6. (9)Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace. 职工应该把私人生活远离工作地点 1, Personal activities should not be brought to one's workplace since they can reduce one's efficiency. Thinking about one's private life can distract one from his or her work. 2, Talking about private life and doing personal activities can disturb other fellow workers. 3, It is inevitable for a person to think about his or her private life and to do some personal activities at the workplace. But an employee should do his or her best to focus on the work when at workplace. Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization. Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal information—as a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employee’s family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social events—picnics, parties, excursions, and so forth—also help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into (v. 翻译成, 转化为) better working relationships. Admittedly, employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers. Excessive chatting about non-business topics, frequent personal telephone calls, and the like, are always distracting. And romances between coworkers are best kept confidential, at least to the extent they disrupt work or demoralize or offend other employees. By the same token, however, employees who are too aloof—sharing nothing personal with others—may be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization. In the final analysis, employees should strike a careful balance (strike a balance: v. 结帐, 公平处理) when they mix their personal lives with their jobs. Although there are some circumstances in which bringing one’s personal life to the job may be counterproductive, for many reasons it is a good idea to inject small doses of personal life into the workplace. 7. (111). “Because of recent advancements in business and technology, the overall quality of life in most societies has never been better than at the present time.” 科技和商业使现在的生活质量好于之前任何时候 1. progress in technology and business确实给人们的生活带来了considerable improvement. a, in the material life,提供了unprecedented diversity of service and products。supermarket:hundreds and thousands of products for people to choose;——三月份就可以吃到新鲜的草莓fresh strawberry b, 方便。高效率in the convenience of our own homes :得到信息在网上,订餐order a dinner via internet; c, 人们的健康状况更好了,很多曾经可以威胁人生命的病现在只要简单的医疗手段就可以解决。 2. 但是,也不是说全都是好处,同时也有消极的影响。比如a, 人们spend more time on television and internet, 忽略了overlook the necessary communication in the family。造成了alienation between the family members. b, 再比如,fast communication on-line 剥夺了人们深入思考的可能。deprive people of deep and comprehensive thinking. 3. 使人们更加忙碌,疲劳。a, 人们的效率提高了,却被要求做更多的事了,实际上,人们更加忙碌了。比如the invention of laptops provide the possibility for people to continue their work after they leave the company. even on holiday. b, 新技术发展很快,demand changes every day. 这样accelerate the job obsolescence。造成人们suffer more pressure and anxiety. The stated opinion is that recent advancements in business and technology have made overall quality of life better than ever. I disagree somewhat with the speaker’s viewpoint. For although such advancements have improved our lives in many respects, they have also diminished our quality of life in other ways. Clearly, progress in business and technology has produced many benefits. For example, we can research problems and their solutions in minutes on the Internet; productivity is at an all-time (adj. 空前的, 创记录的) high. And we can get more done in less time, leaving more time for hobbies, entertainment or other leisure activities. We can even mix a little work into our leisure time, by taking our laptops (便携式电脑) and cell phones on vacation (在度假中). This way, we can stay one step ahead on projects at work, anticipating deadlines and staying in touch with co-workers and important clients. In addition, leisure time has itself been enhanced by business and technology. Never before have we had so many spectacular diversions available, or so many leisure- and entertainment-related businesses vying for our attention. Moreover, we can obtain everything form airline tickets to a language course and holiday wardrobe (行头a collection of wearing apparel (as of one person or for one activity) *a summer wardrobe*) via the Internet, in the convenience of our own homes. Nevertheless, advances in business and technology have compromised our quality of life as well. For all the wonders of computers, they have spawned their own special illnesses and ailments, like severe eyestrain (眼睛疲劳), back and neck problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome (n. 腕管综合征: a condition caused by compression of a nerve where it passes through the wrist into the hand and characterized especially by weakness, pain, and disturbances of sensation in the hand). And though we now have a world of information available in a keystroke (按键,按一下键), some of this information—like pornography, hate group diatribes and bomb-building instructions—are harming our society, especially our children. Even apparently harmless material, like direct mail advertising and telephone soliciting, is endlessly annoying. Finally, family life is sometimes a casualty (a person or thing injured, lost, or destroyed : VICTIM *the ex-senator was a casualty of the last election*) of all this progress, with parents and children spending more time transfixed (使呆住) before their computer monitors and less time together. In conclusion, advances in business and technology are a mixed blessing. For while we enjoy many benefits of this so-called progress, in many ways it has changed our lives for the worse.
