GRE必备范文60篇

上篇：Issue范文
2014/7/3
Tobacco Regulation, at Last
The New York Times, June 11, 2009
After more than a decade of struggle — and countless smoking-related deaths —the Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill on Thursday that gives the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products. The House approved a similar bill in April, also by an overwhelming margin. The days when this rogue industry could inflict its harmful products on Americans with impunity are drawing to a close.
This is an enormous victory for public health. For that, we owe thanks to tireless advocacy by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a nonprofit organization, and strong endorsements from medical groups.
It still might not have passed without the decision by Philip Morris, the industry leader, to accept regulation. The company apparently believes it can thrive better under regulation than its competitors, who complain that it will now be much harder for them to introduce new products to challenge Philip Morris’s dominance.
The bill is not perfect. It will not allow the F.D.A. to ban cigarettes or nicotine — a concession made years ago to avoid drawing intense opposition from smokers and free-market advocates. But the agency will still have far-reaching powers.
It could order a reduction in nicotine levels and the elimination of other harmful ingredients. Companies will also have to submit lists of all their product ingredients
and disclose research about their health effects. And all new tobacco products will have to get marketing approval from the F.D.A. Most flavorings used to lure first-time smokers would be outlawed.
To the extent allowed by the First Amendment, the regulators could restrict advertising and promotions to children —industry needs to addict them to keep replenishing the population of smokers — and could shape advertisements aimed at adults as well. The agency could prohibit unsubstantiated health claims about supposedly “reduced risk” products and require larger, more effective health warnings on packages and advertisements.
Funds to support tobacco regulation would come entirely from new fees imposed upon the manufacturers, a reasonable step to prevent siphoning money from other vital regulatory activities at the hard-pressed F.D.A.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation will reduce youth smoking by 11 per cent over the next decade and adult smoking by 2 percent. That’s a good start, but clearly the regulators will still need help from strong anti-smoking campaigns.
The House is expected to move quickly to approve the Senate version of the bill. There are few substantial differences. And that is the fastest and surest way to get it to President Obama, who is eager to sign it into law.
It has now been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that cigarette makers have spent decades making false statements, suppressing evidence of harm, and manipulating the design of cigarettes to increase their addictiveness. Federal regulators should be able to stop many of these abuses —and we hope help prevent more Americans from losing their lives to smoking. (477 words)
9. In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Today, due to the increasing reliance on abstruse technologies it is more difficult than ever to contribute to a field without being strongly influenced by past achievements. However, it still remains possible to invent new fields as well as shrug off influence to re-invent previously existing fields. Equally possible are contributions from amateurs. Therefore, I disagree with the statement that in any field of endeavor it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.
Firstly, the statement cannot be true because new fields of endeavor are regularly invented. Because in new fields no past achievements exist to exert influence, it is impossible for the first contributions to these fields to be influenced by past achievements. Modern examples of new fields of endeavor include space exploration and Internet technology. Upon the creation of each of these fields, neither one was susceptible to influence from past achievements in the field because no such achievement existed. Therefore, a significant contribution can be made without first being strongly influenced by past achievements in new fields of endeavor.
Secondly, it is often possible for significant contributions to be made to a field while only being somewhat influenced by past achievements within that field. An excellent example is French artist Claude Monet and his work in the development of the Impressionist style. While it is true that Monet was influenced by the achievements of previous painters, it can be argued that influence on Monet was negligible because he largely ignored previous conventions in order to develop Impressionism. Hence, Monet was able to make a significant contribution to painting without being strongly influenced by past achievements.
Furthermore, it is also possible for amateurs to stumble upon significant contributions without having knowledge of prior achievements within the field. The
fields of palaeotonlogy and archaeology, for example, are brimming with examples of amateurs who have made outstanding contributions without any influence of prior achievements. Unlike other fields of science where expensive equipment is required to make advances, palaeontological and archaeological specimens are scattered throughout the world in fields and backyards where anyone can find them. Thus historically farmers and hikers have been nearly as successful as professionals in making significant contributions in these fields. In light of these contributions, it is obvious that one need not be significantly influenced by prior achievements within a field in order to make a significant contribution to that field.
