Argument 嘉文博译范文 29篇.docx

Argument 嘉文博译范文 29篇 1.TopicThe following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazineThe decline in the numbers of amphibians worldwide clearly indicates the global pollution of water and air. Two studies of amphibians in Yosemite National Park in California confirm my conclusion. In 1915 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there were abundant numbers of each species. However, in 1992 there were only four species of amphibians observed in the park, and the numbers of each species were drastically reduced. The decline in Yosemite has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the parks waters, which began in 1920 (trout are known to eat amphibian eggs). But the introduction of trout cannot be the real reason for the Yosemite decline because it does not explain the worldwide decline.Sample EssayIn this argument, the writer of the letter concludes that global pollution of water and air has caused a decline in the number of amphibians worldwide. To support his or her conclusion, the writer cites the results of two studies, seventy-five years apart, that purportedly show that the number of amphibians in one park in California, Yosemite National Park, have drastically declined. Additionally, the writer casts aside a given reason for the decline, stating that the introduction of trout to the park (who are known to eat amphibian eggs) does not explain the worldwide decline in the number of amphibians. This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.First of all, the argument is based on only two studies in one specific part of the world, Yosemite National Park in California. It is impossible to pinpoint a worldwide theory for the decline of amphibians based on any number of studies in only one specific location in the world - the specific varieties of amphibians, geographical conditions and other location specific variables prohibit such a sweeping generalization. One very specific location cannot be used as a model for all other locations, even within one particular country, let alone the entire world. The writer provides no evidenced whatsoever that links the Yosemite study with any purported effects anywhere else in the global environment.Secondly, the two separate studies were done seventy-five years apart. There is no evidence that the two studies were conducted in a similar manner over the same duration of time or even over the same exact areas of Yosemite National Park, or that the exact same study methods were used. For example, perhaps the first study lasted over an entire year and was conducted by twenty-five experts in amphibious biology, resulting in the finding of seven species of amphibians in abundant numbers. By contrast, perhaps the second study was conducted over a period of one week by a lone high school student as a school science project. The writer offers no basis on which to compare the two studies, leaving it open as to whether the two are truly comparable in their breadth, scope and expertise.Finally, the writer notes that the decline in the amphibian population has been blamed on the introduction of trout into the parks waters in 1920, but then dismisses that argument on the purely specious basis that it does not explain the worldwide decline. This part of the argument blithely dismisses the very relevant fact that trout are known to eat amphibian eggs. This attempt to prove a negative is the last resort