GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-61

Topic:

Even at its best a government is a tremendous burden to business though a necessary one.

Instructions:

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Sample Essay

I agree with the statement insofar as government systems of taxation and regulation are, in general, a great burden to business, and I agree that government constraints are needed to prevent serious harms that would result if business were left free in the singular pursuit of profit. However, I think the speaker states the obvious and begs the more relevant question.

Is government "at best" a "tremendous burden" on business, as the speaker claims? l think one would be hard-pressed to find any small business owner or corporate CEO who would disagree. Businesses today are mired in the burdens that government has imposed on them: consumer and environmental protection laws, the double-tiered tax structure for C-corporations, federal and state securities regulations, affirmative action requirements, anti-trust laws, and so on. in focusing solely on these burdens, one might well adopt a strict laissez faire view that if business is left free to pursue profit the so-called invisible hand of competition will guide it to produce the greatest social benefit, and therefore that the proper nexus between business and government is no nexus at all.

Is government, nevertheless, a "necessary" burden on business, as the speaker also claims? Yes. Laissez faire is an extreme view that fails to consider the serious harms that business would do—to other businesses and to the society—if left to its own devices. And the harms may very well exceed the benefits. In fact, history has shown that left entirely to themselves, corporations can be expected not only to harm the society by making unsafe products and by polluting the environment, but also to cheat one another, exploit workers, and fix prices -all for profit's sake. Thus, I agree that government constraints on business are necessary burdens.

Ideally, the government should regulate against harmful practices but not interfere with the beneficial ones. But achieving this balance is not a simple matter. For instance, I know of a business that was forced by government regulation of toxic effluents to spend over $120,000 to clean up an area outside of its plant where employees had regularly washed their hands. The 'toxin' in this case was nothing more than biodegradable soap. This example suggests that perhaps the real issue here is not whether government is a necessary burden on business—for it clearly is—but rather how best to ensure that its burdens don't outweigh its benefits.

In sum, the speaker's two assertions are palpable ones that are amply supported by the evidence. The more intriguing question is how to strike the best balance between government regulation and laissez faire business activity.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-62

Topic:

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.

Instructions:

What do you think of the view of education expressed above? Explain, using reasons and/or specific examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Sample Essay

This view of education seems to recommend that schools stress the unity of all people instead of their diversity. White 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.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-63

Topic:

As government bureaucracy increases, citizens become more and more separated from their government.

Instructions:

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Sample Essay

At first glance, it would seem that increased bureaucracy creates obstacles between the citizens and those who govern, thereby separating the two groups. Closer examination reveals, however, that in many ways government bureaucracy actually bridges this gap, and that new technologies now allow for ways around the gap.

First of all, many government bureaucracies are established as a response to the needs of the citizenry. In a sense, they manifest a nexus between citizens and government, providing a means of communication and redress for grievances that would not otherwise be available. For example, does the FDA, by virtue of its ensuring the safety of our food and drugs, separate us from the government? Or does the FHA, by helping to make home ownership more viable to ordinary citizens, thereby increase the gap between citizens and the government? No; these agencies serve our interests and enhance the accessibility of government resources to citizens.

Admittedly, agencies such as these are necessary proxies for direct participation in government, since our societal problems are too large and complex for individuals to solve. However, technology is coming forward to bridge some of the larger gaps. For example, we can now communicate directly with our legislators by e-mail, visit our lawmakers on the Web, and engage in electronic town hall meetings. In addition, the fact that government bureaucracies are the largest employers of citizens should not be overlooked. In this sense, bureaucracies bridge the gap by enabling more citizens to become part of the government.

In the final analysis, one can view bureaucracies as surrogates for individual participation in government; however, they are more accurately viewed as a manifestation of the symbiotic relationship between citizens and the government.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-64

Topic:

The goal of business should not be to make as big a profit as possible. Instead, business should also concern itself with the well-being of the public.

Instructions:

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Sample Essay

I agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in which it operates. As it stands, however, the statement permits one to conclude that this obligation should take precedence over the profit objective. By allowing for this interpretation, the speaker fails to appreciate the problems associated with shouldering business with an affirmative duty to ensure the public's well being.

The primary reason why I agree business should have a duty to the public is that society would be worse off by exonerating business from social responsibility. Left entirely to their own self-interest, businesses pollute the environment, withhold important product information from consumers, pay employees substandard wages, and misrepresent their financial condition to current and potential shareholders. Admittedly, in its pursuit of profit business can benefit the society as well—by way of more and better-paying jobs, economic growth, and better yet lower-priced products. However, this point ignores the harsh consequences—such as those listed earlier—of imposing no affirmative social duty on business.

Another reason why I agree business should have a duly to the public is that business owes such a duty. A business enters into an implied contract with the community in which it operates, under which the community agrees to permit a corporation to co business while the business implicitly promises to benefit, and not harm, the community. This understanding gives rise to a number of social obligations on the part of the business—to promote consumer safety, to not harm the environmental, to treat employees and competitors fairly, and so on.

Although I agree that business should have a duty to serve the pubic, I disagree that this should be the primarily objective of business. Imposing affirmative social duties on business opens a Pandora's box of problems—for example, how to determine. (1) what the public interest is in the first place, (2) which public interests are most important, (3) what actions are in the public interest, and (4) how business' duty to the public might be monitored and enforced. Government regulation is the only practical way to deal with these issues, yet government is notoriously inefficient and corrupt; the only way to limit these problems is to limit the duty of business to serve the public interest.

In sum, I agree that the duty of business should extend beyond the simple profit motive. However, its affirmative obligations to society should be tempered against the public benefits of the profit motive and against the practical problems associated with imposition of affirmative social duties.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-65

Topic:

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. (Homogeneity : sameness and similarity)

Instructions:

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Sample Essay

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’t 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 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.

嘉文博译郑重声明：