GRE作文范文 Argument-15

“The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.”

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

"A folk remedy* for insomnia, the scent in lavender flowers, has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medication. They slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. During the second week, the volunteers discontinued their medication. As a result, they slept less soundly than the previous week and felt even more tired. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than in the previous two weeks. This shows that over a short period of time lavender cures insomnia.."

(*A folk remedy is usually a plant-based form of treatment common to traditional forms of medicine, ones that developed before the advent of modern medical services and technology.)

This arguer states in his or her argument that a recent study has proven that the scent of lavender flowers is an effective remedy for insomnia. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the study, which tested thirty volunteers over a three-week period in a controlled room where their sleep was monitored. During the first week, the volunteers continued to take their usual sleeping medications and slept well but awoke feeling tired. For the second week, the medication was discontinued and the volunteers slept less soundly and felt even more tired than before. During the third week, the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than before. This conclusion is based on problematic reasoning and fails to convince on any level.

First of all, the fact that the study took place in a controlled room makes the study's results likely to be different than what would have been found in the volunteers' home environments. For most people, it is difficult, at least at first, to sleep in a new bed in a different place, thus altering the normal patterns of sleeping and ultimately the results of the study. In addition, a study based on the results of only thirty volunteers over just three weeks is hardly a thorough and convincing study of an entire population. This argument is greatly weakened by both of these problems with the study method.

Secondly, the study results showed that for the first week, the subjects slept soundly but wakened feeling tired. This would be expected as medication can force sleep but not the natural type of sleep that is necessary to normally refresh the mind and the body. For the second week, the medication was discontinued with the result being that the volunteers slept less soundly and were even more tired than before. Again, this would be expected as taking away the medication that normally made the volunteers sleepy had interrupted the normal sleep routine. With less sleep, of course the volunteers would feel more tired. For the third week, the study found that the volunteers slept longer and more soundly than they had in the previous two weeks. Rather than attributing this to the lavender scent, the subjects in reality had been tired for the previous two weeks, including one in which they discontinued medication. It would be a natural result for them to sleep well during the third week due to being so tired from the previous two weeks. Additionally, by the third week, the volunteers would be getting familiar with their still relatively new sleeping environment, again helping them to sleep better. With so many possible other causes of better sleep during the third week, it is highly unlikely that the lavender scent had any effect on the volunteers. Because the arguer does not address these other causes, the argument here also fails to convince.

In summary, the arguer has used some unconvincing anecdotal evidence to try to show a direct cause and effect relationship between the scent in lavender flowers and a cure for insomnia. To strengthen the argument, evidence must show a direct causal relationship between the lavender scent and its effect on sleep. The study presented as evidence of such a link does not isolate other possible factors that probably led to better sleep for the volunteers, and as such it does not contribute much to the arguer's improbable conclusion.

(568 words)

參考譯文

作為一種治療失眠的民間偏方，熏衣草花卉的花香已被證明有其療效。在近期的一項(xiàng)研究中，有30名志愿者--他們?nèi)蓟加虚L(zhǎng)期失眠癥--在一間控制室內(nèi)連續(xù)三周每晚都枕著有熏衣草花香的枕頭就寢?？蒲腥藛T對(duì)他們的睡眠狀況進(jìn)行了全程監(jiān)測(cè)。第一星期，志愿者們繼續(xù)服用他們平常服用的安眠藥。他們睡得很香，但第二天醒來(lái)時(shí)感覺(jué)疲憊。第二周，志愿者們停止服用安眠藥，結(jié)果是，他們睡得沒(méi)有上個(gè)星期那么香，并覺(jué)得更為疲憊。至第三周，志愿者們睡眠的時(shí)間比前兩個(gè)星期更長(zhǎng)，且睡得更香。這表明，在一個(gè)較短的時(shí)間內(nèi)，熏衣草已治愈了失眠癥

(注：所謂偏方常指一種基于植物的治療形式，為傳統(tǒng)醫(yī)療形式所普遍采用，它們形成于現(xiàn)代醫(yī)療服務(wù)和技術(shù)出現(xiàn)之前。)

