GMAT作文黄金80题范文

[分享]GMAT作文黄金80题范文

GMAT作文黄金80题范文

一．Analysis of Issue Questions

2. ―It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to

conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world‘s energy resources for future generations.‖

The speaker asserts that an international effort is needed to preserve the world’s energy resources for future generations. While individual nations, like people, are at times willing to make voluntary sacrifices for the benefit of others, my view is that international coordination is nevertheless necessary in light of the strong propensity of nations to act selfishly, and because the problem is international in scope.

The main reason why an international effort is necessary is that, left to their own devices, individual nations, like people, will act according to their short-term motives and self-interest. The mere existence of military weapons indicates that self-interest and national survival are every nation’s prime drivers. And excessive consumption by industrialized nations of natural resources they know to be finite, when alternatives are at hand demonstrates that self-interest and short-sightedness extend to the use of energy resources as well. Furthermore, nations, like people, tend to rationalize their own self-serving policies and actions. Emerging nations might argue, for example, that they should be exempt from energy conservation because it is the industrialized nations who can better afford to make sacrifices and who use more resources in the first place.

Another reason why an international effort is required is that other problems of an international nature have also required global cooperation. For example, has each nation independently recognized the folly of nuclear weapons proliferation and voluntarily disarmed? No: only by way of an international effort, based largely on coercion of strong leaders against detractors, along with an appeal to self-interest, have we made some progress. By the same token, efforts of individual nations to thwart international drug trafficking have proven largely futile, because efforts have not been internationally based. Similarly, the problem of energy conservation transcends national borders in that either all nations must cooperate, or all will ultimately suffer.

In conclusion, nations are made up of individuals who, when left unconstrained, tend to act in their own self-interest and with short-term motives. In light of how we have dealt, or not dealt, with other global problems, it appears that an international effort is needed to ensure the preservation of natural resources for future generations.

3. ―Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that

classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ?flat‘ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.‖

Which is a better way to classify and reward employees of a business: a “flat” organizational structure or a hierarchical structure? The speaker prefers a “flat” structure in which distinctions between employees based on education or experience are not used as a basis for monetary rewards. I strongly disagree with the speaker’s view, for two reasons.

In the first place, the speaker’s preference for a “flat” structure is based upon the claim that cooperation and collegiality among employees is more likely under this system than under a hierarchical one. However, this claim ignores our everyday experience in human interaction. Disagreements among coworkers are inevitable. Without a clear authoritative figure to resolve them and to make final decisions, disputes are more likely to go unresolved and

even worsen, thereby undermining cooperation, congeniality and, ultimately, productivity and profit.

In the second place, whether or not collegiality and cooperation are best fostered by a flat organizational structure is beside the point. My main reason for rejecting an organizational structure that does not distinguish workers in terms of their abilities or experience is that under such a system workers have little incentive to improve their skills, accomplish their work-related goals, or assume responsibility for the completion of their assigned tasks. In my experience, human motivation is such that without enticements such as money, status or recognition, few people would accomplish anything of value or assume responsibility for any task. A flat system actually might provide a distinct disincentive for productivity and efficiency insofar as workers are not held accountable for the quality or quantity of their work. By ignoring human nature, then, a company may be harming itself by encouraging laziness and complacency.

In sum, the speaker’s opinion that a “flat” organizational structure is the best way to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees runs counter to the common sense about how people act in a work environment, and in any case provides a feeble rationale for the preference of one organizational structure over another.

9. ―Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from

the workplace.‖

Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization.

Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal information—as a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employee’s family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social events—picnics, parties, excursions, and so forth—also help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into better working relationships.

Admittedly, employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers. Excessive chatting about non-business topics, frequent personal telephone calls, and the like, are always distracting. And romances between coworkers are best kept confidential, at least to the extent they disrupt work or demoralize or offend other employees. By the same token, however, employees who are too aloof—sharing nothing personal with others—may be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization.

In the final analysis, employees should strike a careful balance when they mix their personal lives with their jobs. Although there are some circumstances in which bringing one’s personal life to the job may be counterproductive, for many reasons it is a good idea to inject small doses of personal life into the workplace.

11. ―When someone achieves greatness in any field — such as the arts, science, politics, or business

— that person‘s achievements are more important than any of his or her personal faults.‖

Perhaps in some instances the personal failings of great achievers are unimportant relative to the achievements. In many cases, however, the relative significance of personal failings can be very great, depending on two factors: (1)

the extent to which the failing is part of the achievement process itself, and (2) the societal impact of the achiever’s failing apart from his or her own success.

Personal failings and achievement are often symbiotically related. The former test the would-be achiever’s mettle; they pose challenges—necessary resistance that drives one to achieve despite the shortcoming. Personal failings may also compel one to focus on one’s strengths, thereby spawning achievement. For example, poor academic or job performance may propel a gifted entrepreneur to start his or her own business. In the arts, a personal failing may be a necessary ingredient or integral part of the process of achieving. Artists and musicians often produce their most creative works during periods of depression, addiction, or other distress. In business, insensitivity to the “human” costs of success has bred grand achievements, as with the questionable labor practices of the great philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.

A second type of personal failing is one that is unrelated to the achievement. Modern politics is replete with examples: the marital indiscretions of the great leader John F. Kennedy and the paranoia of the great statesman Richard Nixon, to name just two. Were the personal failings of these two presidents less “important” than their achievements? In the former example, probably so. In the latter example, probably not since it resulted in the Watergate scandal—a watershed event in American politics. In cases such as these, therefore, the societal impact of shortcoming and achievement must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

In sum, history informs us that personal failings are often part-and-parcel of great achievements; even where they are not, personal shortcomings of great achievers often make an important societal impact of their own.

12. ―Education has become the main provider of individual opportunity in our society. Just as

property and money once were the keys to success, education has now become the element that most ensures success in life.‖

Which factor offers more opportunities for success in our society: education or money and property? In my view, education has replaced money and property as the main provider of such opportunities today. I base my view on two reasons. First, education—particularly higher education—used to be available only to the wealthy but now is accessible to almost anyone. Second, because of the civil-rights movement and resulting laws, businesses are now required to hire on the basis of merit rather than the kinds of personal connections traditionally common among the wealthy.

Education probably always played a key role in determining one’s opportunities for success. But in the past, good post-secondary education was available mainly to the privileged classes. Because money and property largely determined one’s access to higher education, money and property really were the critical factors in opening doors to success. However, higher education is more egalitarian today. Given our vast numbers of state universities and financial-aid programs, virtually anyone who meets entrance requirements for college can obtain an excellent college education and open up windows of opportunity in life.

Another reason those opportunities will be open to educated young people from middle-class and poorer backgrounds is that hiring is more meritocratic today than ever before. In principle, at least, we have always been a society where all people are equal; yet in the past, children of the wealthy and the well connected could expect to obtain higher-status jobs and to receive better pay. But the laws and programs resulting from our civil-rights struggles have produced a modern business climate in which jobs are available on an equal-opportunity basis, and in which candidates have a legal right to be judged on the merit of their educational background and experience. In conclusion, education is probably the main factor in opening doors to success for young people in our society. The fact that education has supplanted money and property in this role is owing to a more egalitarian system of higher education, as well as to more merit-based hiring practices that generally value individual education over family fortune or connections.

13. ―Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual

person, not to government.‖

While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankind’s best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason, and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale, government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation.

Experience tells us that individuals (and private corporations owned by individuals) tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example, current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless, neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals.

Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement, environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own. Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards.

In the final analysis, only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility, government must do so.

16. ―Public buildings reveal much about the attitudes and values of the society that builds them.

Today‘s new schools, courthouses, airports, and libraries, for example, reflect the attitudes and values of today‘s society.‖

The extent to which new public buildings reflect societal values and attitudes depends on whether one considers a building’s intended function or its design. In the former sense, new public buildings do mirror society, while in the latter sense they do not.

The intended uses of new public buildings say something about our priorities and values as a society. For example, proliferation of public cultural centers and schools reflects a societal concern for the arts and education, respectively, while new prison construction indicates a heightened concern for safety and security.

