GMAT的范文30篇 [复制链接]

youhaoran
UID：132240

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 20
注册时间: 2003-4-18
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2003-5-6 19:09:16 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

1. "In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship."
In your view. To what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position. （技术进步对人类影响）

The extent to which the broadcast media should be censored for offensive language and behavior involves a conflict between our right as individuals to freely express ourselves and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.
First of all, I believe that exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the language and behavior they are exposed to.
Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.
Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests server by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But in my view, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.
In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.


2. "There is only one definition of success-to be able to spend your life in your own way. "
To what extent do you agree or disagree-with this definition of success? Support your position by using reasons and examples from your reading, your own experience, or your observation of others. （少数和多数）

Some people define success simply as the ability to choose how to spend one's life. Under this definition, people who have the freedom to do whatever they want at any time they choose would presumably be the most successful ones, while those who have no such freedom would be the biggest failures. Viewing the definition in this light reveals three serious problems with it.
The chief problem with this definition of success is that by the definition nearly all people would be regarded as failures. The reason for this is simple. Most people have extremely limited choices in what they can do and when they can do it. In other words, unrestricted freedom of choice is a luxury only a few people-perhaps a handful of tyrannical dictators and ultra-wealthy individuals-can afford.
Secondly, people who have a high degree of freedom in choosing their lifestyle often acquire it through means that would not earn them the accolade of being successful. For example, lottery winners or people who inherit a great deal of money may be able to spend their life in any way they choose, but few people would regard them as successful merely due to their financial fortune.
A third reason why this definition of success is unacceptable is that it repudiates some of our basic intuitions about success. For most people, success is related to achievement. The more you achieve, the more successful you are: conversely, the less you achieve the less successful you are. Defining success in terms of freedom of choice ignores this intuition.
In sum, the proposed definition of success is far too limited, and it belies our intuition about the concept. I think most people would agree with me that success is better defined in terms of the attainment of goals.

6. "If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duly to serve society." From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
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 mat 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 corporation to operate in exchange for an implied 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 elated economic benefit to the community. And, by contributing to community activities and charities 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.


7. "In this age of automation, many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines. But, in fact, machines are continually improving our lives. " 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. （技术进步对人类的影响）

In this age of automation, many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines. In my point of view, in some respects humans serve machines, while in other respects machines serve us by enhancing our lives. While mechanical automation may have diminished our quality of life on balance, digital automation is doing more to improve our lives than to undermine our autonomy.
Consider first mechanical automation, particularly assembly-line manufacturing. With automation came a loss of pride in and alienation from one's work. In this sense, automation both diminished our quality of life and rendered us slaves to machines in our inability to reverse "progress." Admittedly, mechanical automation spawned entire industries, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and supplying a plethora of innovative conveniences. Nevertheless, the sociological and environmental price of progress may have outweighed its benefits.
Digital automation has brought its own brand of alienation. Computer automation, and especially the internet, breeds information overload and steals our time and attention away from family, community，and coworkers. In these respects, digital automation tends to diminish our quality of life and create its own legion of human slaves. On the other hand, by relegating repetitive tasks to computers, digits technology has spawned great advances in medicine and physics, helping us to better understand the world, to enhance our health, and to prolong our lives. Digital automation has also emancipated architects, artists, designers, and musicians, by opening up creative possibilities and by saving time. Perhaps most important, however, information technology makes possible universal access to information, thereby providing a democratizing influence on our culture.
In sum, while mechanical automation may have created a society of slaves to modern conveniences and unfulfilling work, digital automation holds more promise for improving our lives without enslaving us to the technology.


8. "Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced. "
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. （国家和艺术的关系）

The speaker argues that government must support the arts but at the same time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit rationale for government intervention in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social fabric will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive arguments that government should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.
First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor necessary job for government. Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society's very survival and therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend tenuously to our cultural "health" or well-being. A lack of private funding might justify an exception: in my observation; however, philanthropy is alive and well today, especially among the new technology and media moguls.
Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions; priorities, and choices, it is unconscionable to relegate normative decisions as to which art has "value" to a few legislators and jurists, who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Third, restricting artistic expression may in some cases encroach upon the constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction may chill creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.
In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically or economically justify its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy or sanction. Responsibility lies with individuals to determine what art has value and to support that art.


