1006G[REBORN FROM THE ASHES组]备考日记 by LILY——坚定信念，如愿以偿！

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

1．        如何使用论据论证？
（１）        Offer evidence that agrees with your stance up to a point, then add to it with ideas of your own.$
（２）        Present evidence that contradicts your stance in order to argue against (refute) it and therefore strengthen your position
（３）        Use sources against each other, as if they are experts on a panel discussing your proposition
（４）        Use quotations to support your assertion, not merely to state or restate your claim. Weak and Strong Uses of Evidence
首尾都有明显的和中心联系的句子，让你知道你在读什么，然后就是后边的几乎每个句子都有逻辑的连接词汇连接了起来．
Questions to Ask Yourself When Revising Your Paper
1) Do I avoid generalizing in my paper by specifically explaining how my evidence is representative?
2) Have I offered my reader evidence to substantiate each assertion I make in my paper?
3) Do I thoroughly explain why/how my evidence backs up my ideas?
4) Do I provide evidence that not only confirms but also qualifies my paper’s main claims?
5) Do I use evidence to test and evolve my ideas, rather than to just confirm them?
6) Do I cite my sources thoroughly and correctly?
feasible and the most effective way
怎样写
A writer needs to keep in mind that the conclusion is often what a reader remembers best. Your conclusion should be the best part of your paper.
So what?" or "Why should anybody care?"
•        Synthesize,（综合全面的观点） don't summarize
o        Don't simply repeat things that were in your paper. They have read it. Show them how the points you made and the support and examples you used were not random, but fit together.
•        Redirect your readers
If your introduction went from general to specific, make your conclusion go from specific to general. Think globally.
Echoing the introduction: （呼应开头）Echoing your introduction can be a good strategy if it is meant to bring the reader full-circle. If you begin by describing a scenario, you can end with the same scenario as proof that your essay was helpful in creating a new understanding.

his conclusion just restates the thesis and is usually painfully short. It does not push the ideas forward.
The reader, however, does not expect a mystery, but an analytical discussion of your topic in an academic style, with the main argument (thesis) stated up front.
This kind of conclusion usually draws on emotion to make its appeal, but while this emotion and even sentimentality may be very heartfelt, it is usually out of character with the rest of an analytical paper.
This kind of conclusion includes extra information that the writer found or thought of but couldn't integrate into the main paper. 错误理解主题 啊要说明所有的作者说的主题create confusion

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

15号考驾照科目二 和草斑竹定下的14号 重了  时间实在分配不过来  
14号前可能完不成草斑竹的任务 不过我还是会继续完成所有的任务的
不为别人只为自己~！
希望都有好成绩~！
ps：搜索中无意看到了草斑竹发的帖子 8倍红牛 2包拿铁 微波炉2min 。。
     学习学习ing。。。！！

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

66.The following appeared in a memo from the president of a chain of
cheese stores located throughout the United States.

"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of
both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, the five
best-selling cheeses at our newest store were all domestic cheddar cheeses
from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World
magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its
subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory,
the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue
stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate

In this argument ,supermarket’s administration recommends discontinue stocking imported cheese could increase profits. To justify this conclusion ，the administration cites a national survey and sales data showing an increasing interest in domestic cheeses of people. Also, he points out that limiting inventory could reduce expenses, and concentrating stocking more domestic cheese than imported cheese could improve profits。Considering following reasons , I disagree with the argument.
     The first reason I could not agree with the author is about the accuracy of data.I doubt whether the survey’s results are reliable. We need to find out if the sample of the survey is sufficient in size and representative of different income groups including high-income earners and low-income ones. Additionally, We have to insure its fairness in case that the survey is supported by some cheese firms or domestic organizations. In addition,the five best-selling cheeses of newest store cannot be representative of all the stores in chain. Perhaps the newest store is located on Wisconsin and the taste of  their cheese are just suit on the local people .There also have a possibility that in the area of newest store , people almost do not eat cheeses or they don’t care about the brands.
     Second, we don’t know whether the high sales data of the five best-selling cheeses are the result of frequently promoting  and lower price than imported productions. It raises the possibility that if the companies don’t make effort in sale any more, consumers may choose imported cheese for curiosity ,vanity and its better taste to some extent. And also, imported stuff need a long transport route which can cause difficulty in an emergency. As we all know ,lacking of commodity will destroy the company’s fame and cause inconvenience to administrative. What’s more, the two possibilities create a bad impression on consumers especially who keep using imported cheese brands and having instant needs.  It’s a heavy losses compared with reducing expenses.
     Finally, the administration fails to indicate whether to discontinue stocking imported cheese can improve profits , not to speak how much profits it can make. There is no evidence that people will buy more cheese regardless of a smaller range of brands they can choose. And there is no evidence too, that domestic company is going to give us a lower cost price if we concentrate primarily on their productions. What I convinced by the argument is just we can reduce the expense and space of storage.
    In sum, I cannot accept the author’s sweeping generation that reducing imported cheese brands will improve profits to supermarket. The scant evidence the author cites proves nothing about the reason why people subscribes more domestic cheeses and the extent of the supermarket’s profits. To strengthen the argument ,the author should enumerate all data of survey like the reason why people preference for domestic cheeses ， the range of respondents and their income level and so on. The author must provide better evidence that concentrateing on domestic cheeses can lead profits up to a higher level meantime we do not have a risk of lower satisfaction of consumer and decreased  number of consumer of some special classes in society. .

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

第一篇 好难写啊

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

今天写了一篇作文 明天贴上来
科目二过了 终于可以轻松下了 :loveliness:

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

The following is a recommendation from the president of Appleby College.

"Whereas Appleby College holds class reunions every five years, Edelston College holds annual reunions for all classes, during which Edelston's alumni are treated to banquets, lectures, and student performances, enhancing their loyalty to the college and their willingness to donate money. Edelston College receives most of its alumni donations during or shortly after these reunions. Therefore, the best way for Appleby to increase its alumni donations is to offer similar reunion activities and to have each graduating class hold annual reunions."


   
In this argument, the president of Appleby College recommends Appleby should offer similar reunion activities and to have each graduating class hold annual reunions for increasing college alumni donations. This suggestion was come out by comparing with Edelston College’s alumni donations situation in which they receive most of money during or shortly after these activities. And also, the president of Appleby College think to hold those reunion activities can enhance graduates loyalty to the college and their willingness to donate money. I disagree with the argument for the following reasons:

First, the president did not show any evidence to prove that Edelston’s graduates enhance their loyalty to the college just by going to the banquet. Their high loyalty to the school may come into by their high-quality education system and learning environment they experienced when they were a freshman by touching concerned which expressed by college, after they graduated. Meantime, there is no direct evidence that implying their willingness to donate have a relationship with the loyalty to the college. The willingness also influenced by income standard, social responsibility and donation habit.

Second, there is no accuracy data of donation about Edelston College. The argument assumes unfairly that the frequent contribution will increase alumni donation than the old donate tradition of Appleby College. It is entirely possible that graduate prefer offer a large amount of money one time than donate in annual reunions which may be boring and uninteresting.
Third，the author did not mention the specific situation about the Edelston college and Appleby college. College type has a great effect on the number of donations. For example, in normal conditions，a business college graduate earns more money than a history graduate or a literati. A graduate of computer studies earns more money than who have agriculture education as well. We cannot only pay attention to the increasing number blindly but overlook the ability about how much money they can govern. The narration cannot make me believe that a large improvement would be caused by this suggestion.
Forty, I doubt whether the high cost of banquet is necessary or in conformity with the original intention. The enormous expenses of banquet are a ponderous financial burden to college. I believe what the most donors’ hope is that money be spent in the research rather than entertainment. In addition, the energy and time that staff and students spent in holding a banquet and performance is too much which may interfere with their normal work.
In sum, the argument is dubious at best. Before I can accept its conclusion, the president must provide better evidence that people enhancing their loyalty to their college and their willingness to donate money by going to a party. To better evaluated the argument I would need to know the number of increasing donation they forecasted，and the specific analysis about the different details of the two colleges. I would also need to make sure that holding banquets frequently would not have a bad impact on students and stuff. The atmosphere for positive learning would not be disappeared.

