GRE作文范文 Argument-36

“The citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat.”

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. As evidence to support his or her conclusion, the arguer cites their responses to a survey that showed that their eating habits conform more closely to governmental nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. The arguer further states that sales of food products containing kiran, a cholesterol reducing substance, have increased fourfold. The arguer also claims that the trend toward adopting a healthier lifestyle is demonstrated by reduced sales of sulia, which is a food that the arguer says few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat. This argument should not be accepted because it is based on faulty reasoning.

First of all, the arguer claims that in responses to a recent survey, Forsythe citizens indicate that their eating habits more closely conform to governmental recommendations than they did ten years ago. There are at least two potential problems with this survey: 1) the respondents misrepresented their actual eating habits because they are now more aware of what the governmental recommendations are, so they told the surveyor what they thought he or she wanted to hear; and 2) the governmental regulations have been changed over the past ten years so that they more closely match what citizens are actually eating. The first case is more likely as it is natural that in a survey, people often respond with answers that indicate what they should be doing, not what they are actually doing. Additionally, there is no evidence presented in the argument showing that the governmental recommendations are indicative of adopting a healthier lifestyle, thus further weakening the argument.

Secondly, the arguer mentions a fourfold increase in the sales of food products containing kiran, which a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This does not in and of itself present evidence that Forsythe citizens have adopted healthier lifestyles, and the time period over which the increase has taken place is not mentioned. There may be other reasons for the sales increase, such as greater availability than before, better advertising for such products, or a simple increase in population that has resulted in increased sales – there is no support presented for the idea that they are buying the products for their cholesterol-reducing properties. Without evidence that people are buying more of these kiran-containing products for healthier eating reasons, the argument fails to convince that Forsythe citizens have adopted healthier lifestyles.

Finally, the arguer cites as support that there have been reduced sales of sulia, a food product that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat. This “evidence” is irrelevant to the argument that people in Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. There could be a plethora of reasons that less sulia is being sold – it tastes bad, it is no longer readily available, or it is now too expensive. There is no indication of whether it is a healthy food or bad for one’s health. This appears to be nothing more than a random “fact” thrown in and adopted to suit the arguer’s purposes, but it does nothing to advance the argument.

In summary, the argument is based on ambiguous evidence that neither proves or disproves anything. Additionally, only eating habits and sales of two kinds of food are mentioned as evidence – adopting a healthier lifestyle also involves factors such as quitting smoking, drinking less alcohol and getting more exercise, for example. Without such evidence of healthier lifestyles, the argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.

(592 words)

參考譯文

Forsythe 的公民們已采用了較為健康的生活方式。從他們對一項近期的調(diào)查所作的回答來看，在其飲食習慣方面，他們比10多年前更密切地遵循著政府的營養(yǎng)建議。此外，在含有kiran——一種經(jīng)科學研究證明可減少膽固醇的物質(zhì)——的食品的銷售中，已出現(xiàn)了四成的增長。這一趨勢也明顯體現(xiàn)于sulia的銷售下降中，而sulia則是最健康的公民通常幾乎不會食用的一種食品。

在上述論點中，論述者的結論是，F(xiàn)orsythe的公民已采用了較為健康的生活方式。作為佐證其結論的證據(jù)，論述者援引了這些公民對近期某項調(diào)查所給出的回答，這份調(diào)查報告表明，他們的飲食習慣與10多年前相比，現(xiàn)在更密切地遵循著政府的營養(yǎng)建議。論述者進一步稱，含有kiran——一種可減少膽固醇的物質(zhì)——的食品的銷售已增長了四成。論述者還宣稱，采用一種較為健康的生活方式的趨勢也體現(xiàn)在sulia的銷售下降這一現(xiàn)象中，而sulia這一食物被論述者描述為最健康的公民通常絕少食用的一種食物。由于該項論述基于謬誤的邏輯推理，故我們應將其擯棄。

首先，論述者宣稱，針對一項近期的調(diào)查，F(xiàn)orsythe的公民們表示，他們的飲食習慣與10多年前相比更密切地遵循著政府的營養(yǎng)建議。圍繞這一項調(diào)查，至少存在著兩方面的問題。首先，這些回答調(diào)查的人沒能準確地表述他們的實際飲食習慣，因為他們現(xiàn)在更加意識到政府的營養(yǎng)建議是什么，因此他們所告知調(diào)查人員的信息，正是他們認為這些調(diào)查人員所想聽到的內(nèi)容。其次，政府的規(guī)定在過去10 年中已經(jīng)發(fā)生了變化，所以這些規(guī)定能更加密切地匹配公民們所實際食用的食品。前一種情形更有可能，因為在任何一項調(diào)查中，人們在回答問題時所給出的答案，往往表明他們所應該做的事情，而不是他們實際上正在做的事情，這一點是甚為自然的。此外，論述中沒有擺出任何證據(jù)來證明政府的營養(yǎng)建議代表著一種較為健康的生活方式，從而進一步削弱了這項論述。

第二，原文論述者提到，含有kiran的食品出現(xiàn)了四成的銷售增長，且科學研究已證明，kiran可減少人體內(nèi)部的膽固醇。這一點就其本身而言并不能作為證據(jù)來證明Forsythe的公民已采用了較為健康的生活方式。此外，這種銷售究竟是在哪一段時間發(fā)生的也沒被提及。而這種銷售量的增長可能有著其他的原因，比如這些食品比以前更易于購得，這類產(chǎn)品的廣告聲勢更為強勁，或者純粹因為人口增長，從而造成了銷售量的增長。但不管怎么說，沒有任何依據(jù)來支持這樣一種說法，即Forsythe的公民們是因為這些食品降低膽固醇的作用而去購買這些食品的。如果沒有證據(jù)來說明人們是出于更為健康的飲食原因而在購買更多的這類含kiran食品的話，那么，該項論述就無法使人相信Forsythe的公民已采用了較為健康的生活方式。

最后，論述者為了支持其論點，援引了這樣一條信息，即sulia這樣一種最健康的公民通常很少會食用的食品已出現(xiàn)了銷售量下降的現(xiàn)象。這種所謂的證據(jù)與Forsythe的公民已采用了較為健康的生活方式這一論點完全風馬牛不相及。sulia食品的銷售量減少可以有形形色色的原因，諸如它味道不好，它不再易于買得到，或者它售價過高。沒有任何跡象表明它是一種有益于健康還是一種有害于健康的食品。這似乎只是被論述者拋進來的一個不著邊際的“事實”，用來滿足其自身的目的，但卻不起任何作用來推進該項論述。

總而言之，這項論述基于甚為模棱兩可的證據(jù)，既不能證明也不能否定任何東西。此外，作為證據(jù)被提及的只有飲食習慣和兩種食品的銷售。但我們知道，采取較為健康的生活方式也涉及到其他各種因素，諸如戒煙，減少飲酒，以及從事更多的運動。如果沒有這樣一些健康生活方式諸方面的證據(jù)，該項論述最終無法論證其命題。