9. "Schools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for leaching ethical and social values."
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.（理想和现实）

Many people assert that schools should teach only academic skills, and not ethical or social values. I agree with them insofar as instruction on certain moral issues is best left to parents and churches. However, in my view it is in the best interests of a democratic society for schools to teach at least the values necessary to preserve freedom and a democratic way of life, and perhaps even additional values that enrich and nurture a society and its members.
We all have in interest in preserving our freedom and democratic way of life. At the very least, then, schools should provide instruction in the ethical and social values  required for our democracy to survive-particularly the values of respect and  tolerance. Respect for individual persons is a basic ethical value that requires us to acknowledge the fundamental equality of all people, a tenet of a democratic society. Tolerance of differences among individuals and their viewpoints is required to actualize many of our basic constitutional rights-including life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of speech and religion.
While respect and tolerance are the minimal values that schools should teach, the list should ideally go further-to include caring, compassion, and willingness to help one another. A democracy might survive without these values, but it would not thrive. Respect and tolerance without compassion, it seems to me, breed a cool aloofness that undermines our humanity, and leaves those in the worst position to suffer more and suffer alone-an unhealthy state for any society.
Admittedly, schools should avoid advocating particular viewpoints on controversial moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. Instruction on issues with clear spiritual or religious implications is best left to parents and churches. Even so, schools should teach students how to approach these kinds of issues-by helping students to recognize their complexity and to clarify competing points of view. In doing so, schools can help breed citizens who approach controversy in the rational and responsible ways characteristic of a healthy democracy.
In sum, schools should by all means refrain from indoctrinating our young people with particular viewpoint on controversial questions of morality. However, it is in a democratic society's interest for schools to inculcate the democratic values of respect and tolerance, and perhaps even additional values that humanize and enrich a society.


10. "A powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than does any government official. "
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. （人民和政府的关系）

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(actual) 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 modem-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 modem 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.
11. "Because businesses use high-quality advertising to sell low-quality products, schools should give students extensive training in how to make informed decisions before making purchases."
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.（GRE无类似题目）

Some people claim that since high-quality ads are used to promote low-quality products, schools should teach students about consumerism. In my opinion, undue attention by schools to consumerism is [unnecessary and inappropriate, especially for younger students.
Regarding the first reason, empirical evidence does not suggest that high-quality advertising is used to remote low-quality products. To the contrary, companies that produce low-quality products seem to osort to low-budget, poor-quality ads, especially in broadcast media. Firms that take pride in the quality of their products are far more likely also to produce ads they can be proud of. Furthermore, high-quality products are more likely to succeed in the marketplace and thereby generate the revenues needed to ensure high production value in advertising.
As for the second reason, it is not the job of our schools to breed legions of smart shoppers. Teachers should devote class time to examining the marketplace of ideas, not that of consumer goods and services, which students spend sufficient time examining outside the classroom. Admittedly, consumerism arid advertising may be appropriate topics for college-level marketing and psychology courses. However, undue focus on media and materialism may give younger students a distortedly narrow view of the world as little more than a flea market. Additionally, revealing the deceptive side of the advertising business may breed unhealthy cynicism among youngsters, who need positive messages; not negative ones during their formative years.
In sum, the premise that high-quality ads tout low-quality products is specious at best. In any event, for schools to provide extensive training in consumerism would be to assign them an inappropriate role and to foster in impressionable minds a distortedly narrow and unhealthy view of the world.


12. "Financial gain should be the most important factor in choosing a career. "
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.（理想和现实）


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 notice that making money is not an end in and of itself, but rather a means of obtaining material goods a| 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.


13. "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. "
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. （少数和多数之以身作则）

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 lest. 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.


14. "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. "
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. （个体和整体）

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 inconsistent per se（本质上intrinsically） with personal strength, energy and commitment. If exercised in a self-serving manner-for example, through pilfering or backstabbing-these traits can operate against the organization. Conversely, if directed toward the firm's goals, these goals 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, overemphasizing 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, alt can operate in a synergistic manner to achieve an organization's goals.


15. "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."
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.（不同领域间的交流）

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 goats. 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.


16. "It is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of a fulfilling personal life."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion slated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. （理想和现实）

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 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 back seat to career. Second, they are setting priorities and living those hours outside the workplace to their 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 and personal fulfillments 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.


17. "The most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics. "
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. （各个领域间的交流）

Some people claim 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 the kind of good reputation that earns repeat 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 result 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 in itself.


18.  "Everywhere, it seems, there are clear and positive signs that people are becoming more respectful of one another's differences. "
In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position. (统一和分歧)

In determining whether we are becoming more respectful of one another's differences, one must examine 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 arid feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, it would seem that we have made significant progress toward eliminating racial and sexual discrimination. Antidiscriminatory 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 legislatively. 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-mat is, we are becoming more and more Hike.
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.


