issue70 [0710G-summer小组]第一次作业by sanliangmm

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 674          TIME: 02:00:00          DATE: 2007-7-18 13:57:09
----完全不限时，花了很长时间，总是想要琢磨字句，这个习惯要改。。。以后要养成条件反射式写作:loveliness: :loveliness:
[Outline]:让步式否定态度：权力交替有一定作用，但是并不一定是vitalization的最好的方式；任期应随时间、环境变化；新老领导各存在缺点优点
1.让步承认权力交替具有一定的作用（防止腐败和专制），同时提出在权力交替意义层面上，单纯依靠地位交替是没有作用的（比如朝鲜的世袭制下选出来的新领导根本不可能带来新活力）
2.当我们需要权利交替时，其任期应该是随环境时间而变得，不应该是局限在在5年

3.从两个方面谈:（1）老领导有经验优势，比如西方法官、教授是终身制的

                             （2）新领导经验不足不了解情况，有可能导致一些问题

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that revitalization through leadership replacement could bring about success for enterprises. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this genetic assertion to embrace any enterprise in any profession--business, politics, education, government--and restricts that those in power should step down after exact five years, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why sometimes need a rather long time for power replacement or even lifelong tenure system. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of power supersedence, as discussed below.

I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue.  After all, periodic change in leadership is the chief means to reduce the possibility of long-term leadership absolutism or corruption, when great success, fame and wealth, awe and respect from subordinates could seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader by granting these people excessive time and capacity to abuse power. Yet, in the very notion of power replacement also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that changing leaders is the surest path to keep an enterprise vigorous. To the contrary, if a new leader is selected by hereditary--such as in North Korea, query whether the leadership supersedence can bring about any benefit, or whether it can be considered "revitalization" at all. In fact, besides leadership replacement, maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, absorbing new staff, periodically correct the frame of the group might also replenish an enterprise with fresh blood to keep in better touch with the changing times.

While we should have periodic change in leadership to prevent corruption and autocracy, at the same time we should be circumspect about the tenure as an case-by-case analysis rather than firmly restrict it as five years. One apt illustration of this point involves the first president of America, George Washington, who declined being the president for a third time in his famous "Farewell Address" in 1796, resulting in freedom, democracy and republic in the United States of America even up to now. Form then, the American presidents tacitly agree to be reelected no more than two terms. However, the 32nd President of the United States, Roosevelt, Franklin Delano became the only U.S.President to be reelected three times for defending the Depression and World War II until he died in office. As it turns out, the tenure of the leadership should be flexible enough to adapt to different circumstances and times, let alone only confine it in absolute five years.

The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other aspects as well. First, the fact must be noted that those in power for a long time have their own advantages that a new leader might be short of, such as experience. As they have suffered form various adversity and experiences sufficient success in his or her management, all of which endow them a poignant and accurate perceptive to capture the fundamental problems in complex relations. That is probably why in Euroworld Judge and professor are offered lifelong. Secondly, another thing must be pointed out that although a new leader is generally full of vigor, ambitions as well as enthusiasm, he or she is immature and sometimes not familiar with the operating mechanism and personnel, which might result in frustration and cross, even break the coherence of the group.

In sum, the speaker's assertion that the surest path for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership begs the question, for the reason that we cannot only rely on new leadership to replenish an enterprise since the leader selection system might be unfair or despotic. As for the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that leadership replacement could provide certain benefits such as prevent corruption and autocracy. Nevertheless, when we operate such periodic change in power system --with respect to certain circumstances and times--we risk squandering the old leader's invaluable experiences for solving problems and threatening the coherence of the group. In the final analysis, we are forced to strike a balance in how we choose to revitalize an enterprise.



[ 本帖最后由 sanliangmm 于 2007-7-18 19:56 编辑 ]

dragonraceUID: 178536

你的issue语言方面没问题，但是写文章的时候好像只和作者在辩论。
确实issue也有辩论的意思。但是自己的issue是一篇独立的文章，你的文章中出现了太多了“作者怎样，作者怎样”
另外文章开头尽量不要开门见山，尽量含蓄，只有别人看不懂你的第一段，他才会向下看，才能拿高分。
你的第一段里把你的立场和文章结构说的太清楚了，这样或许写论文很适合，但是不适合GRE作文。

