想要在GRE作文部分的考试中写出优秀的文章，论据素材是重要的一环。好的论据不仅能帮助你支撑观点，加强说服力，还能体现出考生在阅读量上的积累和深厚扎实的语言功底基础。特别是ISSUE作文，更是需要大量好素材作为储备，才能保证考生无论遭遇那种题目，都能游刃有余地完成一篇高分作文的写作。小编为大家整理了GRE ISSUE作文各类题目的精品优质素材，一起来看吧。
卢梭观点： 自然生存状态
Rousseau maintained that human beings were essentially good and equal in the State of Nature, but were corrupted by the introduction of property, agriculture, science, and commerce. People entered into a social contract among themselves, establishing governments and educational systems to correct the inequalities brought about by the rise of civilization.
All of the differences in Rousseau‟s theories, when compared to Locke, begin with different interpretations of the State of Nature. Locke believed that most people got along pretty well for the most part by rational intuition, but there were always a few bad apples in the group that forced
others to give up their natural rights in a law system in order to be able to punish the exceptions in the society. Rousseau criticizes Locke by saying that he wasn‟t really looking at the real State of Nature and that all of the negative qualities of human beings that he had mentioned to be present in the State of Nature were, in fact, a quality brought on by the state of his time.
Rousseau‟s version of the State of Nature differs greatly from Locke‟s, in which he made no mention of the constant fear which would control man‟s life in the state of Nature. Rather, he described the State of Nature as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. So why a form of social organization? Rousseau asked. He recognized simply, that it would be impossible for man to shake the society and return to a State of Nature.
无政府主义观点： 自然生存状态
Now for the least popular view of all, the anarchist view. It is the most optimistic view of all because it simply states that the State of Nature would be the best state to live in, and that a state would not be necessary. Anarchists view that there are no rotten apples. So far as there are rotten apples in the society, they are the a creation of the government. Anarchists propose that governments are a cause of anti-social behavior, even though they are created in order to remedy it. In the anarchist‟s system, the anti-social person will be abandoned, in a sense left out of the cooperative society. In the anarchist‟s view, people become perfected because they become cooperative and non-aggressive. But if there were bad apples in a state of anarchism, wouldn‟t they become a threat to the society if their anti-social behaviors lead to violence? And it leads to even more questions of insecurity like: without coercion or authority, would people obey the law or does the threat of punishment work to promote more crimes? Would you want to live in a society where there were no punishments for crimes? Maybe public opinion would be enough to keep the society in line. There is always a lot to think about and the arguments go around in circles forever, just because no system works out to be perfect because, there are arguments for every gap or flaw in every rule or theory.
But anyhow, in the State of Nature, people generally become cooperative, and smart enough to try and keep the peace and order. Sure, people are concerned with their own interests, but they are rational enough to think of ways for reaching their interests without causing conflict with others. After all, keeping peace with people would be a self interest.
苏格拉底观点： 民主是有缺陷的体系
Socrates held highly critical view of the democracy. Socrates believed that democracy was a flawed system, because it left the state in the hands of the unenlightened and it valued all opinions as equal.
Socrates believed it was his duty to stand for the law and justice despite the wishes of The Assembly, and this could cost him his life. Socrates stated to obey the laws of the State, only if they are just. It could be said that Socrates‟s views on democracy and justice is what ultimately led to his death. Socrates believed poor leaders were chosen, simply on their basis of their rhetoric ability, not on their ethics or character.
He opposed the efforts of the Sophists to teach their students virtue, knowledge and rhetoric as practical subjects needed by citizens to participate in the institutions of Athenian democracy. His
belief on knowledge and virtue was that these required absolute definitions were to be attained through exhaustive philosophical dialogue and debate. He seemed to offend many Athenians with his negative dialectic method, revealing people‟s ignorance and inability to give definitions of truth and virtue. He believed the citizen‟s lack of knowledge made it impossible for the citizens to vote properly for their leaders or for the leaders themselves to even run.
