GREIssue写作范文详细解析汇总

小编这整理了Issue写作范文详细解析，我们一起学习一下吧，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

Issue写作范文详细解析

Topic

The Trash-Site Safety Council has recently conducted a statewide study of possible harmful effects of garbage sites on the health of people living near the sites. A total of five sites and 300 people were examined. The study revealed, on average, only a small statistical correlation between the proximity of homes to garbage sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among people living in these homes. Furthermore, although it is true that people living near the largest trash sites had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes, there was otherwise no correlation between the size of the garbage sites and people's health. Therefore, the council is pleased to announce that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. We see no need to restrict the size of such sites in our state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites.

Sample Essay

In this argument, the council comes to the conclusion that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard and that therefore, there is no need to restrict the size of the garbage sites or the number of homes built near the site. To support this conclusion, the council cites a study of five garbage sites and three hundred people that showed only a small correlation between the closeness of the homes to the sites and the incidence of unexplained rashes among those people living there. Additionally, the council came to this conclusion despite the fact that people living near the largest such site had a slightly higher incidence of the rashes. This argument suffers from several critical weaknesses in logic and information presented.

First of all, the members of the "Trash-Site Safety Council" are not listed, which could make a big difference in the believability of the study. A truly independent council could produce results that could be considered much more reliable than one with members with possible conflicts of interest. However, if the council were made up mainly of people who have an interest in finding that there is no problem with the trash sites - homebuilders or city councilmen, for example - then the study would lack some credibility. Without knowing the backgrounds and priorities of the council members, the argument is greatly weakened.

Secondly, this was cited as a statewide study, but only five sites and three hundred people were studied. Although on average there was only a small statistical correlation shown between the nearness of the trash sites and the homes and people who lived in them, the margin of error could be quite large due to studying only a small sample of people that live near the trash sites in the state. It would be much more persuasive were a large majority of the homes and people near trash sites studied rather than merely a small percentage.

Furthermore, the study cites only unexplained rashes as a health-related problem with some statistical correlation. The presence or absence of other types of health problems is not mentioned in the study. It could be that there were other, perhaps not immediately noticeable health problems such as cancer affecting the people living near the sites. Additionally, the study appears to cover only one moment in time, or at least the duration of the study is not discussed. Perhaps there are long-term effects that cannot be discovered by a study conducted over a short period of time. This weakens the argument by leaving out information that could help to persuade the reader one way or another.

To add to the lack of credibility, the study does not discuss the relative size of the garbage sites or how close the homes and people were to the sites. There is really no data present to allow a proper decision to be made restricting the size of the sites or how close the homes could be located near the trash sites. At the very least, the fact that there is a slightly higher incidence of rashes in those living nearest the biggest trash sites indicates a need for further studies to prove or disprove the idea that trash sites of a certain size or location are health hazards.

In summary, the findings and conclusions of the Trash-Site Safety Council are based mainly on speculation and a small amount of indicative data. The disclosure of the council members motives, the study of a larger sample of the population and trash sites, and further information on other types of health problems and relative nearness of the homes and people to the trash sites would give a much better argument either for or against restrictions on the such sites.

(640 words)

[题目]

垃圾场安全委员会最近在全州范围内进行了一项调查，旨在研究垃圾场对居住在附近的居民的身体有可能产生的有害影响。被调查的有五座垃圾场以及300多位居民。研究表明，平均而言，居所紧挨着垃圾场这一事实与这些居所中所居住人口发生的无法解释的疹子之间，仅存在着一种微弱的数据关系。此外，虽然居住在最大的垃圾场附近的居民发疹的程度略高这一事实属实，但在其他方面，垃圾场的大小与人们的健康之间毫无关系。因此，委员会可以甚为欣慰地宣布，目前这套垃圾场体制并不会对健康构成一项重大危险。我们认为毫无必要去限制本州内这类垃圾场的规模，也没有必要去限制垃圾堆附近所建造的房屋数量。

