资源描述
1GRE AWA MODEL ESSAYSTopics in the following list may appear in your actual test. Youshould become familiar with this list before you take the GRE-AWAtest. Remember that when you take the test you will not have achoice of topics. You must write only on the topic that is assigned toyou.2The Pool of Issue TopicsPresent your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examplesto support your views.Issue 1We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whoseviews contradict our own.; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whoseideas contradict ours? The speaker claims so, for the reason that disagreement can causestress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, inmy view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose thanfrom people whose ideas are in accord with our own.Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductiveto learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On todaystypical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaninglessrhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own messageheard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging themerits of the opponents viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewerslearn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions andbiases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamentalassumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student ofpaleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study bydebating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolutionto begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of alaissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power shouldcontrol all economic activity.Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speakersclaim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing todebate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it isprimarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal,community, or global level.At the personal level, by listening to their parents rationale for their seemingly oppressiverules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certainundesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns aboutautonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effectiveparenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionatedialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concernsof those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, thelatter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuringjob growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposingpolitical or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving tounderstand the others legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the3stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and bythe same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoneddiscourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation uponwhich human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentallycorrect.ISSUE 250:“ just shortly describe a dream which you have ever pursued.”I sometimes have a dream that one day, we together walk on the most famous street in the most famous city hand-in-hand with others covetous eyes focusing on us; a dream that one day, we together stand on the highest point of the world still hand-in-hand looking the beautiful views of the earth with gentle wind flying around us; a dream that one day, we together lie down in the shade of a big tree with florid and fragrant flowers blossoming in the sunshine and dream about the future of the two of us and our baby-dreaming butterfly. A dream that one day, we together live in a house, a wooden house which we construct together, and during the day, you do you housework in the house while I do my fieldwork in the fields; in the evening, we share a talk under a beautiful, tranquil stars-sky and share a dream on a cozy , comfortable bed with our baby sleeping sweetly between us. And I have a dream that one day, when we goes to our eighties, we are sitting in the armchairs and counting our sons and daughters, sons sons and daughters daughters, sons of sons sons and .ALL ABOUT A DREAMA DREAM THAT I SHARE WITH MY GIRL-TINGER.Issue 4No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge andexperience to that field of study.I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertisefrom various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical andanthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of avariety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of culturalanthropology and astronomy.Consider how a cultural anthropologists knowledge about an ancient civilization isenhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist-who unearths the evidence-butultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. Byanalyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensicscientists can determine the life expectancy, general well-being, and common causes of deathof the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found atthe archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials usedfor tools, weapons, and structures-thereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate aboutthe civilizations economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, andso forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragmentsof writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as thedesign, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and temples-since ancients often lookedto the stars for guidance in building cities and structures.An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advanceknowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements inour knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools forobservation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestialdistances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists.These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned andunmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and computerengineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy ofbusiness leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a role-insofar asmajor space projects require intemafional cooperative efforts among the worlds scientists andgovernments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning towhat we learn about our universe.In sum, no area ofinteUectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences areinextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand theinterplay among them all. Moreover, it is our non-scienfists who make possible the science,4and who bring meaning to what we learn from it.Issue 5A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they entercollege rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academiccourses to offer.The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead ofallowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agreeinsofar as some common core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At thesame time, however, individual states and communities should have some freedom toaugment any such curriculum as they see fit; otherwise, a nations educational system mightdefeat its own purposes in the long term.A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all,by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a common core curriculumwould help ensure that our children grow up to become reasonably informed, productivemembers of society. In addition, a common core curriculum would provide a predictablefoundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula andselect course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educationalexperience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all school-children are taught corevalues upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survive-values suchas tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others.However, a common curriculum that is also an exclusive one would pose certain problems,which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certaincourse work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decision- maker? In alllikelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who arelikely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught tochildren-notions that may or may not reflect those of most communities, schools, or parents.Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influence-peddling by lobbyistswho do not have the best interests of societys children in mind.Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination ofpropaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and one-sided nature underminesthe very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain textbooks, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that thegovernment might wish to suppress-as some sort of threat to its authority and power.Although this scenario might seem far-fetched, these sorts of concerns are being raisedalready at the state level.Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion ofprograms, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. Forexample, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history ofparticular ethnic groups who make up the states diverse population. A national curriculummight not allow for this feature, and Californias youngsters would be worse off as a result oftheir ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whosecitizenship they share.5Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve toundermine the authority of parents over their own children, to even a greater extent thanuniform state laws currently do. Admittedly, laws requiring parents to ensure that their childrenreceive an education that meets certain minimum standards are well-justified, for the reasonsmentioned earlier. However, when such standards are imposed by the state rather than at thecommunity level parents are left with far less power to participate meaningfully in thedecision-making process. This problem would only be exacerbated were these decisions leftexclusively to federal regulators.In the final analysis, homogenization of elementary and secondary education would amountto a double-edged sword. While it would serve as an insurance policy against a futurepopulated with illiterates and ignoramuses, at the same time it might serve to obliterate culturaldiversity and tradition. The optimal federal approach, in my view, is a balanced one thatimposes a basic curriculum yet leaves the rest up to each state-or better yet, to eachcommunity.Issue 7The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life thatit has become a more important form of documentation than written records.According to the speaker, the video recording is a more important means of document hagcontemporary life than a written record because video recordings are more accurate andconvincing. Although I agree that a video provides a more objective and accurate record of anevents spatial aspects, there is far more to document ha life than what we see and hear. Thusthe speaker overstates the comparative significance of video as a documentary tool.For the purpose of documenting temporal, spatial events and experiences, I agree that avideo record is usually more accurate and more convincing than a written record. It isimpossible for anyone, no matter how keen an observer and skilled a journalist, to recount hacomplete and objective detail such events as the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl, aBallanchine ballet, the Tournament of Roses Parade, or the scene at the intersection ofFlorence and Normandy streets during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Yet these are importantevents in contemporary life the sort of events we might put ha a time capsule for the purposeof capturing our life and times at the turn of this millennium.The growing documentary role of video is not limited to seminal events like those describedabove. Video surveillance cameras are objective witnesses with perfect memories. Thus theycan play a vital evidentiary role in legal proceedings-such as those involving robbery, drugtrafficking, police misconduct, motor vehicle violations, and even malpractice in a hospitaloperating room. Indeed, whenever moving images are central to an event the video camera issuperior to the written word. A written description of a hurricane, tornado, or volcanic eruptioncannot convey its immediate power and awesome nature like a video record. A diary entrycannot replay that wedding reception, dance recital, or surprise birthday party as accuratelyor objectively as a video record. And a real estate brochure cannot inform about the lighting,spaciousness, or general ambiance of a featured property nearly as effectively as a video.Nonetheless, for certain other purposes written records are advantageous to and moreappropriate than video records. For example, certain legal matters are best left to written6documentation: video is of no practical use ha documenting the terms of a complex contractualagreement, an incorporation, or the establishment of a trust. And video is of little use when itcomes to documenting a persons subjective state of mind, impressions, or reflections of anevent or experience. Indeed, to the extent that personal interpretation adds dimension andrichness to the record, written documentation is actually more important than video.Finally, a video record is of no use in documenting statistical or other quantitative information.Returning to the riot example mentioned earlier, imagine relying on a video to document thefinancial loss to store owners, the number of police and firefighters involved, and so forth.Complete and accurate video documentation of such information would require video camerasat every street corner and in every aisle of every store.In sum, the speakers claim overstates the importance of video records, at least to someextent. When it comes to capturing, storing, and recalling temporal, spatial events, videorecords are inherently more objective, accurate, and complete. However, what we viewthrough a camera lens provides only one dimension of our life and times; writtendocumentation will always be needed to quantify, demystify, and provide meaning to the worldaround us.Issue 8It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from thepublic.I agree with the speaker that it is sometimes necessary, and even desirable, for politicalleaders to withhold information from the public. A contrary view would reveal a naivetd aboutthe inherent nature of public politics, and about the sorts of compromises on the part ofwell-intentioned political leaders necessary in order to further the publics ultmate interests.Nevertheless, we must not allow our political leaders undue freedom to with-hold information,otherwise, we risk sanctioning demagoguery and undermining the philosophical underpinningsof any democratic society.One reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that in order to gain theopportunity for effective public leadership, a would-be leader must fzrst gain and maintainpolitical power. In the game of politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability andnaivete, neither of which earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and whichthose opponents will use to every advantage to defeat the politician. In my observation somemeasure of pandering to the electorate is necessary to gain and maintain political leadership.For example, were all politicians to fully disclose every personal foibles, character flaw, anddetail concerning personal life, few honest politicians would ever by elected. While this viewmight seem cynical, personal scandals have in fact proven the undoing of many a politicalcareer; thus I think this view is realistic.Another reason why I essentially agree with the speaker is that fully disclosing to the publiccertain types of information would threaten public safety and perhaps even national security.For example, if the President were to disclose the governments strategies for thwartingspecific plans of an international terrorist or a drug trafficker, those strategies would surely fail,and the publics health and safety would be compromised as a result. Withholding informationmight also be necessary to avoid public panic. While such cases are rare, they do occur7occasionally. For example, during the first few hours of the new millennium the U.S.Pentagons missile defense system experienced a Y2K- related malfunction. This fact waswithheld from the public until later in the day, once the problem had been solved; andlegitimately so, since immediate disclosure would have served no useful purpose and mighteven have resulted in mass hysteria.Having recognized that withholding informarion from the public is often necessary to servethe interests of that public, legitimate political leadership nevertheless requires forthrightnesswith the citizenry as to the leaders motives and agenda. History informs us that would-beleaders who lack such forthrightness are the same ones who seize and maintain power eitherby brute force or by demagoguery-that is, by deceiving and manipulating the citizenry.Paragons such as Genghis Khan and Hitler, respectively, come immediately to mind. Anydemocratic society should of course abhor demagoguery, whic
展开阅读全文