[i习作temp] 【kaleidoscope】小组第四次作业 ISSUE70 by Azoi [复制链接]

azoi
UID：2636348

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 310
注册时间: 2009-5-4
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-8 11:03:22 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 azoi 于 2009-8-8 11:06 编辑

70"In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."

1.不可否认的是，按时换届确实能够保证团队能够保持活力，而且能够防止腐败、专制及个人崇拜的发生
2.但是，换届却并不一定能确保团队的成功，这与领导人的能力息息相关，可能导致正确的政策得不到贯彻。而且，频繁换届可能会导致领导者的责任心下降。
3.历史上有很多有天赋的领导人已经证明，长时间的领导也可以保障团队的繁荣（罗斯福、彼得大帝）
4.因此，我们在换届问题上应就事论事，重要的是能力。对有能力的人不妨延长一至两届任期，这是团队的最佳选择

Text:

The speaker asserts that alternation of the leaders in every 5 years is the surest way to ensure an enterprise's success, which I fundamentally agree with. While further reflection reveals that sometime we can be a bit more flexible on such issue, provided that the leader is really competent.

Admittedly, there is ample merit lies in a regular alternation of leaders. It's natural that when somebody processes a position for a rather long period of time, he will become less passionate. The everyday routine, even for a president of a powerful state, is tiring and tedious to a certain extent, which would certainly hamper the leader's efficiency in the long run. Besides, lasting procession of a crucial position, in all probability, would lead to other problems such as corruption, autocracy and even personality cult. A telling example is Stalin, the former leader of the USSR, taking the whole nation's administration for nearly half a century, proceeded many fierce persecutions upon his opponents or even colleagues. In the meanwhile, he was also excessively worshiped by most of his nationals, rendering many of his unreasonable policies thoroughly executed. Therefore, we could conclude that, in most cases, sticking to a regular alternation of leaders would be necessary and beneficial.

However, a regular alternation of the leader doesn't amount to the success of any enterprise, in that it is concerning many more factors, such as the combination of the leader and his subordinates, the unity of the team, and most importantly, the competence of the leader. Granted that the former leader was a very capable one, leaving a precious legacy for his enterprise by making many sound decisions and policies, but unfortunately his successor was merely of moderate ability. There's much possibility that the development of this group would be retarded or even impeded after the inauguration of the latter leader since he may be unable to continue his precedence's effective leading pattern. Moreover, a quick shift of the leader may end up in a decreased responsibility to his duty, for the leader knows that he would leave the office no matter how much contribution he has made to the enterprise.

Furthermore, in the long process of human history, many telling examples show that if a man or woman is gifted in leadership, he or she would be likely to make a qualified leader in the long term. Roosevelt, the one and only president in the US history that had 3 terms, not only helped his nation shake off the shadow of the Great Depression, but also made a great contribution in defeating the Axis Powers in WWII. Also Peter the Great, who ruled Russia for about 40 years and dedicated his life to the modernization of his nation, is generally reckoned as the greatest czar in Russian history. Thus we can conclude that in some cases where the leader is extremely capable, a healthy development can be guaranteed during his longer term of office.

To sum up, it’s generally wise to have a regular alternation for every leading position, maybe not accurately 5 years. Yet if the leader’s capability is time-proven, a longer term of office can be offered on condition that he will keep a sharp mind and never abuse his power, and that would be the optimal approach to ensure the success of an enterprise.

8.28

回应
0

使用道具举报

网兜妮妮
UID：2612538

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 8
寄托币: 1213
注册时间: 2009-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 9

沙发

发表于 2009-8-8 13:09:37 |只看该作者

晚上帮你改~

清空~~明媚吧~~~

使用道具举报

网兜妮妮
UID：2612538

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 8
寄托币: 1213
注册时间: 2009-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 9

板凳

发表于 2009-8-8 21:25:14 |只看该作者

本帖最后由网兜妮妮于 2009-8-8 21:30 编辑

1.
The speaker asserts that alternation of the leaders in every 5 years is the surest way to ensure an enterprise's success,
（我一直没想到如何简练的总结题目，原来就应该是这句呀！）which I fundamentally agree with. While further reflection reveals that sometime we can be a bit more flexible on such issue, provided that the leader is really competent.

Admittedly, there is ample merit lies in a regular alternation of leaders. It's natural that when somebody processes a position for a rather long period of time, he will become less passionate. The everyday routine, even for a president of a powerful state, is tiring and tedious to a certain extent, which would certainly hamper the leader's efficiency in the long run. Besides, lasting procession of a crucial position, in all probability, would lead to other problems such as corruption, autocracy and even personality cult. A telling example is Stalin, the former leader of the USSR, taking the whole nation's administration for nearly half a century, preceded many fierce persecutions upon his opponents or even colleagues. (斯大林的迫害行为是因为在位时间太长？因果关系好像不太通。觉得这里的说服力不太够，LZ再考虑下)In the meanwhile, he was also excessively worshiped by most of his nationals, rendering many of his unreasonable policies thoroughly executed. （个人崇拜这点很好，应该可以再深入，加点细节）Therefore, we could conclude that, in most cases, sticking to a regular alternation of leaders would be necessary and beneficial.

However, a regular alternation of the leader doesn't amount to the success of any enterprise, in that it is concerning many more factors, such as the combination of the leader and his subordinates, the unity of the team, and most importantly, the competence of the leader. Granted that the former leader was a very capable one, leaving a precious legacy for his enterprise by making many sound decisions and policies, but unfortunately his successor was merely of moderate ability. There's much possibility that the development of this group would be retarded or even impeded after the inauguration of the latter leader since he may be unable to continue his precedence's effective leading pattern. Moreover, a quick shift of the leader may end up in a decreased responsibility to his（the leader’s） duty, for the leader(he) knows that he would leave the office no matter how much contribution he has made to the enterprise.（观点非常好）

Furthermore, in the long process of human history, many telling examples show that if a man or woman is gifted in leadership, he or she would be likely to make a qualified leader in the long term. Roosevelt, the one and only （the one and only? Or one and the only?）president in the US history that had 3 terms, not only helped his nation shake off the shadow of the Great Depression, but also made a great contribution in defeating the Axis Powers in WWII. Also Peter the Great, who ruled Russia for about 40 years and dedicated his life to the modernization of his nation, is generally reckoned as the greatest czar in Russian history. Thus we can conclude that in some cases where the leader is extremely capable, a healthy development can be guaranteed during his longer term of office.

To sum up, it’s generally wise to have a regular alternation for every leading position, maybe not accurately 5 years. Yet if the leader’s capability is time-proven, a longer term of office can be offered on condition that he will keep a sharp mind and never abuse his power, and that would be the optimal approach to ensure the success of an enterprise.

LZ的提纲非常好，层层深入，并且很有见地，学习。
全文结构严谨，逻辑脉络清晰。
句型和词汇的运用值得学习。
By the way, LZ是怎么样提高语言的呢？阅读，总结，汉译英？

清空~~明媚吧~~~

使用道具举报