GRE作文范文 Argument-13

　　"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

　　嘉文博譯Sample Essay

　　This argument states that the Promofoods company recalled eight million cans of tuna for testing after numerous complaints from consumers of dizziness and nausea. Promofoods own chemists found that samples of the recalled cans had three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but that these three are also found naturally in other types of canned foods. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on faulty reasoning; therefore the argument is unconvincing.

　　To begin with, the argument states that there have been "numerous" consumer complaints, obviously enough to warrant the recall of eight million cans of tuna. The arguer goes on to state that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the cans of tuna. This part of the argument has two flaws - first of all, the testers are not independent and may indeed have a duty to find that there is nothing wrong with the tuna, and secondly, the number of cans that were tested as a sample is not disclosed. The first flaw in the argument could be rectified by simply having outside, independent researchers test the samples of the recalled tuna. As it stands, the test results are somewhat suspicious due to the fact that Promofoods employees conducted the testing. The second flaw may or may not be a major problem, depending upon the number of cans that were sampled and how the sample was chosen. It could be that the defect was with only a certain production date or location, in which case the defects might not be found because the problem cans were not included in the recall or the sample. Additionally, if the number of cans sampled was too small, the sample may not have been representative of all of the cans of tuna, therefore possibly skewing the results one way or the other. To solve this problem, a statistically proper sample should be independently tested with the relative reliability of the numbers included in the argument.

　　Furthermore, the researchers found that three out of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were actually found in the recalled cans of tuna, but that they are also naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. This part of the argument is also very weak, for at least two reasons. First, the argument does not state what levels of these chemicals were found in the Promofood tuna as compared with other types of canned foods. It does not state whether the chemical levels were lower, the same, or higher. The absence of this information critically weakens the argument. Moreover, the argument fails to mention any other possibly hazardous chemicals that may have been found in the cans tested. The arguer merely states that five of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals were not found. This argument leaves open the possibility, if not the probability, that other chemicals could have been found but not mentioned. For both of these reasons, the argument fails to convince.

　　In summary, the wording of the argument suggests that there is something more to what the chemists found in the cans of tuna than was disclosed in the article in the business magazine. To be more persuasive and to end speculation, Promofoods should have a statistically relevant sample of all cans of its tuna tested by independent testing labs, with a full report released listing all chemicals found in the cans and their relative levels, not just what was not found in an unknown number of cans.

　　(605 words)

　　參考譯文

　　鑒于消費(fèi)者對(duì)頭暈和惡心進(jìn)行了諸多投訴，Promofoods公司去年要求將8百萬聽金槍魚罐頭回收進(jìn)行檢測。Promofoods公司的檢測結(jié)論是，這些聽裝儀器確實(shí)不含有可構(gòu)成健康危險(xiǎn)的化學(xué)物質(zhì)。這一結(jié)論所依據(jù)的是這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即來自Promofoods公司的化學(xué)分析師對(duì)回收的聽裝金槍魚進(jìn)行了抽樣檢測，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)，在被普遍被認(rèn)為會(huì)導(dǎo)致頭暈和惡心癥狀的八種化學(xué)物質(zhì)中，有五種被發(fā)現(xiàn)根本不存在于任何所被抽檢的聽裝魚中。這些化學(xué)分析師確實(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)剩下的三種涉嫌化學(xué)物質(zhì)可自然而然地發(fā)現(xiàn)于所有其他任何種類的聽裝食物中

　　上述論述陳述道，Promofoods公司回收了在消費(fèi)者對(duì)其聽裝金槍魚進(jìn)行頭暈和惡心的諸多投訴后回收了八百萬聽金槍魚進(jìn)行了檢測。Promofoods公司自己的化學(xué)分析師發(fā)現(xiàn)，回收的聽裝金槍魚樣品中含有八種最普遍被認(rèn)為會(huì)引發(fā)頭暈和惡心癥狀的化學(xué)物質(zhì)中的三種，但這三種也同樣自然地發(fā)現(xiàn)于其他類型的聽裝食物中。Promofoods公司的結(jié)論是，這些聽裝食物并不含有任何對(duì)身體健康構(gòu)成威脅的任何化學(xué)物質(zhì)。這一論述基于甚為謬誤的邏輯推理，因此所述論點(diǎn)全然無法令人信服。

