gre范文背诵——GRE作文教程+范文资料文档.docx

《gre范文背诵——GRE作文教程+范文资料文档.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《gre范文背诵——GRE作文教程+范文资料文档.docx（25页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Issue 31Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial.I agree with the speakers broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to emb

2、race research whose results are controversial,1 while ignoring certain compelling 引人注目 reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.I concede that the speaker is on th

3、e correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research is the exploration of the unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable 不知足的 appetite for knowledge,

4、and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion 某种想法 ot research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any va

5、lue it must explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact, query /Swhether research whose benefits are immediate and predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered research1 at all.While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controver

6、sial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs-in terms of（根据， 按照，用.的话，在.方面）how the money might be spent toward addressing socie

7、tys more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt 川ustration of this point involves the so-called Star Wars defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect, this initiative 倡议 was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and f

8、ew would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day-by establishing after-school programs for delinquent latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness and education, |and so forth As it turns out

9、, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit.In sum, the issue of endangered-species protection is a complex one, requiring subjective judgments about moral duty and the comparative value of various life

10、forms. Thus, there are no easy or certain answers. Yet it is for this very reason I agree that economic self-interest should take precedence over vague notions about moral duty when it comes to saving endangered species. In the final analysis, at a point when it becomes critical for our own survival

11、 as a species to save certain others, then we humans will do so if we are fit - in accordance with Darwins observed process of natural selection.Issue 26Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any societys past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on the gro

12、und that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served.The speaker asserts that wherever a practical, utilitarian need for new build

13、ings arises this need should take precedence over our conflicting interest in preserving historic buildings as a record of our past. In my view, however, which interest should take precedence should be determined oc a case-bv-case basis-and should account not only for practical and historic consider

14、ations but also aesthetic ones.In determining whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider the communitys current and anticipated utilitarian needs. For example, if an additional hospital is needed to adequately serve the health-care needs of a fast-growing community, this c

15、ompelling interest might very well outweigh any interest in preserving a historic building that sits on the proposed site. Or if additional parking is needed to ensure the economic survival of a citys downtown district, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old structure

16、that stands in the way of a parking structure. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building miaht serve iust as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retr

17、ofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.Competing with a communitys utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an older building uniquely represents

18、a bygone era, or once played a central role in the citys history as a municipal structure. Orperhaps the building once served as the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or as the location of an important historical event. Any of these scenarios miaht justify savina the

19、building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the buildings history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a

20、 new structure that meets a compelling practical need.Also competing with a communitys utilitarian needs is the aesthetic and architectural value of the building itself-apart from historical events with which it might be associated. A building might be one of only a few that represents a certain arc

21、hitectural style. Or it might be especially beautiful, perhaps as a result of the craftsmanship and materials employed in its construction-which might be cost-prohibitive to replicate today. Even retrofitting the building to accommodate current needs might undermine its aesthetic as well as historic

22、 value, by altering its appearance and architectural integrity. Of course it is difficult to quantify aesthetic value and weigh it against utilitarian considerations. Yet planners should strive to account for aesthetic value nonetheless.In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct

23、 a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, weighing the communitys practical needs against the buildings historic and aesthetic value.Issue 159The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are on

24、ly tools of human minds.This statement actually consists of a series of three related claims: (1) machines are tools of human minds; (2) human minds will always be superior to machines; and (3) it is because machines are human tools that human minds will always be superior to machines. While I conce

25、de the first claim, whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on how one defines superiority, and partly on how willing one is to humble oneself to the unknown future scenarios.The statement is clearly accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, would any machine

26、 even exist unless a human being invented it? Of course not. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be described as a tool. Even machines designed to entertain or amuseus-for example, toy robots, cars and video games, and novelty items-are in fact tools, which their in

27、ventors and promoters use for engaging in commerce and the business of entertainment and amusement. And, the claim that a machine can be an end in itself, without purpose or utilitarian function for humans whatsoever, is dubious at best, since I cannot conjure up even a single example of any such ma

28、chine. Thus when we develop any sort of machine we always have some sort of end in mind a purpose for that machine.As for the statements second claim, in certain respects machines are superior. We have devised machines that perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy

29、 and speed than human minds ever could. In fact, it is because we can devise machines that are superior in these respects that we devise them-as our tools-to begin with. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in per-forming rote tasks but rather in other ways, human minds are