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

刚贴上作文 看写作12 假大空的 自己就有这个错误哦。。。 因为很多都是为了字数 跟北美范文学的

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

嗯 刚才先看了12基础写作关于字数的帖子 解答了 我这几天开始写作一直在我心中的疑惑 但是 如果没有那些模版 或者润色过的 好的句子的话 如果我们的论证再好分析在精确 不会像摆数据一样么？会不会让人感觉干巴巴的？以前学的都是把简洁的句子变成复杂的长难句 现在是开始简洁长难句 不太好把握 特别是对我这种英语本身不好 对人家写出来的英文文章 也没什么判别力 看不出好不好的人 。。不过我想在看过几十篇几百篇范文以后         我就不这么想啦把 加油加油~！
Fundamental Course of Writtng】基础写作每日一讲（12）Conciseness
多余模版 修饰词   用简洁的字而不是词组表达  
避免指示代词      少用修实行辞藻    多用主动  n词性 少用The function of
不必要的不定式
the reason for
for the reason that
owing/due to the fact that
in light of the fact that
considering the fact that
on the grounds that
this is why
        =because, since, why


on the occasion of
in a situation in which
under circumstances in which
        =when


as regards
in reference to
with regard to
concerning the matter of
where ________ is concerned
        =about


it is crucial that
it is necessary that
there is a need/necessity for
it is important that
cannot be avoided

  
        =must, should

is able to
has the opportunity to
has the capacity for
has the ability to

        =can

it is possible that
there is a chance that
it could happen that
the possibility exists for
        =may, might, could

Omit words that explain the obvious or provide excessive detail  这个我觉得很必须 别强调不需要强调的 把别人看的跟笨蛋似的
Omit repetitive wording
Redundant Categories

Specific words imply their general categories, so we usually don't have to state both. We know that a period is a segment of time, that pink is a color, that shiny is an appearance. In each of the following phrases, the general category term can be dropped, leaving just the specific descriptive word:

large in size
often times
of a bright color
heavy in weight
period in time
round in shape
at an early time
economics field
        of cheap quality
honest in character
of an uncertain condition
in a confused state
unusual in nature
extreme in degree
of a strange type
避免
that/who/which+do/does/did=现在分词
that/who/which+be=过去分词
内容才是最重要的 无论写的多辞藻还是简洁的 表达内容全面 新颖 有说服力 才是他们想要看到的

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

写了篇issue 一会贴 先准备考试

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

Fundamental Course of Writtng】基础写作每日一讲（13）-（15）Proofreading
逗号的用法
and, nor, but, so, for, or, and yet.--- an independent clause (a complete sentence)--- place a comma before the coordinating conjunction   第一次知道  汗一个。。
comma--- an independent clause (a complete sentence)---
1reword the sentence to change one clause into a subordinate (or dependent) clause (see our handout on dependent clauses)
2add a coordinating conjunction after the comma
3replace the comma with a semicolon
4replace the comma with a period, question mark, or exclamation point, and capitalize the first word of the second clause
Find out what errors you typically make. Review instructors' comments about your writing and/or review your paper with a Writing Lab tutor.

•
Learn how to fix those errors. Talk with your instructor and/or with a Writing Lab tutor. The instructor and the tutor can help you understand why you make the errors you do so that you can learn to avoid them.
1.        符号 2 单复数
2.        句子前几个字包含相关重点

Analysis
1.
Read your underlined words. Is there a consistent series of related topics?

2.
Will your reader see these connections among the topics?

3.
Decide what you will focus on in each paragraph.

4.
Imagine that the passage has a title. The words in the title should identify what should be the topics of most of the sentences.

2.
Readers must feel that sentences in a paragraph are not just individually clear, but are unified with each other.

Does the sentence begin with information familiar to the reader?
Does the sentence end with interesting information the reader would not anticipate?

