|
M50，V34，总分700，有点遗憾啊 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 先是AWA AA：黄金，我贴出来吧 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.” Discuss how well reasoned... etc. 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。
1. False analogy 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. AI：也是黄金 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
split the difference lag evaluate
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 (adj. 观望的) 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 (adv. 非常, 极端), 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 (pork: government money, jobs, or favors used by politicians as patronage)
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 (Environmental Protection Agency 美国环保署) 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. 贡献一个我自己做得AA模板，不全，但基本够用，仅够参考
[此贴子已经被作者于2009/7/31 2:43:52编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-7-30 21:34:00
楼主