AIA003 请拍砖

A3. “Government should place stricter limits on the ability of businesses to invade citizens’ privacy through telemarketing, E-mail, advertising, collection of personal information on consumers, and so on, even if those limits affect businesses’ profitability and competitiveness.”

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your experience, observations, or reading.

It is a controversial and complex issue that whether government should pace stricter limits on the ability of businesses to invade citizens through several channels. Different people from various background and experience have different perspectives. Some people point out that the government should strictly limit the action of the company because it has significantly affected the daily life of people. Others contend that government should not pay that attention to the phenomenon, because it will affect the profitability and competitiveness of the business. As far I am concerned, the government should not strictly limit the action of the business for the reasons as followings.

First, the channel for customers to obtain information about the market would be quite limited if there were no promotion through telemarketing, e-mail, advertising and collection of personal information. For example, I am very busy with my work. In the limited leisure, I will quickly scan the advertisement in the newspaper, make a comparison of products and directly go to the supermarket to pick my favorites. Without this information, I would waste lots of time in the market to compare products one by one. In this since, it is necessary for the business to provide the information to customers. It does not invade our daily life, but makes the life pace much quicker.

Second, if the businesses do not use these channels to attract customers, their profits and competitiveness will be negatively influenced. Fewer profits lead to less tax collection for the government. Less profits spur the employer to lay off more staffs, resulting in the unemployment and therefore arising the crime. Less competitiveness provides opportunity for the foreigner counterparts to flourish in the domestic market.

Of course, the government should not totally ignore the actions of businesses to invade the citizens' daily life. The government should remind the business and establish some organizations as regulators.

In summary, I proponent that the government should not strictly limit on the availaibility to invade citizens' life through various channels. Instead, it is advisable that the government can play a role as reminder so that the business can develop smoothly and customers can obtain sufficient information

It is a controversial and complex issue that whether government should pace (place) stricter limits on the ability of businesses to invade citizens through several channels. Different people from various background and experience have different perspectives. Some people point out that the government should strictly limit the action of the company because it has significantly affected the daily life of people. Others contend that government should not pay that attention to the phenomenon, because it will affect the profitability and competitiveness of the business. As far as I am concerned, the government should not strictly limit the action of the business for the reasons as followings.

First, the channel for customers to obtain information about the market would be quite limited if there were no promotion through telemarketing, e-mail, advertising and collection of personal information. For example, I am very busy with my work. In the limited leisure, I will quickly scan the advertisement in the newspaper, make a comparison of products and directly go to the supermarket to pick my favorites. Without this information, I would waste lots of time in the market to compare products one by one. In this since (since???? ), it is necessary for the business to provide the information to customers. It does not invade our daily life, but makes the life pace much quicker.

Second, if the businesses do not use these channels to attract customers, their profits and competitiveness will be negatively influenced. Fewer profits lead to less tax collection for the government. Less profits ( 你前面用了fewer profits 却在这里用less profits) spur the employer to lay off more staffs, resulting in the unemployment and therefore arising the crime. Less competitiveness provides opportunity for the foreigner counterparts to flourish in the domestic market.

Of course, the government should not totally ignore the actions of businesses to invade the citizens' daily life. The government should remind the business and establish some organizations as regulators.

In summary, I proponent (在我印象中proponent 是一个名词阿，这里应该用一个动词把) that the government should not strictly limit on the availaibility （availability）to invade citizens' life through various channels. Instead, it is advisable that the government can play a role as reminder so that the business can develop smoothly and customers can obtain sufficient information

觉得楼主还是我以前说的那样，句子词语什么都蛮好，就是字数，这次还是只有350多一点，而且头重脚轻，第一段开头写了好多，而且是字数最多的。反而忽略中间三段的内容，觉得楼主完全可以少写一点开头，多一点时间放在中间三段的写作上。形成一个橄榄型的作文结构。个人觉得这样比较好！