In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

The extent to which the broadcast media should be censored for offensive language and behavior involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.

First of all, I believe that exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the language and behavior they are exposed to.

Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.

Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests served by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining tobscenet or toffensivet language or behavior. But in my view, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.

In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior. Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.

AWAts Answer

The censorship and regulation of broadcast media for offensive material involves a conflict

between the freedom of expression and the duty of government to protect its citizenry from

potential harm. I believe that our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to

obscenity produces takes precedence over the freedoms of individual broadcasters.

Firstly, I believe exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior causes people to

mimic such behavior. There is anecdotal and scientific evidence to support this contention.

Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is damaging to a society. It weakens

moral character and weakens human relationships and it promotes a tendency toward immoral and

antisocial behavior. These effects weaken the civil cords that hold a democratic society together.

Some argue for that free speech is the basis of a democratic society. However, the founding

fathers never intended the constitution to mean an unrestricted license to wanton profanity.

Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining 'obscene' or 'offensive'

language or behavior. But, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is

beneficial insofar as it helps to maintain the civil cords of a democratic society.

In conclusion, government should take a role in regulating speech, but only speech that is

patently offensive. Regulation of media may infringe on freedom of speech, but it is worthwhile if

it can restrict the exposure of damaging offensive material.

2. tIt 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 worldts energy resources for future generations.t

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 worldts 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 nationts 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. ͬԭ), 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.

3. tCorporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A tflatt organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.t

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.

Which is a better way to classify and reward employees of a business: a tflatt organizational structure or a hierarchical structure? The speaker prefers a tflatt structure in which distinctions between employees based on education or experience are not used as a basis for monetary rewards. I strongly disagree with the speakerts view, for two reasons.

In the first place, the speakerts preference for a tflatt structure is based upon the claim that cooperation and collegiality among employees is more likely under this system than under a hierarchical one. However, this claim ignores our everyday experience in human interaction. Disagreements among coworkers are inevitable. Without a clear authoritative figure to resolve them and to make final decisions, disputes are more likely to go unresolved and even worsen, thereby undermining cooperation, congeniality and, ultimately, productivity and profit.

In the second place, whether or not collegiality and cooperation are best fostered by a flat organizational structure is beside the point (adj. a,s,AS). My main reason for rejecting an organizational structure that does not distinguish workers in terms of their abilities or experience is that under such a system workers have little incentive to improve their skills, accomplish their work-related goals, or assume responsibility for the completion of their assigned tasks. In my experience, human motivation is such that without enticements such as money, status or recognition, few people would accomplish anything of value (of value: мֵA) or assume responsibility for any task. A flat system actually might provide a distinct disincentive for productivity and efficiency insofar as workers are not held accountable for the quality or quantity of their work. By ignoring human nature, then, a company may be harming itself by encouraging laziness and complacency.

In sum, the speakerts opinion that a tflatt organizational structure is the best way to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees runs counter to the common sense about how people act in a work environment, and in any case (in any case: adv.ITAsI) provides a feeble rationale for the preference of one organizational structure over another.

4. tOf all the manifestations* of power, restraint in the use of that power impresses people most.t

* manifestations: apparent signs or indicators

Explain what you think this quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Develop your position with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from history, current events, or your own experience, observations, or reading.

This quote means essentially that people admire powerful individuals who do not use their power to the utmost (adv. ) to achieve their goals but rather use only the minimum amount required to attain them. While this view is admirable in the abstract (adv. , A), the statement is inaccurate in that it fails to reflect how people actually behave.

The popularity of trevenget movies aptly illustrates that many people are not impressed with individuals who use restraint when exercising their power. In these movies the protagonist is typically portrayed as having certain physical abilities that would enable him to easily defeat the various adversaries he encounters. In the initial confrontations with these individuals he typically refrains from using his abilities to defeat them. The audience, however, soon grows tired of this, and when the hero finally loses control and completely demolishes his opponent, they burst into applause. This homey example strongly suggests that many people are more impressed with the use of power than with the restraint of its use.

The Gulf War provides another example of a situation where restraint in the use of power was not widely acclaimed. When the allied forces under the command of General Schwartzkoff showed restraint by not annihilating the retreating Iraqi army, the general was widely criticized by the public for not using the force available to him to eliminate this potential enemy once and for all (adv. ׵,һݵ). This example shows once again that often people are not impressed by individuals who exhibit restraint in using their power.

In conclusion, the examples cited above clearly indicate that, contrary to the view expressed in the quote, manytSif not mosttSpeople are more impressed with individuals who utilize their power to the utmost than with those who exercise restraint in the use of their power.

5. tAll 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.t

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.

Which is a more productive method of performing a group task: allowing all group members to share in the decision making, duties and responsibilities, or appointing one member to make decisions, delegate duties and take responsibility? The speakerts opinion is that the first method is always the best one. In my view, however, each of these alternatives is viable in certain circumstances, as illustrated by two very different examples.

A jury in a criminal trial is good example of a group in which shared decision-making, duties, and responsibility is the most appropriate and effective way to get the job done. Each member of the jury is on equal footing with the others. While one person is appointed to head the jury, his or her function is to act as facilitator, not as leader. To place ultimate authority and responsibility on the facilitator would essentially be to appoint a judge, and to thereby defeat the very purpose of the jury system.

By way of contrast, a trauma unit in a hospital is a case in which one individual should assume responsibility, delegate duties and make decisions. In trauma units, split-second (split-second: adj.˲䷢A) decisions are inherently part of the daily routine, and it is generally easier for one person to make a quick decision than for a team to agree on how to proceed. One could argue that since decisions in trauma units are typically life-and-death (adj. صA, شA) ones, leaving these decisions to one person is too risky. However, this argument ignores the crucial point that only the most experienced individuals should be trusted with such a burden and with such power; leaving decisions to inexperienced group members can jeopardize a patientts very life.

In conclusion, I agree that in some situations the best way to accomplish a task is through teamwork-sharing responsibility, duties and decision making. However, in other situations, especially those where quick decisions are necessary or where individual experience is critical, the most effective means is for one individual to serve as leader and assume ultimate responsibility for completing the job.

6. tThere is only one definition of success tS to be able to spend your life in your own way.t

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this definition of success? Support your position by using reasons and examples from your reading, your own experience, or your observation of others.

The speaker here defines success simply as the ability to choose how to spend onets life. Under this definition, people who have the freedom to do whatever they want at any time (at any time: adv.IsIʱs) they choose would presumably be the most successful ones, while those who have no such freedom would be the biggest failures. Viewing the definition in this light reveals three serious problems with it.

The chief problem with this definition of success is that by the definition nearly all people would be regarded as failures. The reason for this is simple. Most people have extremely limited choices in what they can do and when they can do it. In other words, unrestricted freedom of choice is a luxury only a few peopletSperhaps a handful of (adj. ,һt) tyrannical dictators and ultra-wealthy individualstScan afford.

Secondly, people who have a high degree of freedom in choosing their lifestyle often acquire it through means that would not earn them the accolade of being successful. For example, lottery winners or people who inherit a great deal of money may be able to spend their life in any way they choose, but few people would regard them as successful merely due to their financial fortune.

A third reason this definition of success is unacceptable is that it repudiates some of our basic intuitions about success. For most people, success is related to achievement. The more you achieve, the more successful you are; conversely, the less you achieve the less successful you are. Defining success in terms of freedom of choice ignores this intuition.

In sum, the proposed definition of success is far too limiting, and it belies our intuition about the concept. I think that most people would agree with me that success is better defined in terms of the attainment of goals.

7. tThe best way to give advice to other people is to find out what they want and then advise them how to attain it.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Some people think that the best way to advise people is simply to find what they want and help them attain it? In my view, this method is generally not the best way to proceed in advising others; it ignores the plain truth that many people do not know what they want and do not know what is best for them.

My main reason for rejecting this technique is that people very rarely have any clear idea of what they want. This applies not only to consumer items such as clothing, cars and luxury items but also to what they want out of life in general. In fact, numerous studies have shown that most people cannot list the ten things they want most out of life, even if given considerable time to think about it.

My second reason for rejecting this method is that more often than not (ʱ) what people want is not what is best for them. Parents continually face this problem when advising their children. For example, suppose a child wants to quit school and get a job. Surely, the parents would be derelict in helping their child attain this want instead of convincing the child that continuing education would be in his or her best interest.

