GRE作文范文 Argument-12

"Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledge that tourists are willing to pay money to tour some of the architect's buildings, so it can be expected that tourists will want to visit this new building. The income from the fees charged to tourists will soon cover the building costs. Furthermore, such a building will attract new students as well as donations from alumni. And even though such a building will be much larger than our current need for student housing, part of the building can be used as office space"

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

This argument states that a famous architect that is known for futuristic and experimental buildings should be commissioned to build student housing for Claitown University as a means of gaining affordable housing for its students as well as funding the project. The arguer states that tourists would want to visit such student housing buildings and that the income from tourist fees would soon pay for the building. The arguer also states that the building would attract new students and donations from alumni, and that part of the oversized building could be used as office space. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince for several reasons.

First of all, the arguer assumes that because some of a famous architect's other buildings attract tourists and fees, tourists will also pay money to visit the new student housing building built by him or her. There is no justification for such reasoning. It is likely that such other buildings were built in tourist-type areas with the specific purpose in mind of attracting tourists. Examples of such buildings abound: the Empire State Building and the former World Trade Centers of New York, the Oriental Pearl of Shanghai, the Louvre museum building in Paris - all were built with the intention of attracting tourists. These buildings and their surrounding areas all have some intrinsic tourist value. It is highly likely that no matter how unusual the building, very few tourists would go out of their way to a college campus to see a student dormitory building. The argument lacks credibility from this standpoint.

Secondly, hiring a famous architect will likely be prohibitively more expensive as such architect's services are in constant demand across the entire world, and only so many buildings can be designed in a certain period of time. The additional fee that the architect alone can command, combined with the likelihood that a futuristic or experimental design will also be tremendously more expensive, makes this idea unworkable. The arguer must be assuming an enormously large income from tourist's fees, which as stated before is extremely unlikely. This second point critically weakens the argument.

Thirdly, the arguer fails to consider the viewpoint of the students that would be living in the futuristic or experimental housing. He or she assumes that such a building would attract students to the university, just as it would supposedly attract tourists. Even assuming that it would attract tourists, what student, or person for that matter, wants to live in a home that is constantly toured by strangers? Furthermore, there are safety factors to consider. How safe can a futuristic or experimental building be? This argument must be rejected on safety grounds if for no other reason as an "experimental" building is simply not appropriate for use as student housing.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the building would attract donations from alumni. On the contrary, the opposite is more likely. An expensive architect building an expensive student housing project is likely to anger alumni, not please them - it would be seen as a waste of money and they would refuse to donate any more to the school. Additionally, without any basis in fact, the arguer states that the building would be much larger than current student housing needs, but that the extra room could be used for office space. This suggests that the arguer has already seen some plans or made some plans, indicating that there may be a conflict of interest here that should be investigated further.

In summary, without actual cost and income estimates, this argument is based on nothing more than pure speculation and perhaps wishful thinking. The argument at best is unconvincing - at worst it reeks of conflict of interest that may warrant investigation into the motives behind the argument.

(627 words)

參考譯文

Claitown大學(xué)需要為學(xué)生提供較為廉價(jià)的住房，以及需要尋找到一種方法，來為建造此類住房提供資金。解決這一問題的最佳方案是將建筑設(shè)計(jì)委托給一位以實(shí)驗(yàn)性和未來主義建筑風(fēng)格著稱的建筑設(shè)計(jì)師。眾所周知，觀光旅游者均愿意花錢去游覽該建筑師設(shè)計(jì)的某些建筑，因此，我們可以預(yù)料，游人將會(huì)參觀這一新建大樓。從向游人收取的費(fèi)用中產(chǎn)生的收益將很快就涵蓋建造成本。此外，這樣一座建筑將吸引新學(xué)生來就讀，也能吸引校友的捐款。雖然這樣一座建筑規(guī)模之大會(huì)超出我們目前學(xué)生住房的需要，但大樓的部分區(qū)域可以用作辦公空間。

本項(xiàng)論述宣稱，一位以未來主義和實(shí)驗(yàn)性建筑風(fēng)格著稱的著名建筑師應(yīng)被授予委托，去為Claitown大學(xué)設(shè)計(jì)建造學(xué)生住房，作為一種手段來為其學(xué)生獲取廉租房，并為該建設(shè)項(xiàng)目籌得資金。論述者宣稱，旅游者們將希望來參觀這樣的學(xué)生住房建筑，并且從旅游者收費(fèi)中所產(chǎn)生的收益將很快就可以支付大樓的建設(shè)成本。論述者還稱，該建筑還將吸引新生入學(xué)，吸引校友捐款，并且大樓規(guī)模超大部分可用作辦公空間。上述論述所依據(jù)的是相當(dāng)成問題的邏輯推理，由于多方面的原因而無法令人信服。

