GRE作文范文 Argument-29

"The way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of personality than training. Different interpretations come about when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things."

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

A new report suggests that men and women experience pain very differently from one another, and that doctors should consider these differences when prescribing pain medications. When researchers administered the same dosage of kappa options--- a painkiller---to 28 men and 20 women who were having their wisdom teeth extracted, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men, and the easing of pain lasted considerably longer in women. This research suggests that kappa opioids should be prescribed for women whenever pain medication is required, whereas men should be given other kinds of pain medication. In addition, researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women.

In this argument, the arguer cites a new report suggesting that men and women experience pain very differently from one another and that doctors need to consider these differences when prescribing pain medicine. The arguer cites as evidence the results of the study, which indicated that when giving a painkiller called kappa opioids to twenty-eight men and twenty women who were having wisdom teeth taken out, the women reported feeling much less pain than the men with the easing of the pain also lasting longer in women. The arguer then concludes that this same painkiller should always be prescribed for women when painkillers are required, and that men should be given some other kinds of pain medications. The arguer finally concludes that researchers should study the effects of all medications on men versus women. This argument is not convincing because it contains several critical fallacies.

In the first place, this was a very small study - just twenty-eight men and twenty women so it is possible that the sample of people studied is not representative of the entire population. It may also be that the men's wisdom teeth extractions were much more difficult cases than that of the women, so naturally the pain was worse, either because the small sample size contained a disproportionate number of difficult men's cases or because men's wisdom teeth are physically more problematic to remove. In either case, a small study like this is not enough on which to base such a broad conclusion.

Furthermore, the arguer states that the researchers administered the same dosage to both the men and the women. Men are normally physically bigger in body size than women, thus making the same dosage more powerful in the smaller women when compared with its effect on the larger men. It is likely that a dosage that takes relative body size into account would provide similar levels of pain relief for both men and women, therefore it is not necessary to use a different drug on men but rather a larger dose to reflect their larger physical size.

In addition, the arguer concludes that women should be given kappa opioids whenever pain medication is required. This fallacy ignores critical factors such as the possibility of side effects of the medications in some women, such as women who are pregnant. Simply because one small study appeared to show that the medication worked better for women than men does not mean that it should always be used for pain relief for women. This part of the argument also fails to take into consideration that there are other, even better pain medications that could also be used rather than kappa opioids.

Finally, the arguer says that researchers should reevaluate the effects of all medications on men versus women. This simply does not follow as there is no evidence presented to warrant such research. This was a small and probably misleading report on only one type of painkiller. It would be foolish to launch such a broad and expansive research study on all medications and their effects on the different sexes. Instead, medications should be prescribed and adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending on the patient's needs, not by gender.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on groundless conclusions that don't really prove anything. Without a broader study that takes into account body size, other types of pain medications and the severity of the medical procedure, this argument will remain unconvincing and should be ignored.

(586 words)

參考譯文

一篇新的報(bào)告表明，男人和女人感受疼痛的方式彼此不同，因此醫(yī)師在開(kāi)具處方治療頭痛時(shí)應(yīng)考慮到這些差異。當(dāng)研究人員給拔智齒的28位男性和20位女性用同樣劑量的卡巴止痛藥時(shí)，女性反映說(shuō)她們受的疼痛比男性少，而且緩解疼痛的時(shí)間在女性身上比較長(zhǎng)。這一研究表明，當(dāng)需要止痛藥時(shí)，卡巴止痛藥應(yīng)該給女性服用，而男性應(yīng)該服用其他類(lèi)型的止痛藥。此外，研究人員應(yīng)該根據(jù)男女差異重新評(píng)估所有藥物的療效

