两篇ISSUE ( 29 87) 大家可劲拍

rebeccacha

每篇都花了一个半小时以上的时间写 修改 还不包括前期讨论的时间 争取每天一篇 基础差 就慢慢写 慢工出细活

之前考过一个比较鸡肋的分数 但是作文不好 短期内也不打算出国了 但是既然二战报了名 姑且抱着练好英文写作的心态去考一下吧

大家可劲拍 小女子谢过了

PS: 之前在网上买的<金字塔原理>昨天收到了 是麦肯锡的写作培训教材 不同于一般讲修辞和格式的写作书 主要分析思路分析逻辑怎么展开 看了一点觉得很不错 相信对阅读逻辑和写作都会有帮助 所以 向大家推荐一记

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-4-25 3:07:34编辑过]

rebeccacha

29. Too many people think only about getting results. The key to success, however, is to focus on the specific task at hand and not to worry about results. 

What do you think this piece of advice means, and do you think that it is, on the whole, worth following? Support your views with reasons and/or examples drawn from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This advice means that to succeed, we should focus on work at hand rather than waste time on worrying about results. Admittedly, I've heard some people argue against this advice, and their ideas are acceptable in some sense. However, I still support it because my personal experience and reading.

Before my college entrance exam, questions like "What if my score is just one point below the requirement?" always frustrated me, until my aunt asked me, "Do these questions help to plus even one point to your test?" This speaking, even was said long time ago, always lights up my mind when I'm self-trapped.

From this example, we could see the two defaults of worrying about results, once your vision is as clear as certain requirement of scores.

First, it is time-consuming and meaningless. For most of the times, we worry just because we are not sure how we can play in the final day, since the outside condition for success is not changeable by our worrying.

Secondly, it is spirit-frustrating, and the longer time we need to achieve the goal the worse we feel. Too much worrying intensifies one's anxiety, making an vicious circle, whereas paying attention to specific tasks helps to land one's heart and ease one's mind. Therefore, such worrying, as one of our weaknesses, should be overcome, rather than be entitled with beautiful name like "result-oriented work".   

Furthermore, even if you are not sure about how to succeed, even if you have absolutely no sense of what it is, caring about tasks at hand also helps. I have an example to share with you. There was once an ordinary, unambitious Chinese English-teacher, persistent in memorizing vocabulary to find a job in GRE-training school. After being familiar with every word in any English dictionary, he is now the richest teacher in China, and the founder of a NYSE-listed company, New
                Oriental
                School. He never thought of being a business-owner when memorizing words to afford family, but he finally succeeds, by doing task at hand whole-heartedly and industriously.

To conclude, whether one has a clear vision of success, to focus on work at hand is a wiser strategy than to worry about results out of one's own control. God disposes, man proposes. Once we do our tasks by heart and sweat, no matter how exactly the result will be, it will be fine.

rebeccacha

87.As technologies and the demand for certain services change, many workers will lose their jobs. The responsibility for those people to adjust to such change should belong to the individual worker, not to government or to business.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with specific reasons and/or examples drawn from your reading, your observations, or your own experience.

While technology advances and demand for labors changes, which party should be responsible for the subsequent unemployment, individual workers, governments, or businesses? My answer is: all the three members of the labor market. Only with the efforts and ideas from every participants of the game, could they play it better.

On one hand, if individual workers want better places, they have to "sell" themselves; just as what NOKIA did for cell phones and HSBC did for financial services. Handsome resume is the attractive commercial, working experience the good reputation, networking the promotion, and continuous self-learning the improvement of outdated products. Manufacturers win consumers’ heart by meeting theirs needs. So as workers do for labor users, the businesses.

On the other hand, however, only employees are not enough to balance the demand and supply in labor market. If there is not vacancy, even the most talented person cannot find a job. Businesses, the damanders, on the premise of not destroying the life of their shareholders, should take social responsibility of caring for their workers in various aspects, such as moral, environmental and legal. For example, companies cannot break the law, as mandated in China's new labor law that labor users have to meet stricter requirements protecting labor forces' rights.

Furthermore, as for differences between employee's ability and company's need, it is the obligation of both parties to reach a win-win result. Education at school and training at work serve for better life of the worker, not specifically focus one certain position in a single company, so as job requirement for applier: there is no "perfect" match. But they can make a better deal of minimizing unemployment rate by improvement and adaptation from both.