The design of new public buildings, however, fails to mirror society, for two reasons. First, modern democratic states do not have the luxury of making cultural “statements” at any expense. Functionality and fiscal accountability dictate the face of public architecture today. Second, public participation in the process is limited. New buildings typically reflect the architect’s eccentric vision or the preference of a few public officials, not the populace’s values and attitudes. In England, for example, Prince Charles oversees and approves the design of new public buildings. The resulting conventional designs suggest his unwillingness to break from tradition. Yet it would seem unfair to assign his lack of vision to English society. In Denver, the controversial design of a new airport met with public outcry for its appearance, expense, and lack of functionality. Does the airport reflect the values of Denver’s denizens? Probably not.

In conclusion, while modern public buildings seem to reflect the values and attitudes of a society in their function, they do not necessarily do so in their design.

18. ―If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable

when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society.‖

We take for granted that a primary objective and obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits. But does this mean a corporation cannot also fulfill its obligations to society? The speaker claims that the two duties necessarily conflict. In my view, however, a corporation’s duties to maximize shareholder wealth and to serve society will at times coincide and at times conflict; and when they do conflict, neither takes automatic precedence over the other. Beyond the obvious duty to maximize shareholder wealth, corporations indeed owe a duty to serve society, especially the immediate community, which permits corporations to operate in exchange for an implicit promise that the corporations will do no harm and will bring some benefit to the community. These duties can often be fulfilled together. For example, a successful corporation brings jobs and related economic benefit to the community. And, by contributing to community activities and changes in other ways, the corporation gains a reputation for social responsibility that often helps it become even more successful.

However, at times these duties do conflict. Consider, for instance, a company that unknowingly leaks into the ground a toxic substance that threatens to contaminate local groundwater. While the company may favor an inexpensive containment program, community leaders may want the company to go further by cleaning up and restoring their environment—even if the expense will force the company to leave and take jobs from the community. Whatever the company decides, it should not assume that protecting profits automatically outweighs social obligation. In many instances it does not, as highly visible tobacco, automobile safety, and asbestos liability cases aptly illustrate. Such examples reveal a limit as to how far a corporation can ethically go in trading off the well being of the community for the sake of its own profits.

In sum, corporations have duties both to do well and to do good. Although conflict between these duties is not inevitable, it does occur. Determining which duty takes precedence in time of conflict requires careful consideration of all the ethical ramifications of each alternative.

21. ―Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service.

Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.‖

According to the statement, in order to ensure high productivity, companies should base their employees’ salaries and job security solely on job performance, and not on length of service to the company. I agree that salary increases and job security are powerful incentives to high achievement and should generally go to those who do the best work. However, to ensure employee productivity, companies must also reward tenured employees with cost-of-living raises—though not with job security.

On the one hand, rewarding average job performance with large pay increases or promises of job security is a waste of resources—for two reasons. First, complacent employees will see no reason to become more productive. Secondly, those normally inclined to high achievement may decide the effort isn’t worthwhile when mediocre efforts are amply compensated. Companies should, therefore, adjust their pay schedules so that the largest salaries go to the most productive employees.

On the other hand, employees who perform their jobs satisfactorily should be given regular, though small, service-based pay increases—also for two reasons. First, the cost of living is steadily rising, so on the principle of fair compensation alone, it is unjust to condemn loyal employees to de facto salary reductions by refusing them cost-of-living raises. Secondly, failure to adjust salaries to reflect the cost of living may be counterproductive for the firm, which will have difficulty attracting and retaining good employees without such a policy.

In the final analysis, the statement correctly identifies job performance as the single best criterion for salary and

job security. However, the statement goes too far; it ignores the fact that a cost-of-living salary increase for tenured employees not only enhances loyalty and, in the end, productivity, but also is required by fairness.

24. ―A powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or

a nation than does any government official.‖

Historical examples of both influential public officials and influential business leaders abound. However, the power of the modern-era business leader is quite different from that of the government official. On balance, the CEO seems to be better positioned to influence the course of community and of nations.

Admittedly the opportunities for the legislator to regulate commerce or of the jurist to dictate rules of equity are official and immediate. No private individual can hold that brand of influence. Yet official power is tempered by our check-and-balance system of government and, in the case of legislators, by the voting power of the electorate. Our business leaders are not so constrained, so, their opportunities far exceed those of any public official. Moreover, powerful business leaders all too often seem to hold de facto legislative and judicial power by way of their direct influence over public officials, as the Clinton Administration’s fund-raising scandal of 1997 illuminated all too well. The industrial and technological eras have bred such moguls of capitalism as Pullman, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gates, who by the nature of their industries and their business savvy, not by force of law, have transformed our economy, the nature of work, and our very day-to-day existence. Of course, many modern-day public servants have made the most of their opportunities—for example, the crime-busting mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the new-dealing President Franklin Roosevelt. Yet their impact seems to pale next to those of our modern captains of industry. In sum, modem business leaders by virtue of the far-reaching impact of their industries and of their freedom from external constraints, have supplanted lawmakers as the great opportunists of the world and prime movers of society.

25. ―The best strategy for managing a business, or any enterprise, is to find the most capable people

and give them as much authority as possible.‖

Is the most effective management approach to hire the best people, then to give them as much autonomy as possible to serve the firm’s goals? This strategy would certainly enhance an employee’s sense of involvement, purpose and personal worth. It would also benefit the firm by encouraging employees to work creatively and productively. But the strategy requires two constraints to operative effectively.

First, the strategy must be constrained by strong leadership that provides clear vision and direction. Simply putting the most capable people together, and letting them loose on projects will provide neither. Thinking so involves the mistaken assumption that just because the parts of a whole are good, the collection of the parts into a whole will be equally good. Business organizations are more than just the sums of their excellent parts; to be similarly excellent, the organization must also be unified and cohesive. And it is strong and visionary leadership that provides these two ingredients.

Second, the strategy must be constrained by an organizational structure that brings all individual efforts together as a coherent whole. Of course, structure can be crippling, heavily layered; overly bureaucratic organizations probably stifle more creative productivity than they inspire. Still, individuals will be capable at some things and not others, so some organization of efforts is always called for. The moderate—and perhaps optimal—approach would be to create a structure that gives individuals some authority across areas relating to their field of expertise, while reserving final authority for higher-level managers. For example, no individual in a finance department should have much authority over a design department. However, within the design department, individual researchers, artists, drafters, and engineers can all contribute meaningfully to one another’s projects, and a flexible organizational

structure would allow them to do so.

In sum, the advice to hire the best people and give them wide authority requires modification. Hiring capable people and granting them some concurrent authority across areas related to their expertise is better advice. Moreover, solid leadership and a cohesive organizational structure are prerequisites—both are needed to coordinate individual efforts toward the accomplishment of common goals.

29. ―Too many people think only about getting results. The key to success, however, is to focus on

the specific task at hand and not to worry about results.‖

This advice means fundamentally that if we focus our attention on the details of a project rather than on the end product, the result will be better than if we proceed the other way around. Admittedly, this advice has some merit; by focusing on the details at hand one is less likely to become discouraged by the daunting or overwhelming tasks ahead in an ambitious project. Otherwise, however, I think this advice is poor,

The central problem with this advice is that focusing attention completely on the task at hand without reference to how that task is related to the end product would be virtually impossible to do. The reason for this is simple. Without some reference to a goal or a result we would have no idea of what task to perform in the first place. As a result, the various tasks we engage in would be somewhat random and, in turn, no matter how diligent and careful we were in performing them the likelihood of producing worthwhile or successful end products would be minimal. To ensure good results, one should instead take a balanced approach to the task at hand. By a balanced approach I mean paying attention to both the desired result and the specific tasks that are required to achieve it. House building provides a good example of this approach. The house plan not only contains a rendering of the finished product but also contains detailed drawings and descriptions of each of the specific components required to ensure a successful result. Moreover, the order of the tasks is determined with reference to this result. In my estimation, virtually all successful projects proceed in the fashion illustrated in this example.

In sum, I don’t think that the advice offered in the statement is worth following. In my view, following this advice is more likely to produce unsuccessful results than successful ones.

31. ―Financial gain should be the most important factor in choosing a career.‖

Financial gain is certainly one factor to consider when selecting a career. But many people do not, and should not, focus on this factor as the main one. The role that money plays in career choice should depend on the priorities, goals and values of the particular person making the choice.

