotions is important, but it is outside of the realm of what can belearned in a university classroom. Emotional self-e_ploration is best doneoutside of a classroom situation, although there may be some opportunity forstudents in the classroom to learn a methodology for doing so.The ability to survive and thrive in a society is based on the assumptionthat human beings act according to reason and logic. From a very early age, mostpeople are taught that certain actions will bring about certain reactions, andthat by using logic you can figure out what the response will be in mostsituations. Reasoning is also developed early on, although sometimes it isdifficult to e_plain reasoning to a two-year old. Humans are probably born witha desire for reason and logic, as demonstrated by almost any child s incessantasking of the question Why? . To understand the underlying reasons whysomething happens is a fundamental part of human nature, proven by the e_ploitsof e_plorers, scientists and mathematicians over the course of humanhistory.As a result, the basic framework of most forms of human society requiresthat a person must act according to the demands of reason and logic. Rules oflaw are based on the concept that individuals respond to rules based on reasoning and logic. The ability to think according to logic and reasonis soimperative that it is essential that it be taught to university students at eventhe highest levels. What if law schools and medical schools decided that it wasmore important to allow students to e_plore their own emotions at thee_pense oflearning the latest laws or medical techniques? Perhaps one course could betaught to help students to deal with the emotional demands of being a lawyer ora tor, but to train students to e_plore their own emotions at the e_pense oflearning about logical and reasonable thinking would be to invite catastrophe insociety.One of the main problems with emphasizing to students the importance ofe_ploring one s own emotions is that it creates a me first attitude towardstheir studies. Certainly a degree of self-introspection is necessary to dealwith society, but to put emphasis on this above all else is to inculcate in thestudent the idea that he or she is more important than others, and that what heor she thinks matters a great deal more than it probably does in reality. Toomuch emotional self-e_ploration could create individuals who see their emotionsas more important than what they contribute to society, which would damage thatsociety as a whole.A certain amount of self-introspection into one s emotions is probablyhelpful to the development of a student as an overall person. Usually this kindof activity is e_plored fully in basic psychology classes that most students arerequired to take at university. Basic courses in sociology and psychology aswell as other humanities courses give students plenty of opportunity to e_ploretheir own emotions. Rather than teaching students how to e_plore their ownemotions, it would seem to be a better idea to teach students how to deal withthese emotions. Only by instructing students in reasoning and logic can theylearn how to apply whatever inner emotions they may have to becoming asuccessful member of a society.观点陈述型作文/[题目]有些教育强调发展学生的逻辑和思维能力,但一种也能教学生去探索其自我情感的教育,可使学生们获益更多.[范文正文]一个学生运用逻辑推理和思维进行清晰的思索,这一能力对于这位学生大学以后的个人成功具有至高无上的重要性.能够审视某一特定情形,应用逻辑和理性,对事实展开分析,并形成观点或解决方法,这对于在生活中的任何方面获得成功,都能奠定一个坚实的基础.探索个人的情感无疑是重要的,但它外在于大学课堂的教学范围.个人情感探索最好是在课堂情景之外的地方来完成,虽然学生在课堂内可能有机会学到这样做的某种方法.在社会中得以生存和飞黄腾达,这一能力基于这样一个前提,即人类须按照理性和逻辑来行动.从孩提时代起,大多数人就被告知,自己的某些行为会造成他人的某些反应,通过应用逻辑分析,你就能推断在大多数情形中他人的反应会是什么样的.推理的能力在小时候也得以培养起来,尽管有时候向一个2岁的小孩解释推理甚为困难.人类对于理性和逻辑的欲望可能生而有之,举例来说,几乎任何一个孩子都会为什么……? 地问个没完.要弄懂事情发生的基本原因是人性的一个基本部分,这一点可从人类历史进程中探险家.科学家和数学家们的功绩中得以证明.由此看来,大多数形式的人类社会的基本架构要求人们按照理性和逻辑的要求行事.法律的规则基于这样一个概念,即个人须遵循基于逻辑和理性思维的规则.必须按逻辑和理性来思索,这一能力是如此至关重要,以至于即使处在最高层次上的大学生,也必须被授以这一能力.试想一下,如果法学院或医学院认为,让学生去探索其情感,而放弃学习最新的法律和医疗技术,其结果将会怎样?或许,可以开设一门课来帮助学生处理当律师或大夫的情感要求.但是,以学习逻辑和推理思维为代价,训练学生去探索其情感,这意味着在社会中招致灾难.向学生强调探索其情感重要性,这一做法的诸多主要问题之一是,它会造成学生对其学习产生一种唯我独尊的心态.当然,一定程度上的自我反省对于和社会打交道是必要的,但将它凌驾于其他一切之上将会在学生的内心灌输这样一种理念,即他(她)要比他人更为重要,他(她)的想法极为重要,而实际上或许并非如此.过多的自我情感探索所造就的将是这样一些个人,他们会将其情感视为比他们对社会的贡献更为重要,而这于整个社会都是有害的.一定程度上的对个人情感的自我反省或许有助于学生整体人格的发展.一般而言,这种活动大多数学生在大学期间必须选择的心理学基础课程中可得到充分探索.社会学和心理学的基础,以及其他人文学科的课程,赋予学生大量的机会去探索其个人情感.相对于去教授学生如何去探索其个人情感,教授学生如何去处理这些情感或许更为有益.