GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-91

Topic:

“Government should establish regulation to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in the environment, even when the scientific studies of these health hazards are incomplete or contradictory.”

Instructions:

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

Sample Essay

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, 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 chlorofluorocarbon 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.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-92

Topic:

Employees should show loyalty to their company by fully supporting the company's managers and policies, even when the employees believe that the managers and policies are misguided.

Instructions:

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

Sample Essay

The issue is whether employees should show loyalty to their firms by unequivocally supporting company managers and policies. I agree that employees have a binding duty to be loyal to their employers. However, loyalty does not always mean mindless support of superiors and their policies. Moreover, in extreme circumstances, the duty to be loyal may be overridden by a more important duty.

Employee loyalty is best understood as a commitment to seek the interests of the firm. In plain terms, the interests of the film are to increase stakeholder wealth. Most of the time, and for most employees, this will mean following the orders and policies of those in charge.

Sometimes, however, executives or managers may set counterproductive policies. An employee who clearly sees this might better serve the firm’s interests—and be loyal—by questioning the misguided policies rather than silently obeying them. For this reason, many companies will endure the presence of an occasional iconoclast among the ranks. Although such independent thinkers are annoying from a managerial standpoint, they often put up the creative idea that saves the bottom line.

And, on occasion, company policy might be plainly unjust or harmful to society. Consider the well-known example of Roger Boisjoly, the Morton-Thiokol engineer who had early concerns about the ill-fated launch of the Morton-Thiokol engineer who had early concerns about the ill-fated launch of the space shuttle Challenger. In such situations, conscience may require an employee to disregard ordinary loyalty and dispute the decisions made by superiors. And, if speaking out to company insiders is ineffective, the employee might recognize an overriding duty to go public, and blow the whistle on the firm.

In conclusion, employees have an important duty to be loyal to their employers. This duty, however, is not rightly construed as simple obedience; its most important feature is commitment to promote the employer’s interest in making a profit. Occasionally, loyalty in this regard an employee to challenge unproductive company policies. And at times the duty to be loyal might itself be outweighed by obligations of conscience.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-93

Topic:

To be successful, companies should trust their workers and give them as much freedom as possible. Any company that tries to control employees' behaviour through a strict system of rewards and punishments will soon find that such controls have a negative effect on employee morale and consequently on the company's success.

Instructions:

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

Sample Essay

The stared opinion is that success in business is promoted by giving employees the greatest possible freedom, and avoiding strict systems of punishment and reward. Although I agree with the speaker’s viewpoint, I would qualify it somewhat. Employee freedom must be balanced against sound systems of managerial control and accountability. And certain rewards are appropriate, and are effective incentives to work harder and better.

First of all, current research suggests that employee freedom is good for business. For example, employees who are told exactly how to do their jobs tend to be more resentful and less productive than those who are given the freedom to develop their own methods for completing tasks. In addition, employees with a larger role in company decision-marking processes experience a sense of greater investment in their work and, in turn, become more productive. Even so, employee freedom cannot be unlimited to keep projects successfully on track, some system of managerial control is needed.

Secondly, employers who motivate workers with rigid systems of reward and punishment are finding that this method often backfires. For one thing, people resent and resist being driven by the whip, so to speak. For another, employees who focus on the promise of an external reward tend to be less personally committed to the task at hand. The reason is obvious: the reward becomes more important than the work. In both cases, quality and productivity are likely to suffer.

Nonetheless, employees who hope to be retained or promoted should expect to be held accountable for their job performance. Furthermore, there should be special compensation for work done creatively, or especially well. For example, an unexpected bonus at the end of a successful project is a fitting reward that provides an incentive for future effort without risking the pitfalls of a stricter system.

In sum, it is better for business to avoid controlling employees by harsh and inflexible methods, including strict punishments and rewards. People work more creatively and productively when given a measure of freedom on the job. Still, this does not mean that organizations should abandon systems of accountability, or managerial control over projects.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-94

Topic:

If parents want to prepare their children to succeed in life, teaching the children self-discipline is more important than teaching them self-esteem.

Instructions:

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

Sample Essay

First of all, it is important to understand the concept of self-esteem. Many psychologists recommend nurturing self-esteem in children above all else. Detractors of this viewpoint denounce the prescription, arguing that it encourages children to grow up self-absorbed, overbearing, insolent and worse. But this criticism misconstrues self-esteem, which should not be confused with egotism or arrogance. Instead, self-esteem begins with one’s positive assessment of self-worth, and sustains personal characteristics like confidence, competence, and even caring.

Given this understanding, it is difficult to overrate the connection between self-esteem and personal success. A child who grows up believing she is worthwhile, strong and able is more likely to be self-assured and well-adjusted. And this, in turn, will dispose her to attempt challenging projects and nurture positive associations with others.

Admittedly, success is rare for those who procrastinate or cannot stay focused on the task at hand. However, there are many examples where self-discipline in the absence of healthy self-esteem has lead to undesirable and even tragic out comes. Take the menial worker who is meticulous on the job, but cannot envision herself capable of greater achievement. Or, in the extreme case, consider the shooter at columbine High School, whose plans were exacting and carefully executed. They did not lack self-discipline, though they reportedly suffered very low self-esteem.

In conclusion, self-esteem is the most fundamental feature of personal accomplishment. For this reason, it is vital that parents nurture it in their children. It is also important to teach children self-discipline; however, it is incorrect to place its significance above that of self-esteem.

 

GMAT ISSUE类作文范文-95

Topic:

Companies are never justified in employing young children, even if the child's family would benefit from the income.

Instructions:

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

Sample Essay

The speaker claims that it is wrong for a company to employ young children, even if the child’s family needs the income. I strongly agree with this position. There are many reasons in favor of it, and few that would justify even the most exceptional cases of child employment.

To begin with, young children are easy targets for exploitation and abuse. Employment is basically a contractual relationship between a firm and its employees. This relationship imposes duties of loyalty and standards of work on employees. This relationship imposes duties of loyalty and standards of work on employees; at a minimum, it also obligates employers to compensate workers fairly and provide them with reasonably safe work environments. Because of their age, young children are not yet fully able to grasp their rights in this kind of arrangement. Therefore, they are not likely to recognize exploitive treatment by employers, such as overly long work periods, unfair wages, unsafe working conditions, and so on.

In addition, early employment can seriously harm children in other ways. First, it robs them of their most valuable commodity-- childhood and the important schooling and play that normally comes with it. This, in turn, can diminish their potential to become well-adjusted and accomplished adults. Even in the privileged circumstances of Hollywood stardom, successful young actors face huge obstacles in their development toward adulthood. Biographies of child stars are replete with stories of early substance abuse and psychological problems that stem from too much success, too soon. The recent tragic death of Dana Plato illustrates this point clearly.

Moreover, family need is hardly a justification for employing young children. In our culture as well as many others, public programs are available to assist those in dire financial need. Thus there is little rationale for thinking that economic need outweighs the palpable dangers of childhood employment.

In sum, companies should not employ young children. Early work seriously jeopardizes the well-being and future prospects of children. Moreover, financial need is not a compelling reason for child labor when alternatives are available.

嘉文博译郑重声明：