Issue70 [summer] 第1次作业 by 慕容天际

name05UID: 2291624

Issue70 [summer] 第1次作业 by 慕容天际
提纲：
1)任何领导人都无法长期做出正确的判断和选择，长期执政将导致专制和独裁；
2)通过引入竞争机制且任用新的领导人能给各个领域注入新的血液和活力，有效地防止独裁和专断；
3)5年是一个合理的周期，过长会导致体制僵化，过短会导致不稳定；
4)然而对于很少的一些领域，如商业领域，没必要强行设定期限，因为这些领域中经验环是很重要的；
I strongly agree with the contention that those in power should render their right to new leadership after 5 five years, which guarantee the success of any enterprise. Because nobody can always be correct and periodic change in leadership can prevent autocracy by introducing competitive mechanisms. Besides, a five years period is an appropriate term to sustain as well as no ossify the enterprise in most cases.
It is unfortunate but true that there is no flawless individual in this world. Leadership in any realm can hardly always making correct decision and choice, especially great success, fame and wealth, awe and respect from subordinate can seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader. The possibility of long-term leadership and no fear of losing their power make these things worse by abusing their power. Moreover, long-term leadership will bring about absolutism which also gives birth to autocracy, then a series of dictator engendered by autocracy. For example, Franco, who ruled the country for a long period, encumbered the development of economies and politics of Spanish during 1939 and 1975. And also like such individuals are Mussolini and Stalin who is regarded as the person achieved great success but destroyed it in himself.
      Things are quite different when periodic change in leadership is introduced. By maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, the enterprise is always able to replenish itself with fresh blood and new leading ideologies. Newly emerged leaders bring new ways of leading and managing, and they are more likely to keep in better touch with the changing times as well. A case in this point is the first president, George Washington, who relinquishes actively the right to his successor on November 23 in 1783, leaving the United States a institutional guarantee of democracy, republic and liberty.
      A five-year period is proper tenure in most cases. Long terms would ossify the enterprise while shorter ones may create instability. Take Kmart as a example in economy realm, which reveals that changing leaderships extensively will inevitably cause instability. A most famous commercial critic, Collins, pointed out that such extensive alternative of leadership is called “Doomloop” in economics.
     However, in some realms such as business, there might be not so necessary to limit the term of leadership. Because new leaders often lack the necessary skills and experiences to cope with existing problems; therefore, they need a period of time for adaptation. Thus a skilled and experienced leader will benefit the whole company insofar as his is able to move.
      In conclusion, neither absolute stability nor rash alternation will lead to the success of any enterprise. In order to keep relatively stable composition and at the same time preventing it from any rigidity, precluding a fewer areas, enterprises should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.

