GMAT优秀作文参考范本（5）

飘香哈达

组别版主
性别
生日1900-1-1
积分3514
帖子2895
注册时间 2007-11-27

个人空间
相册

飘香哈达 2008-06-10 10:56 | 只看楼主 树型| 收藏| 小中大 1 ^#

GMAT优秀作文参考范本（5）

41.

Imposing heavy penalties on those who pollute or destroy the environment is one
way to preserve our environment. But it is not the only way; nor is it the best way.
Penalties may elicit grudging compliance, but other approaches—those that instill a
sense of genuine commitment—are likely to be more effective in the long term.

Admittedly, motivating compliance with environmental regulations by way of
penalties will serve environmental goals up to a point. The deterrent effect of these
remedies cannot be denied. Yet it should not be overstated. Some businesses may
attempt to avoid punishment by concealing their activities, bribing (lobbying) legislators
to modify regulations, or moving operations to jurisdictions that allow their
environmentally harmful activities. Others might calculate the trade-off between
accepting punishment and polluting, budget in advance for anticipated penalties, then
openly violate the law. My intuition is that this practice is a standard operating mode
among some of our largest manufacturers.

A better way to ensure environmental protection is to inculcate a sense of genuine
commitment into our corporate culture—through education and through shareholder
involvement. When key corporate executives become committed to values, the
regulations associated with those values become a codification of conscience rather than
obstacles to circumvent. The machinations and maneuverings described earlier will
thereby be supplanted by thoughtful concern about all the implications of one's actions.
Moreover, commitment-driven actions are likely to benefit the environment over and
above what the law requires. For example, while a particular regulation might permit a
certain amount of toxic effluents, businesses committed to environmental protection
may avoid harmful emissions altogether.

Instilling a genuine sense of commitment through education and shareholder
action is not just a better approach in theory, it is also less costly overall than a
compliance-driven approach. Regulatory systems inherently call for legislative
committees, investigations and enforcement agencies, all of which adds to the tax
burden of the citizens whom these regulations are designed to protect. Also, delays
typically associated with bureaucratic regulation may thwart the purpose of the
regulations, since environmental problems can quickly become very grave.

In sum, penalties for violating environmental-protection laws are essentially
expensive band-aids. A commitment-based approach, involving education and
shareholder activism, can instill in corporate culture a sense an environmental
conscience, resulting in far more effective environmental protection.

42.

The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how
our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products
and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires
them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and
about regulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help
companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations
compel me to disagree overall with the argument.

First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably.
At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be
subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement
requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover,
a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to
every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does
more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company on the coast. It
would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or,
in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement
measures.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly
reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious.
Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in
some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more
influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.

Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous
effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before
regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government
reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA might be overburdened with
its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage
by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.

In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what
environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation
before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker's recommended
approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it
ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage
resulting from bureaucratic delay.

43.

Examining history makes us better people insofar as it helps us to understand our
world. It would seem, therefore, that history would also provide useful clues for dealing
with the same social ills that have plagued societies throughput history. On balance,
however, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Admittedly, history has helped us learn the appropriateness of addressing certain
issues, particularly moral ones, on a societal level. Attempts to legislate morality
invariably fail, as illustrated by Prohibition in the 1930s and, more recently, failed
federal legislation to regulate access to adult material via the Internet. We are slowly
learning this lesson, as the recent trend toward legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes and the recognition of equal rights for same-sex partners both demonstrate.

However, the overriding lesson from history about social ills is that they are here
to stay. Crime and violence, for example, have troubled almost every society. All
manner of reform, prevention, and punishment have been tried. Today, the trend appears
to be away from reform toward a "tough-on-crime" approach. Is this because history
makes clear that punishment is the most effective means of eliminating crime? No;
rather, the trend merely reflects current mores, attitudes, and political climate. Also
undermining the assertion that history helps us to solve social problems is the fact that,
despite the civil-rights efforts of Martin Luther King and his progenies, the cultural gap
today between African-Americans and white Americans seems to be widening. It seems
that racial prejudice is here to stay. A third example involves how we deal with the
mentally ill segment of the population. History reveals that neither quarantine, nor
treatment or accommodation solves the problem, only that each approach comes with its
own tradeoffs.

To sum up, while history can teach us lessons about our social problems, more
often than not the lesson is that there are no solutions to many social problems—only
alternate ways of coping with them.

