AA027,AI056,好久没来了

快要考试了，来贴两片刚刚写的文章，看看有几分牙,to be honest, I spend most on the awa............................God bless me.my problem is that I have too many spelling errors.

AI056. “The secret of business is to know something that nobody else knows.”

Explain what you think the above quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Support your position with relevant reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

There is no uniform attitude towards the controversial issue whether the secret of business is to know something exclusive. A number of people firmly advocate that the business can definitely succeed if it has exclusive access to some information or technology, since it can take advantage of them to explore the market. However, they neglect the important fact that not all the successful businesses have something unknown to others, and not all businesses knowing the exclusive information or technology are successful. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there is something more important for the company to lead successful business rather than the exclusive resources.

First of all, the primary reason buttressing my standpoint is that most businesses can not use the exclusive resource effectively since they lack other key elements. The empirical evidences supporting this reason are overwhelming, and the example to illustrate it is not hard to find: one business recently successfully develops a new product that may have a potential market, but the business fails to finance for the production. Therefore, even the company holds the exclusive technology, it still can not explore any market for this technology. Hence, for a successful business, only to know something unknown by other is not sufficient.

Besides, there is another reason to justify my view of point: there are too many examples that a lot of businesses boom not because of anything special they obtain but only because of the doctrine known for everyone. For instance, the companies which disobey the regulations of the government are finally retreat from the market due to the law suits raised by its illegal management, while the others which comply to any regulations set by the government, and get along well with the surrounding residents get a lot of supports from the government and the society, thereby developing fast. Therefore, there are some other ways to succeed for business, and all of them are not secrets at all.

The last but not the least, it is true that under certain circumstance, the business can take the advantages of the exclusive resource to occupy the market. To be honest, I confess that such cases exist when the business has the ability to use the resource effectively. Nevertheless, such cases are too special and rare, and thereby it alone can not constitute sufficient evidence that only such condition can make the business successful.

In the finally analysis, there are a lot of factors causing one business to succeed, and the exclusive resource is merely one of them. Because it is impossible for one business to succeed, even it has the exclusive resource, when the business lacks some key important elements, such as financing and marketing channels and because businesses also can succeed through other methods other than exclusive resource. Although businesses can take advantages of the resource unknown to others under certain conditions, it is over-weighted by the reasons above.

AA027. The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.

“As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.”

Discuss how well reasoned... etc.

In the argument the author asserts that they should set up a board to censor movies, or limit the admission to certain age group people. The argument is based on the ground that as there is increase of violence in the movies, the crime rates in the city also increases. Moreover, the author points out that the legislators are not concerned about this issue because a bill calling for such action was turned down recently. However, the argument is seriously flawed by several aspects despite its plausible reasoning.

To begin with, the author assumes without warrant that the increased rate in the city is caused by the increased violence in the movies. Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that the violence in the movies leads to the violence in the cities. It is possible that the crimes in our cities make the movies include the similar context, since the movies are always the reflections of our lives. What's more, it is also possible that there is no relationship between the movies and the crimes in the cities, but they are just coincident events. Therefore, the assumption held by the author is unjustified.

Furthermore, the author suggests establishing a board to censor certain movies or only permit persons over 21 years to access the movie including violence. However, there is no available standard for the board to censor movies. Hence the board won't function efficiently in such issue. Moreover, there is no evidence supporting the action limiting admission to persons over 21 years old. Because there is the possibility that even people above 21 will be influenced by the violent movies seriously. According to reasons above, the author's suggestions are not logically feasible.

Finally, the author claims that the legislators are indifferent with such issue since a bill calling for actions to deal with such issue failed to pass. Nevertheless, the failure of the bill does not mean the legislators are not concerned about this issue. For example, as reasoned above, the actions mentioned by the bill may be not feasible, or there is another program much better to handle such issue. Therefore, it is reasonable for the legislators to turn down the bill if there are other alternatives.

To sum up, the argument is illogically convincing as it stands. To better evaluate the argument, I need know whether the increase in crime rate is caused by the violence in the movies and whether the legislators have no persuasive reasons to turn down the bill. And to strengthen the argument, the author should demonstrate that a board can censor the movies effectively, and 21 years old standard is justified to set limitation to the access to violent movies.