Admittedly, following the proposed advising method would result in a high rate of compliance, since the person being advised would act consistently with his or her own will by following the advice. However, as noted above, acting according to what one wants is not necessarily desirable. Proponents of this method might also point to college counselors as models of this technique. However, college counselors should not necessarily be held up as models for advising people generally, let alone as models for advising students.

In conclusion, I do not agree that the best way to advise people is to find what they desire and help them achieve it. In my estimation the pitfalls of such a technique outweigh any of its potential advantages.

8. tFor hundreds of years, the monetary system of most countries has been based on the exchange of metal coins and printed pieces of paper. However, because of recent developments in technology, the international community should consider replacing the entire system of coins and paper with a system of electronic accounts of credits and debits.t

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 prospect of converting the worldts monetary system of metal coins and printed paper into a computerized system of credits and debits is intriguing. Opponents of the idea regard a digital economy as a dangerous step toward a totalitarian society in which an elite class dominates an information-starved lower class. My view, however, is that conversion to a digital economy has far-reaching economic and social virtues that outweigh the potential risk of misuse by a political elite.

Supporters of the idea of tdigital casht view the move to a digital economy as the next logical step toward a global system of free trade and competition. Herein (adv. ڴ, a) lies the main virtue of a digital economy. In facilitating trade among nations, consumers worldwide would enjoy a broader range of goods at more competitive prices.

In addition, a digital economy would afford customers added convenience, while at the same time saving money for businesses. Making purchases with electronic currency would be simple, fast, and secure. There would be no need to carry cash and no need for cashiers to collect it. A good example of the convenience and savings afforded by such a system is the tpay and got gasoline pump used at many service stations today. Using these pumps saves time for the customer and saves money for the business.

A third benefit of such a system is its potential to eliminate illegal monetary transactions. Traffickers of illegal arms and drugs, dealers in black-market contraband, and counterfeiters all rely on tangible currency to conduct their activities. By eliminating hard currency, illegal transactions such as these would be much easier to track and record. As a result, illegal monetary transactions could be virtually eliminated. A related benefit would be the ability to thwart tax evasion by collecting tax revenues on transactions that otherwise would not be recorded.

To sum up, I think it would be a good idea to convert current monetary systems into a system of electronic accounts. The economic benefits, convenience and savings afforded by such a system, along with the potential to reduce crime, far outweigh the remote loss of a significant social or political shift toward totalitarianism.

9. tEmployees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.t

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.

Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization.

Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal informationtSas a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employeets family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social eventstSpicnics, parties, excursions, and so forthtSalso help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into (v. , SIS) better working relationships.

Admittedly, employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers. Excessive chatting about non-business topics, frequent personal telephone calls, and the like, are always distracting. And romances between coworkers are best kept confidential, at least to the extent they disrupt work or demoralize or offend other employees. By the same token, however, employees who are too alooftSsharing nothing personal with otherstSmay be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization.

In the final analysis, employees should strike a careful balance (strike a balance: v. , ƽ) when they mix their personal lives with their jobs. Although there are some circumstances in which bringing onets personal life to the job may be counterproductive, for many reasons it is a good idea to inject small doses of personal life into the workplace.

10. tIn any enterprise, the process of making or doing something is ultimately more important than the final product.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The question at hand (adv. ֱ, ڸ, ) is whether the process of making or doing something is ultimately more important than the final product. Process may not always be more important than product, but it often is. A process may provide an opportunity for new and important discoveries with ramifications far beyond the current product; moreover, a process can often be an important end in and of itself for those engaged in it.

New discoveries are often unexpectedly made during routine processes. Such was the case with Alexander Fleming in 1928, who while conducting an unremarkable study of bacteria, discovered inadvertently that mold growing on one of his cultures was killing the bacteria. His ordinary process led to an unexpected and remarkable end: the development of penicillin.

Process also offers opportunities for refining old methods and inventing new ones. For example, as the defense industry slowed down after the cold war, many methods and technologies for weapons production proved useful in other areas from commercial aviation to medical technology. The same has been true of technologies developed for the space program, which now find broad application in many other fields.

Finally, in my observation and experience, people become caught up in processes primarily for the challenge and enjoyment of the activity, not merely to produce some product. Once the process has culminated in a final product, the participants immediately search for a new process to involve themselves with. From a psychological standpoint, then, people have a need to busy themselves with meaningful activitiestSi.e., processes. So most processes can fittingly be characterized as ends in themselves insofar as they fulfill this psychological need.

In sum, the process of making or doing something frequently has implications far beyond the immediate product. For this reason, and because process fills a basic human need, I strongly agree with the speakerts assertion the process is ultimately more important than product.

11. tWhen someone achieves greatness in any field tS such as the arts, science, politics, or business tS that personts achievements are more important than any of his or her personal faults.t

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.

Perhaps in some instances the personal failings of great achievers are unimportant relative to the achievements. In many cases, however, the relative significance of personal failings can be very great, depending on two factors: (1) the extent to which the failing is part of the achievement process itself, and (2) the societal impact of the achieverts failing apart from his or her own success.

Personal failings and achievement are often symbiotically related. The former test the would-be achieverts mettle; they pose challengestSnecessary resistance that drives one to achieve despite the shortcoming. Personal failings may also compel one to focus on onets strengths, thereby spawning achievement. For example, poor academic or job performance may propel a gifted entrepreneur to start his or her own business. In the arts, a personal failing may be a necessary ingredient or integral part of the process of achieving. Artists and musicians often produce their most creative works during periods of depression, addiction, or other distress. In business, insensitivity to the thumant costs of success has bred grand achievements, as with the questionable labor practices of the great philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.

A second type of personal failing is one that is unrelated to the achievement. Modern politics is replete with examples: the marital indiscretions of the great leader John F. Kennedy and the paranoia of the great statesman Richard Nixon, to name just two. Were the personal failings of these two presidents less timportantt than their achievements? In the former example, probably so. In the latter example, probably not since it resulted in the Watergate scandaltSa watershed event in American politics. In cases such as these, therefore, the societal impact of shortcoming and achievement must be weighed on a case-by-case basis.

In sum, history informs us that personal failings are often part-and-parcel (n. SAs) of great achievements; even where they are not, personal shortcomings of great achievers often make an important societal impact of their own.

12. tEducation has become the main provider of individual opportunity in our society. Just as property and money once were the keys to success, education has now become the element that most ensures success in life.t

In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Explain, using reasons and examples based on your own experience, observations, or reading.

Which factor offers more opportunities for success in our society: education or money and property? In my view, education has replaced money and property as the main provider of such opportunities today. I base my view on two reasons. First, educationtSparticularly higher education (ߵȽ)tSused to be available only to the wealthy but now is accessible to almost anyone. Second, because of the civil-rights movement and resulting laws, businesses are now required to hire on the basis of merit rather than the kinds of personal connections traditionally common among the wealthy.

Education probably always played a key role in determining onets opportunities for success. But in the past, good post-secondary education was available mainly to the privileged classes. Because money and property largely determined onets access to higher education, money and property really were the critical factors in opening doors to success. However, higher education is more egalitarian today. Given our vast numbers of state universities and financial-aid programs, virtually anyone who meets entrance requirements for college can obtain an excellent college education and open up windows of opportunity in life.

Another reason those opportunities will be open to educated young people from middle-class and poorer backgrounds is that hiring is more meritocratic today than ever before. In principle (ԭϣAϣͨon principle: ԭ򣨻A׼ԭ򣨻A׼), at least, we have always been a society where all people are equal; yet in the past, children of the wealthy and the well connected could expect to obtain higher-status jobs and to receive better pay. But the laws and programs resulting from our civil-rights struggles have produced a modern business climate in which jobs are available on an equal-opportunity basis, and in which candidates have a legal right to be judged on the merit of their educational background and experience.

In conclusion, education is probably the main factor in opening doors to success for young people in our society. The fact that education has supplanted money and property in this role is owing to a more egalitarian system of higher education, as well as to more merit-based hiring practices that generally value individual education over family fortune or connections.

13. tResponsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.t

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 humankindts best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war (n. Is, ɼAҾs) 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.

14. tOrganizations should be structured in a clear hierarchy in which the people at each level, from top to bottom, are held accountable for completing a particular component of the work. Any other organizational structure goes against human nature and will ultimately prove fruitless.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that all organizations should include a clear hierarchy of accountability because any other structure would work against human nature and therefore prove fruitless in the end. This claim gives rise to complex issues about human nature and the social structures best suited to it. In my view, the claim assumes a distortedly narrow view of human nature, ignoring certain aspects of it that are undermined by hierarchical structure in ways that ultimately hurt the organization.

