澳际学费在线支付平台
悉尼大学商学国贸双硕士毕业，现居澳洲，在澳学习生活15+年，从事教育咨询工作超过10年，澳洲政府注册教育顾问，上千成功升学转学签证案例，定期受邀亲自走访澳洲各类学校
您所在的位置： 首页> 新闻列表> gmat机经8-9月gmat作文机经AI(至8.26)(三).
以下澳际留学更新2011gmat机经，以下2011年8月-9月gmat作文机经更新，AI，8月20日至8月26日，共42题。希望大家的gmat考试顺利!
7. 本月机经2次
政府是否应该对businesses和organizations进行监管还是让他们自己建立standards来benit society
No.132
“Governments should not be responsible for regulating businesses and other organizations. Instead, society would benit if the organizations themselves assumed responsibility for establishing and enforcing their own standards and regulations.”
“政府不应该对规范企业和其他组织负责。相反，如果组织自身承担建立和执行他们自己的标准和规范的责任，那么社会会得利。”
1. Admittedly, the goveronment should not regulate the business or other organizations too much. Too much supervision will harm the development of the business or an organization.
2. Let the business alone to regulate itself will also cause problems. The ultimate goal of the business is to gain benit, therore all the activities will serve this pivotal goal even at the expense of the social benit.
3. The ideal combination can be the midst.
参考观点
1. too much interference from the government would undoubtedly impede the development of businesses and organizations. 1, 政府干涉过多可能或扼杀企业的积极性positivity. 显然如果没有自主决定the power of independently making decisions, 那么eventually, lead to the less active economy. 2, 政府过度的exorbitant干涉可能会打乱市场发展的自然规律disturb the natural order of the market. 比如regulation on the type of product 可能市场上的excessive demand or supply.
2. 但是也不是说政府should assume no necessary supervision over the business. 首先, 毕竟,企业的一切行为都是为了利益最大化. 缺乏管理,很可能产生很多negative results.政府有义务确保keep the national market in healthy condition. 如果缺乏suitable regulation, 有可能会出现恶性的竞争inordinate competition. 又比如Enron cheat on the financial condition. 第二, 政府有时要帮助企业度过recession.依靠企业自身的力量, 可能不能overcome the huge destroy of the recession.
3. 要有适当的regulation, 同时adequate freedom. 才能健康地发展.
View1: if organizations are allowed to establish their own regulations, the enforcement of regulations will be enhanced and the governmental burden of organizations will be released.
View2: however, the lack of authoritative and uniform regulations will ultimately do harm to both organizations and entire society.
Evidence: disturb of market order, monopoly, unfair competition.
To society: Unqualified products, high prices, environmental pollution, waste of resources
Do harm to international trade because the lack of uniform standards and the assurance of credit.
8. 本月机经2次
不牺牲个人生活就不能取得professional achievement.
题库39 “It is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of a fulfilling personal life.”
提供观点：
1. 两者并不矛盾而是相互促进相辅相成
2. 科学技术的进步使人更高效率的工作也能让人更好的协调两者的关系
3. 诚然一定的牺牲是必然要做出的但是绝对不是生活中的重要方面
1. cost of living, growing population, increasingly scarce resource… all contribute to a radical competitive society. 是客观条件force people to work longer hours, 自然, 无法避免地剥夺了人们的personal life. 这一点在很多发展中国家尤其明显:缺乏社会福利lack of social welfare, 人口膨胀population explosion, 人们面临更大的失业压力.
2. 而反对这种观点的人说, 先进的科技已经帮助人们沟通更加便利,提高效率, 甚至在家中办公, 已经大大地减少了对个人生活的压榨. 但是close scrutiny will reveal that 事实上,这种进步,更加剧了exacerbate人们工作的强度intensity. 提高的效率, 更要求人们一天干更多事, 在家中办公的可能, 也被充分地利用成了加班overtime.
View1: a fulfilling personal life guarantees a healthy mind and energetic body which enhance professional performance.
View2: Having a joyful career to devote to also in turn help to ensure a fulfilling personal life.
View3: if to achieve professional success must have something to sacrifice, the things may not necessarily the important aspects of personal lives.
北美范文：
Are professional success and a fulfilling personal life mutually exclusive? Probably not, although it is more difficult today to achieve both.
Undeniably, today’s professionals must work long hours to keep their heads above water, let alone to get ahead in life financially. This is especially true in Japan, where cost of living, coupled with corporate culture, compel professional males to all but abandon their families and literally to work themselves to death. While the situation here in the states (United States) may not be as critical, the two-income family is now the norm, not by choice but by necessity.
However, our society’s professionals are taking steps to remedy the problem. First, they are inventing ways—such as job sharing and telecommuting—to ensure that personal life does not take a backseat to career. Second, they are setting priorities and living those hours outside the workplace to the fullest. In fact, professional success usually requires the same time-management skills that are usul to find time for family, hobbies, and recreation. One need only look at the recent American presidents—Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter—to see that it is possible to lead a balanced life which includes time for family, hobbies, and recreation, while immersed in a busy and successful career. Third, more professionals are changing careers to ones which allow for some degree of personal fulfillment and self-actualization. Besides, many professionals truly love their work and would do it without compensation, as a hobby. For them, professional fulfillment and personal fulfillment are one and the same.
In conclusion, given the growing demands of career on today’s professionals, a fulfilling personal life remains possible by working smarter, by setting priorities, and by making suitable career choices.