To conclude, although there is no doubt that the influence of prior achievements commonly factors into contributions to most fields, for new fields, the radical reinvention of old fields and in the case of amateur discoveries there is ample room for contributions to be made without being strongly influenced by previous contributions. (458 words)
26. The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
As social animals, humans have become increasingly dependent on one another over the course of history to increase the efficiency and survivability, but at a cost to our ability to develop into truly strong and independent individuals. In fact, contemporary luxuries and conveniences have so hindered individual strength and independence that most modern individuals are unable to provide themselves with even the most basic needs.
First, consider the effect that the convenience of modern factory farming and the ubiquity of cheap, ready-made food has on our strength and independence as indivi duals. In the past when much of the world’s population was engaged in agriculture, the production, preparation, and storage of food were common knowledge.
Today, however, only a small portion of the population is able to produce food independently. This reliance on others to satisfy our most basic needs clearly illustrates the negative effects that modern convenience have had on our independence as individuals.
In addition, just as with food, the luxuries and conveniences of modern life have had a negative impact on the ability of most people to independently provide their own shelter. As recently as last century many Americans were knowledgeable and industrious enough to create their own homes. In those days people erected homes that were in tune with their natural surroundings so that they would remain comfortable year round. However, the modern conveniences of universally available electricity as well as central air-conditioning have reduced the need for individual Americans to remain knowledgeable on efficient methods of constructing shelter. With a global energy crisis looming, this lack of independence caused by modern conveniences will likely have troublesome consequences in the future.
Not only have contemporary luxuries taken away our ability to develop into individuals capable of providing for our own basic needs, they have also stripped away even the ability of the body to develop a strong, full-functioning immune system. In recent years scientists have taken note of an increased prevalence of illnesses among individuals of the developed world, such as allergies and asthma, that are caused by a weekened immune system. One possible explanation for this is the Hygiene Hypothesis, which suggests that children of the conveniently clean developed world are unexposed to certain agents that are necessary for the proper development of their immune system. This example proves that modern luxuries have taken away our ability to develop into strong, independent individuals.
In conclusion, humans in the developed world have lost the ability to function independently due to the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life. Having lost the ability to develop into truly strong and independently individuals, if humans were to be denied these luxuries and conveniences, we would have extreme difficulty meeting even the most basic needs for survival. (455 words)
24. The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
There is no denying the fact that praising positive actions is a powerful educational tool. However, any teaching method that ignores the benefit of examining negative actions is incomplete. Therefore, the best way to teach --- whether as an educator, employer, or parent --- is to praise positive actions while also, contrary to the statement, discussing negative actions and their effects.
First of all, as part of a complete education strategy educators should praise students for positive performance. Depending on the age of students, positive feedback in the classroom can take many forms. For example, primary school students might be motivated by receiving small toys, while for university students praise could take the form of positive verbal feedback from a professor. What the age group and reward, praising motivates them to learn in order to continue receiving positive feedback. While positive feedback is a powerful tool, educators should also include feedback for negative actions in order to best educate students. As evidence, consider the number of learning opportunities that would be lost if an educator failed to point out instances of incorrect usage to a foreign language student.
Just as with educators, in order to teach most effectively, employers should praise positive actions. There can be little doubt that praise doled out for positive performance in the form of bonuses, raises and promotions motivates workers to learn improved methods to perform their job. However, to ensure that learning takes place in the most efficient manner possible, employers should also point out and discuss the effects of any significant negative actions on the part of employees. If an employee is never reprimanded for negative actions at work, he may never learn the correct method.
Likewise, parents should also employ both praise for positive actions and advice on correcting negative actions in order to best educate children. In a manner similar to that of students and employees, praising children for positive actions is an excellent
way to reinforce good behavior. At the same time children should have negative behavior pointed out to them so that they know what needs to be improved. Just as with employees, if negative actions are not discussed with children, they may not know that certain behavior isn’t acceptable. Therefore, in order for parents to provide the best teaching, they should both praise positive actions and discuss negative ones.
In summary, the argument is correct to point out that praise for positive actions is integral if educators, employers and parents wish to teach most effectively. However, an examination of the effects of acknowledging negative actions shows that doing so is an equally effective method of teaching. Thus, in order for educators, employers and parents to provide the best teaching, they must acknowledge negative actions as well as praise positive actions. (462 words)
31. Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Extinctions occur so rapidly that protecting an endangered species is often a race against time, so there is often no time to pause to determine whether or not human activity is the source of the problem. Thus, contrary to the view expressed in the statement, in deciding which endangered species to protect the most important factor should not be whether the potential extinction of a species is the result of human activities.
