“Governments should not be responsible for regulating businesses and other organizations. Instead, society would benefit if the organizations themselves assumed responsibility for establishing and enforcing their own standards and regulations.”
1. Admittedly, the goveronment should not regulate the business or other organizations too much. Too much supervision will harm the development of the business or an organization.
2. Let the business alone to regulate itself will also cause problems. The ultimate goal of the business is to gain benefit, therefore all the activities will serve this pivotal goal even at the expense of the social benefit.
3. The ideal combination can be the midst.
1. too much interference from the government would undoubtedly impede the development of businesses and organizations. 1, 政府干涉过多可能或扼杀企业的积极性positivity. 显然如果没有自主决定the power of independently making decisions, 那么eventually, lead to the less active economy. 2, 政府过度的exorbitant干涉可能会打乱市场发展的自然规律disturb the natural order of the market. 比如regulation on the type of product 可能市场上的excessive demand or supply.
2. 但是也不是说政府should assume no necessary supervision over the business. 首先, 毕竟,企业的一切行为都是为了利益最大化. 缺乏管理,很可能产生很多negative results.政府有义务确保keep the national market in healthy condition. 如果缺乏suitable regulation, 有可能会出现恶性的竞争inordinate competition. 又比如Enron cheat on the financial condition. 第二, 政府有时要帮助企业度过recession.依靠企业自身的力量, 可能不能overcome the huge destroy of the recession.
3. 要有适当的regulation, 同时adequate freedom. 才能健康地发展.
View1: if organizations are allowed to establish their own regulations, the enforcement of regulations will be enhanced and the governmental burden of organizations will be released.
View2: however, the lack of authoritative and uniform regulations will ultimately do harm to both organizations and entire society.
Evidence: disturb of market order, monopoly, unfair competition.
To society: Unqualified products, high prices, environmental pollution, waste of resources
Do harm to international trade because the lack of uniform standards and the assurance of credit.
题库39 “It is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of a fulfilling personal life.”
1. cost of living, growing population, increasingly scarce resource… all contribute to a radical competitive society. 是客观条件force people to work longer hours, 自然, 无法避免地剥夺了人们的personal life. 这一点在很多发展中国家尤其明显:缺乏社会福利lack of social welfare, 人口膨胀population explosion, 人们面临更大的失业压力.
2. 而反对这种观点的人说, 先进的科技已经帮助人们沟通更加便利,提高效率, 甚至在家中办公, 已经大大地减少了对个人生活的压榨. 但是close scrutiny will reveal that 事实上,这种进步,更加剧了exacerbate人们工作的强度intensity. 提高的效率, 更要求人们一天干更多事, 在家中办公的可能, 也被充分地利用成了加班overtime.
View1: a fulfilling personal life guarantees a healthy mind and energetic body which enhance professional performance.
View2: Having a joyful career to devote to also in turn help to ensure a fulfilling personal life.
View3: if to achieve professional success must have something to sacrifice, the things may not necessarily the important aspects of personal lives.
Are professional success and a fulfilling personal life mutually exclusive? Probably not, although it is more difficult today to achieve both.
Undeniably, today’s professionals must work long hours to keep their heads above water, let alone to get ahead in life financially. This is especially true in Japan, where cost of living, coupled with corporate culture, compel professional males to all but abandon their families and literally to work themselves to death. While the situation here in the states (United States) may not be as critical, the two-income family is now the norm, not by choice but by necessity.
However, our society’s professionals are taking steps to remedy the problem. First, they are inventing ways—such as job sharing and telecommuting—to ensure that personal life does not take a backseat to career. Second, they are setting priorities and living those hours outside the workplace to the fullest. In fact, professional success usually requires the same time-management skills that are useful to find time for family, hobbies, and recreation. One need only look at the recent American presidents—Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter—to see that it is possible to lead a balanced life which includes time for family, hobbies, and recreation, while immersed in a busy and successful career. Third, more professionals are changing careers to ones which allow for some degree of personal fulfillment and self-actualization. Besides, many professionals truly love their work and would do it without compensation, as a hobby. For them, professional fulfillment and personal fulfillment are one and the same.
In conclusion, given the growing demands of career on today’s professionals, a fulfilling personal life remains possible by working smarter, by setting priorities, and by making suitable career choices.
Scientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”
The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and aboutregulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations compel me to disagree overall with the argument.
First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably. At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover, a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company>in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious. Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.
Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous effects>EPAmight be overburdened with its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.
In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker’s recommended approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage resulting from bureaucratic delay.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology GRE: 1353 GMAT:720 Stanford University (CA) GRE: 1354 GMAT:720 University of California–Berkeley GRE: 1353 GMAT:707 Georgia In
GMAT考试是美国管理专业招收研究生委员会主办和负责指导的考试, 其英文全称是Graduate Management Admission Test。GMAT考试的科目包括会计学、经济学、管理学、普通管理、生产管理、行政管理、