eenbrUID: 2259468

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that revitalization through leadership replacement could bring about success for enterprises（我有个疑问，就是enterprises能否不单指企业，而可泛指所有的组织）. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this genetic assertion to embrace any enterprise in any profession--business, politics, education, government--and restricts that those in power should step down after exact（exactly？） five years, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why sometimes need a rather long time for power replacement or even lifelong tenure system. （a rather long time for power replacement or even lifelong tenure system is needed）My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of power supersedence, as discussed below.I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue.  After all, periodic change in leadership is the chief means to reduce the possibility of long-term leadership absolutism or corruption, when (since?) great success, fame and wealth, awe and respect from subordinates could seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader by granting these people excessive time and capacity to abuse power(是否把by后面的东西放到abuse power 后？). Yet, in（主语呢） the very notion of power replacement also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that changing leaders is the surest path to keep an enterprise vigorous. To the contrary, if a new leader is selected by hereditary--such as in North Korea, query whether the leadership supersedence can bring about any benefit, or whether it can be considered "revitalization" at all（句子主谓似乎不完整）. In fact, besides leadership replacement, maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, absorbing new staff, periodically correcting the frame of the group might also replenish an enterprise with fresh blood to keep in better touch with the changing times. （结构很好，先综述，再举例，最后分析）While we should have periodic change in leadership to prevent corruption and autocracy, at the same time（是否重复？） we should be circumspect about the tenure as an case-by-case analysis rather than firmly restrict it as five years. One apt illustration of this point involves the first president of America, George Washington, who declined being the president for a third time in his famous "Farewell Address" in 1796, resulting in freedom, democracy and republic in the United States of America even up to now. Form then, the American presidents tacitly agree to be reelected no more than two terms. However, the 32nd President of the United States, Roosevelt, Franklin Delano became the only U.S.President to be reelected three times for defending the Depression and World War II until he died in office. As it turns out, the tenure of the leadership should be flexible enough to adapt to different circumstances and times, let alone only confine it in absolute five years.The speaker's assertion is troubling in two other aspects as well. First, the fact must be noted that those in power for a long time have their own advantages that a new leader might be short of, such as experience. As they have suffered form various adversity and experienced sufficient success in his or her management, all of which endow them a poignant and accurate perceptive to capture the fundamental problems in complex relations. That is probably why in Euroworld Judge and professor are offered lifelong. Secondly, another thing must be pointed out that although a new leader is generally full of vigor, ambitions as well as enthusiasm, he or she is immature and sometimes not familiar with the operating mechanism and personnel, which might result in frustration and cross, even break the coherence of the group. In sum, the speaker's assertion that the surest path for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership begs the question, for the reason that we cannot only rely on new leadership to replenish an enterprise since the leader selection system might be unfair or despotic. As for the speaker's broader assertion, I agree that leadership replacement could provide certain benefits such as preventing corruption and autocracy. Nevertheless, when we operate such periodic change in power system --with respect to certain circumstances and times--we risk squandering the old leader's invaluable experiences for solving problems and threatening the coherence of the group. In the final analysis, we are forced to strike a balance in how we choose to revitalize an enterprise. （我觉得作者真的写得很好，很流畅，很优美，特别是文中的观点，我觉得似乎已把题目挖掘殆尽，举例自然也很恰当，值得我很好学习。上面的修改很多可能是错误的。顺便问问，笔者的例子是怎么积累的，若是写时临时找的，可否告知途径。）

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

谢谢 我好好看看自己的文章 我例子一般查google
ps:你觉得我的文章有没有跑题？感觉有点像argu

[ 本帖最后由 sanliangmm 于 2007-7-18 20:01 编辑 ]

eenbrUID: 2259468

argument的帖子不知何故，回复不了，就在此回复了。


有一些拼写错误，已在下面修改。
另外有两个问题，一是北美范文的前面讲到实际考试时开头不要象范文一样的重述题目，ets会很反感。
二是攻击的错误，我一直很奇怪adopt the restriction 难道就没有被执行的意思？虽然北美范文里面攻击的点和作者一样。


In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends that the homeowners should adopt certain restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To bolster this recommendation the committee provides the evidence that since homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting seven years ago, average property values there have tripled. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the committee's recommendation.The argument rests on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions in the first place. Yet, the letter fails to substantiate this critical assumtion. Perhaps after the restrictions have been published the homeowners still decorate their community's yards and paint exteriors of homes in their usual way. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that it is the specific appetite of Brookville homeowners for color and arrangement that results in the rise of the property values not the restrictions. Thus, lacking more evidence about how the homeowners implemented the restrictions, it is difficult to assess the merit of the committee's recommendation.Even if the Brookville homeowners implemented these restrictions in the fist place, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that this course of action was responsible for the increase in Brookville property values. However, the committee overlooks other possible causes for the increase. Perhaps there are several powerful factories near Brookville community and the demand for housing in that area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or perhaps the average price of houses in Brookville is relatively cheap. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the rise of property values, the committee cannot convincingly conclude based on the adopting of certain restrictions for landscaping and painting.Even assuming that the Brookville's rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the committee still conclude too hastily that in Deerhaven Acres the same restrictions will necessarily result in the same rise in property values, while ignoring the differences between these two areas. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers might be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville homebuyers. This makes the analogy highly suspected. Moreover, in my observation, consumers often act unpredictably and irrationally, and therefore any prediction about consumer preferences is dubious at best. Beside, it is entirely possible that since seven years has passed by, the restrictions of painting and landscaping are out of date. If so, then in all likelihood, the adoption of certain restrictions on landscaping and house painting will not lead to increase of property values.In conclusion, the committee fails to substantiate his threshold claim that the homeowners in Brookville implemented the restrictions initially and overlooks some other reasons for the rise of property values. At last, the committee makes a false analogy that people in different areas and in different times have the same reactions. To strengthen the recommendation the committee would have to demonstrate that the restrictions are responsible for the increase of property values. In addition, he would have to provide more information with regard to the potential Deerhaven homebuyers' preference at the time. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

sanliangmmUID: 2363921

adopt是指这个社区采用这个规则，但并不表示每个人都能遵守