GRE考试写作范文Issue汇总

GRE考试写作范文Issue汇总

今日我搜集了一些GRE issue 的优秀范文，快来一起学习吧，下面我就和大家共享，来观赏一下吧。.

GRE考试写作范文Issue

Most people recognize the benefits of individuality, but the fact is

that personal economic success requires conformity.

Personal economic success might be due either to ones investment

strategy or to ones work or career. With respect to the former,

non-conformists with enough risk tolerance and patience invariably

achieve more success than conformists. With respect to the latter, while

non-conformists are more likely to succeed in newer industries where

markets and technology are in constant flux, conformists are more likely

to succeed in traditional service industries ensconced in systems and

regulations.

Regarding the sort of economic success that results from investing

ones wealth, the principles of investing dictate that those who seek risky

investments in areas that are out of favor with the majority of investors

ultimately reap higher returns than those who follow the crowd. It is

conformists who invest, along with most other investors, in areas that

are currently the most profitable, and popular. However, popular

investments tend to be overpriced, and in the long run their values will

1

come down to reasonable levels. As a result, given enough time

conformists tend to reap lower rewards from their investments than

nonconformists do.

Turning to the sort of economic success that one achieves by way of

ones work, neither conformists nor non-conformists necessarily achieve

greater success than the other group.

In consumer-driven industries, where innovation, product

differentiation and creativity are crucial to lasting success,

non-conformists who take unique approaches tend to recognize

emerging trends and to rise above their peers. For example, Ted Turners

departure from the traditional format of the other television networks,

and the responsiveness of Amazons Jeff Bezos to burgeoning Internet

commerce, propelled these two non-conformists into leadership

positions in their industries. Particularly in technology industries, where

there are no conventional practices or ways of thinking to begin with,

people who cling to last years paradigm, or to the status quo in general,

are soon left behind by coworkers and competing firms.

However, in traditional service industries--such as finance,

accounting, insurance, legal services, and health care--personal

economic success comes not to non-conformists but rather to those who

can work most effectively within the constraints of established practices,

policies and regulations. Of course, a clever idea for structuring a deal, or

2

a creative legal maneuver, might play a role in winning smaller battles

along the way. But such tactics are those of conformists who are playing

by the same ground rules as their peers; winners are just better at the

game.

In conclusion, non-conformists with sufficient risk tolerance and

patience are invariably the most successful investors in the long run.

When it comes to careers, however, while non-conformists tend to be

more successful in technology- and consumer-driven industries,

traditionalists are the winners in system-driven industries pervaded by

policy, regulation, and bureaucracy.

GRE考试写作范文Issue

What society has thought to be its greatest social, political, and

individual achievements have often resulted in the greatest discontent.

I strongly agree that great achievements often lead to great

discontent. In fact, I would assert more specifically that great individual

achievements can cause discontent for the individual achiever or for the

society impacted by the achievement, or both. Nevertheless, it is

important to acknowledge that whether a great achievement causes

great discontent can depend on ones personal perspective, as well as the

perspective of time.

With respect to individual achievements, great achievers are by

nature ambitious people and therefore tend to be dissatisfied and

3

discontent with their accomplishments-no matter how great. Great

athletes are compelled to try to better their record-breaking

performances; great artists and musicians typically claim that their

greatest work will be their next one--a sign of personal discontent. And

many child protégés, especially those who achieve some measure of

fame early in life, later suffer psychological discontent for having peaked

so early. Perhaps the paradigmatic modern example of a great achievers

discontent was Einstein, whose theoretical breakthroughs in physics only

raised new theoretical conundrums which Einstein himself recognized

and spent the last twenty years of his life struggling unsuccessfully to

solve.

Individual achievements can often result in discontent on a societal

level. The great achievement of the individual scientists responsible for

the success of the Manhattan Project resulted in worldwide anxiety over

the threat of nuclear annihilation--a form of discontent with which the

worlds denizens will forever be forced to cope. Even individual

achievements that at first glance would appear to have benefited society

turn out to be causes of great discontent. Consider the invention of the

automobile, along with the innovations in manufacturing processes and

materials that made mass production possible. As a result we have

become a society enslaved to our cars, relying on them as crutches not

only for transportation but also for affording us a false sense of

4

socioeconomic status. Moreover, the development of assembly-line

manufacturing has served to alienate workers from their work, which

many psychologists agree causes a great deal of personal discontent.

Turning from individual achievements to societal, including political,

achievements, the extent to which great achievements have caused

great discontent often depends on ones perspective. Consider, for

example, Americas spirit of Manifest Destiny during the 19th Century, or

British Imperialism over the span of several centuries. From the

perspective of an Imperialist, conquering other lands and peoples might

be viewed as an unqualified success. However, from the viewpoint of the

indigenous peoples who suffer at the hands of Imperialists, these

so-called achievements are the source of widespread oppression and

misery, and in turn discontent, to which any observant Native American

or South African native could attest.

The extent to which great socio-political achievements have caused

great discontent also depends on the perspective of time. For example,

F.D.R.s New Deal was and still is considered by many to be one of the

greatest social achievements of the 20th Century. However, we are just

now beginning to realize that the social-security system that was an

integral part of F.D.R.s social program will soon result in great discontent

among those workers currently paying into the system but unlikely to see

any benefits after they retire.

5

To sum up, I agree that great achievements, both individual and

socio-political, often result in great discontent. Moreover, great

individual achievements can result in discontent for both the individual

achiever and the society impacted by the achievement. Nevertheless, in

measuring the extent of discontent, we must account for varying

personal and political perspectives as well as different time perspectives.

GRE考试写作范文Issue

The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people

question authority.