First of all, it is difficult or impossible to ascertain which endangered species face potential extinction due to human activities and which species face extinction due to natuaral processes. For example, current estimates place the number of species going extinct each year in the thousands. It would take an army of scientists and researchers to identify which species are endangered as a result of human activities. What’s more, due to the complicated nature of earth’s ecosystems making accurate determination of the cause of endangerment for every species would be impossible. Therefore, rather than seeking to protect only those species endangered as a result of
human activites, society should try to protect all species known to be endangered.
Furthermore, a more important consideration in deciding whether to protect an endangered species or not should be based on its potential for future benefit to society. Many endangered species should be protected because of the potential benifts of retaining a high degree of biodiversity. Approximately half of all medicines in use today are derivatives of natural products. Alarmingly, thousands of species are going extinct annually without being discovered by science. As a result, thousands of chances are lost each year for society to discover life-saving medical compounds. In light of these developments the necessity to protect remaining species, no matter why they are endangered, becomes sbsolutely clear.
Likewise, another key factor in deciding whether or not to protect an endangered species is the role of that species in its local ecosystem. For example, it has been well documented by biologists that “keystone”species are of greater importance to ecosystems than other species. The extinction of a keystone species could produce a domino effect in which an ecosystem collapses and several more species become endangered or extinct. Hence, in order to most efficiently preserve biodiversity, all endangered keystone species should be protected without consideration for the cause of their endangerment.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement that society should make efforts to save an endangered species only if the potential extinction of the species is the result of human activities. Following the policy outlined in the argument would occupy precious resources in a fruitless task, as whether or not humans are determined to be responsible for the potential extinction of species is secondary to consideration regarding the value of that species. (460 words)
8. Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
New leadership often brings about reform or change in strategy. As beneficial as new leadership can be for achieving success, there are other more effective ways to stimulate the same result. Therefore, while I agree with the claim that in any field those in power should step down after five years, in my opinion there are more reliable paths to success than revitalization of leadership.
One compelling argument in support of the claim is that forcing those in power to step down after five years is necessary to keep leadership motivated toward achieving success. For example, if the president of the United States was not forced to step down after four years unless reelected, he would lose a powerful source of motivation to successfully serve the will of the people. For this reason, a system without term limits invites lackluster performance and corruption. Thus, in the field politics those in power should step down after five years.
Another reason in support of the claim is that one effective path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. New leadership has the ability to provide an enterprise with renewed enthusiasm as well as new ideas and approaches. When an enterprise undergoes a change of leadership, it is often the case that there is increased enthusiasm at all levels of the enterprise, which can lead to increased success. Furthermore, enterprises are equally likely to benefit from new leadership through the application of new ideas and approaches to old problems. By instating new leadership, enterprises are given the opportunity to benefit from the strengths of a new leader, which often results in the ability to solve previously unmanageable problems.
However, the reason given in support of the claim is not entirely correct. While it is true that new leadership can stimulate success through revitalization, the assertion that this is the surest path toward success is unfounded. Among the many paths to success there are several that are as important as or even more so than revitalization through new leadership. To illustrate this point, consider the possible benefits of discovering a new technology to a business. When a business is able to outpace its
competitors by employing a more efficient means of production, success is almost guaranteed. In light of this example, it becomes obvious that revitalization through new leadership is not the best way to ensure success.
In summary, requiring leadership to step down after five years is an effective means to ensure the success of any enterprise. But this policy may not be the most effective path to success due to the existence of other equally effective methods. (437 words)
76. We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
When contemplating the value of learning opportunities presented by individuals who share our views versus individuals with contrasting views, it is important to consider social factors. For obvious reasons people are generally more receptive to ideas presented by those occupying positions of trust than to the ideas of others with dissimilar views. Thus, I agree with the statement that we can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
First of all, people can usually learn much more from those with shared views because people are often more receptive to information conveyed by people with similar views. Consider that most people surround themselves with others who have shared views: most friendships begin and persist due to shared views; shared views are an important component of romantic attraction; families often have shared views. This tendency to surround oneself with others who have shared views becomes a critical argument in support of the view that people are always receptive to the ideas of family members, friends and others with shared views who they trust most. Of course, it goes without saying that more learning usually takes place when people are initially receptive to ideas due to shared views and trust.
