GRE作文点评：开启我们的辨证思维a

Issue 18

　　"Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."

　　I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention¹ with the speaker involves the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.

　　精华：However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are "controversial," while ignoring certain compelling reasons why…这种说法可以用来抨击原题观点的绝对化，非常有力。

　　My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below.

　　带出自己观点的新句型。

　　I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical² side of this issue. After all, research is the exploration of the unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting³ solutions to our enduring problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans attempt to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving⁴ to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion of research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any value it must explore uncharted and unpredictable territory. In fact, query（=doubt）whether research whose benefits are immediate⁵ and predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered "research" at all.

　　在第二段，作者展开论辩，先攻击原观点的逻辑错误——who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it ，参照前几篇，我发觉只要是原观点出现了逻辑的错误，大部分作者都不会忘记去指出甚至由此推出自己的独到见解。这是一个好办法，在展现你的申辩能力的同时，不知不觉中也占去了一些字数，挺适合临场发挥的。

　　While we must invest in research irrespective of whether the results might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect⁶ about research whose objectives are too vague and whose potential benefits are too speculative⁷. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs——in terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing society's more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called "Star Wars" defense⁸ initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s. In retrospect⁹, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer¹⁰ dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant¹¹ amount of money devoted¹² to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day——by establishing after-school programs for delinquent¹³ latchkey kids, by enhancing AIDS awareness¹⁴ and education, and so forth¹⁵. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with rampant¹⁶ gang violence, an AIDS epidemic¹⁷, and an unprecedented¹⁸ federal budget deficit¹⁹.

　　进一步强调并不是所有researches都是valuable 的，必须考虑到其所带来的效益是否>损失，否则，是会导致灾难性连锁反应的。

　　在这里需要进一步指出的是，我们在平时练习的时候就要注意多多记住一些有用的数据和年代，这样会非常persuasive²⁰ & convincing啦。

　　The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they stem from certain aspects of human nature——such as aggression²¹ and greed. Although human genome research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable²² aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists²³, diplomats²⁴, social reformers, and jurists——not our research laboratories——to mitigate²⁵ these problems. Secondly²⁶, for every new research breakthrough that helps reduce human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an alternative source of energy and invaluable²⁷ "peace-keepers," this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling the promise of "better living through chemistry" research has given us chemical weapons for human slaughter²⁸. In short, so-called "advances" that scientific research has brought about often amount to net losses for humanity.