9. 本月机经2次
Scientists are continually redining the standards for what is benicial or harmful to the environment. Since these standards keep shifting, companies should resist changing their products and processes in response to each new recommendation until those recommendations become government regulations.”
“科学家在不断重新制定对环境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的标准。由于这些标准不停变动，面对新建议，公司应该保持他们的产品和流程不变直到新的建议成为国家标准为止。”
提供观点：
1. 科学家的建议也并不一定都是正确的。很有可能他的结论适用面很窄。或者他所得到的数据有错误等等。
2. 对企业来说频繁的变更产品和生产流程会造成很大的经济损失
3. 诚然等待国家制定标准很可能存在滞后等问题但是比较起来以上的问题还是应该等待国家制定标准。此外一个折中的方案是国家成立专门的机构快速地对新的方案和建议做出评价并迅速制定标准
北美范文：
The speaker argues that because scientists continually shift viewpoints about how our actions affect the natural environment, companies should not change their products and processes according to scientific recommendations until the government requires them to do so. This argument raises complex issues about the duties of business and aboutregulatory fairness and fectiveness. Although a wait-and-see policy may help companies avoid costly and unnecessary changes, three countervailing considerations compel me to disagree overall with the argument.
First, a regulatory system of environmental protection might not operate equitably. At first glance, a wait-and-see response might seem fair in that all companies would be subject to the same standards and same enforcement measures. However, enforcement requires detection, and while some violators may be caught, others might not. Moreover, a broad regulatory system imposes general standards that may not apply equitably to every company. Suppose, for example, that pollution from a company in a valley does more damage to the environment than similar pollution from a company>in the extreme, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly rlect scientific recommendations. However, this claim is somewhat dubious. Companies with the most money and political influence, not the scientists, might in some cases dictate regulatory standards. In other words, legislators may be more influenced by political expediency and campaign pork than by societal concerns.
Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous fects>EPAmight be overburdened with its detection and enforcement duties, thereby allowing continued environmental damage by companies who have not yet been caught or who appeal penalties.
In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation bore reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker’s recommended approach would in many cases operate inequitably among companies: moreover, it ignores the political-corruption factor as well as the potential environmental damage resulting from bureaucratic delay.
以上澳际留学更新2011年gmat机经，以上2011年8月-9月gmat作文机经更新，AI，8月20日至8月26日，共42题。希望大家的gmat考试顺利!
gmat机经8-9月gmat作文机经AI(至8.26)(三)gmat作文gmat作文机经以下澳际留学更新2011gmat机经，以下2011年8月-9月gmat作文机经更新，AI，8月20日至8月26日，共42题。希望大家的gmat考试顺利!
7. 本月机经2次
政府是否应该对businesses和organizations进行监管还是让他们自己建立standards来benit society
No.132
“Governments should not be responsible for regulating businesses and other organizations. Instead, society would benit if the organizations themselves assumed responsibility for establishing and enforcing their own standards and regulations.”
“政府不应该对规范企业和其他组织负责。相反，如果组织自身承担建立和执行他们自己的标准和规范的责任，那么社会会得利。”
1. Admittedly, the goveronment should not regulate the business or other organizations too much. Too much supervision will harm the development of the business or an organization.
2. Let the business alone to regulate itself will also cause problems. The ultimate goal of the business is to gain benit, therore all the activities will serve this pivotal goal even at the expense of the social benit.
3. The ideal combination can be the midst.
参考观点
1. too much interference from the government would undoubtedly impede the development of businesses and organizations. 1, 政府干涉过多可能或扼杀企业的积极性positivity. 显然如果没有自主决定the power of independently making decisions, 那么eventually, lead to the less active economy. 2, 政府过度的exorbitant干涉可能会打乱市场发展的自然规律disturb the natural order of the market. 比如regulation on the type of product 可能市场上的excessive demand or supply.
2. 但是也不是说政府should assume no necessary supervision over the business. 首先, 毕竟,企业的一切行为都是为了利益最大化. 缺乏管理,很可能产生很多negative results.政府有义务确保keep the national market in healthy condition. 如果缺乏suitable regulation, 有可能会出现恶性的竞争inordinate competition. 又比如Enron cheat on the financial condition. 第二, 政府有时要帮助企业度过recession.依靠企业自身的力量, 可能不能overcome the huge destroy of the recession.
3. 要有适当的regulation, 同时adequate freedom. 才能健康地发展.
View1: if organizations are allowed to establish their own regulations, the enforcement of regulations will be enhanced and the governmental burden of organizations will be released.
View2: however, the lack of authoritative and uniform regulations will ultimately do harm to both organizations and entire society.
Evidence: disturb of market order, monopoly, unfair competition.
To society: Unqualified products, high prices, environmental pollution, waste of resources
Do harm to international trade because the lack of uniform standards and the assurance of credit.
上123下
共3页
阅读全文Amy GUO 经验： 16年 案例：4272 擅长：美国,澳洲,亚洲,欧洲
本网站（www.aoji.cn，刊载的所有内容，访问者可将本网站提供的内容或服务用于个人学习、研究或欣赏，以及其他非商业性或非盈利性用途，但同时应遵守著作权法及其他相关法律规定，不得侵犯本网站及相关权利人的合法权利。除此以外，将本网站任何内容或服务用于其他用途时，须征得本网站及相关权利人的书面许可，并支付报酬。
本网站内容原作者如不愿意在本网站刊登内容，请及时通知本站，予以删除。