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，委员会得出结论，认为目前的垃圾场体制并没有对健康构成一种重大危险，因此，毫无必要去限制垃圾场的规模或垃圾场周围的住房数量。为了支持这一结论，委员会援引了针对五所垃圾场和300位居民所作的一项研究，据此证明在住房紧挨着垃圾场与居住在那里的人中间所发生的难以名状的疹子之间仅存微弱的关联。此外，委员会在得出这一结论时，全然无视这样一个事实，即居住在这类最大的垃圾场附件的人发病的机率略高。论述在逻辑思路和呈示的信息方面不乏某些关键性的弱点。

其一，"垃圾场安全委员会"的成员没有被清楚列举出来，这一点可令该研究的可信度产生巨大的差异。一个完全独立的委员会所提出的结论，会被视为比一个成员间可能存在着利害关系冲突的委员会所得出的结论可信度高。但是，如果组成该委员会的成员所感兴趣的仅仅是去揭示出垃圾场不存在问题——例如象房地产开发商或市政厅议员，那么，该项研究会失去某些可信度。如果对委员会成员的背景以及他们所优先考虑的问题一无所知，则本段论述倍遭削弱。

其二，所作的研究据称是涵盖整个州的，但被调查的仅有五座垃圾场和300位居民。尽管平均而论，垃圾场的近距离与住所以及与居住在这些房屋内的人之间存在一丝微弱的联系，但由于所研究的仅是该州内居住在垃圾场附近的很小一批人口样本，故误差程度可能会相当的严重。如果在所有垃圾场附近的人和住所当中，有大部分的居民和住所得以被研究，而不只是一个很小的百分比的话，那么，所作的调查将更具说服力。

此外，该研究仅援引难以名状的疹子作为与健康相关的、带有一定统计学关系的问题。该研究没有提及其他类别的健康问题存在与否。情况有可能是，还存在着其他类型的、或许不是那么昭然若揭的健康问题，例如癌症，正影响着居住在这些垃圾场附近的人们。再有，该研究所涵盖的似乎只是一小段时间，或者至少该研究的时间跨度不曾得到讨论。也许，有些长远影响决非是一份只在短期内进行的研究所能涵盖得了的。这一点再度削弱了本段论述，因为可以使读者信服的信息被疏忽了。 使可信度进一步受损的是，该研究没有讨论各垃圾场的相对规模，也没讨论住房和居民离垃圾场到底有多近。实际上，一点都没有数据来允许人们作出一种恰当的判断，是否应该去限制垃圾场的规模，也没讨论住房与垃圾场之间相隔多远才算安全距离。至少，在那些居住在最靠近最大的垃圾场的人身上疹子的发生率略高这一事实表明，有必要进行更深入的研究，以证明或驳倒某种规模或某种位置的垃圾场会对健康构成危害这一想法。 概括而论，垃圾场安全委员会的研究发现和研究结论所主要依据的是揣测和数量有限的说明数据。如能揭示出委员会成员的动机，研究为数更多的人口和垃圾场样本，就其他类别的健康问题以及住房和居民应与垃圾场之间保持怎样的相对距离提供更进一步的信息的话，那么，作者便能作出更为充分的论述，无论是赞成还是反对对垃圾场实施限制。

Issue写作范文详细解析

Issue

"Some educational systems emphasize the development of student's capacity for reasoning and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them to explore their own emotions."

Sample Essay

The ability of a student to think clearly using reasoning and logical thinking is of paramount importance in order to ensure his or her success as an individual after graduation from a university. To be able to look at a situation and use logic and reason to analyze the facts and develop an opinion or solution is to have a solid foundation for success in all aspects of life. Exploring one's emotions is important, but it is outside of the realm of what can be learned in a university classroom. Emotional self-exploration is best done outside of a classroom situation, although there may be some opportunity for students in the classroom to learn a methodology for doing so.