First, the organizational structure the speaker recommends undermines the nexus between worker and product that facilitates efficiency and productivity. When employees are responsible for just their small component of work, they can easily lose sight of larger organizational goals and the importance of their role in realizing these goals. In turn, workers will feel alienated, unimportant, and unmotivated to do work they are proud of. These effects cannot help but damage the organization in the end.

Second, compartmentalizing tasks in a hierarchical structure stifles creativity. An acquaintance of mine worked for a company that had established a rigid organizational barrier between designers and engineers. The designers often provided the engineers with concepts that were unworkable from an engineering standpoint. Conversely, whenever an engineer offered a design idea that allowed for easier engineering, the designers would simply warn the engineer not to interfere. This is a typical case where organizational barriers operate against creativity, harming the organization in the end.

Third, strict hierarchy undermines the collegiality and cooperation among coworkers needed for a sense of common purpose and pride in accomplishment. The message from the designers to the engineers at my friendts company produced just the oppositetSresentment between the two departments, low morale among the engineers whose creative suggestions were ignored, and ultimate resignation to do inferior work with an attitude that developing ideas is a waste of time.

In sum, the speaker seems to assume that humans are essentially irresponsible and unmotivated, and that they therefore need external motivation by way of a layered bureaucratic structure. The speaker misunderstands human nature, which instead requires creative exercise and sense of purpose and pride in accomplishment. By stifling these needs with organizational barriers, the organization is ultimately worse off.

15. tNations should cooperate to develop regulations that limit childrents access to adult material on the Internet.t *

*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 childrents 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 childrentSdistorting 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 childrents 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 CFCts 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 tcontaminationt 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 nationstSeven warring onestSis 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 childrents access to Internet pornography. Because Internet material is not easily confined within national borders, we can successfully regulate childrents access to adult materials on the Internet only by way of international cooperation.

16. tPublic buildings reveal much about the attitudes and values of the society that builds them. Todayts new schools, courthouses, airports, and libraries, for example, reflect the attitudes and values of todayts society.t

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 extent to which new public buildings reflect societal values and attitudes depends on whether one considers a buildingts intended function or its design. In the former sense, new public buildings do mirror society, while in the latter sense they do not.

The intended uses of new public buildings say something about our priorities and values as a society. For example, proliferation of public cultural centers and schools reflects a societal concern for the arts and education, respectively, while new prison construction indicates a heightened concern for safety and security.

The design of new public buildings, however, fails to mirror society, for two reasons. First, modern democratic states do not have the luxury of making cultural tstatementst at any expense. Functionality and fiscal accountability dictate the face of public architecture today. Second, public participation in the process is limited. New buildings typically reflect the architectts eccentric vision or the preference of a few public officials, not the populacets values and attitudes. In England, for example, Prince Charles oversees and approves the design of new public buildings. The resulting conventional designs suggest his unwillingness to break from tradition. Yet it would seem unfair to assign his lack of vision to English society. In Denver, the controversial design of a new airport met with public outcry for its appearance, expense, and lack of functionality. Does the airport reflect the values of Denverts denizens? Probably not.

In conclusion, while modern public buildings seem to reflect the values and attitudes of a society in their function, they do not necessarily do so in their design.

17. tSome people believe that the best approach to effective time management is to make detailed daily and long-term plans and then to adhere to them. However, this highly structured approach to work is counterproductive. Time management needs to be flexible so that employees can respond to unexpected problems as they arise.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that a detailed time-management plan fails to afford adequate flexibility to deal with the unexpected at the workplace. He seems to offer an either/or choice between planning onets time rigidly, by detailing important daily as well as long-term plans, and not planning at all; and he prefers the second choice. The speakerts claim is overly simplistic, since it is possible for a detailed time-management plan to also provide flexibility.

Working at any job without a detailed road map (n. гͼ, AAͼ) for the immediate and longer-term can trivialize the efforts of both employees and organizational units so that all their efforts become aimless. The only sensible way proceed is to consider first onets most important long-term objectives; then an organizational unit and its employees can order daily and weekly tasks according to how much each adds to the achievement of those objectives. With a broader perspective, workers can eliminate from the list those daily activities that may seem urgent or may be most enjoyable but dontt really contribute to long-term job goals or to organizational objectives.

A detailed time-management system need not be inflexible. Knowing which items to eliminate from a tto-do (BUSTLE, STIR, FUSS)t list gives a time-management plan its flexibility. When the unexpected arises, it can be judged according to its role in fulfilling long-term goals. If what at first seemed urgent turns out not to be important, it can be deferred to another time or ignored altogether. But if something unexpected needs handling in order to fulfill an important business or life plan, it will take priority over lesser activities in the daily or weekly schedule. For instance, I might have a meeting planned for one otclock with coworkers to decide the location of an awards banquet, and find out at noon that an important client is thinking of switching to our competitor but wants to talk with me first. I can easily discern that the banquet meeting is less important than a critical meeting with a valuable client.

In conclusion, effective time management must involve a detailed scheduling of tasks. But it also requires determining which tasks are more central than others to the satisfaction of long-term objectives. This way, the daily or weekly schedule becomes not just a list of tasks to check off (vt. У,,aa), but a flexible plan that can accommodate important urgencies while allowing us to bypass less significant scheduled tasks and ignore unimportant interruptions.

18. tIf the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society.t

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

We take for granted that a primary objective and obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits. But does this mean a corporation cannot also fulfill its obligations to society? The speaker claims that the two duties necessarily conflict. In my view, however, a corporationts duties to maximize shareholder wealth and to serve society will at times coincide and at times conflict; and when they do conflict, neither takes automatic precedence over the other.

Beyond the obvious duty to maximize shareholder wealth, corporations indeed owe a duty to serve society, especially the immediate community, which permits corporations to operate in exchange for an implicit promise that the corporations will do no harm and will bring some benefit to the community. These duties can often be fulfilled together. For example, a successful corporation brings jobs and related economic benefit to the community. And, by contributing to community activities and changes in other ways, the corporation gains a reputation for social responsibility that often helps it become even more successful.

However, at times these duties do conflict. Consider, for instance, a company that unknowingly leaks into the ground a toxic substance that threatens to contaminate local groundwater. While the company may favor an inexpensive containment program, community leaders may want the company to go further by cleaning up and restoring their environmenttSeven if the expense will force the company to leave and take jobs from the community. Whatever the company decides, it should not assume that protecting profits automatically outweighs social obligation. In many instances it does not, as highly visible tobacco, automobile safety, and asbestos liability cases aptly illustrate. Such examples reveal a limit as to how far a corporation can ethically go in trading off the well being of the community for the sake of its own profits.

In sum, corporations have duties both to do well and to do good. Although conflict between these duties is not inevitable, it does occur. Determining which duty takes precedence in time of conflict requires careful consideration of all the ethical ramifications of each alternative.

19. Some employers who recruit recent college graduates for entry-level jobs evaluate applicants only on their performance in business courses such as accounting, marketing, and economics. However, other employers also expect applicants to have a broad background in such courses as history, literature, and philosophy.

Do you think that, in the application process, employers should emphasize one type of background tS either specialization in business courses or a more varied academic preparation tS over the other? Why or why not? Develop your position by using reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Sample Essay 1:

Whether an employer should emphasize specialization in business courses or a more varied academic preparation is a controversial one. On the one hand, the increasing diversification of business activities requires employees to have specialized knowledge. On the other hand, the capricious nature of the market needs employees to have a more varied academic preparation so that he could handle unexpected situations. However, in the final analysis, I believe that an employer should emphasize specialized knowledge in business courses.

One reason for my belief is that there are special requirements for each position of a company and only those who have adequate knowledge for the position can take the position. If everyone does his job well, the whole company will prosper.

Another reason for my belief lies in the fact that entry-level employees do not need a varied academic preparation, for they do not have to handle complicated situations. Unlike those of a senior staff member, their responsibilities are clearly defined in the job description.

Perhaps the best reason for my belief is that onets energy is limited. If the employer expects their employees to have a more varied academic preparation, college graduates will spend less time on their own special field of study. As a result, they may not have adequate special knowledge for their future positions.