19. "What is the final objective of business? It is to make the obtaining of a living- the obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, and a minimum of luxuries-so mechanical and so little time-consuming that people shall have time for other things."--A business leader, circa 1930
Explain what you think the quotation above means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the view of business it expresses. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The arguer suggests that the ultimate purpose of business is to streamline and mechanize work, thereby minimizing it, so that people can make a living but still have time for other things in life. The assumptions behind this view of business are that the value of work is entirely instrumental, and that our work lives are distinct from the rest of our lives. I disagree with both assumptions.
Admittedly, work is to a large extent instrumental in that we engage in it to provide for our basic needs while leaving time and resources for other activities-raising families, participating in civic life, traveling, pursuing hobbies, and so forth. And these activities normally take place away from the workplace and are distinct from our work. However, for most people, work is far more than a means to these ends. It can also be engaging, enjoyable and fulfilling in itself. And it can provide a context for expressing an important part of one's self. However, work will be less of all these to the extent that it is streamlined and mechanized for quick disposal, as the quotation recommends. Instead, our jobs will become monotonous and tedious, the work of drones. And we might become drone-like in the process.
In addition, work can to some extent be integrated with the rest of our lives. More and more companies are installing on-site daycare facilities and workout rooms. They are giving greater attention to the ambiance of the breakroom, and they are sponsoring family events, excursions and athletic activities for employees as never before. The notion behind this trend is that when a company provides employees with ways to fulfill outside needs and desires, employees will do better work. I think this idea has merit.
In conclusion, I admit that there is more to life than work, and that work is to some extent a means to i provide a livelihood. But to suggest that this is the sole purpose of business is an oversimplification that ignores the self-actualizing significance of work, as well as the ways it can be integrated with other aspects of our lives.


20. "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."
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. （同一与分歧）

This view seems to recommend that schools stress the unity of all people instead of their diversity. While I agree that education should include leaching 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 ear 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.

21. "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."
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.

I agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in which it operates. But should this obligation take precedence over the profit objective? My answer is no.
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 duty to serve 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 do 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 1 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 pubic benefits of the profit motive and against the practical problems associated with shouldering business with an affirmative duty to ensure the public's well-being.


22. "So long as no laws are broken, there is nothing unethical about doing whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new products."
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.

The arguer asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act ethically merely by not violating any laws. Although this position is not wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of the law.
On the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business only to legal standards of conduct. First, imposing a higher ethical duty can actual harm consumers in the long term. Compliance with high ethical standards can be costly for business, thereby lowering profits and, in turn, impeding a company's ability to create jobs (for consumers), keep prices low (for consumers), and so forth. Second, limited accountability is consistent with the "buyer beware" principle that permeates our laws of contracts and torts, as well as our notion in civil procedure that plaintiffs carry the burden of proving damage. In other words, the onus should be on consumers to protect themselves, not on companies to protect consumers.
On the other hand, several convincing arguments can be made for holding business to a higher ethical standard. First, in many cases government regulations that protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. A new marketing technique made possible by Internet technology may be unethical but nevertheless might not be proscribed by the letter of the laws which predated the Internet. Second, enforceability might not extend beyond geographic borders, Consider, for example, the case of "dumping." When products fail to comply with U.S. regulations, American companies frequently market-or "dump" such products in third-world countries where consumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. Third, moral principles form the basis of government regulation arid are, therefore, more fundamental than the law.
In the final analysis, while overburdening businesses with obligations to consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is not as effective as it should be. Therefore, businesses should adhere to a higher standard of ethics in creating and marketing products than what is required by the letter of the law.


23. People often give the following advice: "Be yourself. Follow your instincts and behave in a way that feels natural."
Do you think that, in general, this is good advice? Why or why not? Develop your point of view by giving reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. （统一和分歧）

The advice to act naturally or follow one's instincts can, admittedly, be helpful advice for someone torn between difficult career or personal choices in life. In most situations, however, following this advice would neither be wise nor sensible. Following one's own instincts should be tempered by codes of behavior appropriate to the situation at hand.
'First of all, doing what comes naturally often amounts to impulsive overreaction and irrational behavior, based on emotion. Everyone experiences impulses from time to time, such as hitting another person, quitting one's job, having an extramarital affair, and so forth. People, who act however they please or say whatever is on their mind without thinking about consequences especially without regard to social situation, may offend and alienate others. At the workplace, engaging in petty gossip, sexual harassment, or backstabbing might be considered "natural," yet such behavior can be destructive for the individuals at the receiving end as well as for the company. And in dealings with foreign business associates, what an American might find natural or instinctive, even if socially acceptable here, might be deeply insulting or confusing to somebody from another culture.
Second, doing what comes naturally is not necessarily in one's own best interests. The various behaviors cited above would also tend to be counterproductive for the person engaging in them. "Natural" behavior could prove deadly to one's career, since people who give little thought before they act cannot be trusted in a job that requires effective relationships with important clients, colleagues and others.
Third, the speaker seems to suggest that you should be yourself, and then act accordingly in that order. But we define ourselves in large measure by our actions. Young adults especially tack a clear sense of self. How can you be yourself if you don't know who you are? Even for mature adults, the process of evolving one's concept of self is a perpetual one. In this respect, then, the speaker's recommendation does not make much sense.
In sum, one should not follow the speaker's advice universally or too literacy. For unless a person's instincts are to follow standard rules of social and business etiquette, natural behavior can harm others as well as constrain one's own personal and professional growth.


