GRE作文范文 Argument-19

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

This argument discusses the proposition whether a century-old, all-female college should change its admissions policy and allow men to enter into its programs. Although a majority of the faculty members voted in favor of the change for coeducation, the president and administrative staff note that eighty percent of the students that responded to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female as did over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey. The arguers then state that keeping the college all female will therefore improve morale among students and convince the alumni to continue supporting the college financially. This argument is unconvincing due to several critical flaws.

First of all, the main support that the president and administrative staff rely on is the two surveys conducted by the student government of the current students and alumni. It is possible that the survey itself was flawed, perhaps asking leading questions that subliminally led the respondents to answer in favor of keeping the current all female admissions policy. However, even assuming that the survey was neutrally worded, it remains problematic to rely on it as evidence that there is widespread support for continuing as an all-female college. Firstly, the people that actually take the time to respond to surveys usually have a strong opinion one way or the other. In this case, it is likely that those that feel that the tradition of the school is being threatened by the possibility of admitting men to the college are the ones who would respond to the survey. Those that have a neutral opinion, or that would actually like to see the college opened to men, may not have a strong enough opinion to take the time to respond to the survey. The total number of surveys conducted by the student government is not mentioned in the argument. It is possible that very few people actually responded to the survey, which would indicate that most students actually don't care one way or the other. Similarly, with the alumni survey, the arguers only mention those who answered the survey, but don't mention how many total surveys there were or how many people did not answer the survey. For these reasons, the argument is not well supported by the surveys.

Secondly, by surveying only current students and alumni, the pool of those sampled is limited to those who previously accepted the all-female admissions policy of the school and thus are much more likely to support its continuance. Current students and alumni applied to and attended the school with its current policy in place, thereby prejudicing their own opinions as to what is best for the school. Additionally, with the survey limited to only current students and alumni, the student government did not poll those whose opinion matters the most - potential students. A college cannot survive based on its past successes - it is the future that will determine the long-term viability of the college and potential students are the most important part of that future. It is much more important to determine how many students would attend the college if the policy were changed. Furthermore, the arguers ignore the opinion of a vital part of the college, that of the majority of its faculty members who probably have a better overall view of the situation than students or alumni.

Finally, there is no evidence presented to show that keeping the college all female will improve morale among the students or keep the alumni donations coming in. This statement has no causal relationship demonstrated in the argument, whether the results of the survey are accurate or not. Had the question been asked in the survey- whether keeping the admissions policy the same would improve students' morale and keep alumni financial support intact - there may have at least been some basis for this statement, but without it the statement is groundless.

In summary, the argument is based on only two surveys of a limited sample of people with a built-in bias towards keeping the status quo. Without further evidence and a more fairly distributed survey, the argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.

(697 words)

參考譯文

下面的建議是格羅夫?qū)W院--一個(gè)私有機(jī)構(gòu)--院長(zhǎng)和管理人員寫(xiě)給學(xué)院和管理委員會(huì)的。

我們建議，格羅夫?qū)W院堅(jiān)持其具有百年傳統(tǒng)的全女生教育，不接受男生入學(xué)。的確，大多數(shù)教師表決贊成男女同校，說(shuō)這樣可以鼓勵(lì)更多的學(xué)生申請(qǐng)就讀于格羅夫?qū)W院。但是，由學(xué)生管理機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行的調(diào)查表明，百分之八十的學(xué)生希望學(xué)校堅(jiān)持全女生教育，而且在另一個(gè)單獨(dú)的調(diào)查中，過(guò)半的校友反對(duì)男女同校。因此，保持學(xué)院全女生教育，會(huì)在學(xué)生中振奮精神面貌，并確使校友繼續(xù)從財(cái)力上支持學(xué)院。"

這一論點(diǎn)討論的命題是，一所具有百年歷史的全女生學(xué)院是否應(yīng)該改變其招生政策，允許男生就讀該校。盡管教師中大多數(shù)表決贊成改為男女同校，但是院長(zhǎng)和管理人員注意到在學(xué)生管理機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行的調(diào)查中，百分之八十的學(xué)生希望學(xué)校繼續(xù)保持全女生教育，在另一個(gè)分別進(jìn)行的調(diào)查中有過(guò)半的校友亦復(fù)如此。該論點(diǎn)進(jìn)一步指出，保持學(xué)院全女生教育因而會(huì)在學(xué)生中振奮士氣并確使校友繼續(xù)從財(cái)力上支持該學(xué)院。這一論點(diǎn)因?yàn)閹滋幹匾娜毕荻@得不能令人信服。