For the reasons above I therefore believe that an employer should emphasize specialization in business courses in the application process. Although general knowledge is also important in many respects, a specialist is more useful for a company.

Sample Essay 2:

In recruiting for entry-level jobs, should employers stress a broad liberal arts education, a technical business background, or should employers favor neither one over the other? In my view, while the ideal job candidate has significant academic experience in both realms, whether employers should favor one type of background over the other depends on the nature of the particular job and the anticipated length of employment.

First, a strong business background is more critical for some entry-level jobs than for others. Fledgling accountants, financial analysts, and loan officers cannot perform optimally without a solid academic background in accounting, finance, and banking. Even in sales of financial products and services, new employees need extensive technical knowledge to educate the customer and to be effective salespeople. However, in other entry-level positionstSsuch as personnel, advertising and marketingtStechnical business knowledge may not be as critical as a broad experience with various types of people and an enlightened view of different cultures.

Second, the employerts hiring decision should also depend on the anticipated length of employment. In recruiting short-term workers, especially for positions that are labor intensive and where judgment and experience are not of paramount importance, the applicant who is strongly business-oriented may be the better choice. On the job, this applicant will probably be more pragmatic, and spend less time pondering the job and more time doing it. However, an employer looking for a long-term employee may be better served by hiring an applicant with a strong liberal arts background. By way of their more general education, these applicants have acquired a variety of general, transferable skills. They may be more adept than their colleagues with business-only backgrounds at recognizing and solving management problems, dealing with business associates from different cultures, and viewing issues from a variety of perspectives. All of these skills contribute to a personts lifelong ability to adapt to and even anticipate changes that affect the company, and to move easily into new positions as such changes demand.

In sum, recruiters for entry-level jobs should avoid preferring one type of applicant over another in all cases. Instead, recruiters should consider the immediate technical demands of the job as well as the prospect of advancement and long-term employment within the company.

20. tIn this age of automation, many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines. But, in fact, machines are continually improving our lives.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Sample Essay 1:

The issue of whether machines are an advantage or disadvantage to humans is a controversial one. On the one hand, humans are more and more dependent on machines. On the other hand, machines are making our lives better and better. However, in the final analysis, I believe that the advantages of machines outweigh their disadvantages.

One reason for my belief is that machines have made our lives much easier than before. For example, with help of my computer, I can navigate on the Internet everyday, searching for the information I need, while my automatic washing machine is doing my laundry for me. My mobile phone connects me with my friends and my office wherever I go. I cannot image what my life would be like without all these machines and devices.

Another reason for my belief is that machines can do many dangerous work for us. For example, a robot bomb expert can dismantle a bomb for the police so that no one will be hurt. Other robots can work under extreme weather conditions.

Perhaps the best reason for my belief is that machines have opened more and more possibilities for humans. For instance, a spaceship can take us to outer space where we had never dared to go. Likewise, a submarine can bring us to the bottom of the ocean, which used to be forbidden area to humans. I believe that there will be more machines doing hazardous jobs.

For all these reasons, I therefore believe that machines are so important to humans that we cannot do without them. Of course, machines have also brought with it many disadvantages. Such machines as calculators, cars, typewriters have made some people lazy, stupid, weak, and clumsy. However, whether machines are beneficial to humans depends on how you use them. We can use machines to save us time and then use the time to do more creative work or to enjoy life. Anyway, there are still more advantages than disadvantages. (326 words)

Sample Essay 2:

In some respects humans serve machines, while in other respects machines serve us by enhancing our lives. While mechanical automation may have diminished our quality of life on balance (adv. ֮ܶ), digital automation is doing more to improve our lives than to undermine our autonomy.

Consider first mechanical automation, particularly assembly line manufacturing. With automation came a loss of pride in and alienation from onets work. In this sense, automation both diminished our quality of life and rendered us slaves to machines in our inability to reverse tprogress.t Admittedly, mechanical automation spawned entire industries, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and supplying a plethora of innovative conveniences. Nevertheless, the sociological and environmental price of progress may have outweighed its benefits.

Digital automation has brought its own brand of alienation. Computer automation, and especially the Internet, breeds information overload and steals our time and attention away from family, community, and coworkers. In these respects, digital automation tends to diminish our quality of life and create its own legion of human slaves. On the other hand, by relegating repetitive tasks to computers, digital technology has spawned great advances in medicine and physics, helping us to better understand the world, to enhance our health, and to prolong our lives. Digital automation has also emancipated architects, artists, designers, and musicians, by opening up creative possibilities and by saving time. Perhaps most important, however, information technology makes possible universal access to information, thereby providing a democratizing influence on our culture.

In sum, while mechanical automation may have created a society of slaves to modem conveniences and unfulfilling work, digital automation holds more promise for improving our lives without enslaving us to the technology.

21. tJob security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.t

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.

According to the statement, in order to ensure high productivity, companies should base their employeest salaries and job security solely on job performance, and not on length of service to the company. I agree that salary increases and job security are powerful incentives to high achievement and should generally go to those who do the best work. However, to ensure employee productivity, companies must also reward tenured employees with cost-of-living raisestSthough not with job security.

On the one hand, rewarding average job performance with large pay increases or promises of job security is a waste of resourcestSfor two reasons. First, complacent employees will see no reason to become more productive. Secondly, those normally inclined to high achievement may decide the effort isntt worthwhile when mediocre efforts are amply compensated. Companies should, therefore, adjust their pay schedules so that the largest salaries go to the most productive employees.

On the other hand, employees who perform their jobs satisfactorily should be given regular, though small, service-based pay increasestSalso for two reasons. First, the cost of living is steadily rising, so on the principle of fair compensation alone, it is unjust to condemn loyal employees to de facto salary reductions by refusing them cost-of-living raises. Secondly, failure to adjust salaries to reflect the cost of living may be counterproductive for the firm, which will have difficulty attracting and retaining good employees without such a policy.

In the final analysis, the statement correctly identifies job performance as the single best criterion for salary and job security. However, the statement goes too far; it ignores the fact that a cost-of-living salary increase for tenured employees not only enhances loyalty and, in the end, productivity, but also is required by fairness.

22. tClearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced.t

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker here argues that government must support the arts but at the same time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit rationale for government intervention in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social fabric will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive arguments that government should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.

First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor a necessary job for government. Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a societyts very survival and therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend tenuously to our cultural thealtht or well being. A lack of private funding might justify an exception; in my observation, however, philanthropy is alive and well today, especially among the new technology and media moguls.

Second, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as arts patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is unconscionable (ITƵAȵA) to relegate normative decisions as to which art has tvaluet to a few legislators and jurists (ѧңѧ, who may be unenlightened in their notions about art. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of those lobbyists with the most money and influence.

Third, restricting artistic expression may in some cases encroach upon the constitutional right of free expression. In any case, governmental restriction may chill creativity, thereby defeating the very purpose of subsidizing the arts.

In the final analysis, government cannot philosophically or economically justify its involvement in the arts, either by subsidy or sanction. Responsibility lies with individuals to determine what art has value and to support that art.

23. tSchools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for teaching ethical and social values.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker asserts that schools should teach only academic skills, and not ethical or social values. I agree with the speaker insofar as instruction on certain moral issues is best left to parents and churches. However, in my view it is in the best interests of a democratic society for schools to teach at least the values necessary to preserve freedom and a democratic way of life, and perhaps even additional values that enrich and nurture a society and its members.

We all have in interest in preserving our freedom and democratic way of life. At the very least (prep. iT), then, schools should provide instruction in the ethical and social values required for our democracy to survivetSparticularly the values of respect and tolerance. Respect for individual persons is a basic ethical value that requires us to acknowledge the fundamental equality of all people, a tenet of a democratic society. Tolerance of differences among individuals and their viewpoints is required to actualize many of our basic constitutional rightstSincluding life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and freedom of speech and religion.

While respect and tolerance are the minimal values that schools should teach, the list should ideally go furthertSto include caring, compassion, and willingness to help one another. A democracy might survive without these values, but it would not thrive. Respect and tolerance without compassion, it seems to me, breed a cool aloofness that undermines our humanity, and leaves those in the worst position to suffer more and suffer alonetSan unhealthy state for any society.

Admittedly, schools should avoid advocating particular viewpoints on controversial moral issues such as abortion or capital punishment. Instruction on issues with clear spiritual or religious implications is best left to parents and churches. Even so, schools should teach students how to approach these kinds of issuestSby helping students to recognize their complexity and to clarify competing points of view. In doing so, schools can help breed citizens who approach controversy in the rational and responsible ways characteristic of a healthy democracy.

