When I review the AI topics, sometime I find myself compelled to argue in a mixed stand. For example: 21、“job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.”
I tend to claim that employee should be rewarded/evaluated base on both performance as well as loyalth and seniority in the company. The point goes against author's "not on years of service". However, the point is also not aligned with "rewarding employees primarily for years of service". Hence it falls into a middle ground. Should we avoid arguing from such a gray area in a 30min writing test? What if I find it too extreme to stand on either side of the spetrum?
thanx. I guess standing in the middle to defend your side from both side requires more linguistic expertise. After all, we all have realized by now that the world is not composed of simply binaries. Being an artist is everyone's dream, becoming one in a few month's rush is darn hard, if possible. Any way, good to know that I am not alone on the path.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2003-12-31 09:52:00
楼主