The ability to survive and thrive in a society is based on the assumption that human beings act according to reason and logic. From a very early age, most people are taught that certain actions will bring about certain reactions, and that by using logic you can figure out what the response will be in most situations. Reasoning is also developed early on, although sometimes it is difficult to explain reasoning to a two-year old. Humans are probably born with a desire for reason and logic, as demonstrated by almost any child's incessant asking of the question "Why?". To understand the underlying reasons why something happens is a fundamental part of human nature, proven by the exploits of explorers, scientists and mathematicians over the course of human history.

As a result, the basic framework of most forms of human society requires that a person must act according to the demands of reason and logic. Rules of law are based on the concept that individuals respond to rules based on reasoning and logic. The ability to think according to logic and reason is so imperative that it is essential that it be taught to university students at even the highest levels. What if law schools and medical schools decided that it was more important to allow students to explore their own emotions at the expense of learning the latest laws or medical techniques? Perhaps one course could be taught to help students to deal with the emotional demands of being a lawyer or a doctor, but to train students to explore their own emotions at the expense of learning about logical and reasonable thinking would be to invite catastrophe in society.

One of the main problems with emphasizing to students the importance of exploring one's own emotions is that it creates a "me first" attitude towards their studies. Certainly a degree of self-introspection is necessary to deal with society, but to put emphasis on this above all else is to inculcate in the student the idea that he or she is more important than others, and that what he or she thinks matters a great deal more than it probably does in reality. Too much emotional self-exploration could create individuals who see their emotions as more important than what they contribute to society, which would damage that society as a whole.

A certain amount of self-introspection into one's emotions is probably helpful to the development of a student as an overall person. Usually this kind of activity is explored fully in basic psychology classes that most students are required to take at university. Basic courses in sociology and psychology as well as other humanities courses give students plenty of opportunity to explore their own emotions. Rather than teaching students how to explore their own emotions, it would seem to be a better idea to teach students how to deal with these emotions. Only by instructing students in reasoning and logic can they learn how to apply whatever inner emotions they may have to becoming a successful member of a society.

观点陈述型作文/[题目]

"有些教育强调发展学生的逻辑和思维能力，但一种也能教学生去探索其自我情感的教育，可使学生们获益更多。"

[范文正文]

一个学生运用逻辑推理和思维进行清晰的思索，这一能力对于这位学生大学以后的个人成功具有至高无上的重要性。能够审视某一特定情形，应用逻辑和理性，对事实展开分析，并形成观点或解决方法，这对于在生活中的任何方面获得成功，都能奠定一个坚实的基础。探索个人的情感无疑是重要的，但它外在于大学课堂的教学范围。个人情感探索最好是在课堂情景之外的地方来完成，虽然学生在课堂内可能有机会学到这样做的某种方法。

在社会中得以生存和飞黄腾达，这一能力基于这样一个前提，即人类须按照理性和逻辑来行动。从孩提时代起，大多数人就被告知，自己的某些行为会造成他人的某些反应，通过应用逻辑分析，你就能推断在大多数情形中他人的反应会是什么样的。推理的能力在小时候也得以培养起来，尽管有时候向一个2岁的小孩解释推理甚为困难。人类对于理性和逻辑的欲望可能生而有之，举例来说，几乎任何一个孩子都会"为什么……?"地问个没完。要弄懂事情发生的基本原因是人性的一个基本部分，这一点可从人类历史进程中探险家、科学家和数学家们的功绩中得以证明。

由此看来，大多数形式的人类社会的基本架构要求人们按照理性和逻辑的要求行事。法律的规则基于这样一个概念，即个人须遵循基于逻辑和理性思维的规则。必须按逻辑和理性来思索，这一能力是如此至关重要，以至于即使处在最高层次上的大学生，也必须被授以这一能力。试想一下，如果法学院或医学院认为，让学生去探索其情感，而放弃学习最新的法律和医疗技术，其结果将会怎样?或许，可以开设一门课来帮助学生处理当律师或大夫的情感要求。但是，以学习逻辑和推理思维为代价，训练学生去探索其情感，这意味着在社会中招致灾难。