In sum, schools should by all means refrain from indoctrinating our young people with particular viewpoint on controversial questions of morality. However, it is in a democratic societyts interest for schools to inculcate the democratic values of respect and tolerance, and perhaps even additional values that humanize and enrich a society.

24. tA powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than does any government official.t

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.

Historical examples of both influential public officials and influential business leaders abound. However, the power of the modern-era business leader is quite different from that of the government official. On balance, the CEO seems to be better positioned to influence the course of community and of nations.

Admittedly the opportunities for the legislator to regulate commerce or of the jurist to dictate rules of equity are official and immediate. No private individual can hold that brand of influence. Yet official power is tempered by our check-and-balance system (Լƽsaƶ) of government and, in the case of legislators, by the voting power of the electorate. Our business leaders are not so constrained, so, their opportunities far exceed those of any public official. Moreover, powerful business leaders all too often seem to hold de facto legislative and judicial power by way of their direct influence over public officials, as the Clinton Administrationts fund-raising scandal of 1997 illuminated all too well.

The industrial and technological eras have bred such moguls of capitalism as Pullman, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gates, who by the nature of their industries and their business savvy, not by force of law, have transformed our economy, the nature of work, and our very day-to-day (adj. ճA, յA) existence. Of course, many modern-day public servants have made the most of their opportunitiestSfor example, the crime-busting mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the new-dealing President Franklin Roosevelt. Yet their impact seems to pale next to those of our modern captains of industry.

In sum, modem business leaders by virtue of the far-reaching impact of their industries and of their freedom from external constraints, have supplanted lawmakers as the great opportunists of the world and prime movers of society.

25. tThe best strategy for managing a business, or any enterprise, is to find the most capable people and give them as much authority as possible.t

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.

Is the most effective management approach to hire the best people, then to give them as much autonomy as possible to serve the firmts goals? This strategy would certainly enhance an employeets sense of involvement, purpose and personal worth. It would also benefit the firm by encouraging employees to work creatively and productively. But the strategy requires two constraints to operative effectively.

First, the strategy must be constrained by strong leadership that provides clear vision and direction. Simply putting the most capable people together, and letting them loose on projects will provide neither. Thinking so involves the mistaken assumption that just because the parts of a whole are good, the collection of the parts into a whole will be equally good. Business organizations are more than just the sums of their excellent parts; to be similarly excellent, the organization must also be unified and cohesive. And it is strong and visionary leadership that provides these two ingredients.

Second, the strategy must be constrained by an organizational structure that brings all individual efforts together as a coherent whole. Of course, structure can be crippling, heavily layered; overly bureaucratic organizations probably stifle more creative productivity than they inspire. Still, individuals will be capable at some things and not others, so some organization of efforts is always called for. The moderatetSand perhaps optimaltSapproach would be to create a structure that gives individuals some authority across areas relating to their field of expertise, while reserving final authority for higher-level managers. For example, no individual in a finance department should have much authority over a design department. However, within the design department, individual researchers, artists, drafters, and engineers can all contribute meaningfully to one anotherts projects, and a flexible organizational structure would allow them to do so.

In sum, the advice to hire the best people and give them wide authority requires modification. Hiring capable people and granting them some concurrent authority across areas related to their expertise is better advice. Moreover, solid leadership and a cohesive organizational structure are prerequisitestSboth are needed to coordinate individual efforts toward the accomplishment of common goals.

26. tLocation has traditionally been one of the most important determinants of a businessts success. The importance of location is not likely to change, no matter how advanced the development of computer communications and others kinds of technology becomes.t

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.

In retail, or tstorefront (n. ͷ, A),t business, location is still a key ingredient of business success. The extent to which this will continue to be true, given the inexorable growth of Internet commerce, will vary among industries.

In more traditional retail sectors, such as clothing, cosmetics, and home improvement, an in-person (adv. , aA) visit to a retail store is often necessarytSto try on (v. Դ, ) clothes for fit, compare fragrances, or browse among a full selection of textures, colors, and styles. Also, activities such as shopping and dining out are for many consumers enjoyable experiences in themselves, as well as excuses to get out of the house and mingle with others in their community. Finally, shipping costs for large items such as appliances and home-improvement items render home shopping impracticable. Thus, burgeoning technologies pose no serious threat to Main Street, and location will continue to play a pivotal role in the fate of many retail businesses.

Nevertheless, technology-related industries are sure to move away from physical storefronts to virtual ones. Products that can be reduced to digital tbits and bites,t such as books and magazines, recordings, and software applications, are more efficiently distributed electronically. Computer hardware will not disappear from Main Street quite so quickly, though, since its physical look and feel enters into the buying decision. Computer superstores should continue to thrive alongside companies such as Dell, which does not distribute through retail stores.

In conclusion, consumer demand for convenient location will continue with respect to certain tangible products, while for other products alternative distribution systems will gradually replace the storefront, rendering location an obsolete issue.

27. tA companyts long-term success is primarily dependent on the job satisfaction and the job security felt by the companyts employees.t

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.

I agree that job satisfaction is an important factor in determining whether a company will be successful in the long term. However, other factors typically play just as vital a role in the ultimate success or failure of a business. At the same time, job security is becoming decidedly unimportant for many employees and, in any event, often leads to substandard job performance.

I agree that business success is more likely when employees feel satisfied with their jobs. Employees who dislike the workplace or their jobs are not likely to reach their potential performance levels; they may tend to arrive late for work, perform their tasks in an unimaginative and sluggish manner, or take excessive sick leaves. Nevertheless, a firmts long-term success may equally result from other factors such as finding a market niche for products, securing a reputation for quality products and services, or forming a synergistic alliance with a competitor. This list hardly exhausts all the factors that can contribute to a firmts ultimate success, and no one of themtSincluding job satisfactiontSis pivotal in every case.

While job satisfaction clearly boosts employee morale and contributes to the overall success of a company, the same cannot be said for job security. Admittedly an employee worried about how secure his or her job is might be less creative or productive as a result. By the same token, however, too much confidence in the security of onets job can foster complacency, which, in turn, may diminish employeest creativity and productivity. Moreover, many employees actually place job security relatively low on the list of what they want in a job. In fact, more and more workers today are positively uninterested in long-term job security; instead, they are joining firms for the sole purpose of accomplishing near-term professional goals, then leaving to face the next challenge.

To sum up, the claim at issue overrates the importance of job satisfaction and security by identifying them as the key factors in a companyts long-term success. Job satisfaction among employees is very important, but it is not clearly more important than many other factors. At the same time, job security is clearly less important, and even unimportant in some cases.

28. tBecause businesses use high-quality advertising to sell low-quality products, schools should give students extensive training in how to make informed decisions before making purchases.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This argument is untenable for two reasons. First, the claim that high-quality ads are used to promote tow-quality products is unsupported empirically and by common sense. Second, undue attention by schools to consumerism (nȨ˶) is unnecessary and inappropriate, especially for younger students.

Regarding the first reason, empirical evidence does not suggest that high-quality advertising is used to promote low-quality products. To the contrary (adv. ෴), companies that produce low-quality products seem to resort to low-budget, poor-quality ads, especially in broadcast media. Firms that take pride in the quality of their products are far more likely also to produce ads they can be proud of. Furthermore, high-quality products are more likely to succeed in the marketplace and thereby generate the revenues needed to ensure high production value in advertising.

As for the second reason, it is not the job of our schools to breed legions of smart shoppers. Teachers should devote class time to examining the market place of ideas, not that of consumer goods and services, which students spend sufficient time examining outside the classroom. Admittedly consumerism and advertising may be appropriate topics for college-level marketing and psychology courses. However, undue focus on media and materialism may give younger students a distortedly harrow view of the world as little more than a flea market. Additionally, revealing the deceptive side of the advertising business may breed unhealthy cynicism among youngsters, who need positive messages, not negative ones, during their formative years.

In sum, the premise that high-quality ads tout low-quality products is specious at best; in any event, for schools to provide extensive training in consumerism would be to assign them an inappropriate role and to foster in impressionable minds a distortedly narrow and unhealthy view of the world.

