issue37

alickenUID: 2845947

1010G欢迎拍文 7.27作业

TOPIC: ISSUE37 - "In most societies, competition generally has more of a negative than a positive effect."
WORDS: 539
TIME: 00:60:00
DATE: 2010-7-27 10:47:36

Whatever in politics, economics or science, education, competitions exist in nearly all areas in society. Has it really more of a negative than a positive effect, as the speaker says? I think we should clearly weight the pros and cons first, then draw a comprehensive conclusion.

First, in politics the negative side and the positive one are half to half. Through absolute power have been proved not suitable for modern society, over competition among sub-countries and political parties also brought negative effects to society. Louis XVI, a famous king in France signified the absolute power of France for a time. During his life, he bought prosperities to France while at the same time he bought disasters to its people. High taxes and brutal repression deeply oppressed people in France. This may have been because there was no any competitive system in France at that time. No one dare to challenge the authority of the king and although politicians discussed national events, there is only one person can make decisions -- the king. For this reason, we can see the importance of competitions in politics but competitions not always good in this area, Germany at the same time of Louis XVI is a good example. At that time, Germany was divided into hundreds small countries; political conflicts leaded wars between these small countries. And the ultimate victors are people. This negative effect was caused by over competition without united cooperation. As a result, over competition can also do harm to politics.

Secondly, in economics, the conditions may the same that fair competitions improve economics greatly, contrary undue competitions obstruct economic development. The introduction of fair competition is like the Catfish Effect that improve economics a lot, while when competition to some fierce situation, it may harm the society. The monopoly in the beginning of 20th century is a good example. In order to get more profits, monopoly cooperation purchase large amount of raw materials so that they can get low prices and they have right to enact principles of markets. As a result, some small scale company can not survive in competitions, lots of workers lost their jobs and wealth of the whole society belong to few rich people. So competition in economics should be guide correctly.

Thirdly, there are some areas, I believe that competitions are always bad. Take medical treatment for instance, in this area competitions do harm more than good. Medical treatment is a sacred area that doctors should consider how to save people's lives, not how to get more profits. If competitions are introduced, hospitals will compete for patients so that patients may not get good treatment. Also, the competition among medicine manufacturers is may not good for patients. For more profits, many medicine manufacturers may have deal with hospitals that if doctors in hospitals prescribe more medicines which produced by designed manufacturers they may get more benefits from these manufacturers. For this reason, doctors choose designed medicines when prescribing.

After analysis in several areas, I can draw the conclusion that competition may cause more of a negative than a positive effect. But this does not mean that we must discard competition, instead we should introduce appropriate mechanisms to reduce negative effects and increase positive effects.

Ocean~SprayUID: 2847693

Whatever in politics, economics or science, education, competitions exist in nearly all areas in society. Has it really more of a negative than a positive effect, as the speaker says? I think we should clearly weight the pros and cons first, then draw a comprehensive conclusion.

First, in politics the negative side and the positive one are half to half. Through absolute power have been proved not suitable for modern society, over competition among sub-countries and political parties also brought negative effects to society. Louis XVI, a famous king in France signified the absolute power of France for a time. During his life, he bought prosperities to France while at the same time he bought disasters to its people. High taxes and brutal repression deeply oppressed people in France. This may have been because there was no any competitive system in France at that time. （不是很能说明缺乏竞争，对了，更适合说明权利缺乏监督的害处）No one dare to challenge the authority of the king and although politicians discussed national events, there is only one person can make decisions -- the king. For this reason, we can see the importance of competitions in politics but competitions not always good in this area, Germany at the same time of Louis XVI is a good example. At that time, Germany was divided into hundreds small countries; political conflicts leaded wars between these small countries. And the ultimate victors are people. This negative effect was caused by over competition without united cooperation. As a result, over competition can also do harm to politics.

Secondly, in economics, the conditions may （+be）the same that fair competitions improve economics greatly, contrary undue competitions obstruct economic development. The introduction of fair competition is like the Catfish Effect that improve economics a lot, while when competition to some fierce situation, it may harm the society. The monopoly in the beginning of 20th century is a good example. In order to get more profits, monopoly cooperation purchase large amount of raw materials so that they can get low prices and they have right to enact principles of markets. As a result, some small scale company can not survive in competitions, lots of workers lost their jobs and wealth of the whole society belong to few rich people. So competition in economics should be guide correctly.

Thirdly, there are some areas, I believe that competitions are always bad. Take medical treatment for instance, in this area competitions do harm more than good. Medical treatment is a sacred area that doctors should consider how to save people's lives, not how to get more profits. If competitions are introduced, hospitals will compete for patients so that patients may not get good treatment. Also, the competition among medicine manufacturers is may（去掉） not good for patients. For more profits, many medicine manufacturers may have deal with hospitals that if doctors in hospitals prescribe more medicines which produced by designed manufacturers they may get more benefits from these manufacturers. For this reason, doctors choose designed medicines when prescribing.

After analysis in several areas, I can draw the conclusion that competition may cause more of a negative than a positive effect. But this does not mean that we must discard competition, instead we should introduce appropriate mechanisms to reduce negative effects and increase positive effects.
其实总结段关于mechanism的想法展开的话会很有内容。
你的例子相当丰富！这是你的长处。明显感觉到了水平的提升~~
现阶段也要加强对于题目的分析与事例的针对性。