1006G 备考日记 by ieyangj08——行胜于言

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 4 "No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."

Does a subject can achieve significant progress only when the outsiders bring their experience and knowledge to that field, as the statement contends? I strongly agree with the author on this issue, for a certain field of study would suffer a restrain on its thinking model if it developed alone, and it is only the outsiders who can bring new thinking pattern into that certain process, and consequently bring out significant advance.

I agree that the author is on the right logical side when he cites the assertion that only outsiders can bring great advance for a certain field. Clearly, any advancement of science and technology needs large amounts of knowledge of other field. The world around us is replete with examples to illustrate this viewpoint. We need no further to look on the process of manufacturing industry development. This process needs not only the industrial engineers, but also the electrical engineers, the experts on the human-factor subject, the professionals on the material research, and so forth. The electrical engineer can bring new technologies in his own field into the development of the manufacture industry to make the devices running with automation. In addition, the experts on the human-factor can optimize the process of the manufacturing to make the machines, workers, and the working environment more harmonious, thus improve their efficiency and less waste. The professionals on the material can tell the manufacture industry which material has the best character of anti-heat, or which one can bear the strongest pressure, therefore the workers would choose the proper material to fabricate different products.

The reason for why only the laymen can bring significant progress to a certain field of study might be that they bring new thinking ways to that field. A field would face a restrain in its thinking spectrum if only focusing on its study objective, therefore many generations later the subject might develops slowly or even be still on where it is. A case in point is that, as the mentioned above, when the electrical engineers bring new technologies into the manufacturing field, they also bring in a new thinking way to solve the operating process, which might be just in the corner of the industrial engineers’ thinking area.

In conclusion, I agree with the author’s assertion that it is only the laymen who bring significant advance into a certain field. In the other respect, we can find that either a certain technology or a science both need the population from other professional areas to spread it, which is also a great progress in the research and development field.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 17 "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey the just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Can individuals in the society obey the just law, while disobey the unjust law in their will, as the author declares? In my observation, the problem of disobeying the unjust law is more complicate, whose result and influence are ignored and underestimated by the author. The reason for this is that laws have inherent dignity that can’t be challenged by any individual at their pleasure, and different people have diverse interest and the just law for a group of people might be unjust for another group. I will illustrate my point in more details in the following passages.

In the first respect, we all know that laws are made by the authority to tell their people what they can and what they can’t do in their allowed area, thus laws, just or unjust, are severe standards that all our individuals should observe. Just because the existing of these laws, our society can run in order and the evil behaviors can’t appear at liberty. If anyone can resist the unjust laws in his or her will, we will not have the umbrella which protects us everywhere. Just image the situations: the robber kills the person casually for money, the business sells the inferior quality product in insufficient quantity, and the politics makes policies for their own interest. Everyone will agree it is too terrible a situation to live, and all evil source of it is the permission that one can disobey the unjust law in his or her pleasure.

In the second respect, telling the justice of law, which contains two respects: legislation justice and enforcement justice, is a difficult thing in itself, for different people might have different view on the justice of a certain law. Society is replete with examples to illustrate this assertion. A strict restrain on the quality of a product will certainly do advantage on the consumer’s interest, however, the relevant companies might confront with a decline of profit. The law allowing abortion gives women freedom to choice, therefore will protect their health, whereas the members of protect life organization might be object to this law. The similar situations are laws about euthanasia and homoerotism.

Although law has inherent dignity and is objective just in many situations, authority should justify the unreasonable part of law to maintain the prestige of law, places and times. Our society is changing at an imaging speed, as science and technology developing, what laws seeming reasonable yesterday might seem unreasonable today. To cope with this, we need a certain organization or official department, and the Britain’s Law Commission, found in 1965, is an official organization to have the similar function. After it was established, the unfitted law of Britain was remedied immediately and the law justice of Britain is therefore ensured.

In conclusion, law is a serious thing which can’t be challenged by individuals easily; in addition, the authority should remedy the law at necessary time and space when it is unfitted to obey.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 36"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."

Does the contribution of the great individuals only be evaluated by their posterities other than their contemporaries? In my observation, this statement is reasonable, in three respects. Firstly, the process of accepting the great thoughts or discoveries is always impeded by the traditional authority; secondly, the greatness of these individuals is invariably far out of the accepted scope of their contemporaries; thirdly, the process of proving grandness needs time.

In the firstly respect, the greatness are always challenging the traditional ones, thus would confront the persecution from the old authorities. Only by reforming or rejecting the traditional ‘classical’ notions, can our human society make real progress. Thus the real greatness is doom to challenge the tradition, and the old pundits will hinder the accepting process of the greatness. History is replete with examples of this point. Nicolaus Copernicus, who promoted that the sun is the center of the universe, is the proper example to illustrate this view. His great new proposition challenged the traditional opinion that earth is the center of the universe, and Copernicus suffered many persecutions from the church, the authority of that time.

In the secondly respect, the notions of great individuals are always hard to be understand by their contemporaries. As we all known humans have a preference of knowing the future, however, with the science and technology restrain individual’s knowledge and thinking scope is limited. It is always the great individuals of the time who can broke these limit and achieve great progress. Therefore their notions can’t be easily comprehended by most people of that time, and their value can’t be valued objectively by them. For example, the great notions of Einstein are too difficulty to comprehend by his contemporaries, even by our nowadays people.  

In the thirdly respect, it always need long times to prove or discovery the value of the grandness, for whatever great notions or discoveries can’t show their value at their birth. Clone is a great technology discovery in 20th, however, we can’t declare whether it a beneficial or detrimental discovery. In addition, we haven’t fully discovery the value of it. Although some of grandness of individuals was recognized during their life, the degree of that grandness is invariable insufficiently comprehended at that time. A case in point is Franklin’ greatness was recognized later years after his discovery of the electricity, yet how can his contemporaries imaging how useful the electricity is in our daily life, and how can they gave too much honor to him in that time as we do now.

