分享我的每日一写：欢迎监督批评

jannyguo

Issue2: “It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.” 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.

Key point:

1)To conserve the energy is a world-wide project. No individual country is able to do it independently.

2)It is unfair to let individual nations to make sacrifices while the others do not.

3)The best and the most efficient way is the whole world conserve the energy simultaneously and collectively.



The passage asserts that an international effort is needed to preserve the world’s energy resources for future generations. It is unfair and unrealistic for any single country to voluntary the sacrifices for the benefit of others. My view is that international coordination is nevertheless necessary to put efforts together to make our world a better place for all human beings.

To protect the world’s energy resources is word wide project. No single country or organization could do it effectively. The individual country, like human, will act differently according its economic levels motivation factors such as self-interests. For example, the mere existence of military weapons indicates that self-interest and national survival are every nation’s prime drivers. Excessive consumption of natural resources by industrialized nations demonstrates the self-interests to boom the economic correlated to GDP increase. Usually, the advocate of energy protection rise from developed countries, however, the outsourcing and manufacture moving to developing countries do not reduce the world energy consumption, just move to another location.

It is unrealistic to expect any single nation to make the sacrifice to conserve energy while others do not. As mentioned above, relocate manufacture to developing country will not remove the energy consumption. Increase GDP without considering the negative effects will cost more issue to digest by next generations. None realize the folly of nuclear weapons till international union and environmentalist call for attentions. Energy conservation is a worldwide issue that requires global consideration. Luckily we see countries like America already implement some methods to reduce the cost of living and doing business, however, other countries just realize but still not take any action yet. Those countries should be aware of the fact that everything has trade-off because they might pay more in future.

No single sector affects more people and industries than energy, and none is more deeply affected by the deposition by government. The best and most efficient way is the whole world conserves the energy simultaneously and collectively. Renewable energy or cheaper energy projects should get support; public awareness and mandatory measures should take into consider. Energy saving or reduction is a long life project that need all human beings to make a contribution, but it's clear that neither nation is offering a compelling vision on this issue.

陈述-观点–〉原因1-〉原因2-〉倡导解决的方法

Issue5

“All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares Responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.” To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from your own work or school experiences, your observations, or your reading.

1)For groups and organizations that are stable, it is reasonable to have a flat organizational structure.

2)For groups and organizations that are always confronted with emergencies, it is always better to give one certain person central authority and responsibility.

3)It is hard to say that one structure is necessarily better than the other. They all have advantages and disadvantages. And it is a case-by-case discussion.



The passage asserts that team work is more effective than central authority by giving explanations that everyone could make decisions and share the responsibilities in a team environment. A lot of research has analyzed the influence of management structure on the effects of results, and there is not fixed method till today to answer which way is more effective, team work or individual emphasis? My view is that each way has its own advantages and disadvantages. It depends on the organizations, industry, culture and the status of the company.

A flat organization, emphasizing on team work and sharing the responsibilities, has advantages on stable organization, big company with multiple products, and labor central type manufacturing companies. The allocated responsibilities and duties give workers the feeling of being important and necessary that motivated the employee to make more production at work. Putting a small portion from each individual’s wisdom together would make a marble result than any single individual could achieve. The fact has been approved by in manufacture industry that each individual work together in the assemble line, and then combine the parts together to make a product. Also, it is very common to see that a lot of companies offer their employee the stocks share to make the employee feel” work for his on”.

However, central authorization and responsibility can be an effective way to manage a project. Unlike group work, consuming more resources and time, central authorized organization usually work more effectively on small company, single product, service oriented and individual performance emphases. Sales will not perform better if he or she know that he or she will share the commission with others because it is very common to feel unfair to share the results with another people who did not achieve comparable results. In some organizations, it is a waste of resource to put more experienced people to work with very junior ones who do not have relevant experiences. In this case, it is not only waste resource but also degrade the motivation of senior people, why not assign to lead the junior ones? Because he or she could not only use his experience, but also explore his leadership skills.

In conclusion, there is no single answer to which method is more effective than correctly applying them in the right situations. The best and most effective way is to combine them together in an organization. Lower level employee could work together as a team to maximum individual contribution, while higher level management with more experience could be more central authorized to enhance the efficiency.

总结观点-解释-提出观点

陈述观点-解释观点-距离证明

总结观点，强调结论，提出建议

jannyguo

"Constant innovation and change within an organization are as likely to damage the organization as they are to improve it.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your experience, observations, or reading.

[tr][/tr][td=812][/td][tr][td=812]1) Summary -my view[/td][/tr][tr][td]2) Innovation are mere way to succeed for companies to keep competitive and avoid failure in today's competitions.[/td][/tr][tr][td]3) However, as the author says that innovations are likely to damage the organization[/td][/tr]

[tr][td=812]The passage asserts that constant innovations within an organization are more likely damage the organization than benefit from it. A lot of arguments rise recently regarding to whether innovation would really help the organization to be more competitive. Some say that innovations actually have more negative effects on the company, while others actually weight innovation more. My view is that organization is not just a change without thinking, and any company would benefit more from innovation if it can be applied properly.

Innovations are mere way to succeed for companies to keep competitive and avoid failure in today's competitions. Especially in technology companies, the competition actually depends on the renew speed of etch technology node. Same as in service industry, the company who has high quality products would not bother to look for customers, instead they are driving customer to improve their way of living. No matter we did realize or not, the world is changing with the emerge of new ideas. There are a lot companies failed to catch up with the innovations that end up of bankrupt. For example, Kodak, a company that used to occupy more than 80% of photographic industry in the last century, has announced bankrupt because of it can not compete with digital camera today. Same as Nokia, we all know that Nokia was famous for the good quality, however, the last year annual report showed a market share dropped almost to less than 10%. Innovation, which is not just a change, is a improve that changed our life easier and better.

However, as the author says that innovations are likely to damage the organization. Innovation is everywhere and any innovation has a cost. Technology Company has to invest for the research and development to drive new market, which sometimes planed from several years before the new product announced. In this case, the top management need to make sure the product work, and the market people need to drive in correct direction. Otherwise the stock holder will feel unsafe and the employee will feel unstable. There is one company that used to be the top1 in that industry, however, the product market share dropped so much that from the domain product to less than 10% market share, in this case would you think the innovation is correct?

No single factor affects people and industries more than innovation, and none is more deeply affected by the proper use of organization, just as no one can deny the significance of competitive abilities. In a face a innovation, a company is easy to realize the importance of innovation and competition, however, the innovation is easily ignorant when the company become rich or the organization become big. The best way to keep competition is proper use innovations, which can attract talents, and keep their high competition.

gina2012

我真心觉得你写得很好很好

之前还自吹自己英文好, 汗

jannyguo

最近写的都有没有好意思贴出来   我4月8号考试 希望能拿到5分吧