GRE作文范文 Argument-32

“The Department of Education in the state of Attra recommends that high school students be assigned homework every day. Yet a recent statewide survey of high school math and science teachers calls the usefulness of daily homework into question. In the district of Sanlee, 86 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week, whereas in the district of Marlee, less than 25 percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. Yet the students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are the students in Sanlee. Therefore, all teachers in our high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.”

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all teachers in his or her town’s high schools should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all. The arguer bases the argument on a statewide survey showing that in the district of Sanlee, eighty-six percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week while less than twenty-five percent of the teachers reported assigning homework three to five times a week. The arguer claims that despite this, students in Marlee earn better grades overall and are less likely to be required to repeat a year of school than are students in Sanlee. This argument is unconvincing because the arguer ignores several possible reasons other than the number of days that homework is assigned for these discrepancies.

First of all, the survey only contacted high school math and science teachers, not high school teachers in general. It is possible that there is a difference in homework assignments given by the two different districts because of a difference in subject emphasis. For example, perhaps Sanlee focuses more on science and math than Marlee and therefore requires more homework assignments of its students. A survey that covers only two subject areas in only two school districts is hardly convincing that all teachers should assign less homework.

Secondly, it is possible that homework assignments in Marlee are more extensive than those given in Sanlee, perhaps taking two or three days to complete. If the homework assignments take longer to complete, the teachers in Marlee would naturally assign homework less often, although the overall amount of homework completed would be the same as in Sanlee. Ignoring the length and difficulty of the homework that is assigned in the two different districts further weakens the argument. Simply assigning homework on more days does not necessarily mean that the total amount of homework is any different between the two school districts.

Furthermore, it is possible that the students themselves have differing levels of academic ability in Sanlee as opposed to Marlee. School districts can have a vastly different composition of students that directly affect overall grade results and whether students are more likely to be required to repeat a year of school. Students in the Marlee district may simply be brighter students than those in Sanlee, thus explaining the differences in overall grades and failure rates – it could have nothing to do with how much homework is assignment. Failing to address this possibility further weakens the argument.

Finally, it is also possible that the grading system itself is easier for the students in Marlee as opposed to the system in Sanlee. The students may be of equal academic skills, but Marlee’s grading system by design may give higher marks to students than Sanlee’s system. Furthermore, Marlee may have a policy that students never have to repeat a school year, regardless of their marks, while Sanlee may be stricter in this regard. Again, the number of days that homework is assigned has nothing to do with the student’s success; it is simply a function of the differing grading systems.

In summary, this argument is based on a very narrow study of only two subjects, in two school districts, with ambiguous results. To strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to directly compare all aspects of the two different districts with his or her own school district before jumping to the conclusion that all teachers in the district should assign homework no more than twice a week, if at all.

(590 words)

參考譯文

Attra州教育廳建議，高中學(xué)生應(yīng)該每天被布置做家庭作業(yè)。但是最近對(duì)高中數(shù)學(xué)和科學(xué)教師的一項(xiàng)全州范圍的調(diào)查對(duì)每天做家庭作業(yè)的作用提出質(zhì)疑。在三里區(qū)，百分之八十六的老師說(shuō)每周布置三到五次作業(yè)，而在馬里區(qū)，不到百分之二十五的老師說(shuō)每周布置三到五次作業(yè)。但是馬里區(qū)的學(xué)生總體成績(jī)卻比三里區(qū)的學(xué)生好而且較少需要留級(jí)。因此，我們高中所有老師如果真要給學(xué)生留作業(yè)的話，每周最多不應(yīng)該超過(guò)兩次。

在這一論證中，論證者說(shuō)到，其城市里所有高中老師每周最多只應(yīng)給學(xué)生布置兩次作業(yè)，倘若真要留作業(yè)的話。他/她的論證是基于一次全州范圍的調(diào)查，該調(diào)查說(shuō)三里區(qū)百分之八十六的老師每周布置三到五次家庭作業(yè)，而在馬里區(qū)不到百分之二十五的老師每周布置三到五次家庭作業(yè)。論證者聲稱，盡管這樣，馬里區(qū)的學(xué)生總體成績(jī)比三里區(qū)的好，而且較少需要留級(jí)。這一論證沒(méi)有說(shuō)服力，因?yàn)檎撟C者忽視了其他幾個(gè)可能的原因，而僅僅列舉了留家庭作業(yè)的天數(shù)作為學(xué)生差距的原因。

首先，調(diào)查只涉及高中數(shù)學(xué)和科學(xué)教師，而不是普遍的高中教師。很可能，由于兩區(qū)對(duì)科目重視不同而造成家庭作業(yè)不同。例如，或許三里區(qū)比馬里區(qū)更強(qiáng)調(diào)數(shù)學(xué)和科學(xué)，從而要求給學(xué)生布置更多的家庭作業(yè)。僅從一個(gè)或兩個(gè)區(qū)兩個(gè)科目的調(diào)查就得出結(jié)論，說(shuō)所有教師應(yīng)該少布置家庭作業(yè)，這是不能讓人信服的。

第二，很可能，馬里區(qū)的家庭作業(yè)比三里區(qū)的范圍更廣泛，或許需要花兩三天才能完成。如果家庭作業(yè)需要花更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間完成，馬里區(qū)的老師自然就會(huì)減少布置作業(yè)的次數(shù)，盡管所完成的家庭作業(yè)的總量會(huì)與三里區(qū)的相同。由于忽視兩區(qū)所布置作業(yè)的數(shù)量和困難程度，該論證的力度遭到進(jìn)一步削弱。僅僅留作業(yè)次數(shù)多，并不必然意味著兩區(qū)的家庭作業(yè)的總量有何不同。

再者，很可能三里和馬里兩學(xué)區(qū)的學(xué)生學(xué)術(shù)能力程度不同。不同的學(xué)區(qū)可能具有完全不同的學(xué)生構(gòu)成，這直接影響到學(xué)生的總體成績(jī)以及學(xué)生是否更可能需要留級(jí)重讀。馬里區(qū)的學(xué)生可能比三里區(qū)的學(xué)生更聰明些，因此可以解釋兩區(qū)在總體成績(jī)和不及格率方面的諸多差異——這些差異可能與家庭作業(yè)的數(shù)量毫無(wú)關(guān)系。由于沒(méi)有探討這種可能性，該論證顯得蒼白無(wú)力。

最后，還有可能馬里區(qū)學(xué)生的評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比三里區(qū)的較為容易。學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)能力可能是相同的，但馬里區(qū)設(shè)計(jì)的評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)給學(xué)生評(píng)定的分?jǐn)?shù)可能會(huì)比三里區(qū)的高。此外，馬里區(qū)可能有一項(xiàng)政策，即不管學(xué)生成績(jī)?nèi)绾?，都不必留?jí)重讀，而三里區(qū)在這方面可能較為嚴(yán)格。再一次，留作業(yè)的數(shù)量與學(xué)生的成績(jī)無(wú)關(guān);這只是由于不同的評(píng)分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)所致。

總之，這一論證只是以兩個(gè)學(xué)區(qū)對(duì)兩門(mén)課程范圍很窄的調(diào)查為基礎(chǔ)，而且其調(diào)查結(jié)果也含混不清。為了加強(qiáng)其論證，論證者需要將這兩個(gè)不同學(xué)區(qū)的所有方面與他/她所在的學(xué)區(qū)進(jìn)行直接比較，而不是簡(jiǎn)單地得出結(jié)論說(shuō)，其學(xué)區(qū)所有的教師都應(yīng)該每周只布置兩次家庭作業(yè)，如果真要留作業(yè)的話。