首先，院長(zhǎng)及管理人員所依賴的主要佐證論點(diǎn)是由學(xué)生管理機(jī)構(gòu)所進(jìn)行的在校生和校友的調(diào)查。很可能調(diào)查自身是有缺陷的?；蛟S所問(wèn)的主要問(wèn)題都下意識(shí)地引導(dǎo)調(diào)查對(duì)象的回答有利于維持現(xiàn)行的全女生入學(xué)政策。但是，即使假設(shè)調(diào)查所使用的語(yǔ)言是中性的，依賴它來(lái)證明對(duì)維持一所全女生學(xué)院的廣泛支持仍然是有問(wèn)題的。首先，實(shí)際上對(duì)調(diào)查作出回應(yīng)的人們常常具有三種傾向性。這樣，很有可能那些認(rèn)為學(xué)校的傳統(tǒng)正在受到招收男學(xué)生的可能性威脅的人會(huì)積極參與調(diào)查。那些具有中立觀點(diǎn)的人，甚至那些實(shí)際上愿意看到學(xué)校向男生開(kāi)放的人，可能沒(méi)有強(qiáng)烈愿望花時(shí)間去認(rèn)真對(duì)待調(diào)查。學(xué)生管理機(jī)構(gòu)所進(jìn)行的調(diào)查人數(shù)，在論證過(guò)程中沒(méi)有提及。可能只有極少數(shù)人對(duì)調(diào)查作了回答，這表明大多數(shù)學(xué)生實(shí)際上不關(guān)心只收女生還是男女同校。同樣在校友調(diào)查中，論證者在提到那些對(duì)調(diào)查作出回應(yīng)的人，卻并沒(méi)有提到受調(diào)查的總?cè)藬?shù)以及多少人沒(méi)有對(duì)調(diào)查作出回應(yīng)。因此，論點(diǎn)并沒(méi)有得到調(diào)查的有力支持。

其次，只是對(duì)在校生和校友進(jìn)行調(diào)查，取樣范圍僅限于那些以前接受學(xué)校全女生招生政策的人，因此他們更可能支持繼續(xù)這種作法。在校生和校友都是在現(xiàn)政策實(shí)施時(shí)申請(qǐng)入學(xué)和上學(xué)的，因而他們對(duì)于學(xué)校怎樣才好抱有偏見(jiàn)。此外，因?yàn)檎{(diào)查僅限于在校生和校友，學(xué)生管理機(jī)構(gòu)沒(méi)有對(duì)那些潛在的學(xué)生進(jìn)行民意測(cè)驗(yàn)，而他們的觀點(diǎn)才是最重要的。一所大學(xué)不能靠過(guò)去的成功生存，而未來(lái)才決定學(xué)校的長(zhǎng)期活力，潛在學(xué)生是未來(lái)最重要的組成部分。更為重要的是確定在政策改變之后有多少學(xué)生將會(huì)上學(xué)。再者，論證者忽視了學(xué)校里關(guān)鍵成份的意見(jiàn)--那些很可能比學(xué)生和校友對(duì)全局具有更正確看法的大多數(shù)教師的意見(jiàn)。

最后，論證中并沒(méi)有提供證據(jù)來(lái)證明保持全女生學(xué)院會(huì)振奮學(xué)生的士氣或確保校友的捐助。無(wú)論調(diào)查的結(jié)果準(zhǔn)確與否，這一說(shuō)法與論點(diǎn)都缺乏因果關(guān)系。倘若調(diào)查中包含有這樣的問(wèn)題--保持原有的招生政策是否會(huì)振奮學(xué)生的士氣并維持校友財(cái)力上的支持--那么這種說(shuō)法還有點(diǎn)依據(jù)。但是并沒(méi)有提出這樣的問(wèn)題，所以這一結(jié)論是毫無(wú)根據(jù)的。

總之，論點(diǎn)只是基于兩個(gè)抽樣有限的調(diào)查，而且具有保持現(xiàn)狀的內(nèi)在偏見(jiàn)。在沒(méi)有進(jìn)一步的調(diào)查以及一個(gè)分布更合理的調(diào)查情況下，論證完全沒(méi)有為其命題提供充分的依據(jù)。