44.

The speaker claims that high-quality ads can sell almost anything, and that
companies should accordingly invest heavily in such advertising. I agree that the quality
of an ad can in some instances play a pivotal role in a product's success or failure in the
marketplace. However, the speaker over-generalizes, for advertising is far more critical
in some businesses and for some products than for others.

Certain types of businesses benefit greatly from investing in high-quality
advertising. Fledgling companies, for example, may require an extensive top-notch
advertising campaign to achieve the name recognition that older competitors already
enjoy. Even established companies may need an expensive ad campaign. When
introducing new products or venturing into new markets. Companies selling products
that are no utilitarian value perhaps stand to gain the most from an extensive high-
quality advertising effort. Consider, for example, the kinds of products that are marketed
by means of the most extensive and expensive advertising: beer, cigarettes, soft drinks,
and cosmetics. None of these products has any utility. Their success depends on
consumers' fickle tastes, their emotions, and their subjective perceptions. Accordingly,
influencing consumer attitudes through popular and appealing ads is about the only way
to increase sales of such products.

In some industries, however, substantial-investment in high-quality advertising
simply does not make sense from a cost-effectiveness viewpoint. Pharmaceutical
companies, for example, might be better off limiting their advertising to specialized
publications, and focus instead on other kinds of promotional programs, such as the
distribution of free samples. And widespread, flashy advertising would probably have a
limited effect on overall sales for companies such as Deere and Caterpillar, whose name
recognition and long-standing reputations for quality products are well established and
whose customers are unlikely to be swayed by sensational ads.

In sum, the speaker over-generalizes. Not all companies have an equal need to
invest heavily in high-quality advertising. Companies with new products and products
that have little utility stand to benefit most from expensive, high-quality advertising.
But other companies, especially those whose customers are businesses rather than
consumers, would be better off focusing on product quality and reputation, not on
sensational advertising.

45.

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 socio-economic
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.

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

47.

The responsibility for preventing environmental damage should be shared by
government, private industry and individuals alike. The primary obligation, however,
belongs to individuals. Moreover, within organizations like the government or a
corporation, responsibility should be increasingly distributed to individuals according to
level of authority.

The primary obligation to preserve the environment belongs to individuals for the
reason that assigning responsibility to a government or corporation is problematic. This
is because abstract entities like these do not fulfill the usual criteria for being
responsible. An entity can shoulder responsibility only if it can be held accountable for
its actions. Furthermore, being held accountable for an action requires that the entity act
willingly and on the basis of conscious intentions. But governments and businesses are
abstractions, having neither will nor consciousness beyond that of the individuals within
them.

Still, we can make some sense of treating corporations and governments as if they
were individuals. They are individuals under the law, and therefore subject to laws,
penalties, and lawsuits. They can even be identified as beneficiaries in wills.
Nevertheless, when responsibility is vaguely allocated to abstract entities like
governments or corporations, it becomes easy for those within such organizations to
cover individual actions that result in devastation to the environment. Consider the
famous case of the Exxon Valdez accident and oil spill off the Alaskan coast. While it
was easy to single out Captain Hazelwood and determine his blameworthiness the night
of the mishap, it was not so easy to identify those responsible at higher levels. Someone
was responsible for hiring Hazelwood; others should have known about his drinking or
other job-related problems. Thus when we do assign responsibility to governments or
business organizations, it must be clearly distributed to individuals in relevant lines of
authority within the organization.

In conclusion, individuals are mainly responsible for protecting the environment.
And while it makes some sense in a vague way to talk about the similar responsibilities
of government and industry, in the end such obligations will belong to individuals
within them. Therefore, some individuals will assume greater shares of responsibility
for the environment, since they act in positions of authority on behalf of government or
industry.

48.

In the hiring process, it is more difficult to assess personality and work habits than
to determine work experience and educational background. Even so, it is important to
try and judge the less quantifiable characteristics of a prospective colleague or
employee—such as honesty, reliability, creativity, self-motivation, and the capacity to
get along and work well with others. If it doesn't seem obvious that these are important
qualities in a coworker, then consider the alternatives.

First of all, dishonest or unreliable workers harm an organization in many ways.
Dishonest employees impose costs on a company whether they steal on the grand or
small scale: jus; taking a few days of unwarranted sick leave here and there can add up
to significant lost productivity. And lying about progress on a project can result in
missed deadlines and even lost contracts. Unreliability works the same way; if an
employee cannot meet deadlines or fails to appear at important meetings, the
organization will suffer accordingly.