In conclusion, real grandness always need time to prove itself or fully show their us, therefore the greatness of individuals can be judged more objective by their posterities rather than their contemporaries.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 43 "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."

Should a public official abide the highest moral standard to be a success leader? The author claim so, for maintain such ethical standards would do a long-term benefit to the leader's career. Yet, in my view, we should not require a political official to strictly abide such standards, after all a leader's purpose is to create a more harmonious society and better future, rather than to be the model of the morality. I would illustrate my viewpoint in more details in the following passages.

In the first respect, we should not judge a political official' work only by the moral standards, after all their main function is to responsible for a more effective and harmonious society, rather than be the ethical sample. For example, we put more hope on President Obama for leading us out of the financial crisis, than assuming other additional strict moral standards on his shoulders. On the contrary, if he abides the strictest morality, while not do much contribution to the increase of the economic, the serious jobless problem, and other emergent social issues, we still couldn’t say he is a success president.

I concede that the author is on the right logical side to assert that the public leader should abide the strictest moral standard, for these standards will bring long term benefit to them. To demonstrate this viewpoint, we first need to make clear the definition of the two phrases. "Ethical and moral standards" are the truth of our life, which is proved as the right standards in our everyday behavior and will do advantage to every abider eventually. Even those abiders would not see the advantage immediately, in the long term they will work remarkably. As the analysis above, the political leader will also get rewards from maintaining these strict moralities.

Unfortunately, the career of the public official is short, in that these positions are so significant to our society. Thus they will often focus on the short-term profit, while ignoring the long-term benefit. A case in point is our tenure of president is four years, therefore every president should present their excellent political leading ability during these period. Hence their attention is the next four years, not 40 or 400 years of our country's future, and they might not stand on the respect of a long-term development of our country. In these cases, in some certain aspects, not abiding so strict morality will be a good choose for them, for these behaviors would often bring short-term benefits.

Although the public official's main obligations and short tenure decide they would not maintain the highest morality, they should also comply with the basic ethical standards. The reason for this is apparent, no individual want to see their officials is immorality and viciousness. Besides, the political leaders' behavior will also influence the public, hence for not standing as a negative ethical model they should observe the basic traditions.

In conclusion, I partly agree with the author that the public officials should abide the basic morality and traditions. Nevertheless, we should not require them to comply with the strictest moral and ethical standards, for their main responsibility is to lead us to a more big future rather than to set a moral example.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 48 "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

The study of history places too much emphasis on individual. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.

Who is the maker of the history, the famous few or the nameless groups of people? In my view, the latter played a more important role than the former in the process of history making, although they have left little markers in the book of human history. Admittedly, the leaders or the representations of the people, the famous few, contributed a lot to the significant trends and events in history, however, it is the groups of people who are the wisdom resource, the direction decider, and the effective executors of the famous individuals.

In the first respect, the illustrious achievements of the significant individuals are mostly based on the wisdom of their predecessors and their contemporaries. History is replete with examples of this assertion. Li Shizhen, a famous doctor in the Ming dynasty in China, wrote the great medical work, Ben Cao Gang Mu , which described in detail thousands of medicinal materials and greatly influenced the medicine development of China. In writing his book, he need to got tremendous useful information about the medicinal materials, most of which were from plenty of patients, preceding doctors and contemporaries. In other words, we can say Li Shizhen is just the summarizer of those people’ wisdom and experience, and it is the numerous nameless people who are the real editors of the famous medical work, Ben Cao Gang Mu. There also still many other similar examples in politics, science and other realms to illustrate this point, from which we can conclude countless people are the real wisdom power of the major historical events.

In the second respect, at many historical turning, it often seems that important individuals were the direction choosers of history, however, actually they were so strongly influenced by the most people’s will that we can even say that it is the groups the people who decide the direction of history. We are known that only when the significant historical individuals got the support from the numerous people, can they finally achieve great success. For this purpose, the famous few should stand on the side representing the interest of the most people, and act in the direction reflecting the will of the numerous people. The president selection of the United States is a proper example to illustrate this point. During this political war, every candidates will fully advocate if they were selected they will solve problems of the serious unemployment, the slow increase of the finances, the nation security problem and so on, all of which are on the benefit of their target electors. Consequently, the winner is always the candidate who can represent more people’s benefit, and there is no exceptions that the elected candidate didn’t stand on the most people’ interest.

In the final respect, many great historical individuals’ works are finally worked out by the numerous people, and we can’t image only by the individual alone history will full of so incalculable human made miracles. A case in point is the launch of artificial satellite, which has so enormous workload that we can’t believe the whole work was mainly enforced by the chief designer, instead the main success should be attributed to the numerous engineers, mathematicians, and manufacturers instead of the chief designer. The famous pyramids of Egypt are another proper example, and it is the numerous nameless workers not the owners or the designers of the pyramids who are the real creator of the miracle.

What we can’t deny is great historical individuals indeed played an important role in the development of history, and actually they are the sponsors, the leaders, and the promoters of the significant history events. Nevertheless when the key individuals betrayed the groups of people, and stood on the opposite side of the most people, they would fail devastatingly. History tells us that people’ will is greater than the benefits of the key individuals.

In sum, admittedly, in the long history river, countless great individuals contribute lots to the history development, however, numerous nameless people are their wisdom resource, the direction decider, and the effective executors, and key individuals can’t betray the will of the most people. History is mainly made by the groups of people, and not by the great individuals.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 51 "Education will be truly effective only when it is specifically designed to meet the individual needs and interests of each student."

Does education work effectively only when it is designed for the each of the students? The speaker claims so, for the reason that a certain education just for an individual can fully meet his need and develop his potential. I basically agree with the author’s assertion. In other words, my view on this issue is that without the limit of resource individual education really does advantages for its students.

Admittedly, when education is only designed and implemented for a certain individual, all students would benefit more from it than our traditional education. The purpose of education is to sufficiently develop one’s advantage and potential capability, as well as different individual have diverse character, thus only the individual education can fully do benefit to every student. Society around us is replete with examples to illustrate this view.

