You will be given a short passage that presents an argument and specific instructions on how to respond to that passage. You will then have 30 minutes to plan and compose a response in which you evaluate the passage according to the specific instructions. A response to any other argument will receive a score of zero. Note that you are NOT being asked to present your own views on the subject. Make sure that you respond according to the specific instructions and support your evaluation with relevant reasons and/or examples. Trained GRE readers will evaluate your response for its overall quality, based on how well you: ● Respond to the specific task instructions ● Identify and analyze features of the argument relevant to the assigned task ● Organize, develop, and express your ideas ● Support your analysis with relevant reasons and/or examples ● Control the elements of standard written English Before you begin writing, you may want to think for a few minutes about the argument passage and the specific task instructions and then plan your response. Be sure to develop your response fully and organize it coherently, but leave time to reread what you have written and make any revisions that you think are necessary. Practice 1
正确答案：
【参考范文】 What are the limits of our duty to save endangered species from extinction? The statement raises a variety of issues about morality, conscience, self-preservation, and economics. On balance, however, I fundamentally agree with the notion that humans need not make “extraordinary” efforts—at the expense of money and jobs—to ensure the preservation of any endangered species. As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for imposing on ourselves at least some responsibility to preserve endangered species. The first has to do culpability. According to this argument, to the extent that endangerment is the result of anthropogenic events such as clear-cutting of forests or polluting of lakes and streams, we humans have a duty to take affirmative measures to protect the species whose survival we’ve placed in jeopardy. The second argument has to do with capability. This argument disregards the extent to which we humans might have contributed to the endangerment of a species. Instead, the argument goes, if we are aware of the danger, know what steps ale needed to prevent extinction, and can take those steps, then we are morally obligated to help prevent extinction. This argument would place a very high affirmative duty on humans to protect endangered species. The third argument is an appeal to self-preservation. The animal kingdom is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for its survival. Severing certain relationships, such as that between a predator and its natural prey, can set into motion a series of extinctions that ultimately might endanger our own survival as a species. While this claim might sound far-fetched to some, environmental experts assure us that in the long run it is a very real possibility. On the other hand are two compelling arguments against placing a duty on humans to protect endangered species. The first is essentially the Darwinian argument that extinction results from the inexorable process of so-called “natural selection” in which stronger species survive while weaker ones do not. Moreover, we humans are not exempt for the process. Accordingly, if we see fit to eradicate other species in order to facilitate our survival, then so be it. We are only behaving as animals must, Darwin would no doubt assert. The second argument, and the one that I find mast compelling, is an appeal to logic over emotion. It is a scientific fact that thousands of animal species become extinct every year. Many such extinctions are due to natural forces, while others are due to anthropogenic factors. In any event, it is far beyond our ability to save them all. By what standard, then, should we decide which species are worth saving and which ones are not? In my observation, we tend to favor animals with human-like physical characteristics and behaviors. This preference is understandable;after all, dolphins are far more endearing than bugs. But there is no logical justification for such a standard. Accordingly, what makes more sense is to decide based on our own economic self-interest. In other words, the more money and jobs it would cost to save a certain species, the lower priority we should place on doing so. In sum, the issue of endangered-species protection is a complex one, requiring subjective judgments about moral duty and the comparative value of various life-forms. Thus, there are no easy or certain answers. Yet it is for this very reason I agree that economic self-interest should take precedence over vague notions about moral duty when it comes to saving endangered species. In the final analysis, at a point when it becomes critical for our own survival as a species to save certain others, then we humans will do so if we are fit—in accordance with Darwin’s observed process of natural selection.