The main problem with selecting a career primarily on the basis of money is that for many people to do so would be to ignore one’s personal values, needs, and larger life goals. Indeed, many people appreciate this notion when they choose their career. For example, some people join one of the helping professions, such as nursing, teaching or social work, well aware that their career will not be financially lucrative. Their choice properly stems from an overriding altruistic desire, not from an interest in financial gain. Others choose to pursue intellectual or creative fulfillment—as writers, artists, or musicians—knowing that they are trading off dollars for non-tangible rewards. Still others forego economic gain to work as full-time parents; for these people, family and children are of paramount importance in life. Finally, many people subordinate economic prospects to their desire to live in a particular location; these people may place a high value on recreation, their physical health, or being near a circle of friends.

Another problem with focusing primarily on money when selecting a career is that it ignores the notion that making money is not an end in the end of itself, but rather a means of obtaining material goods and services and of attaining important goals—such as providing security for oneself and one’s family, lifelong learning, or freedom to travel or to

pursue hobbies. Acknowledging the distinction, one may nevertheless select a career on the basis of money—since more money can buy more goods and services as well as the security, freedom, and time to enjoy them. Even so, one must strike a balance, for if these things that money is supposed to provide are sacrificed in the pursuit of money itself, the point of having money—and of one’s career selection—has been lost.

In conclusion, economic gain should not be the overriding factor in selecting a career. While for a few people the single-minded pursuit of wealth may be fulfillment enough, most people should, and indeed do, temper the pursuit of wealth against other values, goals, and priorities. Moreover, they recognize that money is merely a means to more important objectives, and that the pursuit itself may undermine the achievement of these objectives.

32. ―You can tell the ideas of a nation by its advertisements.‖

In order to determine whether advertisements reflect a nation’s ideas, it is necessary to determine whether advertisements present real ideas at all, and, if so, whose ideas they actually reflect. On both counts, it appears that advertisements fail to accurately mirror a nation’s ideas.

Indisputably, advertisements inform us as to a nation’s values, attitudes, and priorities—what activities are worthwhile, what the future holds, and what is fashionable and attractive. For instance, a proliferation of ads for sport-utility vehicles reflects a societal concern more for safety and machismo than for energy conservation and frugality, while a plethora of ads for inexpensive on-line brokerage services reflects an optimistic and perhaps irrationally exuberant economic outlook. However, a mere picture of a social more, outlook, or fashion is not an “idea”—it does not answer questions such as “why” and “how”?

Admittedly, public-interest advertisements do present ideas held by particular segments of society—for example, those of environmental and other public-health interest groups. However, these ads constitute a negligible percentage of all advertisements, and they do not necessarily reflect the majority’s view. Consequently, to assert that advertisements reflect a nation’s ideas distorts reality. In truth, they mirror only the business and product ideas of companies whose goods and services are advertised and the creative ideas of advertising firms. Moreover, advertisements look very much the same in all countries. Western and Eastern alike. Does this suggest that all nations have essentially identical ideas? Certainly not.

In sum, the few true ideas we might see in advertisements are those of only a few business concerns and interest groups; they tell us little about the ideas of a nation as a whole.

34. ―All citizens should be required to perform a specified amount of public service. Such service

would benefit not only the country as a whole but also the individual participants.‖

The potential benefits of mandatory public service must be weighed against administrative problems and concerns about individual liberty. On balance, the costs to a nation and to the participants would probably exceed the benefits.

Admittedly, a colorable argument can be made for mandatory public service. It would help alleviate “free-rider” problems, where those who do not contribute benefit from the efforts of those who do. It would mitigate pressing social problems—with education, public health and safety, and the environment. It might instill in participants a sense of civic duty, community, and individual responsibility. Finally, it has worked on a smaller scale, particularly in urban areas, where renewal projects succeed in making communities safer, healthier, and more prosperous. Far more compelling, however, are the arguments against mandatory public service. First, who would make assignments and decide what projects are worthwhile, and how would compliance be assured? Resolving enforcement issues would require government control, in turn requiring increased taxes and/or cuts in other social programs, thereby nullifying the benefits of mandatory public service. Second, a mandatory system would open the floodgates

to incompetence and inexperience. Finally, the whole notion seems tantamount to Communism insofar as each citizen must contribute, according to his or her ability, to a strong state. Modern history informs us that such systems do not work. One could argue that mandatory public service is simply a tax in the form of labor rather than dollars. However, compulsory labor smacks of involuntary servitude, whereas financial taxes do not.

In conclusion, logistical and philosophical barriers to mandating public service outweigh its potential benefits for the nation as well as for participants.

36. ―Businesses and other organizations have overemphasized the importance of working as a team.

Clearly, in any human group, it is the strong individual, the person with the most commitment and energy, who gets things done.‖

The relationship between teamwork and individual strength, energy, and commitment is complex; whether they operate in a complementary or antagonistic manner depends on: (1) the goals toward which the traits are directed, (2) the degree of emphasis on teamwork, and (3) the job of the individual within an organization.

A person’s ability to work effectively in a team is not in consistent per se with personal strength, energy, and commitment. If exercised in a self-serving manner—for example, through pilfering or back stabbing—these traits can operate against the organization. Conversely, if directed toward the firm’s goals, these traits can motivate other team members, thereby advancing common goals. World War II generals Patton and Rommel understood this point and knew how to bring out the best individual qualities in their troops, while at the same time instilling a strong sense of team and common purpose.

Nevertheless, over-emphasizing teamwork can be counterproductive for an organization. A successful team requires both natural leaders and natural followers; otherwise, a team will accomplish little. Undue emphasis on teamwork may quell initiative among natural leaders, thereby thwarting team goals. Also, teamwork can be overemphasized with a commissioned sales force of highly competitive and autonomic individuals. Overemphasis on teamwork here might stifle healthy competition, thereby defeating a firm’s objectives. In other organizational areas, however, teamwork is critical. For example, a product-development team must progress in lock-step fashion toward common goals, such as meeting a rollout deadline.

In sum, individual strength, commitment, and energy can complement a strong team approach; as long as individual autonomy is not undermined, all can operate in a synergistic manner to achieve an organization’s goals.

37. ―Since science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society,

schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.‖

Because scientific knowledge is increasingly important in our technological world and in the practical world of jobs and careers, schools should devote sufficient time to teaching mathematics and science. This is not to say, however, that schools should devote less time to the arts or humanities. To the contrary, in a technological age the study of arts and humanities is probably more important than ever—for three reasons.

First of all, studying the arts and humanities can help students become better mathematicians and scientists. For example, recent studies of cognitive development show that studying music at an early age can strengthen a child’s later grasp of mathematics. And understanding philosophical concepts has helped scientists recognize their own presuppositions, and frame their central questions more accurately.

Secondly, studying the creative and intellectual achievement of others helps inspire our own creativity and intellectual questioning. This is particularly important in an era dominated by technology, where we run a serious risk of becoming automatons who fit neatly into the efficient functioning of some system.

Finally, technology is valuable as an efficient means to our important goals. But neither technology, nor the science on which it is founded, decides which goals are best, or judges the moral value of the means we choose for their attainment. We need the liberal arts to help us select worthwhile ends and ethical means.

In conclusion, schools should not devote less time to the arts and humanities. These areas of study augment and enhance learning in mathematics and science, as well as helping to preserve the richness of our entire human legacy while inspiring us to further it. Moreover, disciplines within the humanities provide methods and contexts for evaluating the morality of our technology and for determining its proper direction.

38. ―Courtesy is rapidly disappearing from everyday interactions, and as a result, we are all the

poorer for it.‖

The speaker claims that simple courtesy and good manners are disappearing from modern life, and that the quality of our lives is therefore deteriorating. While I do encounter frequent instances of discourtesy and bad manners, I also encounter many instances of the opposite behavior. For this reason, and because negative experiences tend to be more memorable and newsworthy, I find the speaker’s claim to be dubious.

Most people encounter multiple instances of ordinary courtesy and good manners every day—simple acts such as smokers asking whether anyone minds if they light up, people letting others with fewer items ahead in grocery-store lines, and freeway drivers switching lanes to accommodate faster drivers or those entering via on-ramps. Admittedly, most people also encounter discourtesy or poor manners on a daily basis—people using obscene language in public places where young children are present, and business associates intentionally ignoring phone calls, to name a few. However, such acts do not prove that good manners and courtesy are disappearing; they simply show that both courtesy and discourtesy abound in everyday life. Thus the claim that courtesy and good manners are disappearing grossly distorts reality.

