[i习作temp] 【GRE作文互助组】nighut的作业帖---issue&argument习作帖 [复制链接]

nighut
UID: 3114611

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 94
注册时间: 2011-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 29

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2012-8-17 01:55:55 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 nighut 于 2012-8-21 00:26 编辑

坚持就是胜利啊，从今天起一天一篇！

相关帖子 Updated by 2026.03.01

0 0

使用道具举报

nighut
UID: 3114611

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 94
注册时间: 2011-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 29

沙发

发表于 2012-8-17 01:56:39 |只看该作者

【Issue 8】
Do people in power should step down after five years in any field? The speaker thinks so because he believes that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. I do admit sometimes it is wise to pass the power on. But I disagree with the claim and the reason it based on for they are neither thoughtful nor objective.
It's true that under certain circumstance there is no better choice other than changing the leadership to inspire innovation. The new leaders rethink the problems they are facing in a different angle and handle them in a different style which are far beyond their predecessors' thoughts and capabilities. Does America need a new president before American Civil War to solve divergence between North and South? Does Apple need a new CEO in 1990s to lead this decadent company to reagain its glory? The answers are definitely yes. That's why President Lincoln and Steve Jobs came for. For the oblivious reasons, the leadership changing in these cases is for the best.
However, we cannot say the leadership changing thing can lead a government or a company to success beyond doubt for it could actually act negative to the government or company's future in a bad time. The reason is that although innovation does change many features of the government or company there still are many important factors like experience and stable environment to run them successfully. Changing leadership blindly can really do harm to the normal operation of the system. Like stockholders don't hope Jobs resign after iPhone was invented because of his experience is an important factor leading Apple to success. And Americans don't want to change a president during the American Civil War for the stable political environment is necessary to win a war.
Moreover, even the time is right which means changing the current situation is more important than maintain it, different leadership still can't assure success for there are many problems have nothing to do with the leadership. For example a company may face budget problem in financial crisis under which situation no matter who operate the company cannot make it better. In this case if the leadership changes or not really make no differences.
At last, I don't see there is any reasonable explain for the speaker set the leadership changing time five years. Even though there should be an explicit schedule for the leadership changing it must be formulated after careful research and study to make it scientific. Different enterprises differ considering their own specificity. In business, the decision made by leadership is usually reflected on the financing report easily in a short time. On the contrary, the education policy could take years to take effect then people can judge if they are proper.
In conclusion, changing leadership can lead to revitalization only under certain circumstance and the period between them is up to different enterprises' properties. The speaker relies on an inaccurate reason and draw the claim in an arbitrary way which is not cogent enough.

Rank: 4

声望: 16
寄托币: 966
注册时间: 2010-10-5
精华: 0
帖子: 211

板凳

发表于 2012-8-17 22:25:50 |只看该作者

小生能力有限，如有不妥之处，请呵呵之，然后我们商量商量~~~

nighut.doc

34.5 KB, 下载次数: 5

使用道具举报

nighut
UID: 3114611

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 94
注册时间: 2011-6-25
精华: 0
帖子: 29

地板

发表于 2012-8-17 22:39:47 |只看该作者

【Issue 65】
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey
and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree
with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the
most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your
position.

Should we obey the every law or just the just ones? This is the question I've been thinking for a long time. The speaker
obviously agrees with the former view that we obey the just ones and disobey the unjust ones. I really appreciate this
just spirit but I think it's a little complicate here and I only partly agree with the speaker.

We all witness or heard of some cases about how unjust law do harm to the innocent people and leave out the criminals and
we both angry about that. Some people may ask why we lively people should restrained by these rigid laws written on the
warm-less paper? Why can't we simply do the just things by punishing the criminals when everyone will applaud for that. I
admit this behavior will achieve its goal in some cases, but it will cause more unjust and chaos out of our imagination in the end.

Before I clarify my point of view, I want to ask a question: 'what's the criterion of just?' .Do the criminals really
think they deserve the punishment? Do the victims think laws give them just? Sometimes the answer is yes but I think in
most situations the answer might be no. Different person in different position has his own measurement about
just. If everyone has the power to carry out his own just there will definitely be a disaster. Actually, that's
what happened before the law system had been build up. People judge if the cases just or not by their own criterion and
finally cause unjust even havoc.

I always think law system is one of human's best invention which measure cases by society's unified criterion. In this
situation, the law not only has responsibility to guarantee just but also take society's good into consideration. It might
contradict with individual's benefit and judgment, but it can minimize the risk that people would be treated unfairly out
of other people's selfishness. Considering this, one should obey laws even it's not so beneficial for himself.

However, there is no perfect thing in the world. Some laws seems appropriate in one situation may be inappropriate for
another. A person who found flaws in laws has responsibility to report it to the lawmakers who definitely should be
elected democratically to guarantee just. And that's the right way for individual to apply his just spirit in the era
ruled by law. In this respect, speaker's view about the 'unjust' laws seems timely inappropriate and I only agree with the
other part.

使用道具举报