of those in search of some vain attempt to prove the truth of the matter that they are asserting. It is basically impossible to prove a negative; this is an attempt to shift the burden of proof back on to the nonbelievers of the argument. The global environmental situation and that of Yosemite National Park are not perfectly correlated, and the fact that the trout may very well be responsible for the decline cannot simply be dismissed without further proof.In summary, the writer fails to establish any causal relationship between global air and water pollution and the decline of amphibious life worldwide. The evidence presented is extremely weak at best and narrowly focuses on one tiny area of the globe, as well as putting forward as proof two studies about which almost nothing is known. For a stronger argument, the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating air and water pollution with not only the decline at Yosemite but also throughout other areas of the world.(599 words)参考译文题目下述文字摘自一封致某环保杂志编辑的信函：全球两栖动物数量的减少明显标志着全球性水与大气的污染。对加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物所作的两项研究可证实我的这一结论。1915年公园内有七个物种的两栖动物，每一物种都拥有丰富的种群数量。然而，1992年，在公园内所能观察到的两栖动物物种仅为四类，且每一物种的种群数量已骤然下降。约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少被归咎于始于1920年的将鲑鱼引入公园水域的做法(众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)。但鲑鱼的引入不可能成为约塞米蒂公园动物数量减少的真正原因，因为它无法来解释全球范围内的动物数量减少。范文正文在本项论述中，信函作者的结论是，全球性水与大气污染已致使世界范围内两栖动物的数量减少。为了支持其论点，作者援引了两份时隔75年之久的研究结果，这两份结果据称可证明加利福尼亚州某一公园即约塞米蒂国家公园内两栖动物的数量锐减。此外，该作者撇开了动物数量减少的一个已知原因，陈述道，将鲑鱼引入公园(据称，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵)这一做法不足以解释世界范围内两栖动物数量上的减少。这一论点有悖于简单的逻辑，犯有一系列关键性的逻辑谬误。首先，该论点所依据的仅仅是世界上某一特定地点即加利福尼亚州约塞米蒂国家公园内的两份研究。围绕着两栖动物数量减少这一问题，如果仅以世界上一个特定的地点为样品，再多数量的研究也无法得出一种精确的、适用于全世界的理论。两栖动物的具体种类、地理状况以及其他因地点而特异的变数均不允许我们作出如此一概而论的总括。一个非常具体的地点不能用作一个代表所有其他地点的模型，即使在一个特定的国家内也不行，更不用说在整个世界范围内了。信函作者没有提供任何证据将约塞米蒂公园的研究与全球环境中任何其他一处地方的任何所宣称的效果联系起来。 其次，所提及的那两项互为独立的研究时隔75年之久。没有证据可证明这两项研究是在相同的时间跨度内以相似的方式进行的，或是在约塞米蒂公园完全相同的地点进行的，或所使用的研究方法绝然相同。例如，第一项研究可能持续了整整一年之久，且是由两栖动物生物学领域的二十五位专家共同进行的。结果是发现了七大种类数目众多的两栖动物。相反，第二项研究可能是一位高中生孤身一人所做的学校的一个科学课题，仅为期一个星期。信函作者没有提供将此两项研究进行比较的基础，从而使两项研究在其广度、范围以及专业水准方面的可比性不得而知。 最后，信函作者指出，两栖动物种群数量的减少，已被人归咎于1920年将鲑鱼引入公园水域这一做法，但紧接着又以该论据无法解释世界范围内动物数量减少这一似是而非的依据将该论据予以否认。信函作者论述中的这一部分漫不经心地将一个极为相关的事实弃置不顾，即众所周知，鲑鱼喜食两栖动物所产的卵。这种prove a negative 的尝试往往是这样一类人所惯用的最后伎俩，他们竭力寻找某种徒劳的尝试，力图去证明他们所宣称的事物的真理。从根本上讲，prove a negative是不可能的。这样一种做法是试图将论证的负担重新转嫁给不相信该论据的人。全球的环境情形与约塞米蒂公园的情形并不绝然对应。鲑鱼极有可能造成了两栖动物数量减少这一事实在缺乏进一步证据的情况下是断不能轻易予以否认的。概括而言，信函作者没能在全球空气和水污染与世界范围内两栖生命数量减少之间建立起任何因果关系。该作者所拿出的证据充其量也是极为苍白无力的，狭隘地将焦点集中在世界的一片极小的区域上，作为证据而援引的两项研究几乎不能说明任何问题。欲使其论点更具力度，信函作者尚需摆出直接的证据，将水和空气污染不仅仅与约塞米蒂公园的两栖动物数量减少联系起来，而且也与世界其他地方的动物数量减少联系起来。2.TopicThe following is a letter to the editor of the Atticus City newspaperFormer Mayor Durant owes an apology to the city of Atticus. Both the damage to the River Bridge, which connects Atticus to Hartley, and the traffic problems we have long experienced on the bridge were actually caused 20 years ago by Durant. After all, he is the one who approved the construction of the bridge. If he had approved a wider and better-designed bridge, on which approximately the same amount of public money would have been spent, none of the damage or problems would have occurred. Instead, the River Bridge has deteriorated far more rapidly over the past 20 years than has the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. Even though the winters have been severe in the