GRE写作成为横在中国学生的理想和现实之间的一大障碍，因此，如何攻克写作这道屏障，成为摆在我们面前的首要任务。
In contrast, the work of researchers in the purely physical sciences can be judged only by
their peers. The reason for this is that scientific theories and observations are either
meritorious or not, depending solely on whether they can be proved or disproved by way of the
scientific method. For example, consider the complex equations which physicists rely upon to
draw conclusions about the nature of matter, time, and space, or the origins and future of the
universe. Only other physicists in these specialties can understand, let alone judge, this type of
theoretical work. Similarly, empirical observations in astrophysics and molecular physics
require extremely sophisticated equipment and processes, which only experts in these fields
have access to and who know how to use reliably.
Those who disagree that only inside experts can judge scientific work might point out that
the expertise of economists and pubic-policy makers is required to determine whether the
work is worthwhile from a more mundane economic or political viewpoint. Detractors might
also point out that ultimately it is our philosophers who are best equipped to judge the ultimate
import of ostensibly profound scientific discoveries. Yet these detractors miss the point of what
I take to be the speaker's more narrow claim: that the integrity and quality of
work---disregarding its socioeconomic utility----can be judged only by experts in the work's
field.
In sum, in the social sciences no area of inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because fields such
as anthropology, sociology, and history are so closely intertwined and even dependent on the
physical sciences, experts from various fields must collectively determine the integrity and
quality of work in these fields. However, in the purely physical sciences the quality and integrity
of work can be adequately judged only by inside experts, who are the only ones equipped with
sufficient technical knowledge to pass judgment.
Issue 78
"Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand
either the one or the other."
86
Should politics and morality be treated as though they are mutually exclusive? I strongly
agree with the speaker that any person claiming so fails to understand either the one or the
other. An overly narrow definition of morality might require complete forthrightness and
candidness in dealings with others. However, the morality of public politics embraces far
broader concerns involving the welfare of society, and recognizes compromise as a necessary,
and legitimate, means of addressing those concerns.
It is wrong-headed to equate moral behavior in politics with the simple notions of honesty
and putting the other fellow's needs ahead of one's own----or other ways which we typically
measure the morality of an individual's private behavior. Public politics is a game played
among professional politicians--and to succeed in the game one must use the tools that are
part-and-parcel of it. Complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivet~, neither of
which will earn a politician respect among his or her opponents, and which opponents will use
to every advantage against the honest politician. Moreover, the rhetoric of a successful
politician eschews rigorous factually inquiry and indisputable fact while appealing to emotions,
ideals, and subjective interpretation and characterizations. For example, the politician who
claims his opponent is "anti-business," "bad for the economy," or "out of touch with what voters
want" is not necessarily behaving immorally. We must understand that this sort of rhetoric is
part-and-parcel of public politics, and thus kept in perspective does not harm the society--as
long as it does not escalate to outright lying.
感谢您阅读《GRE作文范文大全（60） 》一文，留学群(liuxuequn.com)编辑部希望本文能帮助到您。