Another reason that the claim is suspect is that we tend to remember negative encounters with people more so than positive ones, probably because bad experiences tend to be more traumatic and sensational, if not more interesting to talk about. The news stories that the media chooses to focus on certainly support this rationale. However the fact that we remember, hear about, and read about discourtesy more than about courtesy shows neither that discourtesy is increasing nor that courtesy is decreasing. It simply shows that negative experiences leave stronger impressions and tend to be more sensational. In fact, I suspect that if one were to tally up one’s daily encounters with both types of behavior, one would conclude that good manners and courtesy are far more prevalent than the opposite behavior.

In conclusion, the speaker’s claim that common courtesy and good manners are disappearing is not born out by everyday experience. I suspect the speaker has failed to consider that negative experiences leave stronger impressions on our memory and are more interesting to relate to others than positive ones.

39. ―It is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of

a fulfilling personal life.‖

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.

40. ―With the increasing emphasis on a global economy and international cooperation, people need

to understand that their role as citizens of the world is more important than their role as citizens of a particular country.‖

With the growth of the global economy and the need for international cooperation, every human being has assumed a role as citizen of the world. Does this mean that our roles as citizens of our respective nations are thereby superseded by our role as world citizens, as the speaker suggests? Not at all. Good citizenship at one level is often compatible with good citizenship at another. In fact, being a good citizen in one social domain can help one be a better citizen in another.

Good global citizenship is not incompatible with good citizenship at other levels. Consider, for example, one’s efforts as a citizen to preserve the natural environment. One particular person might, for example: (1) lobby legislators to enact laws preserving an endangered redwood forest, (2) campaign for nationally-elected officials who support clean air laws, and (3) contribute to international rainforest preservation organizations. This one person would be acting consistently as a citizen of community, state, nation and world.

Admittedly, conflicting obligations sometimes arise as a result of our new “dual” citizenship. For example, a U.S. military official with an advisory role in a United Nations peace-keeping force might face conflicting courses of action—one that would secure U.S. military interests, and another that would better serve international interests. However, the fact that such a conflict exists does not mean that either action is automatically more obligatory—that is, that one’s role as either U.S. citizen or world citizen must invariably supersede the other. Instead, this situation should be resolved by carefully considering and weighing the consequences of each course of action.

Moreover, being a good citizen in one social context can often help one be a better citizen in another. For example, volunteering to help underprivileged children in one’s community might inspire one to work for an international child-welfare organization. And inculcating civic values—such as charity and civic pride—may give rise to personal traits of character that transfer to all social domains and contexts.

In sum, although our “dual” citizenship may at times lead to conflicts, one role need not automatically take precedence over the other. Moreover, the relationship between the two roles is, more often than not, a complementary one—and can even be synergistic.

45. ―The most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is

to follow the highest standards of ethics.‖

The speaker claims that following high ethical standards is the best way to maximize profits in the long run.

However, this claim seems to be more of a normative statement than an empirical observation. The issue is more complex than the speaker suggests. In my observation, the two objectives at times coincide but at other times conflict.

In many ways behaving ethically can benefit a business. Ethical conduct will gain a company good reputation that earns repeated business. Treating suppliers, customers and others fairly is likely to result in their reciprocating. Finally, a company that treats its employees fairly and with respect will gain their loyalty which, in turn, usually translates into higher productivity.

On the other hand, taking the most ethical course of action may in many cases reduce profits, in the short run and beyond. Consider the details of a merger in which both firms hope to profit from a synergy gained thereby. If the details of the merger hinge on the ethical conviction that as few employees as possible should lose their jobs, the key executives may lose sight of the fact that a leaner, less labor-intensive organization might be necessary for long-term survival. Thus, undue concern with ethics in this case would results in lower profits and perhaps ultimate business failure.

This merger scenario points out a larger argument that the speaker misses entirely-that profit maximization is per se the highest ethical objective in private business. Why? By maximizing profits, businesses bestow a variety of important benefits on their community and on society: they employ more people, stimulate the economy, and enhance healthy competition. In short, the profit motive is the key to ensuring that the members of a free market society survive and thrive. While this argument might ignore implications for the natural environment and for socioeconomic justice, it is a compelling argument nonetheless.

Thus the choice to follow high ethical standards should not be made by thinking that ethical conduct is profitable. While in some cases a commitment to high ethical standards might benefit a company financially, in many cases it will not. In the final analysis, businesses might best be advised to view their attempts to maximize profits as highly ethical behavior.

46. Businesses are as likely as are governments to establish large bureaucracies, but bureaucracy is

far more damaging to a business than it is to a government.

Contrary to the statement’s premise, my view is that businesses are less likely than government to establish large bureaucracies, because businesses know that they are more vulnerable than government to damage resulting from bureaucratic inefficiencies. My position is well supported by common sense and by observation.

First, public administrators lack the financial incentives to avoid bureaucratic waste. In contrast, inefficiencies in a private corporation will reduce profits, inflicting damage in the form of job cuts, diminishing common-stock value, and reducing employee compensation. These are ample incentives for the private firm to minimize bureaucratic waste.

Second, there is almost no accountability among government bureaucrats. The electorate’s voting power is too indirect to motivate mid-level administrators, whose salaries and jobs rarely depend on political elections. In contrast, private corporations must pay strict attention to efficiency, since their shareholders hold an immediate power to sell their stock, thereby driving down the company’s market value.

Third, government is inherently monopolistic, large, and unwieldy; these features breed bureaucracy. Admittedly some corporations rival state governments in size. Yet even among the largest companies, the profit motive breeds a natural concern for trimming waste, cutting costs, and streamlining operations. Even virtual monopolies strive to remain lean and nimble in order to maintain a distance from upstart competitors. When government pays lip service to efficiency, shrewd listeners recognize this as political rhetoric designed only to pander to the electorate. In the final analysis, financial incentives, accountability, and competition all distinguish private business from

government, both in terms of their likelihood of establishing large bureaucracies and in terms of the damage that these bureaucracies can inflict on the organization.

57. ―Everywhere, it seems, there are clear and positive signs that people are becoming more

respectful of one another‘s differences.‖

In determining whether we are becoming more respectful of one another’s differences, one must examine both overt actions and underlying motives, as well as examining whether our differences are increasing or decreasing. The issue, therefore, is quite complex, and the answer is unclear.

Disrespect for one another’s differences manifests itself in various forms of prejudice and discrimination. Since the civil rights and feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, it would seem that we have made significant progress toward eliminating racial and sexual discrimination. Anti-discriminatory laws in the areas of employment, housing, and education, now protect all significant minority groups racial minorities and women, the physically challenged and, more recently, homosexuals. Movies and television shows, which for better or worse have become the cynosure of our cultural attention, now tout the rights of minorities, encouraging acceptance of and respect for others. However, much of this progress is forced upon us legislative. Without Title 10 and its progenies, would we voluntarily refrain from the discriminatory behavior that the laws prevent? Perhaps not. Moreover, signs of disrespect are all around us today. Extreme factions still rally around bigoted demagogues; the number of “hate crimes” is increasing alarmingly; and school-age children seem to flaunt a disrespect toward adults as never before. Finally, what appears to be respect for one another’s differences may in fact be an increasing global homogeneity—that is, we are becoming more and more alike.

In sum, on a societal level it is difficult to distinguish between genuine respect for one another’s differences on the one hand and legislated morality and increasing homogeneity on the other. Accordingly, the claim that we are

becoming more respectful of one another’s differences is somewhat dubious.

60. ―Employers should have no right to obtain information about their employees‘ health or other

aspects of their personal lives without the employees‘ permission.‖

Determining whether employers should have access to personal information about employees requires that the interests of businesses in ensuring productivity and stability be weighed against concerns about equity and privacy interests. On balance, my view is that employers should not have the right to obtain personal information about current employees without their consent.

A business’ interest in maintaining a stable, productive workforce clearly justifies right of access to certain personal information about prospective employees. Job applicants can easily conceal personal information that might adversely affect job performance, thereby damaging the employer in terms of low productivity and high turnover. During employment, however, the employee’s interests are far more compelling than those of the employer, for three reasons.