Equally important is the argument that exchanges between individuals with differing views often become hostile. For instance, there are many well-known instances of rivals in the scientific community. Most often such pairs of scientists have differing views on the relative value of competing theories. Theses rivalries, brought about by differing views, can eventually lead to disregard for the facts in question, as both parties often become emotionally entangled in a series of reciprocal personal attacks. Thus, because conflicting ideas can lead to decreased learning, we usually learn more from people whose ideas we share.
Conversely, those disagree with the statement might argue that people can learn more from those with contradictory views because they are able to provide differing perspectives. Admittedly, interaction with others who hold differing views does have great potential for learning. However, because of the previously mentioned arguments most people are often presented with few opportunities to learn from others whose views are dissimilar to their own. Furthermore, the statement only proposes that it is usually the case that more learning takes place between people with similar views. Therefore, despite the existence of substantial learning opportunities between parties with separate views, ultimately most learning takes place between people with similar views.
In conclusion, there is ample evidence in support of the statement that we usually learn more from others whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own. Because on average more opportunities for learning are presented when people are receptive to ideas than dubious of them. (462 words)
76. We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
Learning is the result of thinking critically about something. And critical thinking involves alternative pathways of thought to what we previously held to be true.
Disagreement often helps us consider one problem from a different perspective. Therefore, it follows that we can learn more from people whose views contradict our own.
Dealing with disagreement is a process of learning because it offers opportunities to learn. When two people agree, they often value the same reasons, and there is not much to discuss. In contrast, by disagreeing, people have knowledge and logic to unravel and understand. Through listening and contemplating the different point of view, we gain further insights of an issue based new information available to us. It opens our options as we consider someone else’s viewpoint s. They might uncover cultural, experiential, and moral differences that open new doors to discussion and understanding.
Another advantage to grappling with disagreement is that it treats learning as problematic rather than automat ic. Defending one’s viewpoint requires motivation and significant effort. For example, when people discuss which politicians or laws they support, they cannot simply say, “Because that one is the best.” They must support their views with facts and their logic. They must locate themselves within the facts to show the advantages and disadvantages to the different alternative choices. If they listen actively to the person with opposite opinions they must then work strenuously to understand where that person is located within the facts. The brain works hard to justify one’s opinions and understand someone else’s.
Disagreement also teaches people how to handle disagreement in a positive way that benefits everyone involved. Disagreement can help us consider one problem from a different perspective. Even when we hold onto our own viewpoints, we might better understand other viewpoints. And understanding the opposing views, in turn, helps us strengthen our arguments. Thus disagreement expands our knowledge and encourages learning. With disagreement often comes understanding one another better and becoming closer. We learn how to value diverse views, communicate with respect, and most importantly, collaborate with others. These skills are essential toward teamwork and leadership.
Admittedly, if the mood is full of animosity or anger, it is likely that
disagreement will turn into an emotional battle that involves trying to hurt the other person. But if the participants in a disagreement are motivated to understand each other’s viewpoints, learning will take place.Therefore, disagreement is a potent source of creativity in most situations. (407 words)
57. The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
It is indisputable that people now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times; and there are far more valuable benefits to be obtained from the study of history than dispelling illusions. Thus, I disagree with the statement’s claim that the main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.
First, to state that people living now are not significantly different from people who lived in earlier times is factually inaccurate. People have existed for many thousands of years and have gone through many changes over the millennia. Consider the physical differences between modern man and the first humans. Due to a combination of genetic factors as well as environmental and nutritional differences, the first people were physically much smaller than modern humans. They reached sexual maturity at an earlier age and had greatly decreased life spans compared to those of people today.
Additionally, the first humans were vastly different from people today culturally. For example, the languages of the first humans would be completely unintelligible to people living today, and vice versa. Due to their inability to read or write, all of their communication would have been performed orally --- in stark contrast to the massive amounts of printed material consumed by humans today. And rapid advances in knowledge and technology continue to separate us from even our most recent ancestors.。