以下是引用德克的猪在2007-6-28 0:54:00的发言：目标蛮高的`` 那发篇你写的TOEFL作文给我看看 没写过IBT的作文，之前旧T的练习也找不到了，只找到了几篇GMAT的第二篇，和旧T作文很像的那种，贴给大牛过目。不过现在可能还写不出这个水平了。。。。 In the spotlight recently has been the complex and controversial issue of whether the government should establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspect health hazards in the environment in any event. On the one hand, as is well know and has often been advocated, government should do so even when the scientific studies of these hazards are incomplete and contradictory. Other people, on the other hand, probably argue that government should wait until the scientific studies produces constructive results to take any action. The complicated nature of this issue calls upon a case-by-case analysis. As far as I am concerned, I hold the view that the governement should not wait for the complete scientific concensus to take the neccessary action to eliminate any health harzards.
In the first place, one important reason why I have such a view is that government simply can not afford to take the risk. The incomplete or contradictory scientic studies of these health hazards suggests that the health hazard may, or may not caused substantial damage to the society. But what if the result turned out that the hazard can bring a unprecedented disaster ? Taking no action but waiting for the scientific result means taking the risk to put the health or lives of millions of people in danger. Government simply can't afford to take the risk. A painful example can be found in case of SARS disease in China. When SARS was first discovered in China. the government did exactly as the titlement suggests, nothing, because the scientists knew nothing about the disease. However it turned out to be too late for any subsequent actions when the SARS spread out in China at an incredible speed. In this case, it is obvious that the government should not take any risks of its people's healths and lives.
In the second place, although some argue that the government would be wasting a lot of resources and caused unneccessary worry among people if it is over-cautious, I doubt if this argument bears much in-depth analysis. Of course, it will take government time and efforts to establish and enforce the regulation to eliminate the health hazards. But the benefit, or the potential benefit, will tremendously outweigh the cost. Let take the SARS in china again for example, because of SARS, China lost 2.3% growth of GDP in 2003, which is billions of dollars in question. How can the government risk losing of this amount just to save some cost of establishing and enforcing the regulations?
To be sure, I am not suggesting that government should take any action in a premature manner. The government should of course contemplate the whole action plan before establishing the regulation. However, the government should not take the scientific result as a "go ahead" for any action taken.
To sum up, I conclude that the governemtn should establish the regulation to eliminate any potential health harzards once aware of it, because the government can not afford to take the risk and because the benefit of doing so apparently exceeds the cost. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2007-6-28 00:41:00
楼主