First, the employer has every opportunity to monitor ongoing job performance and to replace workers who fail to meet standards, regardless of the reason for that failure. Second, allowing free access to personal information about employees might open the floodgates to discriminatory promotions and salary adjustments. Current federal laws—which protect employees from unfair treatment based on gender, race, and marital status, may not adequately guard against an employer’s searching for an excuse to treat certain employees unfairly. Third, access to personal information without consent raises serious privacy concerns, especially where multiple individuals have access to the information. Heightening this concern is the ease of access to information which our burgeoning electronic Intranets make possible.

In sum, ready access to certain personal information about prospective employees is necessary to protect businesses; however, once hired, an employee’s interest in equitable treatment and privacy far outweighs the employer’s interest in ensuring a productive and stable workforce.

62. ―What education fails to teach us is to see the human community as one. Rather than focus on

the unique differences that separate one nation from another, education should focus on the similarities among all people and places on Earth.‖

This view of education seems to recommend that schools stress the unity of all people instead of their diversity. While I agree that education should include teaching students about characteristics that we all share, doing so need not necessarily entail shifting focus away from our differences. Education can and should include both.

On the one hand, we are in the midst of an evolving global community where it is increasingly important for people to recognize our common humanity, as well as specific hopes and goals we all share. People universally prefer health to disease, being nourished to starving, safe communities to crime-riddled ones, and peace to war. Focusing on our unity will help us realize these hopes and goals. Moreover, in our pluralistic democracy it is crucial to find ways to unify citizens from diverse backgrounds. Otherwise, we risk being reduced to ethnic, religious or political factions at war with one another, as witnessed recently in the former Yugoslavia. Our own diverse society can forestall such horrors only if citizens are educated about the democratic ideals, heritage, rights and obligations we all have in common.

On the other hand, our schools should not attempt to erase, ignore, or even play down religious, ethnic or cultural diversity. First of all, schools have the obligation to teach the democratic ideal of tolerance, and the best way to teach tolerance is to educate people about different religions, cultures and so on. Moreover, educating people about diversity might even produce a unifying effect—by promoting understanding and appreciation among people from all backgrounds.

In conclusion, while it may appear paradoxical to recommend that education stress both unity and diversity, it is not. Understanding our common humanity will help us achieve a better, more peaceful world. Toward the same end, we need to understand our differences in order to better tolerate them, and perhaps even appreciate them. Our schools can and should promote both kinds of understanding by way of a balanced approach.

65. ―The rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people

everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.‖

Although global homogeneity in a broader sense may not be as inexorable as the speaker here suggests, I agree that multinational corporations are indeed creating global sameness in consumer preferences. This homogeneity is manifested in two concurrent megatrends: (1) the embracing of American popular culture throughout the world, and (2) a synthesis of cultures, as reflected in consumer preferences.

The first trend is toward Americanization of popular culture throughout the world. In food and fashion, once a nation’s denizens “fall into the Gap” or get a taste of a Coke or Big Mac, their preferences are forever Westernized. The ubiquitous Nike “swoosh,” which nearly every soccer player in the world will soon don, epitomizes this phenomenon. In media, the cultural agendas of giants such as Time-Warner now drive the world’s entertainment preferences. The Rolling Stones and the stars of America’s prime-time television shows are revered among young people worldwide, while Mozart’s music, Shakespeare’s prose, and Ghandi’s ideology are largely ignored.

A second megatrend is toward a synthesis of cultures into a homogenous stew. The popularity of “world music” and of the “New Age” health care and leisure-time activities aptly illustrate this blending of Eastern, Western and

third-world cultures. Perhaps nowhere is the cultural-stew paradigm more striking, and more bland (blander), than at the international “food courts” now featured in malls throughout the developed world.

These trends appear inexorable. Counter-attacks, such as Ebonies, rap music, and bilingual education, promote the distinct culture of minority groups, but not of nations. Further homogenization of consumer preferences is all but ensured by failing trade barriers, coupled with the global billboard that satellite communications and the Internet provide.

In sum, American multinationals have indeed instigated a homogeneous global, yet American-style, consumerism—one which in all likelihood will grow in extent along with free-market capitalism and global connectivity.

68. ―Since the physical work environment affects employee productivity and morale, the employees

themselves should have the right to decide how their workplace is designed.‖

I agree that physical workspace can affect morale and productivity and that, as a result, employees should have a significant voice in how their work areas are designed. However, the speaker suggests that each employee should have full autonomy over his or her immediate workspace, I think this view is too extreme, for it ignores two important problems that allowing too much freedom over workspace can create.

On the one hand, I agree that some aspects of workspace design are best left to the individual preferences of each worker. Location of personal tools and materials, style and size of desk chair, and even desk lighting and decorative desk items, can each play an important role in a worker’s comfort, psychological wellbeing, concentration, and efficiency. Moreover, these features involve highly subjective preferences, so it would be inappropriate for anyone but the worker to make such choices.

On the other hand, control over one’s immediate workspace should not go unchecked, for two reasons. First, one employee’s workspace design may inconvenience, annoy, or even offend nearby coworkers. For example, pornographic pinups may distract some coworkers and offend others, thereby impeding productivity, fostering ill-will and resentment, and increasing attrition—all to the detriment of the company. Admittedly, the consequences of most workspace choices would not be so far-reaching. Still, in my observation many people adhere, consciously or not, to the adage that one person’s rights extend only so far as the next person’s nose. A second problem with affording too much workspace autonomy occurs when workspaces are not clearly delineated—by walls and doors—or when workers share an immediate workspace. In such cases, giving all workers concurrent authority would perpetuate conflict and undermine productivity.

In conclusion, although employees should have the freedom to arrange their work areas, this freedom is not absolute. Managers would be well-advised to arbitrate workspace disputes and, if needed, assume authority to make final decisions about workspace design.

72. ―Companies should not try to improve employees‘ performance by giving incentives—for

example, awards or gifts. These incentives encourage negative kinds of behavior instead of encouraging a genuine interest in doing the work well.‖

Providing employee incentives can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the promise of bonuses or gifts can spur workers to higher achievement. On the other hand, incentives can create resentment and internal competitiveness that are damaging to morale and to the organization. Even so, I think a carefully designed incentive program can operate to the net benefit (of) a company.

Incentive programs are counterproductive when the distribution of rewards appears to be personally biased, when the program recognizes just one kind among many important jobs in the organization, or when there are too few

rewards available. For example, if a manager regularly rewards an employee who is perceived to be a favorite, coworkers will be resentful. Or if the company decides to recognize high sales, while ignoring an especially precise cost-assessment from the accounting department, the accountants may feel their work is not valued. Finally, if rewards are too few, some employees will become overly competitive, while others may simply stop trying.

However, incentive programs can be designed to avoid such pitfalls. First, the company must determine that it can provide sufficient rewards to motivate all employees. Then it must set, and follow, clear and non-arbitrary guidelines for achievement. Finally, management should provide appropriate incentives throughout the organization, thereby sending the message that all work is valued. Admittedly, even a thoughtfully designed incentive program cannot entirely prevent back-stabbing and unfair competitive tactics. But watchful management can quell much of this behavior, and the perpetrators usually show their true colors in time.

In sum, I think that the productivity inspired by thoughtful incentive programs will very likely outweigh any negative consequences. In the final analysis, then, I disagree with the speaker’s recommendation against their use.

75. ―There are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear.‖

The speaker claims that people are motivated only by fear and self-interest. This claim relies on the belief that human beings are essentially selfish, or egoistic. In my view, the speaker oversimplifies human nature, ignoring the important motivating force of altruism.

On the one hand, I agree that most of our actions result in large part from self-interest and from our survival instincts, such as fear. For example, our educational and vocational lives are to a great extent motivated by our interest in ensuring our own livelihood, safety, health, and so on. We might perpetuate bad personal relationships because we are insecure—or afraid—of what will happen to us if we change course. Even providing for our own children may to some extent be motivated by selfishness—satisfying a need for fulfillment or easing our fear that we will be alone in our old age.