30、 superior. Machines have no capacity for independent thought, for making judgments based on normative considerations, or for developing emotional responses to intellectual problems.Up until now, the notion of human-made machines that develop the ability to think on their own, and to develop so-calle

31、d emotional intelligence, has been pure fiction. Besides, even in fiction we humans ultimately prevail over such machines-as in the cases of Frankensteins monster and Hal, the computer in 20xx： A Space Odyssey. Yet it seems presumptuous to assert with confidence that humans will always maintain thei

32、r superior status over their machines. Recent advances in biotechnology, particularly in the area of human genome research, suggest that within the 21st Century well witness machines that can learn to think on their own, to repair and nurture themselves, to experience visceral sensations, and so for

33、th. In other words, machines will soon exhibit the traits to which we humans attribute our own superiority.In sum, because we devise machines in order that they may serve us, it is fair to characterize machines as tools of human minds. And insofar as humans have the unique capacity for independent t

34、hought, subjective judgment, and emotional response, it also seems fair to claim superiority over our machines. Besides, should we ever become so clever a species as to devise machines that can truly think for themselves and look out for their own well-being, then query whether these machines of the

35、 future would be machines anymore.Issue 16Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, they in fact, prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals.Do modern luxuries serve to undermine our true strength and i

36、ndependence as individuals? The speaker believes so, and I tend to agree.Consider the automobile, for example. Most people consider the automobile a necessity rather than a luxury; yet it is for this very reason that the automobile so aptly supports the speakers point. To the extent that we depend o

37、n cars as crutches, they prevent us from becoming truly independent and strong in character as individuals. Consider first the effect of the automobile on our independence as individuals. In some respects the automobile serves to enhance such independence. For example, cars make it possible for peop

38、le in isolated and depressed areas without public transportation to become more independent by pursing gainful employment outside their communities. And teenagers discover that owning a car, or even borrowing one on occasion, affords them a needed sense of independence from their parents.However, ca

39、rs have diminished our independence in a number of more significant respects. Weve grown dependent on our cars for commuting to work. We rely on them like crutches for short trips to the corner store, and for carting our children to and from school. Moreover, the car has become a means not only to o

40、ur assorted physical destinations but also to the attainment of our socioeconomic goals, insofar as the automobile has become a symbol of status. In fact, in my observation many, if not most, working professionals willingly undermine their financial security for the sake of being seen driving this y

41、ears new SUV or luxury sedan. In short, weve become slaves to the automobile.Consider next the overall impact of the automobile on our strength as individuals, by which I mean strength of character, or mettle. I would be hard-pressed to list one way in which the automobile enhances ones strength of

42、character. Driving a powerful SUV might afford a person a feeling and appearance of strength, or machismo. But this feeling has nothing to do with a persons true character. In contrast, there is a certain strength of character that comes with eschewing modern conveniences such as cars, and with the

43、knowledge that one is contributing to a cleaner and quieter environment, a safer neighborhood, and arguably a more genteel society. Also, alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking are forms of exercise which require and promote the virtue of self-discipline. Finally, in my ob

44、servation people who have forsaken the automobile spend more time at home, where they are more inclined to prepare and even grow their own food, and to spend more time with their families. The former enhances ones independence; the latter enhances the integrity of ones values and the strength of one

45、s family.To sum up, the automobile helps illustrate that when a luxury becomes a necessity it can sap our independence and strength as individuals. Perhaps our society is better off, on balance, with such luxuries; after all, the automobile industry has created countless jobs, raised our standard of

46、 living, and made the world more interesting. However, by becoming slaves to the automobile we trade off a certain independence and inner strength.Issue 25Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is to move in the opposite direction-in other words, to mak

47、e things as simple as possible.Whether making things simple requires greater effort and courage than making them bigger and more complex depends on the sort of effort and courage. Indisputably, the many complex technological marvels that are part-and-parcel of our lives today are the result of the e

48、xtraordinary cumulative efforts of our engineers, entrepreneurs, and others. And, such achievements always call for the courage to risk failing in a large way. Yet, humans seem naturally driven to make things bigger and more complex; thus refraining from doing so, or reversing this natural process,

49、takes considerable effort and courage of a different sort, as discussed below.The statement brings immediately to mind the ever-growing and increasingly complex digital world. Todays high-tech firms seem compelled to boldly go to whatever effort is required to devise increasingly complex products, for the ostensible purpose of staying ahead of their competitors. Yet, the sort of effort and courage to which the statement refers is a different one-bred of vision, imagination, and a