AI140

yukon

没什么思路的一篇文章，超时了，话还不多。快考试了，没办法了。请版主看看最后一段的比喻你能看懂吗？我的表达有没有歧义、问题？

It is always a controversial topic that whether leaders of any group need to understand that learning to compromise is ultimately more important than winning. While somebody emphasize that if the leader of a organization cannot earn winning for the organization, the actions and the strategy that the leader adopt would become meaningless and useless, in my point of view, learning to compromise are as important as winning.

To begin with, it is undeniable that a leader should regards satisfying the interest of the owners of the organization as the first and final aim. Each organization is eager to the win to avoid financial crisis, sustain its reputation, and enhance the royalty of its staff. A sequence of compromises might erode the morale of staff, decelerate the growth of productivity, and damage the reputation of the organization, even make the organization depreciated by outsiders. So, it is understandable that some organizations deem compromises as a kind of inept performance of the leaders.

However, the compromise should not be regarded as the equivalence of failure.  While almost all leaders hope their organization can prevail over the competitor as quickly as possible, it is realistic to defeat all competitors by one beat. Sometimes, compromise can bring about the space of existence and the time of adjustment to an organization. Moreover, on some occasions, compromise does not mean disappointment but dual-win. For example, manufacturers and their suppliers often promise such agreement that manufacturers will not demand that suppliers discount their products, but the suppliers should provide some statistics about the current preference of customers and updated technology information to manufacturers while enjoying the high markup offered by manufacturers. Such relationships between two industries bound. The phenomenon indicates that success may not be granted by hurting or defeat others alone but compromising with others.

In conclusion, let me provide a figurative example: the two factors, learning to compromise and winning, are to leaders what the two legs to an individual. It is hard to point out which factor is more significant to a leader, just as it is difficult to speak out that which leg is more important to the one.

happyfish0517

以下是引用yukon在2005-7-24 18:14:00的发言：

没什么思路的一篇文章，超时了，话还不多。快考试了，没办法了。请版主看看最后一段的比喻你能看懂吗？我的表达有没有歧义、问题？

It is always a controversial topic that whether leaders of any group need to understand that learning to compromise is ultimately more important than winning. While somebody emphasize that if the leader of an organization cannot earn winning for the organization, the actions and the strategy that the leader adopts would become meaningless and useless, in my point of view, learning to compromise are as important as winning.

is 才对

To begin with, it is undeniable that a leader should regards satisfying the interest of the owners of the organization as the first and final aim. Each organization is eager to the win to avoid financial crisis, sustain its reputation, and enhance the royalty of its staff. A sequence of compromises might erode the morale of staff, decelerate the growth of productivity, and damage the reputation of the organization, even make the organization depreciated by outsiders. So, it is understandable that some organizations deem compromises as a kind of inept performance of the leaders.

However, the compromise should not be regarded as the equivalence of failure.  While almost all leaders hope their organization can prevail over the competitor as quickly as possible, it is realistic to defeat all competitors by one beat. Sometimes, compromise can bring about the space of existence and the time of adjustment to an organization. Moreover, on some occasions, compromise does not mean disappointment but dual-win. For example, manufacturers and their suppliers often promise such agreement that manufacturers will not demand that suppliers discount their products, but the suppliers should provide some statistics about the current preference of customers and updated technology information to manufacturers while enjoying the high markup offered by manufacturers. Such relationships between two industries bound. The phenomenon indicates that success may not be granted by hurting or defeat others alone but compromising with others.

In conclusion, let me provide a figurative example to demonstrate my point: the two factors, learning to compromise and winning, are to leaders just as what the two legs to an individual. It is hard to point out which factor is more significant to a leader, just as it is difficult to speak out that which leg is more important to the one.

最后一段我懂...但有一些chinglish的感觉...highlight处是我添加的语句。

另外...题目是什么？最好贴一下~~嘻嘻

中间我没有详细的看，字数其实也差不多，不用太刻意的追求篇幅，也不用太担心字数。两段中间论述确实有些单薄，最好再加一段让步之类的...丰满一下结构...加油哦！

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-25 0:26:17编辑过]