On the other hand, to assert that all of our actions are essentially motivated by self-interest and fear is to overemphasize one aspect of human nature. Humans are also altruistic—that is, we act to benefit others, even though doing so may not be in our own interest. The speaker might claim that altruistic acts are just egoistic ones in disguise—done to avoid unpleasant feelings of guilt, to give oneself pleasure, or to obligate another person. However, this counter argument suffers from three critical problems. First, some examples of altruism are difficult to describe in terms of self-interest alone. Consider the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his companions. It would be nonsensical to assert that this soldier is acting selfishly when he knows his action will certainly result in his own immediate death. Second, the argument offends our intuition that human motivation is far more complex. Third, it relies on a poor assumption; just because we feel good about helping others, it does not follow that the only reason we help is in order to feel good.

In sum, the speaker oversimplifies human nature. All human motivation cannot be reduced to fear and self-interest. We can also be motivated by altruism, and the pleasure we might take in helping others is not necessarily an indication that our actions are selfish.

78. Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society‘s past, but

controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes.

The issue of whether to raze an old, historic building to make way for progress is a complex one, since it involves a conflict between our interest in preserving our culture, tradition, and history and a legitimate need to create practical facilities that serve current utilitarian purposes. In my view, the final judgment should depend on a

case-by-case analysis of two key factors.

One key factor is the historic value of the building. An older building may be worth saving because it uniquely represents some bygone era. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the era just as effectively, then the historic value of one building might be negligible. If the building figured centrally into the city’s history as a municipal structure, the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or the location of important events, then its historic value would be greater than if its history was an unremarkable one.

The other key factor involves the specific utilitarian needs of the community and the relative costs and benefits of each alternative in light of those needs. For example, if the need is mainly for more office space, then an architecturally appropriate add-on or annex might serve just as well as a new building. On the other hand, an expensive retrofit may not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would permit it to serve the desired function. Moreover, retrofitting might undermine the historic value of the old building by altering its aesthetic or architectural integrity.

In sum, neither modernization for its own sake nor indiscriminate preservation of old buildings should guide decisions in the controversies at issue. Instead, decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering historic value, community need, and the comparative costs and benefits of each alternative.

81. ―No one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success or ?get rich‘ in business by

conforming to conventional practices or ways of thinking.‖

Whether a conformist can achieve lasting success or “get rich” in business depends primarily on the type of business involved. Iconoclasts rise to the top in newer industries and in those where consumer demand is in constant flux. Conformists ultimately prevail, however, in traditional service industries ensconced in systems and regulations. In consumer-driven industries, innovation, product differentiation, and creativity are crucial to lasting success, in the retail and media sectors, for example, unconventional products and advertising are necessary to catch the attention of consumers and to keep up with the vagaries of consumer tastes. Those who take an iconoclastic approach tend to recognize emerging trends and to rise above their peers. For example, Ted Turner’s departure from the traditional format of the other television networks, and the responsiveness of Amazon.com to burgeoning Internet commerce, propelled these two giants to leadership positions in their industries. And in technology, where there are no conventional practices or ways of thinking to begin with, companies that fail to break away from last year’s paradigm are soon left behind by the competition.

However, in traditional service industries—such as finance, accounting, insurance, legal services, and health care—lasting success and riches come not to nonconformists but rather to those who can deliver services most effectively within the confines of established practices, policies, and regulations. Of course, a clever idea for structuring a deal, or a creative legal maneuver, may play a role in winning smaller battles along the way. But such tactics are those of conformists who are playing by the same ground rules as their peers; winners are just better at the game.

In conclusion, while non-conformists tend to be the wildly successful players in technology-driven and consumer-driven industries, traditionalists are the winners in system-driven industries pervaded by policy, regulation, and bureaucracy.

87. ―As technologies and the demand for certain services change, many workers will lose their jobs.

The responsibility for those people to adjust to such change should belong to the individual worker, not to government or to business.‖

As technology and changing social needs render more and more jobs obsolete, who is responsible for helping

displaced workers adjust? While individuals have primary responsibility for learning new skills and finding work, both industry and government have some obligation to provide them the means of doing so.

l agree that individuals must assume primary responsibility for adjusting to job obsolescence, especially since our educational system has been preparing us for it. For decades, our schools have been counseling young people to expect and prepare for numerous major career changes during their lives. And concerned educators have recognized and responded to this eventuality with a broader base of practical and theoretical coursework that affords students the flexibility to move from one career to another.

However, industry should bear some of the responsibility as well. It is industry, after all, that determines the particular directions technological progress and subsequent social change will take. And since industry is mainly responsible for worker displacement, it has a duty to help displaced workers adjust—through such means as on-site training programs and stipends for further education.

Government should also assume some of the responsibility, since it is partly government money that fuels technological progress in industry. Moreover, government should help because it can help—for example, by ensuring that grants and federally insured student loans are available to those who must retool in order to find new work. Government can also help by observing and recording trends in worker displacement and in job opportunities, and by providing this information to individuals so that they can make prudent decisions about their own further education and job searches.

In conclusion, while individuals should be prepared for future job changes, both government and industry shoulder obligations to provide training programs, funding and information that will help displaced workers successfully retool and find new employment.

107. ―The most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their

simpler component parts. This way, each worker completes a small portion of the task but contributes to the whole.‖

The stated opinion is that the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This strategy is probably cost-effective in many situations. However, I think that it works against important organizational values over time.

Distinct divisions of labor are efficient for a number of reasons. First of all, workers with few highly specific skills are usually cheaper to hire than those with broader education and experience. Secondly, it is less expensive to train employees in narrow areas. Finally, strict compartmentalization of tasks makes it easier for managers to control employees, and, therefore, to control and increase productivity. But however profitable this strategy might be in the short run, it can ultimately work against the organization.

To begin with, fragmenting work into small units leads to employee alienation. Those responsible for only a detailed component of a project can easily lose sight of larger organizational goals and their own importance in achieving them. Research indicates that they then become less committed to their work, and less productive. Of course, unproductive employees can be replaced. But replacement is costly; and high employee turnover is bad for organizational morale.

In addition, compartmentalizing tasks can stifle creativity, as well as undermine self-motivation and pride in one’s work. With little collaboration or even communication between discrete work units, larger creative insights are lost. And, cooperative efforts usually foster a series of common purpose and pride in accomplishment.

Of course, diversifying jobs and increasing worker participation in larger projects could lead to lower productivity. But the experience of large manufacturing corporations like General Motors shows just the opposite. When GM facilities implemented these and other strategies to improve work-place quality, they reported that productivity

increased.

In conclusion, I believe that organizing work into discrete tasks will compromise important organizational values like creativity, self-motivation, commitment and pride in accomplishment. So, although there are times when small divisions of labor will be necessary, generally work should be diversified, and workers should have greater involvement in projects overall.

109. ―Employees should not have full access to their own personnel files. If, for example,

employees were allowed to see certain confidential materials, the people supplying that information would not be likely to express their opinions candidly.‖

The issue is whether employees should have full access to their own personnel files. The speaker claims that they should not, pointing out that such access could diminish the condor of those supplying information. To some extent, I agree with this viewpoint. Although employees are entitled to be accurately informed about the substance of performance reviews or complaints in their files, at times there will be good reason not to identify information sources.

First of all, employers have a right to control some information pertinent to their business success. Unproductive or uncooperative workers can seriously harm an organization; for this reason, employers need to have accurate information about employee performance. But when employees have full access to their own personnel files, co-workers and even supervisors will often find it difficult to give frank criticism of underachievers or to report troublemakers. So although employees have legitimate claims to know what has been said about them, they are not always entitled to know who said it.

Secondly, employers are obligated to control some information when their employees are accursed of unlawful conduct. Since employers are responsible for wrongdoing at the workplace, they must investigate charges of, for example, drug activity, possession of firearms, or harassment. But again, without assurances of anonymity, accusers may be less forthright. Furthermore, they may be in jeopardy of retaliation by the accused. So while workers under investigation may be generally informed about complaints or reports, they should not know who filed them. Even so, employers do not enjoy an unlimited right to gather and keep confidential information about employees. For example, it would be unjust to investigate an employee’s political viewpoints, religious preference, or sexual orientation. Such invasions of privacy are not warranted by an employer’s right to performance-related information, or duty to protect the workplace from criminal wrongdoing.