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

219.下面的内容出现在megamart连锁百货公司副总裁的报告中  
在过去的连续三年中，我国的家庭平均收入已经有了显著的增长。这种繁荣意味着家庭成员可能会在休闲活动方面花费更多的时间和金钱。Megamart商店因此应该致力于扩大和推广一系列典型的用于休闲活动的商品：像是体育和户外设备，电视机，美食烹饪设备和行李箱及旅行配件。
220 下面的内容出现在以作家为主要阅读群体的杂志的一篇文章中
最近一次研究显示当描述一个平常的一天的会话行为时，人们平均有23次提到看电视而只有一次提到读小说。这个结果暗示相较于电视行业，出版业和图书销售行业的盈利能力可能下降。因此，那些想要以作家为职业的人应该努力获得为电视写作而不是印刷媒体写作的训练和经验
221 下面的内容出现在一个学生报纸的社论版      
在最近的一项调查中，大部分学习初级俄语的学生对非俄籍的教师教的班级给出的课程评定等级高于俄籍教师所教的班级。非俄籍教师作为俄语教师更好的原因是显而易见的：非俄籍教师在懂事后自主学习俄语，所以他们对如何更有效地教这门语言有更深刻的理解。因此，为了改进所有语言的教学方法同时为了节约资金，我们的大学应该雇佣非母语教师作为此语言的导师而不是试图去寻找和招聘那些作为母语使用那门语言的人

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

3 "It is more important to allocate money for immediate, existing social problems than to spend it on long-term research that might help future generations."
我们应该把更多的钱用在目前现存的社会问题上，而不是用在可能有助于后代的长期研究项目上
The speaker asserts that using money for long-term research that could help future generations is unjustifiable when some immediate, existing social problems emerge. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that the long-term study’s objective, to some extent, is too vague and potential benefits are too uncertain, and it’s unnecessary to spend money on long-term study when the urgent social issue is not resolve. However, the speaker overlooks the great benefits which long-term research may lead to when it compared with solving the problems when it arises, especially the precaution could save millions of lives.
The implicit rationale behind the speaker’s statement seems to be that spend money on immediate, existing social problems is intuitional human responsible.
When we are faced with the challenge to survive，who has more energy to consider unforeseeable future? Therefore, I must admit that when we consider the investment and the ways to solve the problems, it’s entirely appropriate to assign a higher priority to satisfy the urgent and fundamental needs, after that, it is those long-term and not immediate problems. For example, in order to alleviate the economic crisis, the first step that the government should do is to protect people’s quality of life and try their best to ensure companies to operate, then they think about how to prefect the system of finance and stock.
It might also be tempting to agree with the speaker on the basis that there is a clear objective on allocate money for immediate social problems. It seems less likely to cause a waste of time, money and human resources. Comparing with long-term research, solve immediate problems may make maximum utilization of resource and revenue. The first reason that I draw the conclusion is uncertain and unpredictable result of long-term problems. In fact, query whether result is effective, it is entirely possibility that the result is fallacy or wrong way to solve the problems, or whether the topic of study is meaningful. The other reason I draw the conclusion is that investing on long-term social problem would make investors have to face a large risk of low profit and long return period. After all, we can not keep abreast of future development routes and trend but predict it.
On the other hand are two compelling arguments that even though we have to allocate money for pressing problems, financial support for long-term problems is desirable. One such argument is that by investing long-term projects we actually alleviate the destruction of crisis.
One apt illustration is that the government commits to improve the environment which has been damaged. Like Tokyo protocol, under the agreement, governments try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In return, the greenhouse effect has been eased, people live in a better environment and what’s important is we leave future generations with more available resources, means they have more time to resolve the problems of resources and survival.
A second argument is that we may get more benefits and advantages by investing long-term problems. Consider the internet industrial, whose original aim is to communicate in the military, but which helps American enterprises save amount of money as a result. With the assistance of internet technology, America maintains the top of economy and science, meantime, spreads their culture as well.
In the final analysis, the key factor to decide the priority of social problems is not only associated with time, but also associated with profits, importance and meaning. Allocate money for long-term problems alleviate the dangerous of future crisis and give a better environment to our offspring.