A case in point is that a certain individual who have a passion for music and want to spent all his spirit on it, in this situation the traditional education system, which only contain music as a small part of it, would not meet his need and an individual education system which major on music class might do more benefit to him. Another case is a girl who just wants to learn how to raising animals which is a so new class and even not included in our traditional education. If she could be given such a certain individual education, she might make great contributions in animal rising. There also existing such cases: a student, who couldn’t bear little restrain, can’t sit 45 minutes in class as well as write his homework. For such student, a freer and less restrain individual education might be more proper. Just remember Helen Keller, a famous disabled female writer of British, who can’t participate in the traditional school for her handicap. Yet she received excellent individual education, then finally became a famous writer as well as stood as a spirit model for numerous young people. After all, our traditional school is established for the majority of students rather than for any individuals.

Notwithstanding the individual education system will truly be beneficial for every student, yet in reality it is not easy to carry it out. In the first place, individual education needs money investment to do relevant research and to purchase diverse teaching facilities, which is rough to implement for there are plenty of social problems needing our government’s investment, such as unemployment, environment pollution, the aging population, and so forth. In addition, there aren’t sufficient teachers for meet individual education system, just imaging the situation that we need at least one teacher for one student thus the teachers’ number would be striking. In other respect, it may seem so wasteful that every individual has a set of teaching facilities and a teacher, for the gross physical material of our society has not reach such a sufficient degree!

Now we see great gap between the ideality and reality from the above analysis, however, there are still plenty of measures to bridge these gaps. For example, our school should, within their limit resource, provide optional classes as much as possible to meet individuals’ diverse interesting, such as film appreciation, dancing, yoga, basketball, football, and so forth. Besides, we should encourage and promote various sorts of associations in our campus, for they are found by students themselves and would more directly reflect students’ favor and taste. Moreover, parents and other social organizations are encouraged to engage in this striving process. After all, education is not a burden which presses only the shoulders of authority, but also need support from parents and other organizations.

In conclusion, I basically agree with the author’s viewpoint, in other words individual education is the best choice for sufficiently develop every student’s ability in ideal circumstance. Our schools, parents and other social organizations should strive together for this purpose. Only in this way, can every individual’s potential capability be sufficiently developed.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 88 "Technologies not only influence but actually determine social customs and ethics."

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that technology influences our traditional customs and morality. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace technologies determining our social customs and ethics, while ignoring the power of tradition and history. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental influence of technology, as discussed below.

I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of the issue. After all, technologies really influence our daily life and thus influencing our customs and morality. A case in point is that the movie technology changes the traditional recording method, writing in the paper, and can preserve more details of precious events in history, such as the successful selection of Obama, the first black president in American history. Another proper example is that email technology changes the communication method of people, which substituted the traditional way of writing letters and provides a more fast way of sending message to each other. Using email any two person on the earth can receive each other's information in 5 minutes, other than several months by mailing the letters.

In the respect of influencing our customs and ethics, society is replete with examples to illustrate this viewpoint. A proper example to demonstrate it is that for introducing new technologies, our industry system developed fast in the last 20th century, thus an increasing number of women walked out of house and worked in the factories and companies, which really changed our social customs that women rarely worked out like men. Consequently, this change bring plenty of new alterations to our society which demonstrate a decline trend of our social moral, for example the dramatically increasing divorce rate, the more young people delinquency for lacking of family education, and so forth.

Admittedly, technologies influence our social life and thus customs and morality, yet technologies can't finally determine our social ethics and customs, as the speaker's assertion. To illustrate this viewpoint, we first need to illuminate the definition of those two words. Custom and ethics are precious remains of our tradition and history which is often proved as right behavior standards for our contemporaries to follow. Thus history has marked profound impression in them and they can't be re-determined by social technologies easily. For example, the above mentioned new introduced technology had a detrimental effect on our traditional moral, yet they haven’t re-determined our custom and moral on pursing a harmony family. As well as the email technology changes our communication way of each other, however, the customs of getting information from friends and keep in touch with our relatives has not re-determined by the new technology.

For counteracting the influence, brought by technologies, on our traditional customs and morality which is usually a negative effect, we should do some measures to prevent this process. In one respect, humanism should be emphasized to guide new technologies developing in a more health way. That is sufficiently making use of the new technologies’ benefits as well as protecting our precious customs and morality. In another respect, our authority and relevant organizations should enhance our citizens’ awareness in our traditional customs and morality as the fast development of technologies. It is believed that through these ways we can overcome the negative influence of new technologies and finally reach a more harmonious society.

In conclusion, I agree with the author basically that technologies influence our social ethics and customs. Yet, on the determining respect, I still think only the history and tradition can determine our social ethics and customs. Otherwise, we should take same effective measures to overcome the negative effects of new technologies and guarantee a more harmonious world.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Issue 121  "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."

Is there no need for our human to protect the endangered species at the expense of money and jobs? In my observation, I fundamentally disagree with the author's assertion, in three respects. Firstly, the diversity of species is beneficial to our human; secondly, the extinction of numerous species might be attributed to our human indirectly; thirdly, protecting the endangered species is not for our own generation’s interest but also for our posterities'.

In the first respect, the diverse of species has plenty of benefits on our human. First and foremost, the health of food chain is based on the diversity of species, and with certain species’ extinction the chain will confront a situation of rupture which will finally do harm to the ecological balance. In addition, various kinds of species can provide ample gene resource for us, which are very crucial in biological research and can attribute a lot in the process of new medicine exploit. Finally, in the ethical respect, animals and plants are all friends and it is not ethical to intentionally do not save the endangered specious.

