GRE，全稱Graduate Record Examination，中文名稱為美國(guó)研究生入學(xué)考試，適用于除法律與商業(yè)外的各專業(yè)。由美國(guó)教育考試服務(wù)處(Educational Testing Service，簡(jiǎn)稱ETS)主辦，GRE是美國(guó)、加拿大的大學(xué)各類研究生院（除管理類學(xué)院，法學(xué)院）要求申請(qǐng)者所必須具備的一個(gè)考試成績(jī)，也是教授對(duì)申請(qǐng)者是否授予獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金所依據(jù)的最重要的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 另有，Generic Routing Encapsulation（通用路由封裝）也簡(jiǎn)稱GRE。
Are all historians essentially storytellers, for the reasons that the speaker cites? In asserting
that we can never know the past directly, the speaker implies that we truly "know" only what we
experience first-hand. Granting this premise, I agree that it is the proper and necessary role of
historians to "construct" history by interpreting evidence. Nevertheless, the speaker's
characterization of this role as "storytelling" carries certain unfair implications, which should be
addressed.
One reason why I agree with the speaker's fundamental claim lies in the distinction between
the role of historian and the roles of archivist and journalist. By "archivist" I refer generally to
any person whose task is to document and preserve evidence of past events. And by
"journalist" I mean any person whose task is to record, by writing, film, or some other media,
factual events as they occur--for the purpose of creating evidence of those events. It is not the
proper function of either the journalist or the archivist to tell a story. Rather, it is their function to
provide evidence to the historian, who then pieces together the evidence to construct history,
as the speaker suggests. In other words, unless we grant to the historian a license to
"construct" history by interpreting evidence, we relegate the historian to the role of mere
archivist or journalist.
Another reason why I agree with the speaker's characterization of the historian's proper
function is that our understanding of history is richer and fuller as a result. By granting the
historian license to interpret evidence--to "construct" history--we allow for differing viewpoints
among historians. Based on the same essential evidence, two historians might disagree about
such things as the contributing causes of a certain event, the extent of influence or impact of
one event on subsequent events, the reasons and motives for the words and actions of
important persons in history, and so forth. The inexorable result of disagreement, debate, and
divergent interpretations among historians is a fuller and more incisive understanding of
history.
However, we should be careful not to confuse this license to interpret history, which is
needed for any historian to contribute meaningfully to our understanding of it, with artistic
license. The latter should be reserved for dramatists, novelists, and poets. It is one thing to
48
attempt to explain historical evidence; it is quite another to invent evidence for the sake of
creating a more interesting story or to bolster one's own point of view. A recently released
biography of Ronald Reagan demonstrates that the line which historians should not cross is a
fine one indeed. Reagan's biographer invented a fictional character who provided commentary
as a witness to key episodes during Reagan's life. Many critics charge that the biographer
overstepped his bounds as historian; the biographer claims, however, that the accounts in the
biography were otherwise entirely factual, and that the fictional narrator was merely a literary
device to aid the reader in understanding and appredating the historical Reagan.
In sum, I strongly agree that the historian's proper function is to assemble evidence into
plausible constructs of history, and that an element of interpretation and even creativity is
properly involved in doing so. And if the speaker wishes to call these constructs "storytelling,"
that's fine. This does not mean, however, that historians can or should abandon scholarship for
the sake of an interesting story.
Issue 43
"Some educational systems emphasize the development of students' capacity for reasoning
and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them
to explore their own emotions." 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（24） 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。
Are all historians essentially storytellers, for the reasons that the speaker cites? In asserting
that we can never know the past directly, the speaker implies that we truly "know" only what we
experience first-hand. Granting this premise, I agree that it is the proper and necessary role of
historians to "construct" history by interpreting evidence. Nevertheless, the speaker's
characterization of this role as "storytelling" carries certain unfair implications, which should be
addressed.
One reason why I agree with the speaker's fundamental claim lies in the distinction between
the role of historian and the roles of archivist and journalist. By "archivist" I refer generally to
any person whose task is to document and preserve evidence of past events. And by
"journalist" I mean any person whose task is to record, by writing, film, or some other media,
factual events as they occur--for the purpose of creating evidence of those events. It is not the
proper function of either the journalist or the archivist to tell a story. Rather, it is their function to
provide evidence to the historian, who then pieces together the evidence to construct history,
as the speaker suggests. In other words, unless we grant to the historian a license to
"construct" history by interpreting evidence, we relegate the historian to the role of mere
archivist or journalist.
Another reason why I agree with the speaker's characterization of the historian's proper
function is that our understanding of history is richer and fuller as a result. By granting the
historian license to interpret evidence--to "construct" history--we allow for differing viewpoints
among historians. Based on the same essential evidence, two historians might disagree about
such things as the contributing causes of a certain event, the extent of influence or impact of
one event on subsequent events, the reasons and motives for the words and actions of
important persons in history, and so forth. The inexorable result of disagreement, debate, and
divergent interpretations among historians is a fuller and more incisive understanding of
history.
However, we should be careful not to confuse this license to interpret history, which is
needed for any historian to contribute meaningfully to our understanding of it, with artistic
license. The latter should be reserved for dramatists, novelists, and poets. It is one thing to
48
attempt to explain historical evidence; it is quite another to invent evidence for the sake of
creating a more interesting story or to bolster one's own point of view. A recently released
biography of Ronald Reagan demonstrates that the line which historians should not cross is a
fine one indeed. Reagan's biographer invented a fictional character who provided commentary
as a witness to key episodes during Reagan's life. Many critics charge that the biographer
overstepped his bounds as historian; the biographer claims, however, that the accounts in the
biography were otherwise entirely factual, and that the fictional narrator was merely a literary
device to aid the reader in understanding and appredating the historical Reagan.
In sum, I strongly agree that the historian's proper function is to assemble evidence into
plausible constructs of history, and that an element of interpretation and even creativity is
properly involved in doing so. And if the speaker wishes to call these constructs "storytelling,"
that's fine. This does not mean, however, that historians can or should abandon scholarship for
the sake of an interesting story.
Issue 43
"Some educational systems emphasize the development of students' capacity for reasoning
and logical thinking, but students would benefit more from an education that also taught them
to explore their own emotions." 感謝您閱讀《GRE作文范文大全（24） 》一文，出國(guó)留學(xué)網(wǎng)(liuxue86.com)編輯部希望本文能幫助到您。