In conclusion, limiting employee access to personnel files is sometimes warranted to encourage candor and prevent retaliation against information sources. At the same time, employers have no right to solicit or secure information about the private lives of their workers.

111. ―The most effective business leaders are those who maintain the highest ethical standards.‖

The assertion at issue is that business people who uphold the highest ethical standards are the most effective leader. I strongly agree with this statement. For a while, unethical behavior might seem effective. But a few examples from the investment banking industry keenly illustrate how dishonesty and corruption in leadership can

bring a business to its knees, shattering the trust of its employees and ruining its reputation with clients.

Consider the cases of Michael Milken, former head of junk bond trading at Drexel Burnham Lambert, and Paul Mozer, formerly in charge of Salomon Brothers’ government bonds trading. Each of these men engaged in double-dealing and other illegal acts, reaping tremendous profits for their companies, and winning the admiration of subordinates and superiors alike. However, their successes were relatively short-lived. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations in each case revealed massive wrongdoing. As a result, Drexel went out of business.

And Salomon Brothers barely recovered, after suffering the forced resignations of its top executives, a financially devastating loss of reputation, and the exodus of many valued employees.

Moreover, Salomon’s survival is probably owing entirely to its subsequent leadership under Warren Buffett. Buffett, who was on the Salomon Brother board of directors at the time of the scandal, was brought in to save the beleaguered company. His success in keeping it afloat at all can be directly tied to his sterling ethical reputation in the international business community at the time. Buffett’s reputation restored at least some lost confidence among clients and investors, and probably prompted some employees to reconsider their decisions to leave the company.

While not every case of unethical leadership is quite so public or devastating as these, they do illustrate an important point. In any business, once corruption at the top becomes known, the predictable outcome will be damaged reputation, lower worker morale, and, along with them, lost productivity.

In conclusion, unethical conduct at the leadership level in a company might go unnoticed and serve one’s interests in the short-term. However, in the long run it will work against one’s effectiveness and may even prove ruinous.

112. ―The overall quality of life in most societies has never been better than at the present time

because of recent advancements in such areas as business and technology.‖

The stated opinion is that recent advancements in business and technology have made overall quality of life better than ever. I disagree somewhat with the speaker’s viewpoint. For although such advancements have improved our lives in many respects, they have also diminished our quality of life in other ways.

Clearly, progress in business and technology has produced many benefits. For example, we can research problems and their solutions in minutes on the Internet; productivity is at an all-time high. And we can get more done in less time, leaving more time for hobbies, entertainment or other leisure activities. We can even mix a little work into our leisure time, by taking our laptops and cell phones on vacation. This way, we can stay one step ahead on projects at work, anticipating deadlines and staying in touch with co-workers and important clients.

In addition, leisure time has itself been enhanced by business and technology. Never before have we had so many spectacular diversions available, or so many leisure- and entertainment-related businesses vying for our attention. Moreover, we can obtain everything form airline tickets to a language course and holiday wardrobe via the Internet, in the convenience of our own homes.

Nevertheless, advances in business and technology have compromised our quality of life as well. For all the wonders of computers, they have spawned their own special illnesses and ailments, like severe eyestrain, back and neck problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome. And though we now have a world of information available in a keystroke, some of this information—like pornography, hate group diatribes and bomb-building instructions—are harming our society, especially our children. Even apparently harmless material, like direct mail advertising and telephone soliciting, is endlessly annoying. Finally, family life is sometimes a casualty of all this progress, with parents and children spending more time transfixed before their computer monitors and less time together.

In conclusion, advances in business and technology are a mixed blessing. For while we enjoy many benefits of this so-called progress, in many ways it has changed our lives for the worse. （少四篇）

二．Analysis of Argument Questions

1. The following appeared as part of an annual report sent to stockholders by Olympic Foods, a

account for it. For example, other factors such as poor business practices or lack of inventory could be responsible for the Frigid Cow’s loss of revenue. The loan department’s failure to investigate or even consider these and other possible explanations for the Frigid Cow’s decline in revenue renders their decision highly suspect.

In conclusion, the loan department’s decision is ill-founded. To better evaluate the decision, we would need to know more about the length and severity of Frostbite’s winter season. Moreover, evidence would have to be provided to support the assumption that the Frigid Cow’s loss of revenue last winter was a direct result of the cold weather.

112. The following appeared in a memo to the Saluda town council from the town‘s business

manager.

―Research indicates that those who exercise regularly are hospitalized less than half as often as those who don‘t exercise. By providing a well-equipped gym for Saluda‘s municipal employees, we should be able to reduce the cost of our group health insurance coverage by approximately 50% and thereby achieve a balanced town budget.‖

In this memo Saluda’s business manager recommends that the town provide a gym for its employees as a means of balancing the town’s budget. The manager reasons that since studies show that people who exercise regularly are hospitalized less than half as often than those who don’t exercise, Saluda could save approximately 50% on the cost of its group health insurance coverage by providing its employees with a well-equipped gym. The savings on insurance would balance the town’s budget. The manager’s argument is unconvincing because it rests on several unsupported and dubious assumptions.

First, the manager assumes that Saluda’s employees will exercise regularly if a well-equipped facility is provided for them. This assumption is questionable since the mere fact that a gym is made available for employee use is no guarantee that they will avail themselves of it at all, let alone on a regular basis.

Second, the manager assumes that Saluda’s employees do not exercise regularly. Once again, the manager offers no support for this crucial assumption. Obviously, if all of Sauda’s employees already engage in daily exercise, the hospitalization rate will be unaffected by equipping an exercise facility and no savings will be realized on the group health insurance.

Third, the manager assumes that there is a direct relation between the hospitalization rate for employees and the cost of their group health insurance such that a reduction in the hospitalization rate will result in a corresponding reduction in the cost of insurance. While this may turn out to be true, the manager has failed to offer any evidence for this claim.

Finally, the manager assumes that the cost of building a well-equipped exercise facility will not negate the savings realized on the group health insurance. Until evidence has been provided to show that this is not the case, the manager’s plan is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the business manager’s proposal to provide an exercise facility as a means of balancing Saluda’s budget is not convincing. To strengthen the argument, evidence would have to be provided for each of the assumptions listed in the previous analysis. （少四篇）

新增黄金题目范文：

一．Analysis of Issue Questions

33. ―People are likely to accept as a leader only someone who has demonstrated an ability to

perform the same tasks that he or she expects others to perform.‖

People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust.

It is difficult for people to fully respect a leader who cannot, or will not, do what he or she asks of others. President Clinton’s difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was well known that he had evaded military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a computer engineer earned the respect of his employees.

It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the test, he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive and largely bungled attempt to solve the problem of gays in the military. In stark contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II.

In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.

92. ―Government should establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in

the environment, even when the scientific studies of these health hazards are incomplete or contradictory.‖

The stated opinion is that government should regulate any suspected environmental health hazards, even if relevant scientific evidence is conflicting or incomplete. While I agree that it’s often wiser to err on the side of caution, I think the speaker’s blanket assertion goes too far. Government reaction to specific cases should be decided on the basis of two considerations: (1) the degree of evidential uncertainty, and (2) the seriousness of the risk involved. The greatest uncertainty arises from contradictory evidence. Consider an analogy taken from medical research, where one study links caffeine to increased risk of heart disease, while another claims there is no correlation between the two. Provided that both studies used sufficiently large and random samples, and the results were statistically significant in each case, it is difficult to decide whether to give up coffee. If the effect in question were a little sleep disturbance, then it might be reasonable to sustain moderate intake of caffeine. But with a risk as serious as cancer, it would be reasonable to abstain, pending more conclusive evidence.

Lesser degrees of uncertainty stem from incomplete evidence. One highly publicized case involved early studies suggesting that chloroflourocarbon emissions accelerate ozone depletion in our atmosphere. Some scientists were unsure whether the models were correct; CFC-producing businesses took their case against regulation to Congress and the public, arguing that the scientific evidence was inconclusive. But of course, waiting for conclusive evidence could mean the eventual destruction of life on our planet. The U.S. government wisely decided first to limit, and then prohibit most CFC production. The risks of being wrong in this case are enormous; today most of the international community is working toward the virtual elimination of chloroflourocarbons.