8. (110)The most effective business leaders are those who remain the highest ethical standars.“ 1, 支持者会认为, 高道德会赢得reputation and trust; 第一, 高道德生产高质量的产品以及service,顾客稳定stable share of the market; 第二, 高道德会让员工满意度提高(公平,平等). 从而attract those applicants with high ability and keep the employees loyal to the company---最终导致高的productivity. 例子:Bayer, one of the largest pharmaceutic companies in the world, announced that the company would cease production of one of its major products, because of the hazardous ingredients it contained. By doing so, the company suffers great loss on profitability, but gains strong public support and understanding, which can contribute to the long-term success of the company. 2, 但在更多的情况下, 高道德也许不equal to maximal profit. 比如,a, 如果把道德放在第一位的话,企业的executive很可能无法执行裁员活动complete the normal administration, such as raising the price, reducing the superabundant staff… b, 高道德的话,很可能采用最高标准的环保生产——这样很不是cost-effective. 总之,Following such undue concern about ethics, the company may find it impossible to survive in the radical competitive market, let alone to gain large profit. The assertion at issue is that business people who uphold the highest ethical standards are the most effective leader. I strongly agree with this statement. For a while (adv. 暂时), unethical behavior might seem effective. But a few examples from the investment banking industry keenly illustrate how dishonesty and corruption in leadership can bring a business to its knees, shattering the trust of its employees and ruining its reputation with clients. Consider the cases of Michael Milken, former head of junk bond trading at Drexel Burnham Lambert, and Paul Mozer, formerly in charge of Salomon Brothers’ government bonds trading. Each of these men engaged in double-dealing (口是心非,欺骗) and other illegal acts, reaping tremendous profits for their companies, and winning the admiration of subordinates and superiors alike. However, their successes were relatively short-lived (短命的;持续不久的;昙花一现的). Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations in each case revealed massive wrongdoing. As a result, Drexel went out of business. And Salomon Brothers barely recovered, after suffering the forced resignations of its top executives, a financially devastating loss of reputation, and the exodus of many valued employees. Moreover, Salomon’s survival is probably owing entirely to its subsequent leadership under Warren Buffett. Buffett, who was on the Salomon Brother board of directors at the time of the scandal, was brought in to (bring in to: vt. 把..告诉,让..知道,让..参与) save the beleaguered company. His success in keeping it afloat at all can be directly tied to his sterling (conforming to the highest standard *sterling character*) ethical reputation in the international business community at the time. Buffett’s reputation restored at least some lost confidence among clients and investors, and probably prompted some employees to reconsider their decisions to leave the company. While not every case of unethical leadership is quite so public or devastating as these, they do illustrate an important point. In any business, once corruption at the top becomes known, the predictable outcome will be damaged reputation, lower worker morale, and, along with them, lost productivity. In conclusion, unethical conduct at the leadership level in a company might go unnoticed and serve one’s interests in the short-term. However, in the long run it will work against one’s effectiveness and may even prove ruinous. 9. (13)Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government. 1, 个人往往是按照自己的利益办事即使有环保意愿但和个人利益冲突或要损失个人利益时候往往就会选择牺牲环境moreover个人往往是短视的,只关注眼前不注意长远。政府则相反 2, 环保常常规模很大,个人无力完成。 3, 诚然每个保护环境的措施都是要个人的参与的。但是这种参与是在政府的统筹下的。象作者那样的论断是草率的 While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankind’s best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war (n. 拔河, 两派间的激烈竞争) among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason, and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale, government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation. Experience tells us that individuals (and private corporations owned by individuals) tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example, current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless, neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals. Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement, environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own. Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards. In the final analysis, only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility, government must do so. 10. (40). “With the increasing emphasis on a global economy and international cooperation, people need to understand that their role as citizens of the world is more important than their role as citizens of a particular country.” 1. 有时, 很多问题是全球性的,需要世界公民的角度考虑,而非只站在一国角度. 比如,环境问题, 能源问题, 等等. 人们应该为整个地球负责任,而不仅仅是为了一个民族或国家. 因为, 如果是后者, 则很有可能只解决自己的问题, 而把危害转移到别的国家. shift the burden and threats from one nation to another…比如: 出口垃圾,比如大量进口发展中国家的木材.虽然自己的国家暂时解决了问题,但长远看, 没有国家孤立地存在, 不能short-sight and narrow mind, 因为interdependent.2. 但这不意味着人们就要discard or weaken their role as citizens of one nation. 其实两者并不是incompatible, 更多时候, 可以作为complementary one—and can even be synergistic.比如the preservation of traditional culture, 人们作为一国公民,保护自己独特文化的同时, 实际上也为全球的diversity of culture作出了positive effort. 比如, 为一个国家的public service付出努力的同时, 很可能激发起公民的社会责任感和compassion and responsibility, 参与到国际public service 中, 比如很多charitarian就开始从对本国的慈善事业subsidize the school in one nation也激发起对attention to the education in the international scope. With the growth of the global economy and the need for international cooperation, every human being has assumed a role as citizen of the world. Does this mean that our roles as citizens of our respective nations are thereby superseded by our role as world citizens, as the speaker suggests? Not at all. Good citizenship at one level is often compatible with good citizenship at another. In fact, being a good citizen in one social domain can help one be a better citizen in another. Good global citizenship is not incompatible with good citizenship at other levels. Consider, for example, one’s efforts as a citizen to preserve the natural environment. One particular person might, for example: (1) lobby legislators to enact laws preserving an endangered redwood forest, (2) campaign for nationally-elected officials who support clean air laws, and (3) contribute to international rainforest (n. 雨林) preservation organizations. This one person would be acting consistently as a citizen of community, state, nation and world. Admittedly, conflicting obligations sometimes arise as a result of our new “dual” citizenship. For example, a U.S. military official with an advisory role in a United Nations peace-keeping force might face conflicting courses of action—one that would secure U.S. military interests, and another that would better serve international interests. However, the fact that such a conflict exists does not mean that either action is automatically more obligatory—that is, that one’s role as either U.S. citizen or world citizen must invariably supersede the other. Instead, this situation should be resolved by carefully considering and weighing the consequences of each course of action. Moreover, being a good citizen in one social context can often help one be a better citizen in another. For example, volunteering to help underprivileged children in one’s community might inspire one to work for an international child-welfare organization. And inculcating civic values—such as charity and civic pride—may give rise to personal traits of character that transfer to all social domains and contexts. In sum, although our “dual” citizenship may at times lead to conflicts, one role need not automatically take precedence over the other. Moreover, the relationship between the two roles is, more often than not, a complementary one—and can even be synergistic.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-13 12:23:45编辑过] |