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

Executive pay

This house believes that on the whole, senior executives are worth what they are paid


About this debate

Over the past few decades executive pay has risen dramatically. Bosses who were once paid ten times as much as shopfloor workers are now sometimes paid as much as 300 times as much. This trend was never popular, even during good times. But today it is becoming radioactive, as governments step in to rescue failing companies and ordinary people are forced to tighten their belts.
radioactive的这个用法第一此见
Is the anger justified? Some argue that executive pay is a long-standing disgrace. Pay is often not tethered to performance. Huge rewards for the few demotivate the rest of the workforce. Others are more sanguine. Successful executives, such as Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, can add hugely to a firm's profitability, benefiting workers, managers and shareholders alike. The growing pay of executives has to be balanced against the growing difficulty of their jobs, particularly as turnover in the boardroom increases.
这句不太理解 特别是当会议室里人员频繁的更迭？
Opening statements

Defending the motion

Steven N. Kaplan Neubauer Family Prof. of Entrepreneurship & Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business

In the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, CEOs are routinely criticised for being overpaid.

Against the motion

Nell  Minow Editor and Co-founder, The Corporate Library

Excessive executive compensation of the past decade is both a symptom and a cause of the current economic mess.

The moderator's opening remarks

Oct 20th 2009 |   Adrian  Wooldridge

Oneof the few things that anti-globalisation campaigners and stockmarketinvestors agree upon is that executive pay is out of control.
It is not hard to understand this shared outrage: executive pay has exploded since the 1980s. For most of the postwar era executives earned a few multiples of the median pay. But thereafter, starting in America and slowly spreading to the rest of the world, the multiples increased exponentially. Today many American workers earn in a year what their boss takes home in an evening.
Isn't this a disgrace? Critics of executive pay worry that even mediocre bosses are given outsized rewards. Robert Nardelli received a $20m pay-off when he left Home Depot even though the share price had fallen during his six-year tenure. Carly Fiorina was $180m better off when she left Hewlett-Packard despite a lacklustre tenure. Defenders of executive pay argue that great bosses such as Louis Gerstner, the former boss of IBM, and Jack Welch, the former boss of General Electric, are worth every penny because they create huge amounts of wealth for both share holders and employees.
The debate about executive pay, though never cool, is particularly hot at the moment. Workers have been squeezed by there cession. Unemployment is approaching 10% in the United States and much higher numbers in many other countries. Numerous governments are planning to deal with their rising deficits by freezing public-sector pay. And yet many bosses and bankers continue to make out like bandits—or so lots of people think.
We are lucky to have two of the best people in the business to debate this subject. Steven Kaplan, who proposes the motion, teaches at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. Nell Minow, who opposes it, is a long-time shareholder activist and chairwoman of the Corporate Library, are Search Company. (For people who want to know more about her she is also the subject of a profile in a recent issue of the New Yorker.)
Mr Kaplan starts off by making two fundamental points. CEO pay has not gone up in recent years; indeed, it has been dropping since 2000, particularly in relation to other well-paid groups, such as hedge fund 对冲基金managers, lawyers, consultants and professional athletes. Nor is CEO pay unrelated to performance. Boards are increasingly willing to fire CEOs for poor performance.
Ms Minow focuses heavily on the relationship between pay and the recent credit crunch信用恐慌. She points out that executive pay helped to create the mess in the first place: Countrywide's CEO, Angelo Mozillo, made more than $550m during his time in office. She also points out that the fact that many companies that were bailed out by the government continue to pay their CEOs huge salaries and bonuses is damaging the credibility of the system.
Such bold opening statements raise questions galore. Is Mr. Kaplan justified in starting his account in 2000 rather than 1980, when executive pay exploded? And is Ms Minow right to concentrate so heavily on the financial sector? These are only a couple of the questions that we need to thrash out in the coming days.
虽然引用了这两个例子 但有继续发散性的思考 提出问题