The speaker asserts that when many people question authority

society is better off. While I contend that certain forms of disobedience

can be harmful to any society, I agree with the speaker otherwise. In fact,

I would go further by contending that societys well-being depends on

challenges to authority, and that when it comes to political and legal

authority, these challenges must come from many people.

Admittedly, when many people question authority some societal

harm might result, even if a social cause is worthy. Mass resistance to

authority can escalate to violent protest and rioting, during which

innocent people are hurt and their property damaged and destroyed.

The fallout from the 1992 Los Angeles riots aptly illustrates this point.

The authority which the rioters sought to challenge was that of the legal

justice system which acquitted police officers in the beating of Rodney

6

King. The means of challenging that authority amounted to flagrant

disregard for criminal law on a mass scale--by way of looting, arson, and

even deadly assault. This violent challenge to authority resulted in a

financially crippled community and, more broadly, a turning back of the

clock with respect to racial tensions across America.

While violence is rarely justifiable as a means of questioning

authority, peaceful challenges to political and legal authority, by many

people, are not only justifiable but actually necessary when it comes to

enhancing and even preserving societys well-being. In particular,

progress in human rights depends on popular dissension. It is not

enough for a charismatic visionary like Gandhi or King to call for change

in the name of justice and humanity; they must have the support of

many people in order to effect change. Similarly, in a democracy citizens

must respect timeless legal doctrines and principles, yet at the same

time question the fairness and relevance of current laws. Otherwise, our

laws would not evolve to reflect changing societal values. It is not

enough for a handful of legislators to challenge the legal status quo;

ultimately it is up to the electorate at large to call for change when

change is needed for the well-being of society.

Questioning authority is also essential for advances in the sciences.

Passive acceptance of prevailing principles quells innovation, invention,

and discovery, all of which clearly benefit any society. In fact, the very

7

notion of scientific progress is predicated on rigorous scientific

inquiry--in other words, questioning of authority. History is replete with

scientific discoveries that posed challenges to political, religious, and

scientific authority. For example, the theories of a sun-centered solar

system, of humankinds evolution from other life forms, and of the

relativity of time and space, clearly flew in the face of authoritative

scientific as well as religious doctrine of their time. Moreover, when it

comes to science a successful challenge to authority need not come from

a large number of people. The key contributions of a few

individuals---like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and

Hawking---often suffice.

Similarly, in the arts, people must challenge established styles and

forms rather than imitate them; otherwise, no gemtinely new art would

ever emerge, and society would be worse off. And again, it is not

necessary that a large number of people pose such challenges; a few key

individuals can have a profound impact. For instance, modern ballet

owes much of what is new and exciting to George Ballanchine, who by

way of his improvisational techniques posed a successful challenge to

established traditions. And modern architecture arguably owes its

existence to the founders of Germanys Bauhaus School of Architecture,

which challenged certain authoritative notions about the proper

objective, and resulting design, of public buildings.

8

To sum up, in general I agree that when many people question

authority the well-being of society is enhanced. Indeed, advances in

government and law depend on challenges to the status quo by many

people. Nevertheless, to ensure a net benefit rather than harm, the

means of such challenges must be peaceful ones.

GRE考试写作范文Issue

It is the artist, not the critic, who gives society something of lasting

value.

This statement asserts that art, not the art critic, provides

something of lasting value to society. I strongly agree with the statement.

Although the critic can help us understand and appreciate art, more

often than not, critique is either counterproductive to achieving the

objective of art or altogether irrelevant to that objective.

To support the statement the speaker might point out the three

ostensible functions of the art critic. First, critics can help us understand

and interpret art; a critic who is familiar with a particular artist and his or

her works might have certain insights about those works that the

layperson would not. Secondly, a critics evaluation of an art work serves

as a filter, which helps us determine which art is worth our time and

attention. For example, a new novel by a best-selling author might

nevertheless be an uninspired effort, and if the critic can call our

attention to this fact we gain time to seek out more worthwhile

9

literature to read. Thirdly, a critic can provide feedback for artists; and

constructive criticism, if taken to heart, can result in better work.

However, reflecting on these three functions makes clear that the

art critic actually offers very little to society.

The first function is better accomplished by docents and teachers,

who are more able to enhance a laypersons appreciation and

understanding of art by providing an objective, educated interpretation

of it. Besides, true appreciation of art occurs at the moment we

encounter art; it is the emotional, even visceral impact that art has on

our senses, spirits, and souls that is the real value of art. A critic can

actually provide a disservice by distracting us from that experience.

The critics second function that of evaluator who filters out bad art

from the worthwhile is one that we must be very wary of. History

supports this caution. In the role of judge, critics have failed us

repeatedly. Consider, for example, Voltaires rejection of Shakespeare as

barbaric because he did not conform to neo-classical principles of unity.

Or, consider the complete dismissal of Beethovens music by the

esteemed critics of his time. The art critics judgment is limited by the

narrow confines of old and established parameters for evaluation.

Moreover, critical judgment is often misguided by the ego; thus its value

is questionable in any event.

I turn finally to the critics third function: to provide useful feedback

10

to artists. The value of this function is especially suspect. Any artist, or

anyone who has studied art, would agree that true art is the product of

the artists authentic passion, a manifestation of the artists unique

creative impulse, and a creation of the artists spirit. If art were shaped by

the concern for integrating feedback from all criticism, it would become

a viable craft, but at the same time would cease to be art.

In sum, none of the ostensible functions of the critic are of much

value at all, let alone of lasting value, to society. On the other hand, the

artist, through works of art, provides an invaluable and unique mirror of

the culture of the time during which the work was produced a mirror for

the artists contemporaries and for future generations to gaze into for

insight and appreciation of history. The art critic in a subordinate role,

more often than not, does a disservice to society by obscuring this mirror.

11