GRE作文范文 Argument-13

　　"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."

　　嘉文博译Sample Essay

　　This argument states that the Promofoods company recalled eight million cans of tuna for testing after numerous complaints from consumers of dizziness and nausea. Promofoods own chemists found that samples of the recalled cans had three of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for symptoms of dizziness and nausea, but that these three are also found naturally in other types of canned foods. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not contain any chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on faulty reasoning; therefore the argument is unconvincing.

　　To begin with, the argument states that there have been "numerous" consumer complaints, obviously enough to warrant the recall of eight million cans of tuna. The arguer goes on to state that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the cans of tuna. This part of the argument has two flaws - first of all, the testers are not independent and may indeed have a duty to find that there is nothing wrong with the tuna, and secondly, the number of cans that were tested as a sample is not disclosed. The first flaw in the argument could be rectified by simply having outside, independent researchers test the samples of the recalled tuna. As it stands, the test results are somewhat suspicious due to the fact that Promofoods employees conducted the testing. The second flaw may or may not be a major problem, depending upon the number of cans that were sampled and how the sample was chosen. It could be that the defect was with only a certain production date or location, in which case the defects might not be found because the problem cans were not included in the recall or the sample. Additionally, if the number of cans sampled was too small, the sample may not have been representative of all of the cans of tuna, therefore possibly skewing the results one way or the other. To solve this problem, a statistically proper sample should be independently tested with the relative reliability of the numbers included in the argument.

　　Furthermore, the researchers found that three out of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea were actually found in the recalled cans of tuna, but that they are also naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods. This part of the argument is also very weak, for at least two reasons. First, the argument does not state what levels of these chemicals were found in the Promofood tuna as compared with other types of canned foods. It does not state whether the chemical levels were lower, the same, or higher. The absence of this information critically weakens the argument. Moreover, the argument fails to mention any other possibly hazardous chemicals that may have been found in the cans tested. The arguer merely states that five of the eight most commonly blamed chemicals were not found. This argument leaves open the possibility, if not the probability, that other chemicals could have been found but not mentioned. For both of these reasons, the argument fails to convince.

　　In summary, the wording of the argument suggests that there is something more to what the chemists found in the cans of tuna than was disclosed in the article in the business magazine. To be more persuasive and to end speculation, Promofoods should have a statistically relevant sample of all cans of its tuna tested by independent testing labs, with a full report released listing all chemicals found in the cans and their relative levels, not just what was not found in an unknown number of cans.

　　(605 words)

　　参考译文

　　鉴于消费者对头晕和恶心进行了诸多投诉，Promofoods公司去年要求将8百万听金枪鱼罐头回收进行检测。Promofoods公司的检测结论是，这些听装仪器确实不含有可构成健康危险的化学物质。这一结论所依据的是这样一个事实，即来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师对回收的听装金枪鱼进行了抽样检测，结果发现，在被普遍被认为会导致头晕和恶心症状的八种化学物质中，有五种被发现根本不存在于任何所被抽检的听装鱼中。这些化学分析师确实发现剩下的三种涉嫌化学物质可自然而然地发现于所有其他任何种类的听装食物中

　　上述论述陈述道，Promofoods公司回收了在消费者对其听装金枪鱼进行头晕和恶心的诸多投诉后回收了八百万听金枪鱼进行了检测。Promofoods公司自己的化学分析师发现，回收的听装金枪鱼样品中含有八种最普遍被认为会引发头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中的三种，但这三种也同样自然地发现于其他类型的听装食物中。Promofoods公司的结论是，这些听装食物并不含有任何对身体健康构成威胁的任何化学物质。这一论述基于甚为谬误的逻辑推理，因此所述论点全然无法令人信服。

　　首先，上述论述陈述道，已出现了"诸多"消费者的投拆，数目之众显然足以有必要将八百万听金枪鱼收回。论述者接着陈述道，来自Promofoods公司的化学分析师抽查了听装的金枪鱼。论述中的这一部分含有两个缺陷。其一，检测者不是来自独立的机构，甚至他们有义务不要去查找出金枪鱼有任何的问题。其二，所被检测的听数没有得到披露。论述中的第一个缺陷较易于纠正，只要邀请外部的独立的研究人员来检验收回的金枪鱼样品即可。但就目前情况来看，由于来自Promofoods公司的员工自己在进行检验，故检验结果会相当令人怀疑。第二个缺陷可能是也可能不是一个重大问题，取决于抽查的金枪鱼罐头数量有多少，以及样本是如何选取的。情况有可能是，产品缺陷仅存在于某些生产日期或生产地点的产品，在这种情况下，由于有问题的罐装金枪鱼没能被囊括在回收的产品中或样本中，故产品的缺陷就无法被查出。此外，如果所抽查的听数太少，则该样本可能就无法来典型地代表所有的金枪鱼罐头，从而有可能以一种方式或另一种方式使检测结果发生偏差。要解决这一问题，应独立检测一份在统计学意义上恰当的样本，其数量的相对可靠性也应囊括在上述论述中。

　　另外，研究人员发现，在八种最普遍地被认为导致头晕和恶心症状的化学物质中，有三种确实在回收的金枪鱼产品中被发现，那些化学物质相对于其他类型的罐头食品而言，其含量如何。它没有明确陈述化学物含量较低，还是相同，还是较高。这些信息的缺乏严重削弱了该项论述。此外，该项论述没有提及在所被检测的罐头中可能被发现的其他任何可能具有危险的化学物质。论述者只是陈述道八种最普遍被认为有问题的化学物中。有五种未被发现。论述者置这样一种可能性--如果说不是或然性的话--于不顾，即其他化学物早已被人发现，但却没被提及。由于这样的一些原因，该项论述无法令人信服。

　　总之，该项论述中的措辞暗示，化学分析师在金枪鱼罐头中所发现的东西远不止这份商业杂志中的披露的内容。为了更具说服力并终止人们的猜测，Promofoods公司应拿出其所有金枪鱼罐头在统计学意义上相关的一份样本，由独立的检测实验室来检验，并发布一份翔实的报告，将罐头中所发现的全部化学物质及其含量一一列举出来，而不是仅令列举出数量不明的罐头中未被发现的物质。