The proposer's opening remarks
Oct 20th 2009 |   Steven N. Kaplan

In the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, CEOs are routinely criticised for being overpaid. Critics argue that boards do not respond to market forces, but, instead, are dominated by or are over-generous to their CEOs. Boards are criticised for not tying CEOs' pay to performance. These criticisms have been exacerbated by the financial crisis and the desire to find scapegoats.
I argue below that the critics are wrong and that there are many misperceptions of CEO pay. While CEO pay practices are not perfect, they are driven by market forces and performance. Contrary to public perception, CEO pay has not gone up in recent years. In fact, the average CEO pay (adjusted for inflation) has dropped since 2000, while the pay of other groups has increased substantially. Similarly, the view that CEOs are not paid for performance is wrong. In fact, the opposite is true and boards increasingly fire them for poor performance. And, most recently, consistent with market forces driving pay, the US and UK governments each hired a new CEO (of AIG and the Royal Bank of Scotland) for pay exceeding that of the median large company CEO.
It is useful to understand how CEO pay is measured. It includes three components: salary, bonus and stock-based pay. It is usually measured in two ways. The first is the sum of salary, bonus, restricted stock and the expected value of stock options. I call this expected pay. Expected pay measures what boards believe they awarded the CEO. This is the best measure of what a CEO is paid each year. Note 留意that the CEO does not actually walk away with this money. The second measure replaces expected stock option values with values actually realized and realized pay measures what CEOs walk away with.
The first graph shows average and median expected CEO pay for S&P 500 CEOs since 1994 (adjusted for inflation). It shows that median CEO pay has been stable since 2001; it has not increased. And average pay has declined substantially. In fact, average CEO pay in2008 is below the average in 1998.


While average CEO pay has declined, the pay of other highly paid groups has increased. The second graph shows S&P 500 CEO pay relative to the income of the top 1% of US taxpayers. Relative to those other groups, CEOs are no better off in 2008 than in 1994. Strikingly醒目的, relative CEO pay is a half of what it was in 2001, a huge decline.


Which are those groups that have earned increasingly high compensation? Hedge fund, private equity and venture capital investors have increased their assets and fees substantially, translating into high pay. By one estimate, the top three hedge fund managers earned more in 2007 than all 500 S&P 500 CEOs combined. Professional athletes, investment bankers, consultants and lawyers also have benefited greatly. For example, from 2004 to 2008, the inflation-adjusted pay of partners at the top 20 law firms increased by 12% while that of S&P 500 CEOs dropped 12%. Those law firms had over 3,000 partners making an average of $2.4m each.
One can look at the Obama administration for other examples. Larry Summers made $8m (more than the median S&P 500 CEO) giving speeches and working part-time for a hedge fund. Eric Holder made $3.5m as a law partner. 好羡慕。。
So, while CEOs earn a lot, they are not unique. The pay of people in the other groups has undoubtedly been driven by market forces; all are compensated in arm's-length markets, not by cronies. Technology, globalisation and scale appear to have increased the market value of these groups. CEOs have not done better and, by some measures, have done worse. Those who argue CEOs are overpaid have to explain how CEOs can be overpaid and not subject to market forces, when the other groups are paid at least as well and are subject to market forces.
Why is the pay of these other groups relevant for CEOs? Top executives regularly leave to work for private equity firms and hedge funds. Law partners and consultants leave to work for public companies as general counsels and executives. Relative pay matters and all these groups are paid according to market demand. Markets are the driving force for senior executives in all these industries and talented people jump across industries, based on market perceptions of their worth.
Critics also argue that CEO pay is not tied to stock performance. Again, that is not true. Looking at what CEOs actually receive—realized pay—Josh Rauh and I found that firms with CEOs in the top decile of realised pay earned stock returns 90%above those of other firms in their industries over the previous five years. Firms with CEOs in the bottom decile of realised pay underperformed by almost 40%. The typical CEO is paid for performance.
This was reinforced in 2008, when average realised CEO pay declined by 25%(according to S&P's Execucomp). And Equilar, another provider of CEO pay data, estimated that the typical CEO experienced a net worth 净值decline of over 40%.
The final myth to bust is that CEOs control their boards and earn high pay through this control and not performance. In fact, CEO tenure has declined, from ten years in the1970s to six years today, and boards have got tougher on their executives when they do not perform.
In sum, market forces govern CEO compensation. CEOs are paid what they are worth. Talented individuals, who are perceived to be valuable, can move between industries to be compensated well. The clearest example of this is that even governments have to pay highly for talented executives. Recently, the Royal Bank of Scotland (under UK government control) hired a CEO with a package worth up to $16m; AIG (under US government control)hired a CEO with a package worth up to $10.5m. For these critical jobs, both of these executives received compensation exceeding the pay of the median S&P 500 CEO.