In addition, coworkers who lack motivation or creativity take some of the life out
of an organization. To the extent that employees simply plug along, the company will be
less productive In contrast, employees who have imagination and the motivation to
implement ideas are productive and can spark those around them to greater
achievement.

Finally, employees who cannot get along with or work well with others can as
well be detrimental to the organization. The mere presence of a troublemaker is
disruptive; moreover, the time such people spend on petty disagreements is time away
from getting the job done successfully. In addition, those who cannot smoothly
coordinate their efforts with others will end up making things more difficult for
everyone else.'

In conclusion, it may not be easy to Judge the personality traits and work habits of
prospective employees, but it certainly is worth the effort to try. Having coworkers who
are honest, reliable, creative, self-motivated, compatible with one another and good
team players will greatly enhance everyone's work life, and benefit a organization In the
most significant way—with greater productivity.

49.

There is no doubt that hard work contributes to success. Yet a person can work
awfully hard and still achieve very little. In order to bring about success, hard work has
to be directed by dear goals and the knowledge of how to reach them. Moreover,
imagination, intelligence and persistence can be equally important to success.

Individual success is gauged by the extent to which one reaches his important
personal goals. And it takes careful planning to set goals and discover the best means of
realizing them. Before hard work even begins, therefore, considerable time and effort
should be spent on planning.

Intelligence and imagination play important roles in planning. Imagination helps
one to envision new solutions to problems, and new means by which to achieve goals.
Intelligence helps one research and critically evaluate the possibilities that imagination
has provided. Together, imagination and intelligence can even help one avoid certain
kinds of hard work, by producing more efficient ways to accomplish 'goals.

Finally, persistence is crucial to success. Sometimes, rewards do not come
quickly—even when one carefully sets the goals, creatively and intelligently plans ways
to achieve them, and work hard according to plan. Tradition has it, for example, that
Thomas Edison made thousands of attempts to create a light bulb before he finally
succeeded. In the face of countless failures, he refused to quit. In fact, he considered
each failure a successful discovery of what not to do!

In conclusion, it is true that there is no substitute for hard work. But hard work is
an ingredient of success, and not the key. Hard work can produce real accomplishment
only if it is directed by a plan involving some idea of one's goals and the means to them.
And a good plan, as well as its successful implementation, requires imagination,
intelligence, and persistence.

50.

Unsatisfactory employee performance demands appropriate response from a
manager or supervisor. The question is what is appropriate? Some managers might
claim that verbal abuse and intimidation are useful in getting employees to improve.
While this may be true in exceptional cases, my view is that the best managerial
responses generally fulfill two criteria; (1) they are respectful: and (2) they are likely to
be the most effective in the long run.

Treating employees with respect is important in all contexts. Respect, in the most
basic sense, involves treating a person as equal in importance to oneself. For a manager
or supervisor, this means recognizing that occupying a subordinate position does not
make a worker a lesser person. And it means treating subordinates as one would want to
be treated—honestly and fairly. Using threats or verbal abuse to elicit better employee
performance amounts to treating a worker like the office copy machine—as an object
from which to get what one wants.

Moreover, while verbal abuse might produce the desired reaction at a particular
time, it is likely to backfire later. Nobody likes to be abused or intimidated. If such
methods were the general practice in an office or division, overall morale would
probably be low. And it is unlikely that employees would give 100 percent to managers
who so obviously disregarded them.

More beneficial in the long run would be careful but clear feedback to the worker
about specific deficiencies, along with ideas and encouragement about improvement. In
addition, supervisors should allow employees to explain the problem from their point of
view and to suggest solutions. Of course, a supervisor should never mislead a
subordinate into thinking that major problems with work performance are insignificant
or tolerable. Still, an honest message can be sent without threats or assaults on self-
esteem.

In conclusion, supervisors should avoid using verbal abuse and threats. These
methods degrade subordinates, and they are unlikely to produce the best results in the
long run. It is more respectful, and probably more effective overall, to handle cases of
substandard work performance with clear, honest and supportive feedback.

TOP

<<上一主题|下一主题>>

1/1页1 跳转到页

会员博客

会员相册

GMAT优秀作文参考范本（5）

GMAT优秀作文参考范本（5）