In the second respect, though the extinction of numerous species seems because of the natural factors, human can't deny that our behavior influence this process indirectly. On our human's own benefit, plenty of the inhibit area are seriously destroyed which would directly cause the extinction of relevant species. The process of industrial development causes many environmental problems, which would attribute to these destroys, such as air pollution, the decline of the water quality and so on. A case in point is the ozone hole in the air of South Pole, which is caused by the redundant use of petroleum and coal, making the temperature to increase in degrees. Hence the sea level is increased, as well as plenty of nearby inhibit areas is flooded which result in certain relevant animals and plants extinct from the earth.

In the third respect, diversity of species is not only beneficial for our contemporaries, but also for our posterities. At nowadays extinction speed, if we do not take some effective measures might will there be only a little part of species left in the world as now. The situation our posterities will face might be so serious that they can do little to change and only to wait the doom to knock the door. Just image everywhere of the earth is replete with people and artificial buildings, no grass, no birds, no forests and no animals. Hence, for the sustainable development of our human, we should try our best to protect and save the endangered animals and plants.

In conclusion, based on the analysis made above, I disagree with the author entirely. In my view, our human should try our best to protect and save the endangered species, which not only do benefits to us, but to our posterities. Such as appealing to the authority to work out relevant laws, or cultivating and enhancing the people’s awareness of protecting the endangered species.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Argument 17 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ—which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks—has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that Walnut Grove town should still use the EZ Disposal, rather than changing into the ABC Waste. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer points out the evidence that EZ Disposal collects waste twice a week, while ABC Waste only do it once a week. In addition, he indicates that EZ has ordered more trucks than the ABC. Furthermore, he cites the result of a recent survey in supporting his recommendation. Admittedly, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from four logical flaws.

The threshold problem with this argument is that the author falls to declare the additional collection of EZ will do more benefit to the Walnut Grove town. Perhaps ABC can only collection once a week and provide the same service as EZ, which might reflects the inefficient of EZ. Or even perhaps the Walnut Grove town only needs once waste collection each week, for its waste amount is a little. Therefore, in this respect, the author couldn’t declare EZ is better than the ABC.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that the phenomena that EZ has ordered more trucks can’t prove it will provide better service. For the author hasn’t mention what the trucks’ usage, it might be the fact that the new trucks of EZ will be used in the other town to develop its business. Even if EZ will have more tracks than ABC, it is still hard to conclude EZ is better than ABC. For a waste collection company, better service also rests on other factors, which EZ might be the loser, such as the allocation of the trucks, the management and so on.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this argument that the survey mentioned in the passage is statistically unconvinced. The author just said 80% of the respondents are satisfied with EZ, yet he hasn’t provided more information on the proportion of respondents in the whole samples. Perhaps, only who are satisfied with the EZ responded to the survey. Just based on this unconvinced survey, we couldn’t conclude that the majority of the citizens are satisfied with the service of EZ.

To sum up, this arguer fails to substantiate his claim that Walnut Grove town should still use EZ, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to EZ will certainly provide better service than ABC. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that the price increase of EZ is reasonable enough. Therefore, if the argument had included given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Argument 65 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 primarily on domestic cheeses."

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that it is best to change its all stores' inventories to the domestic cheeses for the maximal profit. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer points out the evidence that in its newest store the top five best sellers are all domestic cheeses. In addition, he cites the result of a recent survey in support of this recommendation. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from three logical flaws.

The threshold problem with this argument is that just based on the sale situation in its newest store, it is insufficient to conclude that the domestic cheese is more welcome, for the sales status may be different as the store grows. Perhaps, the domestic cheeses in the newest stores are on a sales promotion, thus their total sales have dramatically increased. Even if the future sale state remains unchanged in the newest store, it is still hard to conclude that the domestic cheeses are more easily to sale in all stores. For in different places customers might have diverse tastes, thus perhaps other customers have a preference of the imported cheeses.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that the cited recent magazine survey is not convincing in the statistical perspective. In virtue of the author fails to indicate the circulation of the magazine, it is fully possible that the magazine only have a little subscribers. Therefore, the sample size of the survey is so small that the result of the survey can't sufficiently support the author's declaration.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this argument that the author fails to show that change all inventories into domestic cheeses would increase its benefit. Perhaps sale of imported cheese can make more profit, for each sale of them can bring high profit for the stores. Therefore, in this situation only to sale the domestic cheeses might not be the best way to maximize the profit.

To sum up, this arguer fails to substantiate his claim that we should change all inventories into domestic cheeses, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to all stores' sale situation. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that the profit from the sale of domestic cheeses is higher. Therefore, if the argument had included given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

Argument 147 The following appeared in an editorial in a business magazine.

"Although the sales of Whirlwind video games have declined over the past two years, a recent survey of video-game players suggests that this sales trend is about to be reversed. The survey asked video-game players what features they thought were most important in a video game. According to the survey, players prefer games that provide lifelike graphics, which require the most up-to-date computers. Whirlwind has just introduced several such games with an extensive advertising campaign directed at people 10 to 25 years old, the age-group most likely to play video games. It follows, then, that the sales of Whirlwind video games are likely to increase dramatically in the next few months."

The author concludes that a two-year decline in the sales of Whirlwind video game will reserve itself, and sales will increase dramatically in the next few months. To justify this conclusion the editorial’s author cites a recent survey in which video-game player indicates a preference to vivid graphics games. The editorial then points out that Whirlwind has just introduced several such games and advertised them to the 10 to 25 years people, who are the most potential game players. I find this argument specious on several grounds.

In the first respect, the author provides no evidence that the survey on which the argument based is statistically reliable. Unless the surveyor sampled a sufficient number of video-game players and did so randomly across the entire spectrum, the survey result is not reliable to gauge the success of Whirlwind’s new game. The author hasn’t mentioned the quantity of the survey sample, thus it might included only a little samples or accounted for only a little percentage in the grosses, both of which are unreliable to support the author’s declare.

In the second respect, the argument relies on the assumption that the two-year decline in Whirlwind’s sales will turn to increase for the introducing of new games. Yet it is entirely possible that the decline was due to factors such as imprudent pricing and distribution strategies or poor management, and these problems have not been remedied. In addition, the phenomenon that the video-game players think the vivid graphics is important doesn't mean that they will pay money on these games. There are many other factors influencing the pursuing game behavior on which the Whirlwind’s new games might have bad performance, for example the plot, the excitement and so on.

