GRE作文范文 Argument-36

“The citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. As evidence to support his or her conclusion, the arguer cites their responses to a survey that showed that their eating habits conform more closely to governmental nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. The arguer further states that sales of food products containing kiran, a cholesterol reducing substance, have increased fourfold. The arguer also claims that the trend toward adopting a healthier lifestyle is demonstrated by reduced sales of sulia, which is a food that the arguer says few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat. This argument should not be accepted because it is based on faulty reasoning.

First of all, the arguer claims that in responses to a recent survey, Forsythe citizens indicate that their eating habits more closely conform to governmental recommendations than they did ten years ago. There are at least two potential problems with this survey: 1) the respondents misrepresented their actual eating habits because they are now more aware of what the governmental recommendations are, so they told the surveyor what they thought he or she wanted to hear; and 2) the governmental regulations have been changed over the past ten years so that they more closely match what citizens are actually eating. The first case is more likely as it is natural that in a survey, people often respond with answers that indicate what they should be doing, not what they are actually doing. Additionally, there is no evidence presented in the argument showing that the governmental recommendations are indicative of adopting a healthier lifestyle, thus further weakening the argument.

Secondly, the arguer mentions a fourfold increase in the sales of food products containing kiran, which a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This does not in and of itself present evidence that Forsythe citizens have adopted healthier lifestyles, and the time period over which the increase has taken place is not mentioned. There may be other reasons for the sales increase, such as greater availability than before, better advertising for such products, or a simple increase in population that has resulted in increased sales – there is no support presented for the idea that they are buying the products for their cholesterol-reducing properties. Without evidence that people are buying more of these kiran-containing products for healthier eating reasons, the argument fails to convince that Forsythe citizens have adopted healthier lifestyles.

Finally, the arguer cites as support that there have been reduced sales of sulia, a food product that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat. This “evidence” is irrelevant to the argument that people in Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. There could be a plethora of reasons that less sulia is being sold – it tastes bad, it is no longer readily available, or it is now too expensive. There is no indication of whether it is a healthy food or bad for one’s health. This appears to be nothing more than a random “fact” thrown in and adopted to suit the arguer’s purposes, but it does nothing to advance the argument.

In summary, the argument is based on ambiguous evidence that neither proves or disproves anything. Additionally, only eating habits and sales of two kinds of food are mentioned as evidence – adopting a healthier lifestyle also involves factors such as quitting smoking, drinking less alcohol and getting more exercise, for example. Without such evidence of healthier lifestyles, the argument ultimately fails to deliver on its premise.

(592 words)

参考译文

Forsythe 的公民们已采用了较为健康的生活方式。从他们对一项近期的调查所作的回答来看，在其饮食习惯方面，他们比10多年前更密切地遵循着政府的营养建议。此外，在含有kiran——一种经科学研究证明可减少胆固醇的物质——的食品的销售中，已出现了四成的增长。这一趋势也明显体现于sulia的销售下降中，而sulia则是最健康的公民通常几乎不会食用的一种食品。

在上述论点中，论述者的结论是，Forsythe的公民已采用了较为健康的生活方式。作为佐证其结论的证据，论述者援引了这些公民对近期某项调查所给出的回答，这份调查报告表明，他们的饮食习惯与10多年前相比，现在更密切地遵循着政府的营养建议。论述者进一步称，含有kiran——一种可减少胆固醇的物质——的食品的销售已增长了四成。论述者还宣称，采用一种较为健康的生活方式的趋势也体现在sulia的销售下降这一现象中，而sulia这一食物被论述者描述为最健康的公民通常绝少食用的一种食物。由于该项论述基于谬误的逻辑推理，故我们应将其摈弃。

首先，论述者宣称，针对一项近期的调查，Forsythe的公民们表示，他们的饮食习惯与10多年前相比更密切地遵循着政府的营养建议。围绕这一项调查，至少存在着两方面的问题。首先，这些回答调查的人没能准确地表述他们的实际饮食习惯，因为他们现在更加意识到政府的营养建议是什么，因此他们所告知调查人员的信息，正是他们认为这些调查人员所想听到的内容。其次，政府的规定在过去10 年中已经发生了变化，所以这些规定能更加密切地匹配公民们所实际食用的食品。前一种情形更有可能，因为在任何一项调查中，人们在回答问题时所给出的答案，往往表明他们所应该做的事情，而不是他们实际上正在做的事情，这一点是甚为自然的。此外，论述中没有摆出任何证据来证明政府的营养建议代表着一种较为健康的生活方式，从而进一步削弱了这项论述。

第二，原文论述者提到，含有kiran的食品出现了四成的销售增长，且科学研究已证明，kiran可减少人体内部的胆固醇。这一点就其本身而言并不能作为证据来证明Forsythe的公民已采用了较为健康的生活方式。此外，这种销售究竟是在哪一段时间发生的也没被提及。而这种销售量的增长可能有着其他的原因，比如这些食品比以前更易于购得，这类产品的广告声势更为强劲，或者纯粹因为人口增长，从而造成了销售量的增长。但不管怎么说，没有任何依据来支持这样一种说法，即Forsythe的公民们是因为这些食品降低胆固醇的作用而去购买这些食品的。如果没有证据来说明人们是出于更为健康的饮食原因而在购买更多的这类含kiran食品的话，那么，该项论述就无法使人相信Forsythe的公民已采用了较为健康的生活方式。

最后，论述者为了支持其论点，援引了这样一条信息，即sulia这样一种最健康的公民通常很少会食用的食品已出现了销售量下降的现象。这种所谓的证据与Forsythe的公民已采用了较为健康的生活方式这一论点完全风马牛不相及。sulia食品的销售量减少可以有形形色色的原因，诸如它味道不好，它不再易于买得到，或者它售价过高。没有任何迹象表明它是一种有益于健康还是一种有害于健康的食品。这似乎只是被论述者抛进来的一个不着边际的“事实”，用来满足其自身的目的，但却不起任何作用来推进该项论述。

总而言之，这项论述基于甚为模棱两可的证据，既不能证明也不能否定任何东西。此外，作为证据被提及的只有饮食习惯和两种食品的销售。但我们知道，采取较为健康的生活方式也涉及到其他各种因素，诸如戒烟，减少饮酒，以及从事更多的运动。如果没有这样一些健康生活方式诸方面的证据，该项论述最终无法论证其命题。