29. tToo many people think only about getting results. The key to success, however, is to focus on the specific task at hand and not to worry about results.t

What do you think this piece of advice means, and do you think that it is, on the whole, worth following? Support your views with reasons and/or examples drawn from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This advice means fundamentally that if we focus our attention on the details of a project rather than on the end product (isIiղƷ), the result will be better than if we proceed the other way around (adv. ෴). Admittedly, this advice has some merit; by focusing on the details at hand one is less likely to become discouraged by the daunting or overwhelming tasks ahead in an ambitious project. Otherwise, however, I think this advice is poor,

The central problem with this advice is that focusing attention completely on the task at hand without reference to how that task is related to the end product would be virtually impossible to do. The reason for this is simple. Without some reference to a goal or a result we would have no idea of what task to perform in the first place. As a result, the various tasks we engage in would be somewhat random and, in turn, no matter how diligent and careful we were in performing them the likelihood of producing worthwhile or successful end products would be minimal.

To ensure good results, one should instead take a balanced approach to the task at hand (adv. ֱ, ڸ, ). By a balanced approach I mean paying attention to both the desired result and the specific tasks that are required to achieve it. House building provides a good example of this approach. The house plan not only contains a rendering of the finished product but also contains detailed drawings and descriptions of each of the specific components required to ensure a successful result. Moreover, the order of the tasks is determined with reference to this result. In my estimation, virtually all successful projects proceed in the fashion illustrated in this example.

In sum, I dontt think that the advice offered in the statement is worth following. In my view, following this advice is more likely to produce unsuccessful results than successful ones.

30. tCompanies benefit when they discourage employees from working extra hours or taking work home. When employees spend their leisure time without tproducingt something for the job, they will be more focused and effective when they return to work.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

According to this statement, companies would be well advised to discourage employees from working overtime or from taking projects home, since employees are more productive when they return to the job after a break from their work. While I agree with this policy in general, on some occasions the company stands to benefit more from asking employees to forego (variant of FORGO: give up) leisure time than from insisting they be rested and refreshed when they come to work.

In the normal course of business operations, companies benefit when they discourage employees from putting in long hours or from taking work home. Breaks from work provide opportunities to enjoy outside interests and activities, and to spend important time with friends and family. Employees who make time for relationships and leisure activities will find that they return to the job refreshed and with new perspectives on the challenges they face at work. Both of these factors contribute to clearer focus on the task at hand and greater efficiency.

At the same time, every organization is familiar with the press of crucial deadlines and other crisis situations. At such times a company should call upon employees to work overtime, and even to take projects home, especially when doing so might make the difference between the businesst success or failure. Moreover, it is in the companyts best interest to reward the devoted worker accordinglytSnot in order to encourage workaholic (s) habits but rather to foster (rathersAӦAԭI!) good will and loyalty.

In sum, I agree that encouraging employees to make a habit of working after hours or taking work home is generally counterproductive for an enterprise. Nevertheless, in exceptional situations, especially where the company is at great risk, calling on employees to forego their ordinary schedules and to work overtime is well justified.

31. tFinancial gain should be the most important factor in choosing a career.t

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.

Financial gain is certainly one factor to consider when selecting a career. But many people do not, and should not, focus on this factor as the main one. The role that money plays in career choice should depend on the priorities, goals and values of the particular person making the choice.

The main problem with selecting a career primarily on the basis of money is that for many people to do so would be to ignore onets personal values, needs, and larger life goals. Indeed, many people appreciate this notion when they choose their career. For example, some people join one of the helping professions, such as nursing, teaching or social work, well aware that their career will not be financially lucrative. Their choice properly stems from an overriding altruistic desire, not from an interest in financial gain. Others choose to pursue intellectual or creative fulfillmenttSas writers, artists, or musicianstSknowing that they are trading off dollars for non-tangible rewards. Still others forego economic gain to work as full-time parents; for these people, family and children are of paramount importance in life. Finally, many people subordinate economic prospects to their desire to live in a particular location; these people may place a high value on recreation, their physical health, or being near a circle of friends.

Another problem with focusing primarily on money when selecting a career is that it ignores the notion that making money is not an end in the end of itself, but rather a means of obtaining material goods and services and of attaining important goalstSsuch as providing security for oneself and onets family, lifelong learning, or freedom to travel or to pursue hobbies. Acknowledging the distinction, one may nevertheless select a career on the basis of moneytSsince more money can buy more goods and services as well as the security, freedom, and time to enjoy them. Even so, one must strike a balance, for if these things that money is supposed to provide are sacrificed in the pursuit of money itself, the point of having moneytSand of onets career selectiontShas been lost.

In conclusion, economic gain should not be the overriding factor in selecting a career. While for a few people the single-minded pursuit of wealth may be fulfillment enough, most people should, and indeed do, temper the pursuit of wealth against other values, goals, and priorities. Moreover, they recognize that money is merely a means to more important objectives, and that the pursuit itself may undermine the achievement of these objectives.

32. tYou can tell the ideas of a nation by its advertisements.t

In order to determine whether advertisements reflect a nationts ideas, it is necessary to determine whether advertisements present real ideas at all, and, if so, whose ideas they actually reflect. On both counts, it appears that advertisements fail to accurately mirror a nationts ideas.

Indisputably, advertisements inform us as to a nationts values, attitudes, and prioritiestSwhat activities are worthwhile, what the future holds, and what is fashionable and attractive. For instance, a proliferation of ads for sport-utility vehicles reflects a societal concern more for safety and machismo (A than for energy conservation and frugality, while a plethora of ads for inexpensive on-line brokerage services reflects an optimistic and perhaps irrationally exuberant economic outlook. However, a mere picture of a social more, outlook, or fashion is not an tideattSit does not answer questions such as twhyt and thowt?

Admittedly, public-interest advertisements do present ideas held by particular segments of societytSfor example, those of environmental and other public-health interest groups. However, these ads constitute a negligible percentage of all advertisements, and they do not necessarily reflect the majorityts view. Consequently, to assert that advertisements reflect a nationts ideas distorts reality. In truth (adv. Aʵ,Aȷ,˵ʵڵA,ʵ,), they mirror only the business and product ideas of companies whose goods and services are advertised and the creative ideas of advertising firms. Moreover, advertisements look very much the same in all countries. Western and Eastern alike. Does this suggest that all nations have essentially identical ideas? Certainly not.

In sum, the few true ideas we might see in advertisements are those of only a few business concerns and interest groups; they tell us little about the ideas of a nation as a whole.

33. tPeople 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.t

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 Clintonts difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief (n. ˾i) 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 (<Aٵ> ͬ, ָAͬ) 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.

34. tAll 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.t

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 potential benefits of mandatory public service must be weighed against administrative problems and concerns about individual liberty. On balance (adv. ֮ܶ), the costs to a nation and to the participants would probably exceed the benefits.

Admittedly, a colorable (adj.ǶǵA) argument can be made for mandatory public service. It would help alleviate tfree-ridert problems, where those who do not contribute benefit from the efforts of those who do. It would mitigate pressing social problemstSwith 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. ..I) 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.

35. tBusiness relations are infected through and through with the disease of short-sighted motives. We are so concerned with immediate results and short-term goals that we fail to look beyond them.t

Assuming that the term tbusiness relationst can refer to the decisions and actions of any organizationtSfor instance, a small family business, a community association, or a large international corporationtSexplain the extent to which you think that this criticism is valid. In your discussion of the issue, use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, your observation of others, or your reading.

I agree with the speaker that decisions and actions of businesses are too often tinfectedt by short-sighted motives. Admittedly, attention to immediate results and short-term goals may be critical, and healthy, for survival of a fledgling company. However, for most established businesses, especially large corporations, failure to adequately envision the long-term implications of their actions for themselves and for others is all-too common and appropriately characterized as a tdisease.t

The business world is replete with evidence that companies often fail to envision the long-term implications of their actions for themselves. Businesses assume excessive debt to keep up with booming business, ignoring the possibility of a future slowdown and resulting forfeiture or bankruptcy. Software companies hastily develop new products to cash in on (v. ss..׬Ǯ, ˻A) this yearts fad, ignoring bugs and glitches in their programs that ultimately drive customers away. And manufacturers of inherently dangerous products cut safety corners (concern?) to enhance short-term profits, failing to see the future implications: class action liability suits, criminal sanctions, and shareholder revolts.