向学生强调探索其情感重要性，这一做法的诸多主要问题之一是，它会造成学生对其学习产生一种"唯　我独尊"的心态。当然，一定程度上的自我反省对于和社会打交道是必要的，但将它凌驾于其他一切之上将会在学生的内心灌输这样一种理念，即他(她)要比他人更为重要，他(她)的想法极为重要，而实际上或许并非如此。过多的自我情感探索所造就的将是这样一些个人，他们会将其情感视为比他们对社会的贡献更为重要，而这于整个社会都是有害的。

一定程度上的对个人情感的自我反省或许有助于学生整体人格的发展。一般而言，这种活动大多数学生在大学期间必须选择的心理学基础课程中可得到充分探索。社会学和心理学的基础，以及其他人文学科的课程，赋予学生大量的机会去探索其个人情感。相对于去教授学生如何去探索其个人情感，教授学生如何去处理这些情感或许更为有益。只有通过教育学生提高其逻辑推理和分析能力，才能使学生学会去应用他们所拥有的任何内心情感，去成为社会的成功一员。

Issue写作范文详细解析

As people grow older, an enzyme known as PEP increasingly breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. But now, researchers have found compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart. In tests, these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats. The use of these compounds should be extended to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating-and therefore serious problems in school performance. Science finally has a solution for problems neither parents nor teachers could solve.

In this argument, the arguer states that researchers have found compounds that keep an enzyme known as PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart, which are known to be involved in learning and memory. The arguer states that tests have shown that these compounds almost completely restored lost memory in rats, and that therefore, these compounds should be administered to students with poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. This argument is unconvincing because it contains several critical flaws in logic.

First of all, the arguer states that as people grow older, PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals that are involved in learning and memory. It is true that generally, as people get older, they tend to have more problems with learning and memory. However, there is no direct link mentioned between the breaking down of the neuropeptide chemicals and the loss of learning ability or memory. Additionally, the arguer mentions neuropeptide chemicals that are broken down by PEP. What the researchers have found is a compound that prevents neuropeptides from breaking apart. These are two different physical actions: the breaking down of neuropeptide chemicals as opposed to the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves. Furthermore, it is not stated which of these physical actions is involved with the loss of learning ability and memory. It is not explicitly stated that the breaking down of chemicals causes a loss in learning ability and memory, only that this happens as people grow older. It is also not expressly stated whether the breaking apart of the neuropeptides themselves causes memory loss or a lessened learning ability. Without showing a direct link between the effect of keeping the neuropeptides from breaking apart and a reduction in the loss of memory and learning ability, the efficacy of the compounds is called into question.

Secondly and most obviously, the compounds were only tested on rats. Rats may have a similar genetic structure to humans, but they are most certainly not the same as humans. There may be different causes for the learning and memory problems in rats as opposed to that of humans. The effect of the compounds on rats may also be very different from their effect on human beings. It is absurd in the extreme to advocate giving these compounds to students, even assuming that they would help the students with their studies, without conducting further studies assessing the compounds' overall effects on humans. The argument fails on this particular fact if for no other reason.

Additionally, the arguer begins his or her argument by stating that "as people grow older", PEP breaks down the neuropeptide chemicals involved in learning and memory. At the end of the argument, the arguer advocates extending the compounds that prevent PEP from breaking neuropeptides apart to students who have poor memory and difficulty in concentrating. Students are generally young, not older people. There is no evidence presented that shows what actually causes students to have a poor memory or difficulty in concentrating. Indeed, it is more likely that it is extracurricular activities or a lack of sleep that causes such problems in students, not a problem associated with aging. It is highly unlikely that even if the stated compounds could help prevent the memory loss and decreased learning ability associated with aging that it would have any benefits for students.

In summary, the arguer fails to convince with the argument as presented. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must show a direct link between the breaking apart of neuropeptides and loss of memory and learning ability. Additionally, he or she must show that students' poor memory and difficulty in concentrating is a result of the same process, and that the researcher's compounds would have as beneficial an effect on humans as it seems to have on rats.

