GREIssue优秀范文

GRE写作不仅考察考生的英语能力，还考察考生的逻辑与思维能力，小编整理了一些GRE的范文，希望可以帮助到大家，下面小编就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。

GRE Issue优秀范文

Most cultures encourage individuals to sacrifice a large part of their own personalities in order to be like other people.Thus ,most people are afraid to think or behave differently because they do not want to be excluded.

The speaker claims that most cultures encourage conformity at the expense of individuality, and as a result most people conform for fear of being excluded.While i find the second prong of this dual claim well support overall by empirical evidence,I take exception with the first prong;aside from the cultures created by certain oppressive political regimes,no culture need "encourage" its members to conform to prevailing ways of thought and behavior;in fact ,all the evidence shows that cultures attempt to do just the opposite.

As a threshold matter ,it is necessary to distinguish between conformity that an oppressive ruling state imposes on its own culture and conformity in a free democratic society.In the former case , people are not only encouraged but actually coerced into suppressing individual personality; and indeed these people are afraid to think and behave differently-but not for fear of being excluded but rather for fear of punishment and persecution by the state.the modern Communist and Fascist regimes are fitting examples.With respect to free democratic societies, it might be tempting to dismiss the speaker's dual claim out of hand .After all ,true democratic states are predicted on individual freedoms-of choice ,speech,expression,religion,and so forth.Ostensibly ,these freedoms serve to promote individuality,even non-conformity,in our personas,our lifestyles ,and our opinioons and attitudes.

Yet,one look at any democratic society reveals a high degree of conformity among its members.Every society has its own bundle of values,customs ,and mores which most of its members share.Admittedly,within any culture springs up various subcultures which try to distinguish themselves by their own distinct values,customs, and mores.In the U.S,for instance, African-American have developed a distinct dialect,known as Ebonics,and a distinct body language and attitude which affords them a strong sub-cultural identity of their own.Yet , the undeniable fact is that humans,given the actual freedom to either conform or not conform, choose to think and behave in ways similar to most people in their social group-however we define that group.

Nor is there much empirical evidence of any cultural agenda,either overt or covert, to encourage conformity in thought and behavior among the members of any culture.To the contrary,the predominant message in most cultures is that people should cultivate their individuality.Consider,for example,the enduring and nearly ubiquitous icon of the ragged individualist,who charts his or her own course,bucks the trend,and achieves notoriety through individual creativity,imagination, invention,or entrepreneurship.Even our systems of higher education seem to encourage individualism by promoting and cultivating critical and independent thought among its students.

Yet,all the support for forging one's one unique persona,career,lifestyle,opinions ,and even belief system,turns out to be hype.In the final analysis,most people choose to conform. And understandably so ;after all ,it is human nature to distrust,and even shun,others who are too difference from us .Thus to embrace rugged individualism is to risk becoming an outcast,the natural consquence of which is to limit one's socioeconomic and career opportunities.This prospect suffices to quell our yearning to be different ;thus the speaker is correct that most of us resign ourselves to conformity for fear of being left behind by our peers.Admittedly ,few cultures are without rugged individualists-the exceptional aritsts ,inventors,explorers,social reformers,and entrepreneurs who embrace their autonomy of thought and behavior,then test their limits.And paradoxically,it is the achievements of these notable non-conformists that are responsible for most cultural evolution and progress.Yet such notables are few and far between in what is otherwise a world of insecure,even fearful,cultural conformists.

To sum up,the speaker is correct that most people choose to conform rather than behave and think in ways that run contraty to their culture's norms,and that fear of being exduded lies at the heart of this choice.Yet, no culture need encourage conformity;most humans recognize that there is safety of numbers ,and as a result freely choose conformity over the risks,and potential rewards ,of non-conformity.

GRE Issue优秀范文

"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also disobey unjust ones. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.

First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.

The fairness of a law also depends on one's personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand. After all, in a democratic society the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit into a nearby river. Such laws are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might be costly for the company; the factory might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether, or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company's owners, employees, and customers, as well as the opposing interests of the region's residents whose health and safety are impacted. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.

The second fundamental problem with the statement is that disobeying unjust laws often has the opposite affect of what was intended or hoped for. Most anyone would argue, for instance,that our federal system of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end result of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. Free-riders only compel the government to maintain tax rates at high levels in order to ensure adequate revenue for the various programs in its budget. 14

Yet another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Returning to the abortion example mentioned above, a person strongly opposed to the freedom-of-choice position might maintain that the illegal blocking of access to an abortion clinic amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

GRE Issue优秀范文

"Anyone can make things bigger and more complex. What requires real effort and courage is to move in the opposite direction---in other words, to make things as simple as possible."