past several years, this is no excuse for the negligence and wastefulness of Durant. Sample EssayThe author of this letter concludes in his or her argument that former Mayor Durant should apologize to the city of Atticus because he is at fault for damage that has occurred over a twenty-year time span to the River Bridge. The author also blames Mayor Durant for long-time traffic problems on the bridge, stating that Durant actually caused these problems twenty years before because he approved the construction of the bridge and did not approve a wider and better-designed bridge. The arguer may have a personal vendetta against Mayor Durant but the elements stated in the argument do not support such an accusation.First of all, the author squarely places blame on Mayor Durant for the simple act of approving the construction of the bridge. There is no evidence presented that merely approving the building of the bridge had anything whatsoever to do with the damage that has occurred or the traffic problems on the bridge. It is entirely possible that Mr. Durant simply approved the idea of constructing the bridge and not the design of the bridge or the contractor that built it. Simply approving the construction of the bridge does not in and of itself cause damage to that bridge or any resulting traffic problems. In addition, the arguer concludes that if Mayor Durant had approved a wider and better-designed bridge that there would be no damage or traffic problems, an argument for which there is no basis of proof offered. It is a well-known fact that bridges are subject to deterioration, particularly over a period of twenty years, no matter how well designed they may be. The author also fails to offer any supporting evidence to show that a more durable bridge with fewer traffic problems could have been built for approximately the same amount of public money. It seems likely that a wider bridge would have more damage problems rather than fewer, and probably would have cost more as well, whether public or private funds were used.Furthermore, the arguer mentions that the River Bridge has deteriorated much more rapidly than the much longer Derby Bridge up the river. This groundless argument fails to take into account other possible reasons for the discrepancy in the deterioration of the two bridges such as traffic loads, location and other environmental variables. It is possible that the Derby Bridge was much more protected from the elements and rarely used by heavy truck traffic, for example. The author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two bridges other than his or her personal opinion.Finally, the letter writer refers to the negligence and wastefulness of Mayor Durant. The only action cited by the author is the approval of the bridge in the first place, which proves neither neglect nor wasting of anything. The sentence itself contains a non sequitur - firstly discussing the severe winters of the past several years, and then accusing Mr. Durant of waste and neglect. This accusation is unwarranted as well as unsupported in the authors argument.In summary, the author simply makes groundless accusations without providing any real support for his or her argument. To make the argument convincing, the author would have to provide evidence that Mayor Durant approved a faulty bridge design or an unqualified construction company that caused the bridges damage and traffic problems. The author should have also provided supporting details that show that the damage to the bridge is out of the ordinary and directly caused by Mayor Durants decision to use inadequate construction materials or a poor design. Without more support, the authors point of view is unconvincing and not well reasoned. (605 words)参考译文题目下述文字乃一封致Atticus都市报的信函：前市长Durant应向全体Atticus 市民道歉。