Similarly, businesses fail to see implications of their actions for others. Motivated only by the immediate bottom line, movie studios ignore the deleterious effects that movie violence and obscenity may have on their patrons and on the society at large. Captains of the energy industry pay lip service to environmental ramifications of unbridled energy use for future generations, while their real concern is with ensuring near-term dependence on the industryts products or services. And manufacturers of dangerous products do a long-term disservice to others, of course, by cutting corners in safety and health.

In sum, I think the criticism that businesses are too concerned with immediate results and not concerned enough with the long-term effects of their actions and decisions is for the most part a fair assessment of modern-day business.

36. tBusinesses and other organizations have overemphasized the importance of working as a team. Clearly, in any human group, it is the strong individual, the person with the most commitment and energy, who gets things done.t

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 relationship between teamwork and individual strength, energy, and commitment is complex; whether they operate in a complementary or antagonistic manner depends on: (1) the goals toward which the traits are directed, (2) the degree of emphasis on teamwork, and (3) the job of the individual within an organization.

A personts ability to work effectively in a team is not in consistent per se with personal strength, energy, and commitment. If exercised in a self-serving mannertSfor example, through pilfering or back stabbingtSthese traits can operate against the organization. Conversely, if directed toward the firmts goals, these traits can motivate other team members, thereby advancing common goals. World War II generals Patton and Rommel understood this point and knew how to bring out the best individual qualities in their troops, while at the same time instilling a strong sense of team and common purpose.

Nevertheless, over-emphasizing teamwork can be counterproductive for an organization. A successful team requires both natural leaders and natural followers; otherwise, a team will accomplish little. Undue emphasis on teamwork may quell initiative among natural leaders, thereby thwarting team goals. Also, teamwork can be overemphasized with a commissioned sales force of highly competitive and autonomic individuals. Overemphasis on teamwork here might stifle healthy competition, thereby defeating a firmts objectives. In other organizational areas, however, teamwork is critical. For example, a product-development team must progress in lock-step () fashion toward common goals, such as meeting a rollout deadline.

In sum, individual strength, commitment, and energy can complement a strong team approach; as long as individual autonomy is not undermined, all can operate in a synergistic manner to achieve an organizationts goals.

37. tSince science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.t

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.

Because scientific knowledge is increasingly important in our technological world and in the practical world of jobs and careers, schools should devote sufficient time to teaching mathematics and science. This is not to say, however, that schools should devote less time to the arts or humanities. To the contrary, in a technological age the study of arts and humanities is probably more important than evertSfor three reasons.

First of all, studying the arts and humanities can help students become better mathematicians and scientists. For example, recent studies of cognitive development show that studying music at an early age can strengthen a childts later grasp of mathematics. And understanding philosophical concepts has helped scientists recognize their own presuppositions, and frame their central questions more accurately.

Secondly, studying the creative and intellectual achievement of others helps inspire our own creativity and intellectual questioning. This is particularly important in an era dominated by technology, where we run a serious risk of becoming automatons who fit neatly into the efficient functioning of some system.

Finally, technology is valuable as an efficient means to our important goals. But neither technology, nor the science on which it is founded, decides which goals are best, or judges the moral value of the means we choose for their attainment. We need the liberal arts (IAs) to help us select worthwhile ends and ethical means.

In conclusion, schools should not devote less time to the arts and humanities. These areas of study augment and enhance learning in mathematics and science, as well as helping to preserve the richness of our entire human legacy while inspiring us to further it. Moreover, disciplines within the humanities provide methods and contexts for evaluating the morality of our technology and for determining its proper direction.

38. tCourtesy is rapidly disappearing from everyday interactions, and as a result, we are all the poorer for it.t

From your perspective, is this an accurate observation? Why or why not? Explain, using reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that simple courtesy and good manners are disappearing from modern life, and that the quality of our lives is therefore deteriorating. While I do encounter frequent instances of discourtesy and bad manners, I also encounter many instances of the opposite behavior. For this reason, and because negative experiences tend to be more memorable and newsworthy (adj. бֵA), I find the speakerts claim to be dubious.

Most people encounter multiple instances of ordinary courtesy and good manners every daytSsimple acts such as smokers asking whether anyone minds if they light up, people letting others with fewer items ahead in grocery-store lines, and freeway drivers switching lanes to accommodate faster drivers or those entering via on-ramps. Admittedly, most people also encounter discourtesy or poor manners on a daily basistSpeople using obscene language in public places where young children are present, and business associates intentionally ignoring phone calls, to name a few. However, such acts do not prove that good manners and courtesy are disappearing; they simply show that both courtesy and discourtesy abound in everyday life. Thus the claim that courtesy and good manners are disappearing grossly (adv. ǳ, , s) distorts reality.

Another reason that the claim is suspect is that we tend to remember negative encounters with people more so than positive ones, probably because bad experiences tend to be more traumatic and sensational, if not more interesting to talk about. The news stories that the media chooses to focus on certainly support this rationale. However the fact that we remember, hear about, and read about discourtesy more than about courtesy shows neither that discourtesy is increasing nor that courtesy is decreasing. It simply shows that negative experiences leave stronger impressions and tend to be more sensational. In fact, I suspect that if one were to tally up (vt.ܽ,һ) onets daily encounters with both types of behavior, one would conclude that good manners and courtesy are far more prevalent than the opposite behavior.

In conclusion, the speakerts claim that common courtesy and good manners are disappearing is not born out by everyday experience. I suspect the speaker has failed to consider that negative experiences leave stronger impressions on our memory and are more interesting to relate () to others than positive ones.

39. tIt is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of a fulfilling personal life.t

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.

Are professional success and a fulfilling personal life mutually exclusive? Probably not, although it is more difficult today to achieve both.

Undeniably, todayts professionals must work long hours to keep their heads above water (keep onets heads above water: v. AaaA֮, sծ), 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 (adv. s, iһa) 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 societyts professionals are taking steps to remedy the problem. First, they are inventing waystSsuch as job sharing and telecommuting (Զ̽,Զ̰칫)tSto ensure that personal life does not take a backseat (n. s, ISIA) 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 useful to find time for family, hobbies, and recreation. One need only look at the recent American presidentstSClinton, Bush, Reagan, and CartertSto 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 (n. Iʵ,IǱַ). 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 (n. ͬһ, ȫһA).

In conclusion, given the growing demands of career on todayts professionals, a fulfilling personal life remains possible by working smarter, by setting priorities, and by making suitable career choices.

40. tWith 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.t

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, onets 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. ) 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 tdualt citizenship. For example, a U.S. military official with an advisory role in a United Nations peace-keeping force might face conflicting courses of actiontSone 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 obligatorytSthat is, that onets 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 onets community might inspire one to work for an international child-welfare organization. And inculcating civic valuestSsuch as charity and civic pridetSmay give rise to personal traits of character that transfer to all social domains and contexts.

In sum, although our tdualt 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 onetSand can even be synergistic.

41. tThe best way to preserve the natural environment is to impose penaltiestSwhether fines, imprisonment, or other punishmentstSon those who are most responsible for polluting or otherwise damaging it.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Imposing heavy penalties on those who pollute or destroy the environment is one way to preserve our environment. But it is not the only way; nor is it the best way. Penalties may elicit grudging compliance, but other approachestSthose that instill a sense of genuine commitmenttSare likely to be more effective in the long term.

Admittedly, motivating compliance with environmental regulations by way of penalties will serve environmental goals up to a point. The deterrent effect of these remedies cannot be denied. Yet it should not be overstated. Some businesses may attempt to avoid punishment by concealing their activities, bribing (lobbying) legislators to modify regulations, or moving operations to jurisdictions (n. ȨT,Ͻ) that allow their environmentally harmful activities. Others might calculate the trade-off (, ƽsa) between accepting punishment and polluting, budget in advance for anticipated penalties, then openly violate the law. My intuition is that this practice is a standard operating mode among some of our largest manufacturers.

A better way to ensure environmental protection is to inculcate a sense of genuine commitment into our corporate culturetSthrough education and through shareholder involvement. When key corporate executives become committed to values, the regulations associated with those values become a codification of conscience rather than obstacles to circumvent. The machinations and maneuverings described earlier will thereby be supplanted by thoughtful concern about all the implications of onets actions. Moreover, commitment-driven actions are likely to benefit the environment over and above what the law requires. For example, while a particular regulation might permit a certain amount of toxic effluents, businesses committed to environmental protection may avoid harmful emissions altogether.