In the third respect, in supporting his declare the author cites the fact that the 10 to 25 years old people are mostly likely to play the video games; however, this isn’t supported by any credible evidence and might just the author’s assumption. In addition, even if the former fact is credible the survey falls to mention the age range of the surveyors, and they might be too low than 10 or too high than 25, thus decrease the reliability of the survey.

In the finally respect, even the Whirlwind’s new game will success, it can’t easily conclude that its sale in next months will increase dramatically. Perhaps the video games market will be depression in the next months, and Whirlwind should wait the market to wake up.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it is stands. To strengthen it the author should provides more information: the main reasons of Whirlwind’ sale decline, the reliability of the survey, and the video games market in the next months.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

issue 21 "Reform is seldom brought about by people who are concerned with their own reputation and social standing. Those who are really in earnest about reforming a government, an educational system, or any other institution must be willing to be viewed with disdain by the rest of the world."

The question proposed by the author is really a complicated one,and we should analysis it from the following perspectives.

Does reformers always care less of their reputation and social standing? The answer might be not.Although we confirm that the reformers will meet number of difficulties and lose much of their wealth,reputation and so on,the thing might be not that goes.

Actually, the one  who is concerned with his/her reputation and social standing is alway successful in his/her area, and he/she will care more of the existing structure. For only in this structure, his/her social standing is safe and steady.

Meanwhile,we should know reform is different from revolution.It doesn't mean to overturn the old system completely, while it means to modify the existing system and makes it running more well.Thus,from this point of view,people who are concerned with their reputation and social standing will pay attention to reform too,and even be reformer of the old system by themselves.At least, they are the last one who want the existing structure extinct.

Form lots of historical events, we will find that many reforms in history are proposed and pushed by the prominent persons.The well-known Reform in China in 1978 is proposed by some great leaders in that country.Numerous famous companies' structure reforms last twenty years are also proposed by their directors.They are not only successful persons in their area,but also care of their reputation and social standings.   

Will one who is earnest of reform be distained by the rest persons? From the above analysis, we know the reform will bring new life to the existing system, and  from this perspective it will do good to the system. So the reformers are not doomed to be distained by the rest people. On the contrary, they might be advocated by the rest people, especially when the reform make great contributions to the system. A proper example is the China Reform in 1978 which has bring significant advancements in the country's economics, and the advocates of the reform, Xiaoping Deng, is hailed by whole people of the country.   

Thus, the author's declaration is too partial.   

分析

在乎自己的名誉和社会地位的人很少能够带来改革。而那些真正热衷于政府改革、教育体制改革，或是任何其他机构改革的人，必定甘愿接受世人的鄙视。

1在乎自己名誉和社会地位的人，与热衷改革的人是否有交集？没有，为什么？有，举例。

2在乎名誉和社会地位的人，是否有因为发起或参与改革而输掉自己的名誉地位？为什么？举例。

3是否存在热衷改革的人因为发起或参与改革而赢得名誉和社会地位？没有，为什么？有，举例。

4参与改革和保有名誉地位这两种行为必定是互相矛盾的吗？热衷改革和在乎自己的名誉地位这两种态度 必定是相互矛盾的吗？举例说明为什么。

5热衷改革的人有可能出于哪些不同的目的？是否存在为了自身名誉或是社会地位而进行改革的人？不存在，为什么？存在，举例。

6改革者必定会受到世人的鄙视吗？是，为什么？不是，举例。

7改革者的名誉和社会地位是由哪些人决定的？改革的过程、结果和成效对改革者本身会产生怎样不同的影响？举例。

8改革过程中受益方和受损方分别对改革者的态度是什么？改革的过程、结果和成效对他们会产生怎样不同的影响？分别举例。

9不同的改革内容、改革性质、激烈程度、改革进程；改革者不同的目的、姿态、方式是否会引起不同的社会反应？举例说明。

10热衷改革的人是否必定甘愿接受来自不同阵群的鄙视？是否甘愿接受所有世人的鄙视？为什么？举例。

11这句话表述全面准确吗？你认为应该如何描述更为恰当？为什么？

12哪些人会支持此论题的观点？他们为什么会这样认为？

ieyangj08UID：2743219

issue 22 “Many people believe that a few individuals or small groups (family, friends, teachers, celebrities, for example) have caused them to think and behave in the way they do. Yet it is always society as a whole that defines us and our attitudes, not a few individuals.”

很多人认为自己的思维和行为模式是受一些个人或小群体（例如家庭、朋友、老师、名人）的影响而形成的。但其实并非某些个体，而是社会作为一个整体，塑造了我们的身份和状态。

1一个人的思维和行动模式是如何形成的？这和哪些因素有关？列举并说明。

2一个人的思维和行动模式会发生大的变化吗？如果能，什么有可能引发这样的变化？列举并说明。

3怎样理解“个体、群体、整体”的概念?

4“小群体”的概念描述准确吗？不准确，为什么？准确，其范围如何界定？举例说明。

5群体和社会这两个概念和属性对等吗？社会是一个整体概念，还是一个群体概念？分别如何定义？举例说明。

6分别思考个体与小群体的关系、小群体和社会的关系、个体与社会的关系，并举例说明你的观点。

7社会作为一个整体和小群体是如何分别作用于个人的？各自影响个体的哪些方面？列举并举例。

8社会和小群体可以同时作用于个人吗？不会，为什么？会，举例。

9在不同性质的社会或群体的共同作用下，会对个人造成哪些好的或者坏的影响？举例说明为什么。

10个人会对小群体或社会产生反作用和影响吗？举例。

11如果脱离了群体或社会的的影响，个人还能形成自己的思维和行为模式吗？为什么？举例说明。

12此论题的描述恰当准确吗？那些人会支持此论题的观点？为什么？


Who decide our think and behave way, small groups or the whole society?

