無(wú)敵GMAT備考資料-作文+范文機(jī)經(jīng)AI.doc

13. “Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.”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.While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankinds best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war (n. 拔河, 兩派間的激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng)) among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason, and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale, government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation.Experience tells us that individuals (and private corporations owned by individuals) tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example, current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless, neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals.Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement, environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own. Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards.In the final analysis, only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility, government must do so.2. “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 worlds 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.The speaker asserts that an international effort is needed to preserve the worlds energy resources for future generations. While individual nations, like people, are at times willing to make voluntary sacrifices for the benefit of others, my view is that international coordination is nevertheless necessary in light of the strong propensity of nations to act selfishly, and because the problem is international in scope.The main reason why an international effort is necessary is that, left to their own devices, individual nations, like people, will act according to their short-term motives and self-interest. The mere existence of military weapons indicates that self-interest and national survival are every nations prime drivers. And excessive consumption by industrialized nations of natural resources they know to be finite, when alternatives are at hand demonstrates that self-interest and short-sightedness extend to the use of energy resources as well. Furthermore, nations, like people, tend to rationalize their own self-serving policies and actions. Emerging nations might argue, for example, that they should be exempt from energy conservation because it is the industrialized nations who can better afford to make sacrifices and who use more resources in the first place.Another reason why an international effort is required is that other problems of an international nature have also required global cooperation. For example, has each nation independently recognized the folly of nuclear weapons proliferation and voluntarily disarmed? No: only by way of an international effort, based largely on coercion of strong leaders against detractors, along with an appeal to self-interest, have we made some progress. By the same token (adv. 出于同樣原因), efforts of individual nations to thwart international drug trafficking have proven largely futile, because efforts have not been internationally based. Similarly, the problem of energy conservation transcends national borders in that either all nations must cooperate, or all will ultimately suffer.In conclusion, nations are made up of individuals who, when left unconstrained, tend to act in their own self-interest and with short-term motives. In light of how we have dealt, or not dealt, with other global problems, it appears that an international effort is needed to ensure the preservation of natural resources for future generations.15. “Nations should cooperate to develop regulations that limit childrens access to adult material on the Internet.” *The Internet is a worldwide computer network.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.The issue here is whether an international effort to regulate childrens access to adult material on the Internet is worthwhile. In my view, nations should attempt to regulate such access by cooperative regulatory effort. I base this view on the universality and importance of the interest in protecting children from harm, and on the inherently pandemic nature of the problem.Adults everywhere have a serious interest in limiting access by children to pornographic material. Pornographic material tends to confuse childrendistorting their notion of sex, of themselves as sexual beings, and of how people ought to treat one another. Particularly in the case of domination and child pornography, the messages children receive from pornographic material cannot contribute in a healthy way to their emerging sexuality. Given this important interest that knows no cultural bounds, we should regulate childrens access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.However, information on the Internet is not easily contained within national borders. Limiting access to such information is akin to preventing certain kinds of global environmental destruction. Consider the problem of ozone depletion thought to be a result of chloroflourocarbon (CFC) emissions. When the government regulated CFC production in the U.S., corporations responsible for releasing CFCs into the atmosphere simply moved abroad, and the global threat continued. Similarly, the Internet is a global phenomenon; regulations in one country will not stop “contamination” overall. Thus, successful regulation of Internet pornography requires international cooperation, just as successful CFC regulation finally required the joint efforts of many nations.Admittedly, any global regulatory effort faces formidable political hurdles, since cooperation and compliance on the part of all nationseven warring onesis inherently required. Nevertheless, as in the case of nuclear disarmament or global warming, the possible consequences of failing to cooperate demand that the effort be made. And dissenters can always be coerced into compliance politically or economically by an alliance of influential nations.In sum, people everywhere have a serious interest in the healthy sexual development of children and, therefore, in limiting childrens access to Internet pornography. Because Internet material is not easily confined within national borders, we can successfully regulate childrens access to adult materials on the Internet only by way of international cooperation.40. “With the increasing emphasis on a global economy and international cooperation, people need to understand that their role as citizens of the world is more important than their role as citizens of a particular country.”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.With the growth of the global economy and the need for international cooperation, every human being has assumed a role as citizen of the world. Does this mean that our roles as citizens of our respective nations are thereby superseded by our role as world citizens, as the speaker suggests? Not at all. Good citizenship at one level is often compatible with good citizenship at another. In fact, being a good citizen in one social domain can help one be a better citizen in another.Good global citizenship is not incompatible with good citizenship at other levels. Consider, for example, ones efforts as a citizen to preserve the natural environment. One particular person might, for example: (1) lobby legislators to enact laws preserving an endangered redwood forest, (2) campaign for nationally-elected officials who support clean air laws, and (3) contribute to international rainforest (n. 