730 SH 二战700，火车站发机经回馈CD，新添AWA段落模板 - ChaseDream

一战是610，分数是570，数学很惨的丢了中国人的脸，只有47，至于Verbal，更是人人不齿的21

63. The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper.

“The Cumquat Café made a mistake in moving to a new location. After one year at the new spot, it is doing about the same volume of business as before, but the owners of the RoboWrench plumbing supply wholesale outlet that took over its old location are apparently doing better: RoboWrench is planning to open a store in a neighboring city.”

地方报纸的商业版：

Cumquat咖啡店搬到新地址是个错误。到新址的一年以后，它的营业额和以前基本一样。但在它的原址开业的提供铅管批发出口的Robo Wrench的店主显然做的更好。Robo Wrench正计划在临近城市开一家店。

2. Other factors other than location that may contribute to the faliure of the Cumquat Cafe should be considered and ruled out.

3. Likewise, there may be some other factors that will explain the success of the success of the RoboWrench plumbing.

4. One year's poor performance is too wake an evidence to conclude that the Cafe has made a mistake to relocate.

According to this newspaper article, the Cumquat Cafe made a mistake by relocating one year ago. The author supports this claim by pointing out that Cumquat is doing about the same volume of business as before it moved, while RoboWrench plumbing supply outlet, which took over Cumquat’s old location, is apparently “doing better” because its owners plan to open a new outlet in a nearby city. This argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the two businesses are too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Cumquat’s old location may simply have been better suited to hardware, plumbing, and home improvement businesses than to cafes and restaurants. The article’s claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving fails to take this possibility into account.

Secondly, the article’s claim that RoboWrench is “doing better” since it took over Cumquat’s old location is too vague to be meaningful. The author fails to provide a second term of this comparison. We are not informed whether RoboWrench is doing better than before it moved, better than other plumbing stores, or better than Cumquat. This uninformative comparison is worthless as evidence from which to judge the wisdom of Cumquat’s decision to relocate.

Thirdly, the claim that RoboWrench is doing better is unwarranted by the evidence. The mere fact that RoboWrench plans to open a new store in a nearby city does not by itself establish that business is good. It is possible that the purpose of this plan is to compensate for lackluster business at the current location. Or perhaps the RoboWrench owners are simply exercising poor business judgment.

Finally, the claim that Cumquat made a mistake in moving may be too hasty, since the conclusion is based on only one year’s business at the new location. Moreover, given the time it ordinarily takes for a business to develop a new customer base in a new location, the fact that Cumquat’s volume of business is about the same as before it moved tends to show that the move was a good decision, not a mistake.

In conclusion, the claim that Cumquat’s move was a mistake is ill-founded, since it is based on both poor and incomplete comparisons as well as on a premature conclusion. To better assess the argument, we need to know what the author is comparing RoboWrench’s performance to; we also need more information about the extent of RoboWrench’s success at this location and why its owners are opening a new store.

42. “Scientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”

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

“科学家在不断重新制定对环境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的标准。由于这些标准不停变动，面对新建议，公司应该保持他们的产品和流程不变直到新的建议成为国家标准为止。”

1. 科学家的建议也并不一定都是正确的。很有可能他的结论适用面很窄。或者他所得到的数据有错误等等。

2. 对企业来说频繁的变更产品和生产流程会造成很大的经济损失

3. 诚然等待国家制定标准很可能存在滞后等问题但是比较起来以上的问题还是应该等待国家制定标准。此外一个折中的方案是国家成立专门的机构快速地对新的方案和建议做出评价并迅速制定标准

View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,

View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therefore do harm to the companies .

View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.

The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and about regulatory fairness and effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations compel me to disagree overall with the argument.

First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably. At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover, a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company on the coast. It would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or, in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly reflect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious. Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more influenced by political expediency and campaign pork
than by societal concerns.

Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA might be overburdened with its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.

In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker’s recommended approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage resulting from bureaucratic delay.

能谈谈你的复习经验嘛？我今天一站失利了，V27刚刚买了一本OG12，都不知道改看什么了。

数学碰到的不算很多吧，大概10来道的样子，我前8道都没碰到机经，把我吓得啊……

还有半圆加长方形求半圆周长和长方形的长的比的那题，好像是选4/3

有一题挺阴线的DS：大概意思是R=(R1+R2)/R1R2是多少？要注意，貌似A还是B就可以，因为算出来刚好是R的倒数

有那题上面进球1分，下面进球3分的，多亏机经，让我省了很多读题时间，那个图无比复杂

还有说xy平面上有一个面积为1的正方形，问以下哪两个点（都给的是坐标）一定在这个正方形边界（boundary）上，这题没有图的，确认选E

有一题说f（x）=1/2*x*t^3,x=2^t,问f（x)是否大于0，这个也是一个条件就能算出来的，选项不记得了，但是其中一个选项可以得出t<0，所以f（x）肯定<0了