The opposition's opening remarks
Oct 20th 2009 | Nell  Minow

Excessive executive compensation of the past decade is both a symptom and a cause of the current economic mess. And the post-meltdown awards are all but guaranteed to continue to create perverse incentives that will reward management and further damage the interests of shareholders and every other participant in the economy.
Incentive compensation rewarded executives for the quantity of transactions rather than the quality of transactions. It inevitably led to failures like the subprime disaster and the dominoes it toppled as it took the economy down with it. Worst of all, the avalanche of post-bailout bonuses and departure packages like the $53m Ken Lewis got from Bank of America have severely damaged the credibility of Wall Street and the American financial markets as a whole. The billions of dollars of losses do not come close to the reputational hit to American capitalism, which will increase the cost of capital for all US companies.
Panglossian observers will always be able to find some metric to justify any level of pay. But the results speak for themselves. The decisions that led to the melt down were made by executives who knew that they would be paid tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars no matter how successful the consequences of those decisions.
Let us look at ground zero of the subprime mess？, Countrywide, where Angelo Mozilo made more than$550m during his time as CEO. When the compensation committee tried to object to his pay levels, he hired another compensation consultant, paid for by the shareholders, to push them into giving him more. Heal so pushed for, ？and was given, shareholder subsidies, not just for his wife's travel on the corporate jet but for the taxes on the imputed income from that travel. Instead of telling Mr Mozilo that he had no business asking the shareholders to subsidize his taxes, the board meekly signed off on it, making it clear to everyone in the executive suite that the pay-performance link was not a priority.
By the end of 2007, when Countrywide finally revealed the losses it had previously obscured, shareholders lost more than 78% of their investment value. Meanwhile, in early 2007 Mr Mozilo sold over $127m in exercised stock options before July 24th 2007, when he announced a $388m write-down on profits. Before the bailout, Countrywide narrowly avoided bankruptcy by taking out an emergency loan of $11 billion from a group of banks. Mr Mozilo continued to sell off shares, and by the end of 2007 he had sold an additional $30m in exercised stock options. There is the definition of outrageously excessive compensation.
Countrywide responded to a shareholder proposal that year asking for a non-binding advisory vote on its pay plan by urging shareholders to oppose it because "Countrywide has been an outstanding performer" and because" The Board's Compensation Committee has access to the best information on compensation practices and has a thorough process in place to determine appropriate executive pay." They could hardly have done worse. And it is likely that some market feedback on the structure of the pay plan could have given compensation committee members Harley W.Snyder (chair), Robert J. Donato, Michael E. Dougherty and Oscar P.Robertson worthwhile guidance.
Michelle Leder of the indispensable Footnoted.org website discovered that Frank A. Keating, Charles T. Maxwell and Frederick B. Whitte more, the compensation committee at Chesapeake Energy, not only paid the CEO, Aubrey McClendon, $100m, a 500% increase as the stock dropped 60% and the profits went down 50%, they spent $4.6m of the shareholders' money to sponsor a basketball team of which Mr McClendon owns a 19% stake, they purchased catering services from a restaurant which he owns just under a half of, and they took his collection of antique maps off his hands for $12.1m of the shareholders' money, based on a valuation from the consultant who advised Mr McClendon on assembling the collection. The board justified this by referring to Mr McClendon's having to sell more than $1 billion worth of stock due to margin calls, his having concluded four important deals and the benefit to employee morale from having the maps on display in the office. A market-based response would be: (1) that was his risk and it is inappropriate to the point of misappropriation to force the other shareholders, already substantially out of pocket with their own losses due to his poor leadership of the organisation, make up for his losses (2) if the deals are good ones, he will be adequately rewarded when the benefit of those deals is reflected in the stock price; and (3) you have got to be kidding. if this is pay for performance, what exactly is the performance we are paying for?