无论是将Atticus 市和Hartley市连结起来的跨河大桥所遭到的毁坏，还是我们在大桥上长期以来所经历的交通问题，实际上都是由Durant 市长在20年之前一手铸成的。无论如何，是他批准了大桥的开工建设。如果他所批准建设的大桥更宽一些，设计得更精良一些，而所投入其上的公共款项大致相等的话，那么，无论是大桥的受损，还是交通拥堵问题均不会发生。然则，在过去20年期间，跨河大桥现在则远比上游河段上长度远长得多的Derby河大桥更为快速地遭到毁损。尽管过去几年中冬天的日子甚为严酷，但我们绝不能原谅Durant 市长的玩忽职守和浪费。范文正文本信函的作者在其论述中得出结论，认为前市长Durant 应向Atticus全市作出正式道歉，因为对于过去20年中跨河大桥所遭受的损坏他应引咎自责。作者亦责怪Durant市长造成了大桥上长期以来的交通问题。作者陈述道，由于Durant市长批准了现在这座大桥的开工建设，而没有批准一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥，故他在20年之前实际上就已铸成了上述这些问题。提出这些论点的作者可以对Durant市长有此个人怨仇，但论述中所陈述的各项内容并不能为这样一种责怪提供依据。首先，作者斩钉截铁地将罪责归咎于Durant市长，仅仅因为他批准了大桥的建造这一行为本身。但作者没能提供证据证明，仅仅只是批准该座大桥的建造这一行为与大桥本身所遭受的毁坏或大桥上的交通问题有任何必然的联系。完全有可能的是，Durant先生仅仅只是准许了建造这座大桥的想法，而并没有认可该大桥的设计或建造该大桥的承包商。纯粹去批准大桥的建造，这一行为就其本身而言并不会导致大桥受毁或造成任何交通问题。此外，论述者得出结论，认为如果Durant市长批准建造一座更宽、设计更精良的大桥的话，则既不会发生大桥受损，也不会有交通拥堵的问题。对于该论据，论述者也没有提出任何证明依据。一个众所周知的事实是，所有桥梁的状况都会每况愈下，尤其是经历了20年这样长的时间之后，无论它们当时设计得是如何精良。信函作者也没能提供任何能起到支持作用的证据来证明，人们可以用大致同等数量的公共款项建起一座更为持久的、交通问题更少的大桥。有可能的是，一座桥面更宽的大桥所遭受的损坏可能更多，而非更少。也有可能是，所投入的资金将更大，无论所使用的是公共款项还是私人资金。再者，论述者提到跨河大桥比上游河段更长的Derby大桥老化的速度来得快。这一毫无根据的论点没能考虑到导致两座大桥老化状况差异的其他有可能的因素，如交通负荷、桥址、以及其他环境方面的变数。例如，Derby大桥受到了更好的保护，受自然因素影响较少，很少有重型卡车类的交通工具通过其上。除了其武断的个人看法以外，信函作者没有拿出任何依据来在两座大桥之间作出直接的比较。最后，信函作者提及Durant市长的玩忽职守及浪费。该作者所援引的有关Durant市长的唯一的所作所为仅是早先时候对大桥建造的批准，而这一点既不能证明任何的玩忽职守，也不能证明任何浪费。该句子本身包含了一个不根据前提的推理-首先讨论过去几年中气候严酷的冬天，紧接着责怪Durant先生的浪费与疏忽。在作者的论述中，这一谴责既无正当理由，也缺乏依据。概而言之，信函作者所做的只是提出一些毫无根据的责怪，而没有拿出任何真正的依据来证明其论点。要使其论点更具说服力，该作者应拿出证据来证明，Durant市长所批准的是一份有严重失误的大桥建设设计方案，或一个没有资质的建筑公司，从而导致了大桥的受毁和交通问题。该作者也应该提供有支持作用的细节，以表明大桥受损程度超乎寻常，并且是因为Durant市长决定使用劣质建筑材料或采用了一份蹩脚的设计方案而直接造成的。在没有更为充分的依据这一条件下，该作者的论点无法令人置信，并且也显得没有得到充分的论证。3.The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.Ever since the 1950s, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television-programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.-should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time. The author of this editorial states that the rate of teenage crime in the country of Alta has increased along with the increase in violence shown on television, beginning with the 1950s when television was introduced in the average home. In addition, the author states that several national surveys have shown that young children watching violent television programs are more prone to violence than children who do not. The write also says that a survey indicated that ninety percent of parents responding said that prime-time programs should show less violence. Finally, the author comes to the conclusion that to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television watchers should demand a reduction in violence shown during prime time. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.Firstly, the writer equates the rate of increase in teenage crime in Alta to the increase in violence shown on television but gives no causal linkage other than the similar time periods. The author makes no distinction between types of crimes - whether they are violent or nonviolent crimes by teenagers. Furthermore, there are several possible alternative causes for the increase in teen crimes. For example, perhaps all types of crimes have increased for all ages, or maybe the police are now doing a better job of catching teenage criminals than they were before. Perhaps the reason for the increase is simply an increase in the overall population and that as a percentage of the population, teen crime is even less than it was before. Without ruling out these and other causes, the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkage between television violence and teenage crime.Secondly, the author mentions national studies that show that young children that watch violent programs show more violent behavior at home than children who do not watch such programs. This argument fails on two levels - one by assuming that children and teenagers are equally affected by television programs; and two by again assuming that there is some type of cause and effect relationship between television violence and teenage crime. Young children and teenagers are not the same and it should not be assumed that more violent behavior within the home leads to crimes outside as these children grow into teenagers.Thirdly, the author offers a survey showing that ninety percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime time television programs should show less violence. The survey methods are not discussed - it is possible that the sample was improperly chosen or somehow predisposed to include parents that are very much opposed to television violence. Additionally, it is possible that such parents are far more vocal in their opinions than those who care little or not at all about prime time television violence, again skewing the results of the survey. Even assuming the veracity of the sample population surveyed, it is not logical to associate television violence with teen crime solely on that basis.Finally, the author makes the gratuitous assumption that simply having television viewers demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence during prime time will lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta. Regardless of the flawed arguments previously discussed, simply demanding a change will have no effect whatsoever on teen crime. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to show some direct causal linkage between television violence and teen crime rather than making vague and unsupported comparisons purporting to show a link. There is no proof given either that television violence of any kind causes teenage crime or that a reduction in prime time violence will keep teenagers from breaking the law.(602 words)参考译文题目下述文字摘自一份地方性报纸Midvale观察家所发表的社论。自二十世纪五十年代以来，当电视机开始出现于寻常百姓家庭时，Alta国内青少年犯罪率已呈现出持续上升的势头。这一青少年犯罪行为的上升与电视上所播放的暴力画面的增加成正比。按照几份全国性调查报告，在那些大量观看了涉及到暴力场面的电视节目的青少年中，即使是极为年幼的孩童在其家庭环境中也要比那些不看暴力节目的孩童表现出更多的暴力行为。此外，在一项由Midvale观察家所进行的调查中，有90%的受访者为父母亲，他(她)们表示黄金时段的电视内容-即晚上7点到9点所播放的节目-应该减少播放暴力内容。据此，为了降低Alta国内青少年犯罪率，电视观众应该要求电视节目编播者减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面数量。范文正文本社论作者陈述道，Alta国内青少年犯罪率伴随着电视所播放的暴力场面的增加而上升。这一情形始于二十世纪五十年代，因为电视在当时被引入到普通百姓的家庭。此外，该作者陈述道，几项全国性调查显示，观看暴力电视节目的孩子比那些不看同类节目的孩子更易于形成暴力倾向。社论作者还指出，一份调查表明，受访的90%的父母亲认为，黄金时段的电视节目不应含有那么多的暴力场面。最后，作者得出结论，认为要想降低Alta国内的青少年犯罪率，电视观众应要求减少黄金时段所播放的暴力画面。这一论述犯有若干关键性的逻辑谬误。首先，社论作者将Alta国内青少年犯罪率的上升与电视所播放的暴力场面的增加相提并论，但除了二者在时间上吻合以外，没能给出任何因果关系。该作者没有对不同的犯罪种类作出区分-青少年所犯的罪行是属于暴力型的还是非暴力型的。此外，对于青少年犯罪数量的增加，还存在着其他一些有可能的原因。例如，或许所有年龄段的所有类型的犯罪行为都呈上升态势，或者也有可能，警察现在要比过去更擅长于抓捕青少年犯罪者了。更有可能的是，犯罪上升的原因仅仅只是人口总量的上升所致，并且，作为人口总量中的一个比例，青少年犯罪现在甚至低于以前的程度。如不排除掉这些以及其他的原因，社论中