2011年7

文章作者 100test 发表时间 2011:08:05 20:07:42
来源 100Test.Com百考试题网

　　The most effective business leader has highest ethtical standards.
　　最effective的商业领袖也是道德水平最高的。
　　题库原题：“The most effective business leaders are those who maintain the highest ethical standards.”
　　提供观点：
　　1、 反面的例子可以是说如果从最高的道德规范来看有些污染环境的行业根本就不应该存在。但是从企业的长期发展来看以及从社会的福利最大化来看，只要污染控制在一定范围就好。如化工厂只要把排污控制在国家规定的范围就好。
　　道德不明确，每个人的标准不一样；法律立法时符合大多数人的要求明确具体；时滞可以用提高立法效率来解决
　　2、 支持者会认为, 高道德会赢得reputation and trust. 第一, 高道德生产高质量的产品以及service,顾客稳定stable share of the market. 第二, 高道德会让员工满意度提高(公平，平等). 从而attract those applicants with high ability and keep the employees loyal to the company---最终导致高的productivity.
　　例子：Bayer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, announced that the company would cease production of one of its major products, because of the hazardous ingredients it contained. By doing so, the company suffers great loss on profitability, but gains strong public support and understanding, which can contribute to the long-term success of the company.
　　3、 但在更多的情况下, 高道德也许不equal to maximal profit. 比如,a, 如果把道德放在第一位的话,企业的executive很可能无法执行裁员活动complete the normal administration, such as raising the price, reducing the superabundant staff… b, 高道德的话，很可能采用最高标准的环保生产——这样很不是cost-effective. 总之，Following such undue concern about ethics, the company may find it impossible to survive in the radical competitive market, let alone to gain large profit.
　　View1: the definition of highest standards of ethics varies from person to person and time to time. Therefore, it is impractical to find and then stick to the highest standards of ethics.
　　View2: the regulations and laws of authorities are more feasible and suitable standards to follow.
　　View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of eliminating the ill actions, we can count on the authorities to speed up the process of refining the laws and regulations.
　　范文：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.最佳协合作用,企业合并后的协力优势) gained thereby. If the details of the merger hinge on (v. 靠..转动, 以..为转移) 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 combination of social and economic factors) justice, it is a compelling argument nonetheless.
　　Thus the choice to follow high ethical standards should not be made by thinking that ethical conduct is profitable. While in some cases a commitment to high ethical standards might benefit a company financially, in many cases it will not. In the final analysis, businesses might best be advised to view their attempts to maximize profits as highly ethical behavior.
　　6. 参加公共服务不仅利于国家也利于个人
　　题库原题：No.34 “All citizens should be required to perform a specified amount of public service. Such service would benefit not only the country as a whole but also the individual participants.”
　　34. “所有的市民都应该被要求完成一定量的公共服务。这样的服务将不但从整体上给国家带来好处，也能给个人的参与者带来好处。”
　　提供观点：
　　1. 比起专业的公共服务组织，所有的公民都完成一定的公共服务显得比较低效率。因为我们是在一个高度专业化分工十分明晰的社会，放弃专业的公共服务组织而采取强制性的公民义务形式的服务会使得效率十分低下，而且也会让大多数 人不满，毕竟每个人都有自己的职业和爱好。
　　2. 管理成本的高昂也是该计划难以贯彻的一个原因。这项决定潜在上要求了要有人监督每个公民是否履行了自己的义务，也要有人给每个公民分配任务.
　　3. 诚然就象作者所说的那样确实会从整体上给国家带来一定的好处，同时给每个参与的人提供和更多人交流等机会，但是在权衡利弊之后尤其是在和专业化组织对比之后还是得不偿失的be not worth the candle mandatory compulsory ...be weighed against ...
　　individual compliance enforcement nullify stifle incompetence competent tantamount to 等价 insofar as... . 对于国家和社会的好处：首先，强制性mandatory social work可以增加人力资源——因为social work的wage比较低，所以在非强制的情况下，只有少数人愿意参加，这样导致了人员的不足；广泛的参与extensive participation可以引起大家的重视——激发人们更加爱护公共设施,从而降低整个expense on the maintaining. 因为公共设施becomes a aggregation of the hard work of all the citizens. 人们不付出努力,就不会珍惜
　　2. 对参与者的好处: The principal thing in this world is to keep one’s soul aloft. Flaubert（the great novelist）公共服务可以使人们更加意识到自己的社会责任感duty, 也同时有益于平时的工作. 可以增加人与人的交流, 在完全没有压力的环境下, 心灵得到放松.
　　3. 当然, 完全强制有可能引起stimulate抵触emotion of repellence, 也要注意方法,同时不要影响正常的工作.
　　View1: public service, a main approach to show social responsibilities, benefits both the county and the participants.
　　View2: When becomes a burden and stress to the participants, public service harm not only individual performers but also entire society. Cost of enforcement, reduction of efficiency, increase of abhorrence.
　　北美范文：
　　The potential benefits of mandatory public service must be weighed against administrative problems and concerns about individual liberty. On balance (adv. 总而言之), the costs to a nation and to the participants would probably exceed the benefits.
　　Admittedly, a colorable (adj.似是而非的) argument can be made for mandatory public service. It would help alleviate “free-rider” problems, where those who do not contribute benefit from the efforts of those who do. It would mitigate pressing social problems—with education, public health and safety, and the environment. It might instill in participants a sense of civic duty, community, and individual responsibility. Finally, it has worked on a smaller scale, particularly in urban areas, where renewal projects succeed in making communities safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
　　Far more compelling, however, are the arguments against mandatory public service. First, who would make assignments and decide what projects are worthwhile, and how would compliance be assured? Resolving enforcement issues would require government control, in turn requiring increased taxes and/or cuts in other social programs, thereby nullifying the benefits of mandatory public service. Second, a mandatory system would open the floodgates to incompetence and inexperience. Finally, the whole notion seems tantamount to Communism insofar as each citizen must contribute, according to his or her ability, to a strong state. Modern history informs us that such systems do not work. One could argue that mandatory public service is simply a tax in the form of labor rather than dollars. However, compulsory labor smacks (v. 带有..风味) of involuntary servitude, whereas financial taxes do not.
　　In conclusion, logistical and philosophical barriers to mandating public service outweigh its potential benefits for the nation as well as for participants.