反问 增强语气可信度

margin calls
【经】 追加保证金的通知
These may be anecdotes, but they are illuminating ones. The numbers and details may be at the extreme, but the underlying approaches are representative. Even as outliers, they still demonstrate the failure of the system to ensure a vigorous, arm's-length system for determining pay and the inability of the system to require an effective incentive programme with a genuine downside as well as an upside.
In my comments, I will discuss the seven deadliest sins of executive compensation, the two key elements that are essential for any plan that merits support from investors and the only metric that matters in looking at pay.

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

76
"Truly profound thinkers and highly creative artists are always out of step 步调不一致with their time and their society."

I have to say in this high speed developmental era, numerous outstanding people springs like mushrooms. Their unique perspective and amazing creativity lead us to a better society. And there is the problem, as the speak
thought, people misunderstand that truly profound thinker and highly creative artists always don’t keep abreast with other public and social progress steps. Indeed, most of outstanding person’s experience supports this assumption directly. However, the speaker overlook the fact that some outstanding thinkers and artists are completely accepted by public, become a beacon of their lives.
The speaker’s assertion seems basically on the ground that outstanding people who are superior to the others and out of step with their time are able to be a leader of society, which means only in such level, the outstanding people can be defined as ‘truly profound’. It is right when we consider the illustration of Copernican and Van Gogh. The former who advanced heliocentric, then fought against Vatican in order to uphold the truth, eventually died for the truth he found and the faith he believed. The latter who created a lot of meaningful pictures that couldn’t be understood at that time. He even cut his ear to change for some wine and food, and then considered as a crazy man to ground in the madhouse. These two illustrations are appropriate to support the speaker’s assumption as Copernican and Van Gogh are both out of step with their time and society, yet eventually proved how profound they are.
However, I have two compelling argument to refute this assertion. First of all, I concede that the point to measure the construction they make is whether the ideas they spread are valuable. If the ideas are useful, urgent need and easy accepted by public, we can not deny the thinkers even if they step with the time and the society. Like the writer who writes < the road less travelled >, which direct people go out of their nightmare and find themselves better; the painter who created the <white justice>, which sound the alarm bell to remind people of slaves. One more apt example is Shakespeare, who created millions of roles and literatures to incent public think about life and figure out the true meaning of love or happiness, considered the top effective writer in centuries.
The other reason why I disagree with the assertion is about the fundamental definition of truly profound.
I concede the truly value of thinker or artistes lie in the advanced thinking the offered and what’s more important is whether they can lift up human spirit. A truly profound and outstanding thinker should have the ability to spread their thoughts to public articulately. After all, the progress of culture and spirit is the whole social problem. If a thinker only concentrate on lift himself up or can not make his ideas accepted by the public, he can not called ‘truly profound’ but only a person who has great talent and nature in his area as he just done the first step of culture spread.
In sum, I don’t agree with the speaker on the assertion that great thinkers are always out of step with their time and their society. A truly profound thinker should try their best to spread their thoughts and step with their society in order that the thoughts could affect public as early as possible.

lilylove0624UID: 2720394

其实一开始都是照北美范文 按照作者的思路写开头结尾 但是看了论坛里的帖子 也印证了我的感觉就是北美范文有很多冗长的修饰词  写了这几篇issue 感觉还是不太会写开头和结尾 今天开头按照坛子里 背景-问题-假设-自己的观点 这个思路来写的 但是结尾却不知道写什么 不想重复不过也没找到自己的模式  还有感觉今天这篇的逻辑 我写的有点问题 汗一个  还有语法问题。。55555
加油加油