GRE作文范文 Argument-14

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

　　嘉文博譯Sample Essay

　　"People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold-Away, both popular over-the-counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor's prescription. Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well-known, unwanted side effect: Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure and Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. But the choice should be clear for most health-conscious people: Cold-Away has been on the market for much longer and is used by more hospitals than is Coldex. Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective."

　　In this argument, the arguer concludes that Cold-Away is “clearly” a more effective over-the-counter cold medication. To support this conclusion, the arguer states that the brand Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. The arguer further states that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people because it is used by more hospitals than the other brand and it has also been on the market for much longer. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies and is ultimately unconvincing.

　　First of all, one wonders who the writer is of such a one-sided argument. The argument states that each brand has “accused” the other of causing well-known and undesirable side effects, then states that Coldex is known to contribute to existing high blood pressure while Cold-Away is known to cause drowsiness. Coldex does not cause high blood pressure, it is said to merely contribute to an existing medical condition. The wording of the argument could lead a casual reader into believing that Coldex causes high blood pressure, which is a much more serious side effect than drowsiness in most situations. This brings up the possibility that this particular argument was written by an employee or paid copywriter of the Cold-Away company. No evidence other than the statement of the author is given to support the allegations of side effects, which further weakens the argument.

　　Secondly, the arguer states that for most health-conscious people, it should be a clear choice in choosing Cold-Away because it has been on the market much longer and is used by more hospitals than Coldex. First of all, simply being on the market longer in and of itself is not indicative of what medication a health-conscious person should choose. Indeed, many drugs that are new to the market have been developed with fewer and less serious side effects yet with greater efficacy of treatment. Secondly, there are a multitude of reasons that more hospitals might use one medication rather than another. It may be less expensive, which is important to the evermore cost-conscious hospital industry. The Cold-Away company may provide far and away more free samples, so that it costs the hospital nothing to dispense to patients, thereby increasing its use. Or perhaps the Cold-Away company simply has better marketing, thus giving the perception that it is better for health conscious people; therefore more hospitals use it. By neglecting to address these possibilities, the argument fails to convince that Cold-Away is clearly better for health-conscious people.

　　Furthermore, the arguer concludes: “Clearly, Cold-Away is more effective.” There is absolutely no evidence of any kind presented in the argument that addresses the idea of which cold medication is more effective. Side effects are discussed, and (specious) reasons are given why Cold-Away should be chosen by health conscious people. However, even assuming that all statements in the argument are true, there is nothing in the argument that discusses whether Coldex or Cold-Away is more effective. Again, length of time on the market is not an indicator of effectiveness, indeed it is extremely likely that a more recent market entry would be more effective (in this case Coldex) due to developments in medical technology. Similarly, if more hospitals are using Cold-Away than Coldex, there are factors other than effectiveness that could be the cause.

　　To summarize, a careful reading of the argument shows that there is no solid evidence presented to warrant the conclusions that Cold-Away is better for health-conscious people or that it is more effective than Coldex. This “argument” reads more like advertising copy written by the Cold-Away company marketing department.

　　(605 words)

　　參考譯文

　　下述文字摘自某份地方報(bào)紙。

　　民眾不應(yīng)該被Coldex和Cold-Away這兩種藥品之間的廣告競賽所誤導(dǎo)，這兩者均是任何人可在任何商店不需要大夫處方便可直接購買的、時(shí)下甚為流行的感冒藥。每一種藥都指責(zé)對方會(huì)引起某些眾所周知的、令人生厭的副作用：Coldex會(huì)使既有的高血壓癥每況愈下，而Cold-Away則會(huì)引起嗜睡癥。但是，對于大多數(shù)健康意識強(qiáng)烈的人們來說，他們所應(yīng)作出的選擇將是不言而喻的：Cold-Away藥進(jìn)入市場的時(shí)間比Coldex遠(yuǎn)長得多，且在更多的醫(yī)院推廣使用。顯而易見，Cold-Away藥具有更好的療效。

　　在上述論述中，論述者的結(jié)論是，Cold-Away藥“顯然”是一種更為有效的、不需要大夫的處方便可直接購買的感冒藥。為了支持這一結(jié)論，該論述者陳述道，Coldex品牌的同類藥物會(huì)使既有的高血壓癥每況愈下，而Cold-Away只是引起嗜睡癥而已。該論述者進(jìn)一步陳述道，Cold-Away藥更宜于健康意識強(qiáng)的人們，因?yàn)樗攘硪环N品牌的藥被更多的醫(yī)院所使用，并且它上市供應(yīng)的時(shí)間要長得多。該項(xiàng)論述含有某些關(guān)鍵性的邏輯謬誤，因而無法令人信服。