In sum, I believe it is unreasonable to give blanket prescriptions concerning government reaction to health hazards in the environment. Where uncertainty is greatest, and risks are relatively small, it would be wise to wait for more scientific evidence. But when the risks are great, government should regulate against environmental health hazards, even in the face of uncertainty.

100. ―If a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive

educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries.‖

I don’t think it is a good idea to design an educational system that focuses mainly on competition. For although a little competition might produce desired results, in the long run too much competition will be destructive. Instead, I believe that our national economic success will be better promoted by an educational system that encourages cooperative learning among students, and with students from other countries.

Granted, competitiveness is an important aspect of human nature. And, properly directed, it can motivate us to reach higher and produce more, not to mention meet deadlines. But being competitive fixes our focus externally, on marking and beating the progress of others with whom we compete. Such external motivation can direct our attention away from creative solutions to our problems, and away from important human values like cooperation and fair play. Indeed, a highly competitive environment can foster cheating and ruthless back-stabbing within an organization, and ill-will and mistrust among nations. In the extreme case, competition between nations becomes war.

On the other hand, an environment of cooperation encourages us to discover our common goals and the best ways to achieve them. At the national and international levels, our main interests are in economic wellbeing and peace. In fact, economic success means little without the security of peace. Thus, global peace becomes a powerful incentive for developing educational models of cooperative learning, and implementing exchange programs and shared research projects among universities from different countries.

Moreover, research suggests that cooperative settings foster greater creativity and productivity than competitive ones. This has been shown to be the case both in institutions of higher learning and in business organizations. If true, it seems reasonable to argue that national economic success would be similarly tied to cooperative rather than competitive effort.

In conclusion, competition can provide an effective stimulus to achievement and reward. Even so, I believe it would be unwise to make competition the centerpiece of our educational system. We stand to reap greater benefits, including economic ones, by encouraging cooperative learning.

115. ―Technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them

together.‖

I believe there is some truth to the speaker’s claim that technology separates and alienates people. However, there is certainly at least as much evidence that technology serves best to bring people together.

The most obvious way that technology separates and alienates people from one another is symbolized by the computer nerd sitting glazed-eyed before his computer screen in a basement, attic, bedroom, or office cubicle. While this scene is a caricature, of course, it’s true that practically everybody who uses email or surfs the Internet does so alone, with only his or her computer for company. And, to the extent that computer use increases the amount of time we collectively spend in solitary activities, it increases the amount of time we spend separated from our fellow humans.

On the other hand, technology has been a wonderful aid in bringing people together, or, in many cases, back together. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have become connected with quite a number of people via email with whom I might never have spoken otherwise. These include old friends with whom I had fallen out of the habit of writing regular letters but with whom I now correspond regularly because of the ease with which email can be sent and delivered.

A second way in which the new technology has brought people together is by allowing individuals who have common interests to make contact with one another. It is possible to find people who share one’s interest in nearly anything, from aardvarks to zippers. Such contacts may be ephemeral, but they can be a great source of information and amusement as well. I would hazard a guess that for each person who sits neurotically at home, eschewing personal contacts with others in favor of an exclusive relationship with his computer, there are hundreds of others who have parleyed their email capacity and their access to the Web into a continuous succession of new acquaintances. In sum, it seems clear to me that technology has done more to bring people together than to isolate them.

二．Analysis of Argument Questions

92. The following is taken from an editorial in a local newspaper.

―Over the past decade, the price per pound of citrus fruit has increased substantially. Eleven years ago, Megamart charged 5 cents apiece for lemons, but today it commonly charges over 30 cents apiece. In only one of these last eleven years was the weather unfavorable for growing citrus crops. Evidently, then, citrus growers have been responsible for the excessive increase in the price of citrus fruit, and strict pricing regulations are needed to prevent them from continuing to inflate prices.‖

In this editorial the author argues for the imposition of strict pricing regulations in order to prevent citrus growers from continued inflation of prices of citrus fruit. The need for such regulation is supported by the author’s contention that citrus growers have been unnecessarily raising prices of citrus fruit in the past. The evidence for this allegation is the fact that the price of lemons at Megamart has increased from 15 cents per pound to over a dollar a pound during the preceding 11-year period. The author maintains that this increase is unjustifiable because weather conditions have been favorable to citrus production in all but one of those years. This argument is flawed for several reasons.

First and foremost, the author assumes that the only factor that influences the price of citrus fruit is the weather. Other factors such as monetary inflation, increased distribution and labor costs, or alterations in supply and demand conditions are completely ignored as possible sources for the increase. The charge that citrus growers have unnecessarily raised prices can be sustained only if these and other possible factors can be completely ruled out as contributing to the price increases. Since the author fails to address these factors, the recommendation calling for strict pricing regulations can be dismissed out of hand as frivolous.

Second, the author assumes that the only way to combat increased prices is through government intervention. In a free enterprise system many other means of affecting the pricing of goods are available. For example, boycotting a product and thereby influencing supply and demand conditions of the commodity is an effective means of influencing the price of the product. In a free market economy the call for price regulation by the government should occur only when all other means to rectify the problem have been exhausted.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument it would be necessary to show that the only factor influencing the price increases is the growers’ desire for increased profits.

95. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.

―Hippocrene Plumbing Supply recently opened a wholesale outlet in the location once occupied by the Cumquat Cafe. Hippocrene has apparently been quite successful there because it is planning to open a large outlet in a nearby city. But the Cumquat Cafe, one year after moving to its new location, has seen its volume of business drop somewhat from the previous year‘s.

Clearly, the former site is a better business location, and the Cumquat Cafe has made a mistake in moving to its new address.‖

(原稿空缺)Business is obviously unsuitable to the location. On the other hand, a bank in the same location might be extremely successful simply because of its suitability to the location.

In the third place, the author’s claim that Hippocrene has been successful at Cumquat’s previous location is unwarranted. The fact that Hippocrene intends to open a new outlet is insufficient to establish this claim. It is possible that the plan to open a new outlet was prompted by a lack of business at the Cumquat location.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that one year’s time at the new location is adequate to conclude whether Cumquat made a mistake in moving to that location. Its is entirely possible that given more time, perhaps another year or so, Cumquat will become profitable at the location. Common sense informs me that this is a distinct possibility, since it often takes more than one year for a restaurant to establish a customer base at a given location. In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the conclusion the author would have to evaluate other possible causes of the performance of the businesses and eliminate all except location as the cause in each case. Additionally, it would be necessary to show that location rather than suitability to a location was the cause of the success of Hippocrene and the failure of Cumquat.

97. The following appeared as part of an article in a computer magazine.

―A year ago Apex Manufacturing bought its managers computers for their homes and paid for telephone connections so that they could access Apex computers and data files from home after normal business hours. Since last year, productivity at Apex has increased by 15 percent. Other companies can learn from the success at Apex: given home computers and access to company resources, employees will work additional hours at home and thereby increase company profits.‖

In this article the author attributes Apex Manufacturing’s 15 percent increase in productivity over the past year to its decision to equip its manager with computers and paid telephone connections for their homes so that they would access company computers and files from home after normal business hours. On the basis of Apex’s experience the author recommends that other companies follow Apex’s example and provide computers and access to company resources to their employees. The author believes that such a policy would increase productivity and profits for other companies, just as it did for Apex. The author’s line of reasoning is questionable for several reasons. First, the author assumes that Apex’s increase in productivity is due to its equipping its managers with home computers and access to company resources. However, the only evidence offered in support of this claim is the fact that Apex’s increase in productivity occurred after the home computers and after-hours access was provided. Unfortunately, this evidence is insufficient to establish the causal claim in question. While temporal precedence is one of the conditions required to establish a causal relationship between two events, by itself it is not a sufficient condition. Consequently, it is possible that Apex’s increase in productivity is not related to its decision to equip its managers with computers and after-hours access in the fashion required by the author’s argument.

Second, the author assumes that Apex and other companies are sufficiently similar to warrant a conclusion based on an analogy between them. Even if we accept the view that Apex’s increase in productivity was brought about by its policy of enabling its managers to work from home, differences between Apex and other companies could nullify this result. Lacking detailed information about Apex and the other companies in question it is difficult to assess the author’s conclusion.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide additional evidence for the claim that Apex’s decision to provide its managers with home computers and access to