GRE作文范文 Argument-28

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies---such as those in Japan and Taiwan---that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that because of a new discovery, there should be a drastic change in the diets of people in the United States - an increase in their consumption of fish to prevent depression. To support the argument, the arguer cites two scientists who have suggested that omega - 3 fatty acids, found in some fish and fish oils, play a key role in mental health. The arguer further claims that our ancestors ate less saturated fat, more polyunsaturated fat, and were much less likely to suffer from depression than people today. He or she also states that modern societies such as Japan and Taiwan consume large quantities of fish and report depression rates lower than the United States. This argument is based on problematic reasoning and therefore must be rejected.

First of all, the arguer cites as evidence two scientists who have suggested that omega-3 fatty acids play a key role in mental health. This is problematic for two reasons - only two scientists are mentioned, and they have only suggested a link, which is far from having proved it. There are no studies cited other than that two unnamed scientists have merely suggested a link, which is far from strong evidence that all people in the United States should drastically change their diets.

Secondly, the arguer states that our ancestors ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega-3 fatty acids, and that they were much less likely to suffer from depression than people today. There is no proof of this given in the argument, merely the arguer's statement or opinion. Furthermore, assuming the truth of these statements, there are many other contributing factors to an increased rate of depression today over that of our ancestors. For one thing, depression is much better diagnosed now whereas in the past it was likely to be just written off as simply "a case of the blues". Advances in medical knowledge have enabled people to not only be diagnosed as being depressed but also treated for the problem. In the past it was likely that cases of depression were underreported due to ignorance of the problem or the stigma associated with any type of mental illness. Additionally, lifestyle factors other than diet have contributed to problems with depression today. Excessive debt, increased social pressures and pressure at work are all contributing factors to depression that are bigger problems for people today than for their ancestors. Diet alone probably has nothing or very little to do with the increase in cases of depression.

Finally, the arguer cites Japan and Taiwan as modern societies that eat large quantities of fish who report lower rates of depression than the United States. Once again, there are many other factors to consider besides diet for the discrepancy. Cultural differences, lifestyle differences and the stigma of admitting that one is suffering from depression could all alter the reporting rates of depression in these other countries. There is no direct causal link demonstrated between the consumption of fish and omega-3 fatty acids and a lower rate of cases of depression in these societies outside of the United States. Additionally, the arguer states that all people in the United States should increase their consumption of fish to prevent depression, but it is possible that many people already eat enough fish or do not need to prevent depression as they have no problems in that regard.

In summary, the argument is based on some very tenuous reasoning including the mere suggestion of a link between omega-3 fatty acids and mental health by only two scientists and some anecdotal evidence of lower depression rates in countries that consume large quantities of fish. Without strong evidence of a direct causal link between eating fish, omega-3 fatty acids and depression, the argument fails to convince.

(640 words)

参考译文

下文是一份健康杂志上某篇文章的一部分：

"一项新的发现证明，生活在美国的民众有必要在饮食上进行巨大的改变。最近有两位科学家暗示，Ω-3脂肪酸(发现于某些鱼类和鱼油中)对于大脑的健康有着重要作用。我们的祖先吃较少的饱和脂肪和较多的多不饱和脂肪，包括Ω-3脂肪酸，所以与我们今天相比，不易患忧郁症。再者，某些现代社会--例如食用大量鱼类的日本和台湾--据说比美国患忧郁症的比率低。考虑到Ω-3脂肪酸与忧郁症之间的这种联系，很有必要让所有的美国人增加食用鱼类，以便防止忧郁症。"

在这一论证中，论证者说到，由于一项新的发现，应该大大地改变美国人的饮食：增加鱼类的食用量以防止忧郁症。为了支持其论点，论证者引用了两位科学家的研究，他们指出鱼和鱼油中所含的Ω-3脂肪酸对于大脑的健康具有重要的作用。论证者进而声称，我们的祖先吃饱和脂肪较少，多不饱和脂肪较多，所以与我们相比少患忧郁症。他/她还说到，诸如日本和台湾这类现代社会大量食用鱼类，而且据说比美国患忧郁症的比率低。这一论证的推论是有问题的，因此不能接受。 首先，论证者援引两位科学家的研究，他们暗示Ω-3脂肪酸对大脑的健康起着重要作用。这句话在两方面存在问题：仅仅只有两位科学家，而且他们只是暗示某种联系，而这种联系远未得到证明。除了两位没有署名的科学家只是提到这一联系之外，作者没能援引其他任何研究，远不能构成强有力的证据来说明美国的所有人都应该大大地改变饮食习惯。

其次，论证者说到，我们的祖先较少食用饱和脂肪而较多食用多不饱和脂肪，包括Ω-3脂肪酸，而且，他们比今天的人们较少患有忧郁症。但是，论证中没有提出证据来证明这一点。它只不过是论证者的一种说法或看法。再者，即使假定这些都是真实无疑的，仍有许多其他因素致使我们今天患忧郁症的比率比我们祖先的高。其一是现在忧郁症更易被诊断出来，而过去很可能只把它看作"不高兴"而一笔勾销。医学的进步，使人们不但可以诊断忧郁症而且还可以医疗。在过去，很可能由于对忧郁症的无知或者与神经病相关的论点而没有将它们充分报告出来。此外，除了饮食外，生活方式的因素也会导致今天的忧郁症。债务过重，渐增的社会压力，工作中的压力等，这些都是导致忧郁症成为一个我们今天比我们的祖先更为严重的问题。饮食自身可能与忧郁症的增多无关或者关系甚微。 最后，论证者列举了日本和台湾作为实例来证明，象这样一些大量食用鱼类的现代社会，其忧郁症发病率低于美国。再一次，除了饮食导致这一差别之外，还有许多其他因素需要考虑。文化的不同，生活方式的不同，以及承认自己患忧郁症所会带来的耻辱，可能都会改变这些国家或地区报告忧郁症的比率。在食用鱼类和Ω-3脂肪酸与美国之外的那些社会里忧郁症发病率低之间，作者并没有证明某种直接的因果联系。此外，论证者声称，在美国的所有人都应该增加鱼类的食用量以防止忧郁症。然而，很有可能已有许多人吃了足够的鱼类，或者根本就不需要防止忧郁症，因为他们根本就不存在此类问题。 总之，该项论证基于非常脆弱的推理，包括两位科学家仅仅在Ω-3脂肪酸与大脑健康之间所暗示的联系，以及一些轶闻趣事式的证据来说明食用大量鱼类的国家和地区忧郁症发病率低。因为没有有力的证据表明吃鱼、Ω-3脂肪酸与忧郁症之间的因果关系，这篇论证不能令人信服。