24. "The people we remember best are the ones who broke the rules. "
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.（统一和分歧）
I strongly agree that rule-breakers are the most memorable people. By departing from the status quo, iconoclasts call attention to themselves, some providing conspicuous mirrors for society, others serving j as our primary catalysts for progress.
In politics, for example, rule-breakers Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King secured prominent places in history by challenging the status quo through civil disobedience. Renegades such as Ghengu Khan. Stalin, and Hussein, broke all the human rights "rules," thereby leaving indelible marks in f historical record. And future generations will probably remember Nixon and Kennedy more clearly than Carter or Reagan, by way of their rule-breaking activities-specifically, Nixon's Watergate debacle and Kennedy's extra-marital trysts.
In the arts, mavericks such as Dali, Picasso, and Warhol, who break established rules of composition, ultimately emerge as the greatest artists, while the names of artists with superior technical skills are relegated to the footnotes of art-history textbooks. Our most influential popular musicians are the flagrant rule breakers-for example, be-bop musicians such as Charlie Parker and Thelonius Monk, who broke all the harmonic rules, and folk musician-poet Bob Dylan, who broke the rules for lyrics.
In the sciences, innovation and progress can only result from challenging conventional theories, i.e., by breaking rules. Newton and Einstein, for example, both refused to blindly accept what were perceived at their time as certain "rules" of physics. As a result, both men redefined those rules, and both men emerged as two of the most memorable figures in the field of physics.
In conclusion, it appears that the deepest positive and negative impressions appear on either side of the same iconoclastic coin. Those who leave the most memorable imprints in history do so by challenging norms, traditions, cherished values, and the general status quo, that is, by breaking the rules.


25. Although "genius" is difficult to define, one of the qualities of genius is the ability to transcend traditional modes of thought and create new ones.
Explain what you think the above statement means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this definition of genius. In your discussion, be sure to include at least one example of someone who, in your opinion, exemplifies genius or a particular characteristic of genius. (统一和分歧)

I strongly agree that true genius is the ability to see beyond conventional modes of thinking and to suggest new and better ones. This definition property sets genius apart from lesser instances of critical acumen, inventiveness or creativity. Under this definition, a true genius must successfully (I) challenge the assumptions underlying a current paradigm, and (2) supplant the old paradigm with a new, better, and more fruitful one.
This two-pronged standard for true genius is aptly illustrated by examining the scientific contribution of the century astronomer Copernicus. Prior to Copernicus, our view of the universe was governed by the Ptolemaic paradigm of a geocentric universe, according to which our earth was in a fixed position I at the center of the universe, with other heavenly bodies revolving around it. Copernicus challenged | this paradigm and its key assumptions by introducing a distinction between real motion and motion that \s merely apparent. In doing so, he satisfied the first requirement of a true genius.
|ad Copernicus managed to show only that the old view and its assumptions were problematic, we would not consider him a genius today. Copernicus went on, however, to develop a new paradigm; he ' claimed that the earth is rotating while hurtling rapidly through space, and that other heavenly bodies only appear to revolve around the earth. Moreover, he reasoned that his view about the earth's real motion could explain the apparent motion of the sun, stars and other planets around the earth. It turned out he was right; and his theories helped facilitate Galileo's empirical observations, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Newton's gravitational principle.
To sum up, I find the proposed definition of true genius incisive and accurate; and the example of Copernicus aptly points up the two required elements of true genius required by the definition.


26. 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.
In your opinion, which is more important-preserving historic buildings or encouraging modern development? Explain your position, using reasons and examples based on your own experiences, observations, or reading. （新与旧）

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


27. "No one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success or 'get rich' in business by conforming to conventional practices or ways of thinking. " [/SIZE]

回应
1

GMAT的范文30篇 [复制链接]

这个是新东方老师建议背诵的LSAT的30范文

回复 #1 youhaoran 的帖子

Pisces双鱼座

荣誉版主

Aries白羊座