　　首先，我們疑惑的是，持如此片面論點(diǎn)的一位作者竟是何許人也!該段論述宣稱，每一品牌的藥品均“指責(zé)”對方會(huì)引起眾所周知的和令人生厭的副作用，接著陳述說，Coldex會(huì)使既有的高血壓癥每況愈下，而Cold-Away藥只會(huì)引起嗜睡癥狀。Coldex不會(huì)導(dǎo)致高血壓癥，而是被說成僅僅是在使某種既有的醫(yī)療狀況每況愈下。該論述的措辭很有可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致一位心不在焉的讀者相信，Coldex實(shí)際上會(huì)導(dǎo)致高血壓癥，而在絕大多數(shù)情況下，這與嗜睡癥狀相比實(shí)乃一種嚴(yán)重得多的副作用。這就引出了這樣一種可能性，即本篇論述可能是出自一位Cold-Away制藥公司的職員，或是出自一位被Cold-Away制藥公司收買的廣告文字撰稿人。

　　其次，論述者陳述道，對于大多數(shù)具有極強(qiáng)健康意識的人們來說，選擇Cold-Away藥不啻是一種“不言而喻”的抉擇，因?yàn)樗鲜袖N售的時(shí)間要比Coldex遠(yuǎn)長得多，并被更多的醫(yī)院所使用。首先，上市銷售的時(shí)間更長這一事實(shí)就其本身而言并不能表明它必然就是有著較強(qiáng)健康意識的人們所應(yīng)選擇的一種藥物。實(shí)際的情況是，新上市銷售的許多藥品，在其研發(fā)過程中，其副作用被處理成比另一種藥更少，更輕微，但療效更好。第二，一種藥被更多的醫(yī)院所使用，這可以有無數(shù)的原因。它可能是因?yàn)檩^為廉價(jià)，這一點(diǎn)對于永遠(yuǎn)具有強(qiáng)烈成本意識的醫(yī)療行業(yè)來說殊為重要。Cold-Away公司可能提供了遠(yuǎn)來得多的免費(fèi)試用品，因此各大醫(yī)院可以在不支付任何成本的情況下讓病人服用這些藥品，從而擴(kuò)大該藥的使用范圍。再者，Cold-Away公司可能擁有更好的銷售體系，因此仿佛給人一種感覺，好像它的藥品更宜于有較強(qiáng)健康意識的人們，故而有較多的公司在使用該藥。由于沒能探究這些可能性，該論述便無從讓我們相信，Cold-Away的藥品顯然更宜于有著較強(qiáng)健康意識的人們。

　　此外，該論述者還得出結(jié)論說，“顯而易見，Cold-Away藥具有更好療效。”但原文中絕對沒有列舉出任何證據(jù)來探討這樣一個(gè)問題，即哪一種感冒藥療效更好。確實(shí)，該論述者討論了這兩種藥品的副作用，并給出了一些(似是而非的)理由來說明Cold-Away藥應(yīng)成為有健康意識的人們的共同選擇。但是，即使我們假設(shè)原文中的所有論點(diǎn)均真實(shí)無疑，該論述也根本沒有討論Coldex與Cold-Away兩種藥之間何者更為有效。必須再度強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，上市銷售的時(shí)間長短并不能等同于一種藥物的有效程度。實(shí)際上，極有可能的是，一種藥越是新近進(jìn)入市場，由于其研發(fā)技術(shù)的提高，其療效可能會(huì)更好(在此情形中，療效更好的藥應(yīng)屬于Coldex)。同樣地，如果說Cold-Away藥真的比Coldex藥被更多的醫(yī)院采用的話，個(gè)中的原因應(yīng)是療效之外的其他因素。

　　總而言之，對原文論點(diǎn)細(xì)加體會(huì)，便可揭示出，原文作者沒有拿出確鑿的證據(jù)來論證這樣的一些結(jié)論，即Cold-Away藥品更適用于有著較強(qiáng)健康意識的人們，以及其療效優(yōu)于Coldex藥品。這一“論述”讀上去更像是Cold-Away公司的銷售部門炮制的一種廣告冊。