　　首先，上述論述陳述道，已出現(xiàn)了"諸多"消費(fèi)者的投拆，數(shù)目之眾顯然足以有必要將八百萬聽金槍魚收回。論述者接著陳述道，來自Promofoods公司的化學(xué)分析師抽查了聽裝的金槍魚。論述中的這一部分含有兩個(gè)缺陷。其一，檢測者不是來自獨(dú)立的機(jī)構(gòu)，甚至他們有義務(wù)不要去查找出金槍魚有任何的問題。其二，所被檢測的聽數(shù)沒有得到披露。論述中的第一個(gè)缺陷較易于糾正，只要邀請(qǐng)外部的獨(dú)立的研究人員來檢驗(yàn)收回的金槍魚樣品即可。但就目前情況來看，由于來自Promofoods公司的員工自己在進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)，故檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果會(huì)相當(dāng)令人懷疑。第二個(gè)缺陷可能是也可能不是一個(gè)重大問題，取決于抽查的金槍魚罐頭數(shù)量有多少，以及樣本是如何選取的。情況有可能是，產(chǎn)品缺陷僅存在于某些生產(chǎn)日期或生產(chǎn)地點(diǎn)的產(chǎn)品，在這種情況下，由于有問題的罐裝金槍魚沒能被囊括在回收的產(chǎn)品中或樣本中，故產(chǎn)品的缺陷就無法被查出。此外，如果所抽查的聽數(shù)太少，則該樣本可能就無法來典型地代表所有的金槍魚罐頭，從而有可能以一種方式或另一種方式使檢測結(jié)果發(fā)生偏差。要解決這一問題，應(yīng)獨(dú)立檢測一份在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上恰當(dāng)?shù)臉颖荆鋽?shù)量的相對(duì)可靠性也應(yīng)囊括在上述論述中。

　　另外，研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，在八種最普遍地被認(rèn)為導(dǎo)致頭暈和惡心癥狀的化學(xué)物質(zhì)中，有三種確實(shí)在回收的金槍魚產(chǎn)品中被發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些化學(xué)物質(zhì)相對(duì)于其他類型的罐頭食品而言，其含量如何。它沒有明確陳述化學(xué)物含量較低，還是相同，還是較高。這些信息的缺乏嚴(yán)重削弱了該項(xiàng)論述。此外，該項(xiàng)論述沒有提及在所被檢測的罐頭中可能被發(fā)現(xiàn)的其他任何可能具有危險(xiǎn)的化學(xué)物質(zhì)。論述者只是陳述道八種最普遍被認(rèn)為有問題的化學(xué)物中。有五種未被發(fā)現(xiàn)。論述者置這樣一種可能性--如果說不是或然性的話--于不顧，即其他化學(xué)物早已被人發(fā)現(xiàn)，但卻沒被提及。由于這樣的一些原因，該項(xiàng)論述無法令人信服。

　　總之，該項(xiàng)論述中的措辭暗示，化學(xué)分析師在金槍魚罐頭中所發(fā)現(xiàn)的東西遠(yuǎn)不止這份商業(yè)雜志中的披露的內(nèi)容。為了更具說服力并終止人們的猜測，Promofoods公司應(yīng)拿出其所有金槍魚罐頭在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上相關(guān)的一份樣本，由獨(dú)立的檢測實(shí)驗(yàn)室來檢驗(yàn)，并發(fā)布一份翔實(shí)的報(bào)告，將罐頭中所發(fā)現(xiàn)的全部化學(xué)物質(zhì)及其含量一一列舉出來，而不是僅令列舉出數(shù)量不明的罐頭中未被發(fā)現(xiàn)的物質(zhì)。