有求小数点的那题，我看都没看就选了8，机经上有，话说这是我碰到的第一道机经

其他暂时想不起来了，有的只记得答案，不记得选项，都不太难，只有机经做过，50肯定没问题

有一题挺阴线的DS：大概意思是R=(R1+R2)/R1R2是多少？要注意，貌似A还是B就可以，因为算出来刚好是R的倒数

这道题很像求并联电路的电阻阿~~~~大家有想法么~~13 3月份考过的好像

逻辑几乎没碰到机经，大概两道吧，我这次做逻辑pace完全乱了，觉得逻辑题特别多，看了都烦

corn 的价钱因为某国大量用corn 去生产ethonol, 一种替代能源, 而上升. 因此造成本国的农夫全部跑去种corn 而放弃soy bean. 因此soy bean的价格上升. 隔壁国(墨西哥还是某个南美国)的农夫就卯起来种soy bean. 虽然说种这soy bean 对雨林- friendly 但是专家说尽管如此, 雨林还是会受影响. why?　我选了因为地都拿去种soy 了, 那些ranger 和放牧的就要搬迁(文中没有直接提到 ranger 会对雨林有坏处) 但是其它的都不像只好选这..

这题作者没有把题目混在一起，就是有soybean的，但我不记得有没选这个，觉得比较无关

有很多complete sentence题，有一题就是salt加碘的题，我想了半天还是没选跟机经一样的

有一个是说一国对医药的限制很多，要推出药必需要获得国家许可，然后医药公司就说服国家放宽限制，放宽限制后XXXXX，不记得是evaluate还是complete了

逻辑这次做得不则么样，很多都没进去，时间比较赶，有点遗憾，这个本来是verbal中的强项的啊……

还有博物馆陈列的就是关于culture的那题，记得问的题目有作者提到其中的一个例子的目的是社么

还有就是GWD原题那题，这篇出现的时候我正处于时间不够的危机中，巨长，从没见过这么长的，原文都没看，直接选得，建议最好把这个原文看一下，我贴吧

In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians’ interests, argued for preserving physicians’ free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs.

The labor activists’ position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers’ right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers’ privacy. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers’ opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers’, not workers’, interests. Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers’ lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers.

Yet the AFL’s voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers. AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.

Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation’s workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.

还有一篇也是机经，貌似是公司投资创新的，两段，时间严重不够，略略读了一下，直接选，选项不记得了

关于RC机经，建议最好滚瓜烂熟，虽然RC机经很多都没给出题目，但是熟悉RC机经的好处是可以省时间，这次获益多多啊

以下是引用Alice730在2009/7/30 21:41:00的发言：

能谈谈你的复习经验嘛？我今天一站失利了，V27刚刚买了一本OG12，都不知道改看什么了。

我觉得首先得知道自己最弱的是社么，我之前最弱的就是语法，一套题可以错7到8个，然后数学也不好，逻辑还可以，大概一篇错2到3个，阅读好好看的话大概错5个，所以我二战复习主要是抓语法

看了很多前人的经验，觉得语法的确是王道，至于OG则是王道中的王道，只有OG才是真正官方的

一战的时候我语法把能找的题都做了，因为我语法向来不好，一战大概做了有1000多道题，但是语法可以说没有进步。对于语法，OG上的解释一定要看透再看透，二战时我几乎把OG上SC部分手抄了一遍，把解释加上自己的理解再加上CDer的深层分析全注释上去，把考点也记下来。觉得语法一定要形成OG的思路，先不看选项，分析原选项中的错误在哪里，然后再从选项中找更正了原选项的。XDF的规则我觉得基本无用，我一战就全靠它，结果惨败啊……规则只有在优选时比较有用

CR的话我做了陈向东的黄书，把错题抄一遍，然后把正确思路写一遍，觉得这样提高还比较快吧，还有就是觉得XDF的作文老师其实逻辑讲得更好

你verbal现在就有26，比我好多了，肯定能700+的，我只是跟自己比进步罢了，谢谢捧场啊

以下是引用flutemama在2009/7/30 22:08:00的发言：

俄还有上回欧们碰到的语法题目~~~lz有印象么

causing那个~~~ 路上当心回家法帖~~~~

语法我没碰到机经，考的时候还想着要记点机经，现在都不记得了啊……

以下是引用lemonrr在2009/7/30 22:15:00的发言：
lz肯定平时有攒RP，希望我明天也小小爆发一把...

以下是引用bilyatp在2009/7/31 2:03:00的发言：
楼主，我刚一战败北，迫切希望二战，请问你隔了多久二战的？想做参考，不甚感激！！！

然后因为有期末考，一直搁置没看，大概6月25号回到家，然后全天复习，每天实际看书大概6到7小时吧

以下是引用美德少年在2009/7/31 13:24:00的发言：
楼主pace怎么把握的啊~~

我pace到后面基本乱了，还剩26分钟的时候还有23题，而且阅读还有两篇没出，pace乱是我逻辑看不进去的罪魁祸首啊……

多做做模考应该对pace有帮助吧，我两次复习总共模考了6次，但是做单独训练的时候会掐时间做