To answer this question, firstly we should know how we form our think and behave way and which factors are important in this process.In my analysis, one's think and behave way is highly related to one's environment, experience and genes. We all know the fact that a child grown in a government official' s family is tend to think in a macro way, while a child grown in a merchant's family is tend to think in an acute way. The above examples sufficiently proved that the environment plays an important role in the process of forming one's think and behave way. As the role of experience in the process, we can give the following examples. A student who has learned mathmatics for many years is more toward to think and behave in an accurate way. Besides, the gens also influence one's think and behave ways. You know in a same family the two sons' thinking and behavior patterns are often difference, and it's because their  genes are different.

Next we should know if one's thinking and behavior patterns can change greatly. The answer is definitely yes. But another question raised, which can cause this change? In my analysis, an special person or impressively thing can cause this change. For example, when a care-free boy fall in love with a girl, he might become more considerate. A wasteful man who has experienced big earthquake might change to cherish everything.

From above, we know that one's thinking and behavior pattern can change, but which will play an more important role in this process, the small groups or the whole society?

To answer this question, also we should clarify the following words. Firstly, "individual" means just one person here in our question.Secondly, "group" means more than two people who have the same goal. Finally,"the whole society" means the whole country including its history and culture.

In the issue the author cites the word "small group", however, I think it is not accurate in here.At least, he/she has never given a scope of the word "small group".In my view, the small group could be given the definition as a group of people who can influence the behave and think way of the individual.We all know that family, friends and teachers are all the close people who can influence the individual.Celebrities are a group of famous people and they often have greatly public influence, so they also be included in our "small group".

Additionally, the author has made a logical error. He/she trys to compare the two word which are in different levels.In our above analysis, we know "group" means a group of people, while "the whole society" is more tend to be explained as the history and culture of the country.Thus,these two word can't be compared at all.

Small group can influence the individual's thinking and behavior pattern, the examples of  a child grown in a government official' s family or a merchant's family we uesd above can explain this point well. However, both the individual and small group are all influenced by the whole society in their think and behave way.The related examples are easy to give.The westen people in the world are more like to show themselves,while the eastern people are more modest.We can't deny that the country we live have already branded a deep imprint in our thinking and behavior pattern while we grew up.

However, the influence from the society and small group are not the same. The influence from the society are often deep and not easy to be removed.However, the influence from the small group are more superficial and relatively easy to be changed.Everytime when our whole family move from one place to another place, it might bring some changes in our think and behave way.We might become more quick in thinking,for we have a new mathmatical teacher.We might change to be more open, because we have made a new good friend.But,have you had the experience of livng in a totally unfamiliar country for a period of time? If your answer is yes, you will certainly know the difficulty you try to fit in the new circumstance, but it is really hard.Yes,it's the influence of the whole society,and it is really difficuly to be removed.

Although the influence of small group and the whole society are not the same, they often play on an individual at the same time.Just as you live in one country, you will be influenced by it's history and culture. This process is natural.At the same time, your nearby small group will also play a role in your forming of think and behave way. For example,if you grown up in the western of America,you will be both roughness and loving freedom.

If the influence of the whole society and the small group are opposite for an individual, what will happen? Such as the friends of one are criminals, and they will influence he/she not to abide the law, which is opposite to the whole society.In this case, we can tell which influence is good and which is bad, so the result is the good overcome the bad finally.If the bad one overcome the good one in the individual, such as the above individual try to not abide the law and can't get out of the evil himself/herself, finally they will be coercively corrected by the whole society,such as he/she be educated by the prison. Additionally, in this circumstance, the whole society is often the right one, for it is formed in a long time and the wrong things can't be reseverd for a long long time.

On the side, the individual will influence the small group and even the whole society, and this is often caused by one greatly excellent individual.Such as the companies often use the celebrities to advertise their product, which is a good example of this point.Also, the great leader of the country can influence many people in their think and behave way,such as the famous "Not ask what your country can do for you, just ask what you can do for your country.", which made numerous Americans more diligent.  

If one leaves the influece of the small group and the whole society, can he/she forms his/her thinking and behavior pattern? It is difficulty to answer this question,for we haven't seen such an individual,besides Robinson,a role in one novel,who had lived in an island many years by himself.How can the first person in the world formed his/she thinking and behavior pattern? And there is no other one or society can influence he/she. So from this point of view, it seems we could say yes to the above question.

In conclusion, the statement in the title is not right completely. Both the small group and the whole society will influence our thinking and behavior.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

作业7

issue70 "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."

I partially agree with the author that leadership should have duration in any profession. However, the period length is not necessarily five years.

To begin with, long-term leadership, let alone permanent leadership, might cause absolutism and dictator. This is easy to elucidate and I will give two main explanations here. In one aspect, pursuing unhindered rein can lead to autocracy leadership. One of person’s greatest desires is to get rid of constraints; rulers are no exception. Just image the alluring world: your future planning will be implemented without any balk, and your decision about a critical matter will be carried out unrestricted. Almost no one can refuse the chance if they have the right to choose. In another aspect, achieving personal interests is also a major incentive for the promotion of authoritarian. As mentioned above, autocratic leadership would realize anything indiscriminately as they wish, including their own desires. The world famous Pyramids of Egypt is a suitable convincing example.

Additionally, power with duration would bring competition and also democracy. Time limited tenure does not mean the old leadership will definitely step down and the new ruling class will certainly replace the old. At the end of each office term, two sides shall compete with each other, and the winner will have the power no matter which side they are. With this leadership mechanism, those in power would consider the next election, thus will restrict their own behavior; those currently without power also have a chance to be elected at the next election, which reflects the so called democracy and liberty. The quadrennial U.S. government election is a proper example here. During every election, the ruling party and the opposition party have the same opportunity to be elected, and finally this mechanism makes a huge contribution to the United States.  