After the supplier and demander, is there anyone else responsible? Government, the order keeper, who want both workers and businesses to be happy and able to pay tax under its governance, has to do and in fact has done a lot to increase employment rate and boom economy. Remember what Franklin Roosevelt did in The New Deal? US Government built big dam and paved new roads, which generate considerable positions for unemployed. Government can also provide pensions and social insurance for unemployed people, and information of trends in job market for job hunters, which are not the field of individual workers and companies in private sector.

In conclusion, worker and business should both contribute to the equilibrium of the labor market, whereas government has to make up for what beyond their ability. Only with all the three parties together can they find better ways to solve the problem of unemployment.

gillfiese

对
第二篇的一点点建议。总体感觉LZ文章脉络比较清晰，举例也比较恰当有力。个人感觉，在这些基础之上大可不必过于依赖复杂的句式，首先应该让要表达的意思
清楚明确，在此之上可以发挥一些特殊的句子结构。LZ实质内容我觉得已经够好，至少比我考试时候写的好很多了，呵呵，只要注意一下语法，句法，应该没有问
题

While technology advances and demand for
labors changes, which party should be responsible for the subsequent
unemployment, individual workers, governments, or businesses? （这里responsible for不够清楚，如果不指出responsible for什么，句子可以被理解为是这些party造成了unemployment, responsible
for workers也有些牵强。）My answer is: all the
three members of the labor market. Only with the efforts and ideas from every
participants of the game, could they play it better. 这里读着很怪。They & it指代有些不清楚，这个倒装句逗号是否应该省略？

        

 

        

On one hand, if individual workers want better
places, they have to "sell" themselves; just as what NOKIA did for cell phones and
HSBC did for financial services. Handsome resume is the attractive commercial,
working experience the good reputation, networking the promotion, and
continuous self-learning the improvement of outdated products. Manufacturers
win consumers’ heart by meeting theirs needs. So as
                workers do for
labor users, the businesses.
            （这个句子的用法有些奇怪，是否可以改用简单句直接表达？）

        

 

        

On the other hand, however, only employees are
not enough to balance the demand and supply in labor market. If there is not
(no?) vacancy (opening might be better?), even the most talented person
cannot find a job. Businesses, the demanders (the demand side), on the
premise of not destroying the life of their shareholders, should take social
responsibility of caring for their workers in various aspects, such as moral,
environmental and legal (omitting aspects here seems somewhat strange). For
example, companies cannot break the law, as mandated in China's new labor
law that labor users have to meet stricter requirements protecting labor
forces' rights. (这里的as mandated in ……后面连接一个that从句修饰来modify前面的can not break导致整个句子意思不够清晰) （companies in China
cannot break the newly established labor law which mandates that all labor
users meet stricter ……）
            

        

 

        

Furthermore, as for differences between
employee's ability and company's need, it is the obligation of both parties to
reach a win-win result (normally we say win-win situation). Education at
school and training at work serve for better life of the worker, not
specifically focus one certain position in a single company, so as job
requirement for applier: there is no "perfect" match. (focus on
is the idiom, 这里的so as用法可能有问题，我觉得LZ是不是想用so does?但是即使用so does，这里的比较还是不够清晰) （Neither does the
education at school or training at work specifically prepare a person for a
single position nor does the job requirement narrowly target at an individual
applicant: it’s always about a dynamical matching.）But they can make a better deal of minimizing
unemployment rate by improvement and adaptation from both.

        

 

        

After the supplier and demander, is there
anyone else responsible? Government, the order keeper, who want(s) both workers
and businesses to be happy and able to pay tax under its governance, has to do
and in fact has done a lot to increase employment rate and boom economy.
Remember what Franklin Roosevelt did in The New Deal? US Government built big
dam and paved new roads, which generate considerable positions for unemployed.
Government can also provide pensions and social insurance for unemployed
people, and information of trends in job market for job hunters, which are
not the field of individual workers and companies in private sector. （这句话我没明白是什么意思）

        

 

        

In conclusion, worker and business should both
contribute to the equilibrium of the labor market, whereas government has to
make up for what beyond their ability. Only with all the three parties (add
playing might be better) together can they find better ways to solve the
problem of unemployment.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-4-29 10:30:52编辑过]

jxw8938

up