Whether making things simple requires greater effort and courage than making them bigger and more complex depends on the sort of effort and courage. Indisputably, the many complex technological marvels that are part-and-parcel of our Lives today are the result of the extraordinary cumulative efforts of our engineers, entrepreneurs, and others. And, such achievements always call for the courage to risk failing in a large way. Yet, humans seem naturally driven to make things bigger and more complex; thus refraining from doing so, or reversing this natural process, takes considerable effort and courage of a different sort, as discussed below.

The statement brings immediately to mind the ever-growing and increasingly complex digital world. Today's high-tech firms seem compelled to boldly go to whatever effort is required to devise increasingly complex products, for the ostensible purpose of staying ahead of their competitors. Yet, the sort of effort and courage to which the statement refers is a different one--bred of vision, imagination, and a willingness to forego near term profits for the prospect of making lasting contributions. Surely, a number of entrepreneurs and engineers today are mustering that courage, and are making the effort to create far simpler, yet more elegant, technologies and applications, which will truly make our lives simpler in sharp contrast to what computer technology has delivered to us so far.

Lending even more credence to the statement is the so-called "big government" phenomenon. Human societies have a natural tendency to create unwieldy bureaucracies, a fitting example of which is the U.S. tax-law system. The Intemal Revenue Code and its accompanying Treasury Regulations have grown so voluminous and complex that many certified accountants and tax attorneys admit that they cannot begin to understand it all.

Admittedly, this system has grown only through considerable effort on the part of all three branches of the federal government, not to mention the efforts of many special interest groups.

Yet, therein lies the statement's credibility. It requires great effort and courage on the part of a legislator to risk alienating special interest groups, thereby risking reelection prospects, by standing on principle for a simpler tax system that is less costly to administer and better serves the interests of most taxpayers.

Adding further credibility to the statement is the tendency of most people to complicate their personal lives--a tendency that seems especially strong in today's age of technology and consumerism. The greater our mobility, the greater our number of destinations each day; the more time-saving gadgets we use, the more activities we try to pack into our day; and with readier access to information we try to assimilate more of it each day. I am hard-pressed to think of one person who has ever exclaimed to me how much effort and courage it has taken to complicate his or her life in these respects. In contrast, a certain self-restraint and courage of conviction are both required to eschew modern conveniences, to simplify one'sdaily schedule, and to establish and adhere to a simple plan for the use of one's time and money.

In sum, whether we are building computer networks, government agencies, or personal lifestyles, great effort and courage are required to make things simple, or to keep them that way. Moreover, because humans na~traUy tend to make things big and complex, it arguably requires more effort and courage to move in the opposite direction. In the final analysis, making things simple---or keeping them that way--takes a brand of effort born of reflection and restraint rather than sheer exertion, and a courage character and conviction rather than unbridled ambition.

GRE Issue优秀范文

"Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on the ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purpose. In such situation, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that comtemporary needs can be served;"

The speaker asserts that wherever a practical, utilitarian need for new buildings arises this need should take precedence over our conflictiong interest in preserving historic buildings as a record of our past. In my view, however, which interest should take precedence should be determined on a cast-by-cast basis-and should account not only for practical and historic consideration but also aethetic ones.

In determing whether to raze an older building, planners should of course consider tht community's current and anticipated utilitarain needs. For example, if an additional hospital is needed to adequately serve the health-care needs of a fast-growing community, this compelling interest might very well outweigh any interest in preserving a historic building that sits on the proposed site. Or if additional parking is needed to ensure the economic servival of a city's downtown district, this interest might take precedence over the historic value of an old structure that stands in the way of a parking structure. On the other hand, if the need is mainly for more office space, in some cases an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex to an older building might serve just as well as razing the old building to make way for a new one. Of course, an expensive retrofit might not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would meet the need.

Competing with a community's utilitarian needs is an interest preserving the historical record. Again, the weight of this interest should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps an older building uniquely represents a bygone area, or once played a central role in the city's history as a municipal structure. Or perhaps the building once served as the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or as the location of an important historical event. Any of these scenarios might justify saving the building at the expense of the practical needs of the community. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the same historical era just as effectively, or if the building's history is an unremarkable one, then the historic value of the building might pale in comparison to the value of a new structure that meets a compelling practical need.

Also competing with a community's utilitarian needs is the aesthetic and architectural value of the building itself-apart from historical events with which it might be associated. A building might be one of only a few that represents a certain architectural style. Or it might be especially beautiful, perhaps as a result of the craftsmanship and materials employed in its construction-which might be cost-prohibitive to replicate today. Even retrofitting the building to accommodate current needs might undermine its aesthetic as well as historic value, by altering its appearance and architectural integrity. Of course it is planners should strive to account for aesthetic value nonetheless.

In sum, whether to raze an older building in order to construct a new one should never be determined indiscriminately. Instead, planners should make such decision on a case-by-case basis, weighing the community's practical needs against the building's historic and aesthetic value.