2017年gmat機(jī)經(jīng),7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)AI(至7.20)(十三).

　　澳際留學(xué)整理2011年gmat機(jī)經(jīng)，下面是2011年7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)，AI共39題，2011年7月5日至7月20日。前1-24題見 2011gmat機(jī)經(jīng),7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)AI(至7.12)(一) 祝大家GMAT考試順利!

39. scientists&apos standards about which is good for environment and which will pollute environment are always changed. Companies resist on changing their products and process bore these standards become governments official regulations.

我恨這個(gè)jj的作者。。。

題庫(kù)原題No.42 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.”

42. “科學(xué)家在不斷重新制定對(duì)環(huán)境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。由于這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不停變動(dòng)，面對(duì)新建議，公司應(yīng)該保持他們的產(chǎn)品和流程不變直到新的建議成為國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為止?！?/p>

提供觀點(diǎn)：

1. 科學(xué)家的建議也并不一定都是正確的。很有可能他的結(jié)論適用面很窄?；蛘咚玫降臄?shù)據(jù)有錯(cuò)誤等等。

2. 對(duì)企業(yè)來說頻繁的變更產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)流程會(huì)造成很大的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失

3. 誠(chéng)然等待國(guó)家制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)很可能存在滯后等問題但是比較起來以上的問題還是應(yīng)該等待國(guó)家制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外一個(gè)折中的方案是國(guó)家成立專門的機(jī)構(gòu)快速地對(duì)新的方案和建議做出評(píng)價(jià)并迅速制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

split the difference lag evaluate

View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,

View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therore do harm to the companies .

View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.

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 about regulatory fairness and fectiveness. Although a wait-and-see (adj. 觀望的) 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 on the coast. It would seem unfair to require the coastal company to invest as heavily in abatement or, in the extreme (adv. 非常, 極端), 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 (pork: government money, jobs, or favors used by politicians as patronage) than by societal concerns.

Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous fects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur bore regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency 美國(guó)環(huán)保署) might 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.

　　以上澳際留學(xué)整理2011年gmat機(jī)經(jīng)，2011年7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)，AI共39題，2011年7月5日至7月20日。前1-24題見 2011gmat機(jī)經(jīng),7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)AI(至7.12)(一) 澳際留學(xué)祝大家考試順利!

　　澳際留學(xué)整理2011年gmat機(jī)經(jīng)，下面是2011年7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)，AI共39題，2011年7月5日至7月20日。前1-24題見 2011gmat機(jī)經(jīng),7月gmat作文機(jī)經(jīng)AI(至7.12)(一) 祝大家GMAT考試順利!

39. scientists&apos standards about which is good for environment and which will pollute environment are always changed. Companies resist on changing their products and process bore these standards become governments official regulations.

我恨這個(gè)jj的作者。。。

題庫(kù)原題No.42 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.”

42. “科學(xué)家在不斷重新制定對(duì)環(huán)境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。由于這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不停變動(dòng)，面對(duì)新建議，公司應(yīng)該保持他們的產(chǎn)品和流程不變直到新的建議成為國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為止?！?/p>

提供觀點(diǎn)：

1. 科學(xué)家的建議也并不一定都是正確的。很有可能他的結(jié)論適用面很窄。或者他所得到的數(shù)據(jù)有錯(cuò)誤等等。

2. 對(duì)企業(yè)來說頻繁的變更產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)流程會(huì)造成很大的經(jīng)濟(jì)損失

3. 誠(chéng)然等待國(guó)家制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)很可能存在滯后等問題但是比較起來以上的問題還是應(yīng)該等待國(guó)家制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外一個(gè)折中的方案是國(guó)家成立專門的機(jī)構(gòu)快速地對(duì)新的方案和建議做出評(píng)價(jià)并迅速制定標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 上123下

共3頁(yè)