上述論點(diǎn)的論述者在其論述中陳述道，近期的一項(xiàng)研究已證明，熏衣草花卉的芳香可有效地治愈失眠癥。為了支持這一結(jié)論，論述者援引了一項(xiàng)研究，該研究對(duì)30名志愿者進(jìn)行了為期三個(gè)星期的測(cè)驗(yàn)，將受測(cè)試者置于一間控制室內(nèi)，對(duì)其睡眠狀況進(jìn)行全程監(jiān)測(cè)。第一周，志愿者們繼續(xù)服用他們慣常服用的安眠藥，睡得很香，但醒來(lái)時(shí)甚感疲倦。第二周，志愿者們停止用藥后，睡得便沒(méi)有那么香，且感到比以前還要疲倦得多。第三周，志愿者們睡眠的時(shí)間較以前長(zhǎng)，且睡得香。這一結(jié)論基于極成問(wèn)題的邏輯推理，在任何層面上均無(wú)法令人置信。

首先，該項(xiàng) 研究是在某一控制室內(nèi)進(jìn)行，這一事實(shí)就足以使得該項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果可能全然有別于在其家庭環(huán)境中進(jìn)行研究所有可能發(fā)現(xiàn)的結(jié)果。對(duì)于大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō)，至少是在初期，是很難在一個(gè)全新的環(huán)境中的一張全新的床上睡好的，因此，這會(huì)改變其正常的睡眠模式，并因而會(huì)最終改變研究結(jié)果。此外，一項(xiàng)只是基于三十個(gè)人為期僅三個(gè)星期的研究很難成為一項(xiàng)面向所有人口的全面而有說(shuō)服力的研究。由于該研究方法中的這二大缺陷，上述論點(diǎn)倍遭削弱。

其次，該項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果表明，第一周內(nèi)，受試者們睡得很香，但醒來(lái)時(shí)甚感疲倦。這可以被視作意料之中的事，因?yàn)樗幬锟蓮?qiáng)制人們?nèi)胨?，但這種睡眠不是一種自然的睡眠，不是用來(lái)放松身心的一種正常手段。第二周內(nèi)，藥物的使用被停止，其結(jié)果是，志愿者們沒(méi)能睡得那么香，且感到比以前甚至更疲倦。這又是情理之中的事。因?yàn)槟米吣切┩ǔ?huì)使志愿者們感到困倦的藥物會(huì)打斷其慣常的睡眠習(xí)性。由于睡得較少，志愿者們當(dāng)然會(huì)感到更為倦乏。至第三周，該項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，志愿者們的睡眠與以前的二周相比時(shí)間變長(zhǎng)了，且睡得更香了。我們不應(yīng)將這一點(diǎn)歸諸于熏衣草的芳香。實(shí)際上，這是由于受試者們二個(gè)星期以來(lái)已甚感困倦，其中包括停止服用藥物的那個(gè)星期。由于在第二周中是如此疲倦，因此，他們?cè)诘谌苤兴煤芟銘?yīng)是順理成章。此外，至第三周，志愿者們已越來(lái)越適應(yīng)了他們?nèi)匀幌鄬?duì)陌生的睡眠環(huán)境，這一點(diǎn)也可以幫助他們睡得更香。由于第三周中志愿者睡眠狀況的改善存在著如許多其他的可然性原因，因此，熏衣草的芳香極不可能對(duì)志愿者們產(chǎn)生了任何影響。由于論述者沒(méi)有涉及這些其他的原因，故所持論點(diǎn)在這里再次無(wú)法令人信服。

概而言之，論述者利用某些缺乏說(shuō)服力的、軼事趣聞性質(zhì)的證據(jù)，試圖來(lái)證明在熏衣草花香和醫(yī)治失眠癥之間存在著某種直接的因果關(guān)系。若要使其論點(diǎn)更具力度，就必須拿出證據(jù)來(lái)證明熏衣草的芳香和它對(duì)失眠的療效之間有著直接的因果聯(lián)系。作為這一聯(lián)系的證據(jù)而擺出的該項(xiàng)研究，沒(méi)能分離出其他某些有可能致使志愿者們改善其睡眠狀況的或然性因素。如此看來(lái)，該項(xiàng)研究無(wú)法起到太大的作用來(lái)支持論述者所提出的那種極不可能的結(jié)論。