只有通过教育学生提高其逻辑推理和分析能力,才能使学生学会去应用他们所拥有的任何内心情感,去成为社会的成功一员.Issue写作范文详细解析As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks downtheneuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchershave found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. Intests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The useof these compounds should be e_tended to students who have poor memory anddifficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in schoolperformance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents norteachers could solve.In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compoundsthat keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which areknown to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests haveshown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, andthat therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poormemory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because itcontains several critical flaws in logic.First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks downthe neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is truethat generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems withlearning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between thebreaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability ormemory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are brokendown by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that preventsneuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: thebreaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of theneuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physicalactions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is note_plicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learningability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also note_pressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselvescauses memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct linkbetween the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and areduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of thecompounds is called into question.Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Ratsmay have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly notthe same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memoryproblems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds onrats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurdin the e_treme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assumingthat they would help the students with their studies, without conducting furtherstudies assessing the compounds overall effects on humans. The argument failson this particular fact if for no other reason.Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that aspeople grow older , PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involvedinlearning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocatese_tendingthe compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students whohave poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young,not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causesstudents to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it ismore likely that it is e_tracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causessuch problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highlyunlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory lossand decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have anybenefits for students.In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. Tostrengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breakingapart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, heor she must show that students poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is aresult of the same process, and that the researcher s compounds would have asbeneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.(633 words)[题目]随着人们日渐衰老,一种被称为PEP的酶会不断地分解学习与记忆过程中所涉及到的神经肽化学物.但现在,研究人员已发现了可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物.在测试中,这些化合物几乎在老鼠身上能完全恢复缺失的记忆.这些化合物的运用应该也推广到记忆力衰弱或专注力有困难的学生身上,不然将会造成学业表现上的严重问题.科学终于解决了那些令家长和老师束手无策的问题.[范文正文]在本段论述中,论述者指出,研究人员已发现了某些化合物,可以阻止一种被称为PEP的酶的物质将神经肽予以分解,而神经肽则是学习和记忆过程中所需涉及到的物质.论述者还宣称,检测结果表明,这些化合物几乎完全恢复了老鼠身上缺失的记忆.因此这些化合物应该让那些记忆力差和难于集中注意力的学生服用.这段论述缺乏说服力,因为它包含着某些逻辑推理方面甚为严重的缺陷.首先,论述者称,随着人们渐趋衰老,PEP会分解学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物.确实,随人们渐趋衰老,他们往往会在学习和记忆方面遭遇诸多问题.但是,在神经肽化学物的分解以及学习能力与记忆力丧失之间,却没有提到任何直接的联系.除此之外,论述者提及被PEP所分解的几种神经肽化学物.但研究人员所发现的只是一种可阻止神经肽不致于分裂的化合物.这是两种不同性质的物理作用:神经肽化学物的分解有别于神经肽自身的分裂.此外,原论述并未陈述这两种物理作用中的那一种与学习能力和记忆能力的丧失相涉.论述者没有明确陈述化学物的分解导致了学习能力和记忆能力的丧失,而只是陈述这种情形只是随着人们日趋年迈而发生.原论述中也没有确切地陈述神经肽自身的分裂是否会导致记忆缺失或学习能力下降.如果无法在阻止神经肽分裂所能产生的作用与减少记忆能力和学习能力丧失之间证明某种直接的联系,那么,化合物的效用将令人质疑.第二,也是极为明显地,化合物只是在老鼠身上进行了测试.虽然老鼠与人类具有类似的基因结构,但它们无论如何并不等同于人类.对于学习和记忆问题,老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人类所遇到的原因.在没有作进一步的研究来估评化合物对人类所产生的总体效果的情况下,就去提倡将这些化合物供学生服用,甚至假设它们有助于学生提高其学习效果,这实乃荒.唐至极.即使不是出于其他原因的话,就这一特定事实本身,该段论述根本就站不住脚.进一步而言,论述者在其论述的开始陈述道, 随着人们渐趋衰老 ,PEP会将学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物进行分解.在论述的结尾之处,论述者倡导将那些可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物推广至那些记忆力和专注力差的学生身上.学生普遍而言都是年轻人,而不是老年人.论述者没有拿出任何证据来证明究竟是什么原因实际导至学生们记忆力和专注力下降.较有可能的是,是那些课外活动,或缺少充足的睡眠,导致了学生身上的这些问题.即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止与衰老相关的记忆缺失问题和学习能力下降问题,它们也极不可能也能为学生带来任何的裨益.总而言之,论述者没能用其提出的论据来说服我们.若要使其论述在逻辑上成立,论述者必须在神经肽的分裂与记忆能力和学习能力的缺失之间证明某种直接的联系.此外,论述者必须证明学生记忆能力差和注意力难以集中均是同一过程造成的,并且研究人员所发现的化合物对人类所产生的效果会对老鼠似乎所产生的效果同样的好.GRE Issue写作范文详细解析汇总。