首先，論述者假定，由于一位著名建筑師其他一些建筑物中的有一些曾吸引過旅游者和收費(fèi)來源，故旅游者們同樣也會(huì)花錢來參觀由這位建筑師所設(shè)計(jì)建造的這幢新的學(xué)生公寓樓。這樣一種邏輯推理缺乏絲毫理據(jù)。情況有可能是，其他此類建筑建造于旅游區(qū)，建造時(shí)帶著專門吸引旅游者的設(shè)想。此類建筑實(shí)例比比皆是：紐約的帝國大廈和前世貿(mào)大廈，上海的東方明珠塔，巴黎的盧浮宮博物館建筑--所有這些建筑的建設(shè)意圖就是為著吸引旅游者。這些建筑以及它們的周邊地區(qū)都具有一定內(nèi)在的旅游價(jià)值。非常有可能出現(xiàn)的情形是，無論所造的大樓多么的非同異常，很少會(huì)有旅游者特意去往一所大學(xué)校園，去觀賞一幢學(xué)生的宿舍樓。從這一觀點(diǎn)判斷，上述論述缺乏可信度。

其次，雇傭一位著名建筑師將會(huì)昂貴至極，因?yàn)檫@樣的建筑師，其服務(wù)在全球范圍內(nèi)供不應(yīng)求。這位建筑師一個(gè)人所值的額外費(fèi)用，加諸未來派或?qū)嶒?yàn)性設(shè)計(jì)的費(fèi)用也將極其高昂這一可能性，使得這一想法無法操作。論述者必定是假定向旅游者收取的費(fèi)用能帶來極為巨大的效益。但這一點(diǎn)我早已陳述過是極為不可能的。這第二點(diǎn)也嚴(yán)重地削弱了論述者的上述論點(diǎn)。

第三，論述者也沒有考慮到入住到這座未來派或?qū)嶒?yàn)性建筑中的學(xué)生的看法。這位論述者自以為這樣的一座大樓會(huì)吸引學(xué)生來該大學(xué)入學(xué)，如同論述者所假設(shè)的能吸引旅游者那樣。即使我們假定這幢大樓真的能吸引旅游者，但哪一個(gè)學(xué)生，或哪一個(gè)人會(huì)愿意居住在一個(gè)不斷被陌生人瀏覽觀光的居室里呢?此外，還需要考慮安全因素。一座未來派或?qū)嶒?yàn)性質(zhì)的大樓，其安全程度如何?即使不是因?yàn)槠渌売傻脑?，單純基于安全因素的考量，上述論述亦必須予以推翻，因?yàn)橐蛔?quot;實(shí)驗(yàn)性質(zhì)的"大樓根本就不宜用作學(xué)生住房。

最后，論述者假設(shè)所要建造的大樓將能從校友們那里吸引捐款。相反情況更有可能適得其反。聘請一位收費(fèi)高昂的建筑師來設(shè)計(jì)建造一座費(fèi)用高昂的學(xué)生公寓，這一工程可能令校友們怒發(fā)沖冠，而不是取悅于他們--這會(huì)被視作浪費(fèi)錢財(cái)，他們有可能拒絕再向該校提供任何捐助。此外，在沒有任何事實(shí)依據(jù)的情況下，論述者陳述道，擬建的大樓將會(huì)規(guī)模龐大，超出目前學(xué)生的居住需求，但多余的空間可用作辦公空間。這暗示論述者早已預(yù)見到了某些計(jì)劃，或已制定出了某些計(jì)劃，表明這里存在著某種利害關(guān)系的沖突，而這一點(diǎn)正是需要作進(jìn)一步調(diào)查的。

總而言之，在沒有實(shí)際的成本和收入估計(jì)的情況下，上述論述僅僅是基于純粹的臆測，以及或許是一廂情愿式的思維模式。該論述充其量也是無法令人置信的--從最不利的一方面看，它帶有利害關(guān)系沖突的色彩，使人覺得有必要調(diào)查本項(xiàng)論述背后所隱匿的真實(shí)動(dòng)機(jī)