Nevertheless, the reasonable tenure lengths are varied according different areas, and it is not definitely five years. In politics and business areas, five years leading period might be apposite, however, in other areas it may be unreasonable, such as education and scientific research, which need a longer tenure period. Since experience plays a vital role in these areas, which need a long time to form, long tenure periods will do more benefits than the short ones. In the sea of science, there are ample examples of this. Prigogine is one representative, who proposed Theorem of minimum entropy production in 1945, one major cornerstone of Thermodynamics, and maintained the leading position in this research area until he got the Noble Prize in Chemistry in 1977, due to the famous Dissipative Structure Theory.
   
In sum, the leading tenure should have a time limit in any profession, whereas the period length should vary according the areas.

ieyangj08UID：2743219

前辈们的同主题优秀习作

pippo1983

I disagree with this claim because it is too assertive to say in any profession leaders should step down after five years. The conclusion should vary in different cases.

In political field, it is necessary to change leaders after a certain period such as five years, because absolute power leads to dictatorship or despotism. People's desire always expands with their power and authority. A country governed by a leader will become a despotic country which will finally bring the country chaos and depression. Chairman Mao, the leader of new China, dragged the country into chaos of Cultural Revolution during which many people were purged or killed. Although at that time, many people tried to prevent the revolution because they thought it as crazy and irrational, they failed to stop the break-out because the power was hold on Mao's hands and no one could oppose against him. If the leader can maintain his power for a long period, the destiny of the whole country will be dependent on his or her own intellect and decision, which is extremely dangerous because no one can always be right. Once the leader makes some mistakes, the entire country will suffer. Therefore to change the leadership from time to time is sensible and better for enhancing democracy.

In the commercial area, the regular change of leadership is not necessary. The only reason for changing a leader in an enterprise is that he or she can not improve the benefits and profits of the enterprise. Carleton Fiorina, the CEO of HP company who was only in charge of the company for around six years, was fired because of her failure in creating profits. In contrast, Bill Gates has been the top leader of Microsoft for about 20 years before he retired from the throne. The difference is that Bill kept creating more wealth and profits for his enterprise. If he was replaced just after five years after he established the company, maybe we will never see the birth of Windows which has brought the revolution in the Information Age, and no doubt the Microsoft will lose a lot or might come into death without his leadership. Therefore, to set a certain period for leaders in commercial area is inappropriate and useless. Profits and performance is the only criteria for change of the leadership.

In the educational field, it is even detrimental to set such a rigid period for leaders, especially for these professors, because the experience and knowledge are essential for a good leader in education, both of which need to be accumulated in a much longer  period than just five years. A lecturer needs to learn how to teach student at the start, and by doing more researches and studies will he or she become a professor who is more qualified to cultivate senior students. The process often takes decades to accomplish. If we simply replace the professor after only five years, then all his or her knowledge and experience obtained during the last decades could be wasted as a result. Even if he or she can hold a lower position to continue to teach students, his or her morale and confidence will indisputably be impaired or even damaged because the lack of respect for the efforts and accumulation he or she has spent. To maintain a persistent position for their leadership is to honor them for their contribution and efforts. Therefore, it will be too hasty or even cruel to change the leaders in the academic area after a certain time, especially a short period such as five years.

In sum, the change of leadership in every profession seems not always to be a good deed. The conclusion should be varied according to certain realms. In some realms such as politics we should take the suggestion to benefit the society while in other areas we should consider the benefits and disadvantages of the suggestion before we make the decision to replace our leaders.

最后的使徒

提纲:
1, 领导者会感到疲劳, 并在工作中失去自己的判断力 +
2, 领导者会失去创造力 +
3, 5年过于绝对, 应依据情况而定 -
4, 经验和传统的持续性很中 -

Modern democratic nations have mostly built authority systems which change their leaders in several years and limit any one from holding his power for long. I think this is quit correct and effectively since those who are in power may be tired and cannot bring new things after staying in a consistently stable position. However, the limiting time is too extreme to be defined as five years. For revitalizing an enterprise, changes of its leaders and other powerful positions should consider about special situations.

Commonsense tells us that there is no one who is perfect and always full of passion. Even the most intelligent leader may feel tired and out of control one day, though in many situations he cannot feel it--therefore holding on power and make wrong decisions. A striking example involves our nation's first chairman, Mao Zedong, who is considered as very outstanding and powerful. During his early years, Mao won the wars against Japanese and other enemies. Then he built an effective economical system from the establishment of PRC to 1950s. But after a long-time office, Mao became overpowered and lacked of sufficient consideration, resulted in several manmade disasters from which China suffered a lot. I think this is because a person's vitalization is limited that he cannot stand on an effective way to rule with limpid views. After several years' work, he may become tired and easily influenced by those who work besides him, with little rational choice.

Another advantage for enterprises to change their powerful members is that such a way can bring new thoughts and policy to the enterprises, which are possibly beneficial for them. Since a person's thoughts are limited, we may easily turn to others, after his intellects are all tapped. A person, no matter how hard he studies and learns new knowledge from media, is likely to run out of creation and be restricted in his own sight. During this period, it is necessary for others to join in. For instance, the famous Japanese architect, Taoda Ando, had designed many creative buildings in last century. However, he failed in several competitions in some recent projects, since he only maintained his way to analyze and design, but lacked of creative ideas. As claimed in his new book, Ando benefited a lot from his assistants, who are mostly students and new members in his group, and then managed to design with a totally new form which is diversified from those he designed in past. This design won him a project of a museum in the United States in 2003. It seems to me that people can only change their perspectives fundamentally when consider about others. And for enterprises, leaders and managers can change their unreasonable old thoughts by cooperating with those who are new in it, since they can see the situation originally with a by standing view.