Argument2 [summer] 第1次作业 by 慕容天际
提纲：
2篇issue提纲：

4篇Argument提纲：
147．
1）前提关于10到25岁最可能玩游戏，没有根据。尽管其依据是广告，但广告是针对10-25岁人群，而调查不是，二者存在偏差；
2）没有给出Whirlwind公司销量下降的真正原因，可能不是画面的问题，而是市场衰退、游戏质量、制作水平、更强的竞争者，这些都可能是导致Whirlwind公司销量下降的原因；
3）调查结果只说明一款好的、受欢迎的游戏应具备的特点，但只有同时具备了其它特点才能被称为好游戏，如：游戏类型、故事情节是否刺激、主题是否合适、技术是否成熟、制作水平以及思想。
4）况且这种游戏对电脑配置要求高，高配置的电脑往往价格比较高，玩家是否会愿意投资者中高配置的电脑还不知道。
5）进行画面设计并展开大规模广告活动并不能保证销量会猛增，要考虑其它竞争对手。即使Whirlwind公司的video game 很具竞争力，但可能经济萧条或整个市场状况不好，那么结果也是可以预料的。
17.
1）论断的前提有可能不公平，即A的服务不如E，然而却没有充足的证据，仅仅依据A每周收集一次垃圾而E收集两次和该城市过去十年一直用E，而没有提供其它服务记录，如信用以及技术等，就否定A是不够的。可能市民对A缺乏了解，这样在E提高费用的情况下考虑用A未尝不是好的选择；
2）论断的论据不具说服力。E每周收集两次，A只收集一次，可能一次足够了，在缺乏这种资料的情况下，没理由排除A。更何况A的费用比E便宜了将近25%的费用，如果每周收集一次就能满足，那么用E将无疑是一种浪费；
3）另外论断说E最订购了新的卡车，但没有说新卡车的用途，没有证据表明这些卡车就是用于垃圾收集的。况且没有说明新添是否有必要，如果现有的已足够了，那新买就是多余；
4、所提到的调查也很可疑，没有采取任何措施保证调查的样本具有代表性。只有相对数值80%，而缺乏绝对数值，如果调查的人数很少，那么结果将无任何意义。况且respondents 无法代表整个市民，不排除有可能对E 满意的人才接受了调查，或是寄回调查问卷，而且调查只是说对E是满意的，并没有说有人愿意多支付25%的费用。更何况，调查是去年做的，去年的满意不能推出今年或者将来也满意。只对E做调查是不够的，还应该对A做调查；
5）结论太草率，甚至在没有告诉E突然提价原因，提价是否合理的情况下，不排除十年的合同使E没有受到竞争的压力，才导致提价。即使价格还可以接受，政府的财政状况也是决定是否接受者多出来的25%的费用的关键。
145．
1）既然是调查就应该提供可信的数据，包括被调查者的年龄分布范围、绝对数量和相对数量、以及谁做的调查等，然而论断并没有没有给出这些数据；
2）不是所有打呼噜的人都会呼吸中断从而导致本人在白天很累，累不累与睡眠质量有关系，况且没有直接证据表明打呼噜者睡眠质量就一定不好。恰恰可能是因为白天过度劳累或者是锻炼过度而导致打呼噜；
3）即使打呼噜的确是人在白天很累，那也打呼噜未必一定就会导致肥胖。长胖可能是由于饮食、锻炼或者基因决定的，而不是打呼噜一项；
4）即使以上全都正确，那也不是所有打呼噜的人都应该比正常人少吃多锻炼，少吃多锻炼可能使人的体力不支导致更加劳累，从而打呼噜更严重。没了解打呼噜的真正原因的情况下贸然的减肥是不理智的，可能是由于一种病导致的。
1.
1）外推类错误：过去的经验现在未必有效；况且，他们在关心健康的地区的盈利的原因没说，也许健康不是他们的卖点，而是其它的东西；
2）赚钱的前提是收益高于成本，论断没有提供关于在此地开店的成本问题；
3）关心健康的人不一定关心饮食健康，不一定就成为他们的顾客；
4）就算他们关心饮食间康，但当地其它商家没有被考虑进去，竞争以及品牌忠实度问题；
5）学生可能是被要求参加“终身健康”项目，而不一定是自愿。

laststrikeUID: 2318203

I strongly agree with the contention that those in power should render their right to new leadership after 5 five years, which guarantee the success of any enterprise. Because nobody can always be correct and periodic change in leadership can prevent autocracy by introducing competitive mechanisms(应该说防止对权力的过度侵占). Besides, a five years period is an appropriate term to sustain as well as no ossify（?不会骨化，表达不正确） the enterprise in most cases.

It is unfortunate but true that there is no flawless individual in this world. Leadership in any realm can hardly always making correct decision and choice, especially great success, fame and wealth, awe and respect from subordinate can seduce an initially wise and cool-minded leader. The possibility of long-term leadership and no fear of losing their power make these things worse by abusing their power. Moreover, long-term leadership will bring about absolutism which also gives birth to autocracy, then a series of dictator engendered by autocracy. For example, Franco, who ruled the country for a long period, encumbered the development of economies and politics of Spanish（Spain）during 1939 and 1975. And also like such individuals are Mussolini and Stalin who is regarded as the person achieved great success but destroyed it in himself.

Things are quite different when periodic change in leadership is introduced. By maintaining proper competitive mechanisms, the enterprise is always able to replenish itself with fresh blood and new leading ideologies. Newly emerged leaders bring new ways of leading and managing, and they are more likely to keep in better touch with the changing times as well. A case in this point is the first president, George Washington, who relinquishes actively the right to his successor on November 23 in 1783, leaving the United States a institutional guarantee of democracy, republic and liberty.（这个例子没讲清楚为什么会leaving the United States a institutional guarantee of democracy，你至少也要说因为他严格的遵守了Constitution所以才保证了民主。）

A five-year period is proper tenure in most cases. Long terms would ossify the enterprise while shorter ones may create instability. Take Kmart as a example in economy realm, which reveals that changing leaderships extensively will inevitably cause instability. A most famous commercial critic, Collins, pointed out that such extensive alternative of leadership is called “Doomloop” in economics. (这个负面作用没有写出来。而且只说了平凡换leader的害处，没说长时间不换的坏处。)

However, in some realms such as business, there might be not so necessary to limit the term of leadership. Because new leaders often lack the necessary skills and experiences to cope with existing problems（需要例子）; therefore, they need a period of time for adaptation（adapt什么东西？）. Thus a skilled and experienced leader will benefit the whole company insofar as his is able to move（需要例子）.

In conclusion, neither absolute stability nor rash alternation will lead to the success of any enterprise. In order to keep relatively stable composition and at the same time preventing it from any rigidity, precluding a fewer areas, enterprises should work out proper term for leadership to ensure their success.