GRE作文范文 Argument-35

“The country Myria, which charges fees for the use of national parks, reports little evidence of environmental damage. This strongly suggests that for the country Illium, the best way to preserve public lands is to charge people more money when they are using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact. By collecting fees from those people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations.”

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that the country of Myria charges fees for the use of national parks and reports little evidence of environmental damage. The arguer cites this as a strong indicator that the country of Illium should charge people more money for activities with heavy environmental impact when they are using national parks and wilderness areas. The arguer further states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. This argument is unconvincing because it suffers from a lack of evidence and problematic reasoning.

To begin with, there is no supporting evidence that the countries of Myria and Illium have the same types of national parks or that they are comparable in any other manner. It is possible that Myria is a sparsely populated country with very few visitors to its national parks, while Illium may be heavily populated with millions of visitors to its national parks. For example, it is possible that Myria’s national parks are not attractive to its own residents or tourists while Illium’s national parks may be wildly popular with visitors. With few visitors to Myria, it is unlikely that there would be much evidence of environmental damage. Furthermore, the arguer states that the country of Myria reports little evidence of environmental damage, whether to its national parks or otherwise. There may actually be tremendous environmental damage in Myria that the country simply does not report for political or economic reasons, for example.

In addition, there is no mention of how much the country of Myria charges as fees for the use of national parks. Their fees may actually be dramatically lower than what Illium is already charging as fees to use its national parks. The simple fact that Myria charges a fee for using its national parks does not suggest that Illium should charge more money when using national parks and wilderness areas for activities with heavy environmental impact – this is not logical reasoning. Moreover, Illium may already be charging a very high fee for this type of park use – simply charging more may not make any difference as far as how the areas are used.

Finally, the most glaring flaw in this argument lies with the reasoning in the last sentence. The arguer states that by collecting fees from people who overuse public lands, Illium will help preserve those lands for present and future generations. The fact of the matter is that simply collecting fees from people who overuse public lands will do nothing to preserve the lands – the fees must be used in some constructive manner to actively protect those particular environmental areas. The argument is fatally weakened by merely calling for the collection of such fees without indicating how those fees will be spent to safeguard the future of the national parks and wilderness areas of Illium.

In summary, the arguer bases his or her argument on scant evidence and a false analogy between two possibly very different countries. Very little factual information is included in the argument to persuade the reader that charging park users more money for activities with heavy environmental impact will prevent environmental damage in the country of Illium. Furthermore, proposing that simply collecting higher fees from people who overuse public lands will conserve such lands critically weakens the argument. Without presenting concrete evidence that shows a direct correlation between collecting higher park usage fees and the country’s ability to preserve its national parks and wilderness areas, the argument fails to deliver on its premise and should be rejected.

(603 words)

参考译文

对使用国家公园实施收费政策的Myria国，据称几乎找不到毁坏环境的迹象。这有力地表明，对于Illium国来说，保护公共土地的最佳方法是，当人们使用国家公园和野地从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动时，就应该向这些人收取更多的费用。通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国将能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地

在本项论述中，论述者称，Myria国对使用国家公园实行收费，且几乎不存在环境遭毁坏的迹象。论述者将此援引为一种强有力的标志，说明Illium国应该向人们收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会产生沉重环境后果的活动。论述者进一步称，通过向那些过度使用公共土地的人们征收费用，Illium国就能为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。以上的这番论述难以令人置信，因为它为证据的缺乏和成问题的逻辑推理所累。

首先，没有任何佐证性证据能表明，Myria国和Illium国拥有相同类型的国家公园，或者这两个国家在任何方面具有可比性。情况有可能是，Myria国是一个人口稀少的国家，前往国家公园游玩的游客寥寥无几，而Illium国则有可能人口众多，有数以百万计的游客会去游览国家公园。例如，Myria国的国家公园可能对本国居民或旅游者不具吸引力，但Illium国的国家公园却可能广受游客们的喜爱。由于Myria国游客稀少，毁坏环境的迹象自然就不太可能出现。此外，论述者称，Myria国据报道几乎没有任何环境遭破坏的证据，无论是对其国家公园还是对于其他地方。实际上，Myria国可能发生过巨大的环境破坏，只不过出于诸如政治或经济的原因而没有将其公诸于众罢了。

此外，文中没能提及Myria国对使用国家公园究竟收取了多少费用。它所收取的费用可能要比Illium国早就在收取的国家公园使用费远低得多。Myria国对使用国家公园收取费用，这一事实本身并不意味着Illium国就应该收取更多的费用，以同意人们在使用国家公园和荒郊野地时可从事某些会带来沉重环境后果的活动。如果这样的话，这绝不是一种合乎逻辑的推理。除此之外，Illium国有可能对这类公园用途早就在收取一种非常高昂的费用。纯粹收取更高的费用，无论土地如何被使用，均无法显示出任何差别。

最后，这段论述中最为突出的漏洞在于最后一句中的逻辑推理。论述者宣称，通过向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用，Illium国将有助于为目前和未来的人类后代保护好这些土地。整个问题的关键事实在于，单纯向过度使用公共土地的人征收费用对于保护土地而言无济于事——这些费用应该以某种富有建设性的方式积极用来保护这些特定的环境区域才会有益。如此看来，这项论述受到了致命的削弱，因为它仅仅号召去征收这些费用，却并不表明，这些费用将如何被用来保护Illium国的国家公园和荒郊野地的未来。

总而言之，论述者将其论点建立在极为贫乏的证据和两个可能是迥然有别的国家之间的某种虚假类比之上。论述中几乎不含有任何事实性的信息来使读者相信，向使用公园者收取更多的费用，以同意他们从事某些带有沉重环境后果的活动，这样做就可以防止Illium国的环境遭到破坏。此外，论述者所提出的建议，即仅靠向过度使用公共土地的人们征收更高的费用将有助于保护这些土地，又极其严重地削弱了此项论述。如果不拿出确凿的证据来证明，收取较高公园使用费与该国保护其国家公园和荒郊野地的能力之间存在着直接关联，那么，这一论述便无法论证其命题，故应予摈弃。