在這篇論證中，論證者引用一篇新的報(bào)告，說(shuō)男性和女性感受疼痛的方式彼此不同并且說(shuō)醫(yī)師在開(kāi)具處方時(shí)需要考慮到這些差異。論證者還引用了一項(xiàng)研究作為證據(jù)，說(shuō)明當(dāng)給28位男性和20位女性服用名叫卡巴的止痛藥拔智齒時(shí)，女性反映她們?cè)馐艿奶弁幢饶行陨?，而且緩解疼痛的時(shí)間在女性身上較長(zhǎng)。論證者接著得出結(jié)論：當(dāng)需要使用止痛藥時(shí)，這種止痛藥應(yīng)該總是給女性服用而男性應(yīng)該服用其他類(lèi)型的止痛藥。最后論證者還說(shuō)，研究人員應(yīng)該根據(jù)男女的差異去研究所有藥物的療效。這一論證由于存在幾處嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤，所以不能令人信服。 首先，這項(xiàng)研究所涵蓋的范圍太小--只有28位男性和20位女性，因而很可能研究對(duì)象的整個(gè)抽樣不能代表全體患病人口。也可能拔男性的智齒要比拔女性的困難得多，所以很自然男人的疼痛更厲害一些，或者是因?yàn)楹苄〉某闃臃秶兄话税窝览щy的男性的一個(gè)不成比例的數(shù)量，或者是因?yàn)槟腥说闹驱X從生理上講更難拔出。但無(wú)論屬于何種情形，這樣小范圍的研究不足以作為這樣重要結(jié)論的基礎(chǔ)。

再者，論證者聲稱(chēng)，研究人員給男性和女性使用同樣劑量的止痛藥。男性比女性在身材上更大，所以與大個(gè)兒的男性相比，同樣劑量的藥物在小個(gè)兒的女性身上會(huì)更有效。把身材大小考慮進(jìn)去的劑量可能會(huì)對(duì)男性和女性產(chǎn)生同樣程度的疼痛緩解效果，因此，不必要對(duì)男性使用另一種不同的藥物，而只需對(duì)身材較大者使用較大劑量即可。 此外，論證者的結(jié)論是，當(dāng)女性無(wú)論何時(shí)需要止痛藥時(shí)，都應(yīng)該服用卡巴。這一謬誤忽視了某些重要的因素，例如該藥可能會(huì)對(duì)某些女性產(chǎn)生副作用，如孕婦。僅僅由于一個(gè)涵蓋范圍很小的研究似乎說(shuō)明這種藥物在女性身上比在男性身上更有效，這并不意味著女性應(yīng)該永遠(yuǎn)用它來(lái)緩解疼痛。論證的這一部分同樣也沒(méi)能考慮到會(huì)有其他的、甚至比卡巴更有效的止痛藥可用。 最后，論證者提出，研究人員應(yīng)該重新評(píng)估所有藥物在男性身上相對(duì)于在女性身上所產(chǎn)生的療效。這一論點(diǎn)顯得毫無(wú)依據(jù)，因?yàn)檎撟C者沒(méi)能提供證據(jù)來(lái)證明進(jìn)行這一研究的合理性。這是一份僅涉及到一種止痛藥的研究范圍甚為狹窄且可能帶有誤導(dǎo)性質(zhì)的報(bào)告。依據(jù)這份報(bào)告來(lái)對(duì)所有藥物及對(duì)男女患者不同療效展開(kāi)如此廣泛、如此大規(guī)模的研究，無(wú)疑會(huì)顯得愚蠢。相反，大夫應(yīng)該依據(jù)病人的具體需要，而不是依據(jù)性別，來(lái)對(duì)單個(gè)病例逐個(gè)開(kāi)列藥方，并不斷作出調(diào)整。

總之，論證者的論證，是建立在什么也證明不了的、毫無(wú)根據(jù)的結(jié)論之上。如果沒(méi)有一項(xiàng)將身材、其它止痛藥、醫(yī)療程序的嚴(yán)重程度考慮進(jìn)去的范圍較廣的研究，該論證將是沒(méi)有說(shuō)服力的，應(yīng)該不予理睬。