雨林) preservation organizations. This one person would be acting consistently as a citizen of community, state, nation and world.Admittedly, conflicting obligations sometimes arise as a result of our new “dual” citizenship. For example, a U.S. military official with an advisory role in a United Nations peace-keeping force might face conflicting courses of actionone that would secure U.S. military interests, and another that would better serve international interests. However, the fact that such a conflict exists does not mean that either action is automatically more obligatorythat is, that ones role as either U.S. citizen or world citizen must invariably supersede the other. Instead, this situation should be resolved by carefully considering and weighing the consequences of each course of action.Moreover, being a good citizen in one social context can often help one be a better citizen in another. For example, volunteering to help underprivileged children in ones community might inspire one to work for an international child-welfare organization. And inculcating civic valuessuch as charity and civic pridemay give rise to personal traits of character that transfer to all social domains and contexts.In sum, although our “dual” citizenship may at times lead to conflicts, one role need not automatically take precedence over the other. Moreover, the relationship between the two roles is, more often than not, a complementary oneand can even be synergistic.33. “People are likely to accept as a leader only someone who has demonstrated an ability to perform the same tasks that he or she expects others to perform.”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.People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust.It is difficult for people to fully respect a leader who cannot, or will not, do what he or she asks of others. President Clintons difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief (n. 總司令) serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was well known that he had evaded military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a computer engineer earned the respect of his employees.It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the test, he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive and largely bungled attempt to solve the problem of gays ( 同性戀者, 尤指男性同性者) in the military. In stark contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II.In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.114. “Technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together.”Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your posit ion with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.I believe there is some truth to the speakers claim that technology separates and alienates people. However, there is certainly at least as much evidence that technology serves best to bring people together.The most obvious way that technology separates and alienates people from one another is symbolized by the computer nerd (nerd: n. 討厭的人, 卑微的人an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially: one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits *computer nerds*) sitting glazed-eyed (adj. 面無(wú)表情的, 目光呆滯的) before his computer screen in a basement, attic, bedroom, or office cubicle. While this scene is a caricature, of course, its true that practically everybody who uses email or surfs (transitive senses: to scan the offerings of as television or the Internet for something that is interesting or fills a need) the Internet does so alone, with only his or her computer for company (adv. 陪著). And, to the extent that computer use increases the amount of time we collectively spend in solitary activities, it increases the amount of time we spend separated from our fellow humans.On the other hand, technology has been a wonderful aid in bringing people together, or, in many cases, back together. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have become connected with quite a number of people via email with whom I might never have spoken otherwise. These include old friends with whom I had fallen out of (fall out of: v. 放棄習(xí)慣等) the habit of writing regular letters but with whom I now correspond regularly because of the ease with which email can be sent and delivered.A second way in which the new technology has brought people together is by allowing individuals who have common interests to make contact with one another. It is possible to find people who share ones interest in nearly anything, from aardvarks (n. 動(dòng)土豚) to zippers. Such contacts may be ephemeral, but they can be a great source of information and amusement as well. I would hazard (VENTURE, RISK *hazard a guess as to the outcome*) a guess that for each person who sits neurotically (neurotic: of, relating to, constituting, or affected with neurosis) at home, eschewing personal contacts with others in favor of an exclusive relationship with his computer, there are hundreds of others who have parleyed their email capacity and their access to the Web into a continuous succession of new acquaintances.In sum, it seems clear to me that technology has done more to bring people together than to isolate them.45. “The most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics.”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.The speaker claims that following high ethical standards is the best way to maximize profits in the long run. However, this claim seems to be more of a normative statement than an empirical observation. The issue is more complex than the speaker suggests. In my observation, the two objectives at times coincide but at other times conflict.In many ways behaving ethically can benefit a business. Ethical conduct will gain a company good reputation that earns repeated business. Treating suppliers, customers and others fairly is likely to result in their reciprocating. Finally, a company that treats its employees fairly and with respect will gain their loyalty which, in turn, usually translates into higher productivity.On the other hand, taking the most ethical course of action may in many cases reduce profits, in the short run and beyond. Consider the details of a merger in which both firms hope to profit from a synergy (n.最佳協(xié)合作用,企業(yè)合并后的協(xié)力優(yōu)勢(shì)) gained thereby. If the details of the merger hinge on (v. 靠.轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng), 以.為轉(zhuǎn)移) the ethical conviction that as few employees as possible should lose their jobs, the key executives may lose sight of the fact that a leaner, less labor-intensive organization might be necessary for long-term survival. Thus, undue concern with ethics in this case would results in lower profits and perhaps ultimate business failure.This merger scenario points out a larger argument that the speaker misses entirely-that profit maximization is per se the highest ethical objective in private business. Why? By maximizing profits, businesses bestow a variety of important benefits on their community and on society: they employ more people, stimulate the economy, and enhance healthy competition. In short, the profit motive is the key to ensuring that the members of a free market society survive and thrive. While this argument might ignore implications for the natural environment and for socioeconomic (of, relating to, or involving a co