Nevertheless, it is stated that five years should be a limited time, which seems to extreme for me. As we know, the voting period of the president of the United States is four years, and a president cannot hold on his position for more than 8 years. But in many business enterprises, leaders may take longer time to realize his plan, therefore making them take longer time in office. Bill Gates, for instance, had taken part as the CEO of Microsoft for almost twenty years, during which time the company grew from a small one to one of the world's biggest companies. If Gates had not worked for so long in Microsoft, it would have been hard for him to develop so many operating systems, including DOS, Windows 3.0 and so forth, which brought Microsoft what it has today. A consistent ideal for an enterprise is important and can be effectively maintained when one or several people in power keep on. Smaller enterprises, like schools, companies and so forth, are not placing so much pressure so that their leaders can hold on longer.

To sum up, since individuals are often limited in their spirits, and may be restricted by their formed thoughts, it is important for any enterprise to keep an open mind to all competitive members for its positions in power. As long as the enterprises are willful to obtain revitalization, and as long as they properly maintain an effective tradition and their members' experiences, they will grow fast and help the society with more property and happiness.

xinxiaogang

The speaker asserts that the surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership and the leader who is in power should step down after five years. I agree with this assertion insofar as new leadership is needed in order to maintain strength and energy in some areas, such as politics and business. When it comes to education and science, however, I think both new energy and experiences are crucial to that enterprise.

To begin with, I want to discuss the reason for the speaker to make such an assertion. I think two main reasons can contribute to this assertion. First, a leader might easily be left behind by the ever-increasing advanced technology and advanced management methods after several years in power. Especially for those leaders who are elected to position in their old age. Second, when a leader has hold power for a long period of time, it is more possible about the risk that he would use his power to do some individual things and make benefits for himself. To prevent these two defects, the speaker asserts that through new leadership we can surest path to success.

In some areas, such as politics and business, in my view, new leadership after several years of one leader is needed and vital to a country and a business. Because these enterprises need new idea to be survive and thrive. And it is more important to prevent about the second risk that leader would use his power in some individual desire. In politics, for example, some countries are under the control of a king who would in power until his death. History informs us that the king would become luxurious and consider nothing about his country after several years in power, especially in his old time. Nowadays, most countries have abandoned the monarch system and adopted the system of election, in which leader should be reelected after 4 or 5 years. Also in business, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a company should be reelected after his execution for several years in order to maintain the company's energy. Admittedly, to reelect does not mean the younger will sure substitute the elder but to provide a fair competition environment, in which the best leader can be elected to make benefit to that enterprise. To reelect can also inspire the motivation of the old leader and prevent the risk of egotism.

On the other hand, in education and science, in which experiences are more crucial, there is no need to change leader after years. In such areas, more experiences and knowledge are requisite in order to make directions and strategies more effectively and efficiently. For example, in every country there is a scientific institution, and almost every academician of it is over 50 years old, not to mention the leader of the institution. In science, admittedly, originality and challenging to old knowledge are the stepping stone to the progress of science. However, due to today's complex and deep knowledge system, if one can not hold the whole system of scientific knowledge and can grasp the clear direction correctly, leadership would not appropriate to him. This is just like a skyscraper which stands for the amount of knowledge today, and which should have strong foundation to endure the rain and wind in future. Also in education, we always say we can get more from the elder. Only elder can give us more experience of life and perspective of questions which is more crucial in education for the purpose of make out true individual. Yet, these do not mean a leader can keep in power for ever, in some cases, especially when the leader lose his energy and can not keep in pace with the development, we should reelect other leader to substitute him.

In sum, we can not say a leader should leave his position after 5 years in power in general. The answer to this question depends on different areas and cases. In the areas that need more newly ideas and prevention of the risk of abuse of power, such as politics and business, I agree that leadership should be reelected after several years. While in other areas that experience is more crucial to the enterprise, we should decide whether to reelect or continue the leadership with different cases.

lyra339

It is true that revitalization through new leadership is one of the ways for enterprises to success. But the statement that in any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years, which ignores the actual conditions, is too arbitrary. Admittedly, when leaders have no fear of losing their power, some of them may tend to abuse their power. Besides, a new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas. Most nations now days such as the USA and the China elect new leadership every four or five years.

However, we can also see many entrepreneurs are in charge of some companies for a considerably long time and their companies keep a rapid pace of progress always. We can’t deny that some old leadership are keeping on improving themselves at all time to be fit for the society. Moreover, the old leaderships are superior to the new ones in some aspects.

First of all, the precious wealth for the old leaderships is experience. Patrick Henry, an American statesman, once said: “I have but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” In fact, a leader in any profession, no matter business or politics, should face various conditions, some of which are familiar to them but most are never experienced. Making a decision as soon as possible and as correctly as possible is the duty for them. According to a survey of some top executives, they said that they use intuition, in most circumstances, which mainly based on experience rather than knowledge, to judge and solve problems. It may be difficult to see the difference between new leaderships and old leaderships in common condition, however, abundant experience accumulated for ages would make old leaderships much more calm and clear-headed when facing unexpected conditions.

Second, Old leadership has an obvious superiority in personal connection-a factor that can never be ignored by any leadership who are longing for success. The influence of personal connection is particularly significant in business. As we know, a leader in certain company often keeps close relationship with several underlings who are friends rather than underlings for them. They experience many difficulties together and trust each other always. In their everyday work, they cooperate with a tacit agreement and hence must be efficient. What’ more, some leaders have their regular customers and prefer believing in each other to switching to other companies. Once the leadership is changed, it is high probability that the old leader would bring some talented underling and regular customers away together. We can’t deny that the new leaders will recreate new personal connection and customer nets, but at least it will take some time.

Finally, a relatively stable condition is crucial to any profession to make further progress; however, changing the leadership too frequently would result in unstable condition. When a new leadership begin to take charge, there would be more change happened correspondingly such as new officials, new policies. It may take a long time for the new official to be familiar with the condition or for new policies to be accepted by populace. Besides, some new leaderships would abolish policies established by former leaderships which can not make benefit in a short time. All those may lead to some unexpected factors that may harm countries’ or companies’ interests.

Changing leaderships every certain year is indeed a way to success, but may not be suitable for any profession, any company, or any department. What we should do is carry out different policy according to different condition.