(633 words)

[题目]

随着人们日渐衰老，一种被称为PEP的酶会不断地分解学习与记忆过程中所涉及到的神经肽化学物。但现在，研究人员已发现了可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物。在测试中，这些化合物几乎在老鼠身上能完全恢复缺失的记忆。这些化合物的运用应该也推广到记忆力衰弱或专注力有困难的学生身上，不然将会造成学业表现上的严重问题。科学终于解决了那些令家长和老师束手无策的问题。

[范文正文]

在本段论述中，论述者指出，研究人员已发现了某些化合物，可以阻止一种被称为PEP的酶的物质将神经肽予以分解，而神经肽则是学习和记忆过程中所需涉及到的物质。论述者还宣称，检测结果表明，这些化合物几乎完全恢复了老鼠身上缺失的记忆。因此这些化合物应该让那些记忆力差和难于集中注意力的学生服用。这段论述缺乏说服力，因为它包含着某些逻辑推理方面甚为严重的缺陷。

首先，论述者称，随着人们渐趋衰老，PEP 会分解学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物。确实，随人们渐趋衰老，他们往往会在学习和记忆方面遭遇诸多问题。但是，在神经肽化学物的分解以及学习能力与记忆力丧失之间，却没有提到任何直接的联系。除此之外，论述者提及被PEP所分解的几种神经肽化学物。但研究人员所发现的只是一种可阻止神经肽不致于分裂的化合物。这是两种不同性质的物理作用：神经肽化学物的分解有别于神经肽自身的分裂。

此外，原论述并未陈述这两种物理作用中的那一种与学习能力和记忆能力的丧失相涉。论述者没有明确陈述化学物的分解导致了学习能力和记忆能力的丧失，而只是陈述这种情形只是随着人们日趋年迈而发生。原论述中也没有确切地陈述神经肽自身的分裂是否会导致记忆缺失或学习能力下降。如果无法在阻止神经肽分裂所能产生的作用与减少记忆能力和学习能力丧失之间证明某种直接的联系，那么，化合物的效用将令人质疑。

第二，也是极为明显地，化合物只是在老鼠身上进行了测试。虽然老鼠与人类具有类似的基因结构，但它们无论如何并不等同于人类。对于学习和记忆问题，老鼠所遇到的原因很可能全然不同于人类所遇到的原因。在没有作进一步的研究来估评化合物对人类所产生的总体效果的情况下，就去提倡将这些化合物供学生服用，甚至假设它们有助于学生提高其学习效果，这实乃荒.唐至极。即使不是出于其他原因的话，就这一特定事实本身，该段论述根本就站不住脚。

进一步而言，论述者在其论述的开始陈述道，"随着人们渐趋衰老"，PEP会将学习和记忆过程中所涉及的神经肽化学物进行分解。在论述的结尾之处，论述者倡导将那些可阻止PEP致使神经肽分裂的化合物推广至那些记忆力和专注力差的学生身上。学生普遍而言都是年轻人，而不是老年人。论述者没有拿出任何证据来证明究竟是什么原因实际导至学生们记忆力和专注力下降。较有可能的是，是那些课外活动，或缺少充足的睡眠，导致了学生身上的这些问题。

即使所提及的那些化合物真的有助于防止与衰老相关的记忆缺失问题和学习能力下降问题，它们也极不可能也能为学生带来任何的裨益。 总而言之，论述者没能用其提出的论据来说服我们。若要使其论述在逻辑上成立，论述者必须在神经肽的分裂与记忆能力和学习能力的缺失之间证明某种直接的联系。此外，论述者必须证明学生记忆能力差和注意力难以集中均是同一过程造成的，并且研究人员所发现的化合物对人类所产生的效果会对老鼠似乎所产生的效果同样的好。

GRE Issue写作范文详细解析汇总相关文章：

1.2020托福写作范文附思路解析最新汇总

2.托福写作典型错误解析