GRE作文范文 Argument-26

"There are at least two different ways of looking at the concept of originality, and neither of these ways is mutually exclusive as proposed by the above statement. Both approaches to what constitutes "originality" - thinking up something entirely new that no one else has ever thought of before, and combining previously discovered ideas in new ways - have the word "new" in common. One can look at the two schools of thought and see that they are complementary rather than at odds with each other. Both are absolutely necessary for maximizing innovation and discovery

嘉文博译Sample Essay

The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager.

"One month ago, all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately 1/3 of its original force. Although actual readings of water usage before and after the adjustment are not yet available, the change will obviously result in a considerable savings for Sunnyside Corporation, since the corporation must pay for water each month. Except for a few complaints about low water pressure, no problems with showers have been reported since the adjustment. Clearly, restricting water flow throughout all the 20 floors of Sunnyside Towers will increase our profits further."

In this argument, the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building states that one month ago, the showerheads on the first five floors of the building were changed to restrict the flow of water to one third of its original force. The owner argues that the change will result in saving a considerable amount of money for the company because the corporation pays for the water each month. The owner further states that other than a few complaints about low water pressure, there have been no problems with the showers reported since the change. The owner then concludes that all twenty floors of the apartment building should have restricted water flow to further increase the corporation's profits. This argument is based on faulty logic and fails to convince that the change will increase the corporation's profits.

First of all, it is possible that there will actually be no water savings at all due to the modification of the showerheads. It is quite a reduction in water flow, down to one third of its original force, so it is likely that it takes Sunnyside's tenants much longer to take a shower. If it takes the tenants three times as long to take a shower, there will be no net savings of water at all, and therefore no cost savings. Because the actual "before and after adjustment" water usage statistics are not available, it is purely speculation that less water will be used.

Secondly, showers are only one use of water and perhaps not even the biggest use at that. Considerable amounts of water may be used for washing clothes, for example. The percentage of water used by taking a shower may in fact be a very small proportion of the total water usage. Reducing the flow of water through the showerhead may result in very little overall water savings. Furthermore, it is possible that most of the tenants of the apartment building take a bath rather than a shower. There would be absolutely no water savings by changing the showerheads in apartments where the tenants take a bath instead of a shower. If there is no or very little water saved by making the change to restrict the flow of water through showerheads, there will obviously be very little increase of profits due to the lower cost of water usage.

Thirdly, the owner states that there have been only a few complaints about low water pressure, and no problems with showers having been reported since the adjustment. The owner doesn't state exactly how many complaints there have been related to how many apartments have had their showerheads modified. For example, if five out of a total of ten tenants have complained, a "few" is a significant percentage of those that live there. Additionally, it is likely that many more tenants don't like the change but have not had the time or the willingness to complain. Rather than complain, it is possible that they will simply move out. If tenants begin to move out because of the poor performance of their showers, profits for Sunnyside will decrease rather than increase. Fewer tenants paying rent would have a far more negative impact on profitability than any positive impact by the lower costs of reduced water usage. The owner should make further inquiries as to whether the modified showerheads have caused problems rather than waiting for complaints to come in before changing over all the showerheads in the building.

To summarize, the owner is not looking at the big picture but rather basing his argument on assumptions that have no basis in fact. Without providing evidence that the tenants are indeed not bothered by the change and that reducing water usage will actually further increase profits, the owner's argument remains unconvincing.

(633 words)

参考译文

下文取自阳光塔公寓业主给其经理的一封信

"一个月前，阳光塔公寓五层以下所有人的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的近三分之一。尽管在改装之前和之后的实际用水的读数目前尚未获得，但是这一变化显然会为阳光公司节省大笔开支，因为公司必须每月支付水费。除了几起投诉说水压低之外，自调整改装之后，还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。显然，对阳光塔公寓全部20层实施限水，将进一步增加我们的利润。"

在这一论证中，阳光塔公寓的业主声称一个月前五层以下的淋浴喷嘴都进行了改装，以便把水流控制在原水流的三分之一。业主说到，这一改装将为公司节省大笔开支，因为公司每月须支付水费。业主进而言道，除了几起投诉说水压较低以外，改装之后还没有报告说有什么淋浴问题。业主接着得出结论，公寓的全部20层都应该限水，以便进一步增加公司的利润。本段论证的逻辑基础是错误的，并不能使人确信改装将会提高公司的利润。

首先，很有可能由于淋浴喷嘴的改装而一点也不能节水。把水流控制在原水流的三分之一，水流肯定减弱了许多，因而很可能阳光公寓的房客冲淋浴的时间延长了许多。倘若房客洗淋浴的时间是原先的三倍，就不会节水，因而也不会节约费用。由于"改装前和改装后"的实际用水量尚无记录，用水少纯粹是臆断。

第二，淋浴只是用水的其中一种方式，或许甚至不是最主要的方式。例如，大量的水会用来洗衣。淋浴用水的百分率，实际上可能是总用水量中的很小一部分。在喷嘴上减少水流，可能会有少量的节水。再者，有可能公寓的房客洗盆浴而不是冲淋浴。这样，在房客洗盆浴而不洗淋浴的公寓改换淋浴喷嘴，根本就不会节水。如果改装淋浴喷嘴限制水流并没能节水，那么也就不会因为降低用水成本而增加利润。

第三，业主说道，只有几起投诉抱怨水压低，而且自改装之后还没有报告说淋浴有问题。业主没有精确无误地陈述有多少起投诉与多少间改装淋浴喷嘴的公寓有关。例如，如果10个房客中有5个投诉，那么"几起"就是居住在那里的房客总数中的一个很高的百分比。此外，有可能许多其他的房客不喜欢这一改装但没有时间或不愿意投诉。他们没有采用投诉这一形式，而是可能搬出去。倘若房客因为淋浴问题而搬迁出去，那么阳光公司的利润不但不会增加反而会减少。租房的房客减少，会因为减少水量对总体利润产生负面影响而非正面影响。业主在把公寓所有的淋浴喷嘴改装之前应该作进一步调查，以便弄清楚改装的淋浴是否已造成问题，而不应该等待人们前来投诉。