Instilling a genuine sense of commitment through education and shareholder action is not just a better approach in theory, it is also less costly overall than a compliance-driven approach. Regulatory systems inherently call for legislative committees, investigations and enforcement agencies, all of which adds to the tax burden of the citizens whom these regulations are designed to protect. Also, delays typically associated with bureaucratic regulation may thwart the purpose of the regulations, since environmental problems can quickly become very grave.

In sum, penalties for violating environmental-protection laws are essentially expensive band-aids (adj. sA, Ȩ˵A). A commitment-based approach, involving education and shareholder activism, can instill in corporate culture a sense an environmental conscience, resulting in far more effective environmental protection.

42. tScientists are continually redefining the standards for what is beneficial 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.t

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 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 effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see (adj. A) 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. ǳ, ), to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly reflect 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 effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency A) 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.

In conclusion, despite uncertainty within the scientific community about what environmental standards are best, companies should not wait for government regulation before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speakerts 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.

43. tThe most important reason for studying history is not that knowledge of history can make us better people or a better society but that it can provide clues to solving the societal problems that we face today.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Examining history makes us better people insofar as (vt...IA,..TAto the extent or degree that) it helps us to understand our world. It would seem, therefore, that history would also provide useful clues for dealing with the same social ills that have plagued societies throughout history. On balance, however, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Admittedly, history has helped us learn the appropriateness of addressing certain issues, particularly moral ones, on a societal level. Attempts to legislate morality invariably fail, as illustrated by Prohibition (<A>i) in the 1930s and, more recently, failed federal legislation to regulate access to adult material via the Internet. We are slowly learning this lesson, as the recent trend toward legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes and the recognition of equal rights for same-sex partners both demonstrate.

However, the overriding lesson from history about social ills is that they are here to stay. Crime and violence, for example, have troubled almost every society. All manner of reform, prevention, and punishment have been tried. Today, the trend appears to be away from reform toward a ttough-on-crimet approach. Is this because history makes clear that punishment is the most effective means of eliminating crime? No; rather, the trend merely reflects current mores, attitudes, and political climate. Also undermining the assertion that history helps us to solve social problems is the fact that, despite the civil-rights efforts of Martin Luther King and his progenies, the cultural gap today between African-Americans and white Americans seems to be widening. It seems that racial prejudice is here to stay. A third example involves how we deal with the mentally ill segment of the population. History reveals that neither quarantine, nor treatment or accommodation solves the problem, only that each approach comes with its own tradeoffs.

To sum up, while history can teach us lessons about our social problems, more often than not the lesson is that there are no solutions to many social problemstSonly alternate ways of coping with them.

44. tAll companies should invest heavily in advertising because high-quality advertising can sell almost any product or service.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that high-quality ads can sell almost anything, and that companies should accordingly invest heavily in such advertising. I agree that the quality of an ad can in some instances play a pivotal role in a productts success or failure in the marketplace. However, the speaker overgeneralizes, for advertising is far more critical in some businesses and for some products than for others.

Certain types of businesses benefit greatly from investing in high-quality advertising. Fledgling companies, for example, may require an extensive top-notch (adj. IaA) advertising campaign to achieve the name recognition that older competitors already enjoy. Even established companies may need an expensive ad campaign when introducing new products or venturing into new markets. Companies selling products that are no utilitarian value perhaps stand to gain the most from an extensive high-quality advertising effort. Consider, for example, the kinds of products that are marketed by means of the most extensive and expensive advertising: beer, cigarettes, soft drinks, and cosmetics. None of these products has any utility. Their success depends on consumerst fickle tastes, their emotions, and their subjective perceptions. Accordingly, influencing consumer attitudes through popular and appealing ads is about the only way to increase sales of such products.

In some industries, however, substantial investment in high-quality advertising simply does not make sense from a cost-effectiveness (tɱA) viewpoint. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, might be better off limiting their advertising to specialized publications, and focus instead on other kinds of promotional programs, such as the distribution of free samples. And widespread, flashy advertising would probably have a limited effect on overall sales for companies such as Deere and Caterpillar, whose name recognition and long-standing reputations for quality products are well established and whose customers are unlikely to be swayed by sensational ads.

In sum, the speaker overgeneralizes. Not all companies have an equal need to invest heavily in high-quality advertising. Companies with new products and products that have little utility stand to benefit (stand to gain: v.һ) most from expensive, high-quality advertising. But other companies, especially those whose customers are businesses (a commercial or sometimes an industrial enterprise; also: such enterprises *the business district*) rather than consumers, would be better off focusing on product quality and reputation, not on sensational advertising.

45. tThe most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics.t

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.iЭsA,ҵsϲsAЭ) gained thereby. If the details of the merger hinge on (v. ss..S, ..ISS) 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 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.

46. Businesses are as likely as are governments to establish large bureaucracies, but bureaucracy is far more damaging to a business than it is to a government.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Contrary to the statementts premise, my view is that businesses are less likely than government to establish large bureaucracies, because businesses know that they are more vulnerable than government to damage resulting from bureaucratic inefficiencies. My position is well supported by common sense and by observation.

First, public administrators lack the financial incentives to avoid bureaucratic waste. In contrast, inefficiencies in a private corporation will reduce profits, inflicting damage in the form of job cuts, diminishing common-stock value, and reducing employee compensation. These are ample incentives for the private firm to minimize bureaucratic waste.

Second, there is almost no accountability among government bureaucrats. The electoratets voting power is too indirect to motivate mid-level administrators, whose salaries and jobs rarely depend on political elections. In contrast, private corporations must pay strict attention to efficiency, since their shareholders hold an immediate power to sell their stock, thereby driving down the companyts market value.

Third, government is inherently monopolistic, large, and unwieldy; these features breed bureaucracy. Admittedly some corporations rival state governments in size. Yet even among the largest companies, the profit motive breeds a natural concern for trimming waste, cutting costs, and streamlining operations. Even virtual monopolies strive to remain lean and nimble in order to maintain a distance from upstart competitors. When government pays lip service to efficiency, shrewd listeners recognize this as political rhetoric designed only to pander to the electorate.

In the final analysis, financial incentives, accountability, and competition all distinguish private business from government, both in terms of their likelihood of establishing large bureaucracies and in terms of the damage that these bureaucracies can inflict on the organization.

47. The primary responsibility for preventing environmental damage belongs to government, not to individuals or private industry.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The responsibility for preventing environmental damage should be shared by government, private industry and individuals alike. The primary obligation, however, belongs to individuals. Moreover, within organizations like the government or a corporation, responsibility should be increasingly distributed to individuals according to level of authority.

The primary obligation to preserve the environment belongs to individuals for the reason that assigning responsibility to a government or corporation is problematic. This is because abstract entities like these do not fulfill the usual criteria for being responsible. An entity can shoulder (vt. s, е) responsibility only if it can be held accountable for its actions. Furthermore, being held accountable for an action requires that the entity act willingly and on the basis of conscious intentions. But governments and businesses are abstractions, having neither will nor consciousness beyond that of the individuals within them.

Still, we can make some sense of treating corporations and governments as if they were individuals. They are individuals under the law, and therefore subject to laws, penalties, and lawsuits. They can even be identified as beneficiaries in wills. Nevertheless, when responsibility is vaguely allocated to abstract entities like governments or corporations, it becomes easy for those within such organizations to cover individual actions that result in devastation to the environment. Consider the famous case of the Exxon Valdez accident and oil spill off the Alaskan coast. While it was easy to single out Captain Hazelwood and determine his blameworthiness the night of the mishap, it was not so easy to identify those responsible at higher levels. Someone was responsible for hiring Hazelwood; others should have known about his drinking or other job-related problems. Thus when we do assign responsibility to governments or business organizations, it must be clearly distributed to individuals in relevant lines of authority (n.Ȩϵͳ) within the organization.

In conclusion, individuals are mainly responsible for protecting the environment. And while it makes some sense in a vague way to talk about the similar responsibilities of government and industry, in the end such obligations will belong to individuals within them. Therefore, some individuals will assume greater shares of responsibility for the environment, since they act in positions of authority on behalf of government or industry.

48. In matching job candidates with job openings (ְIsȱְIsȱ,ְsȱ,ҵ), managers must consider not only such variables as previous work experience and educational background but also personality traits and work habits, which are more difficult to judge.

What do you consider essential in an employee or colleague? Explain, using reasons and/or examples from your work or worklike experiences, or from your observations of others.

In the hiring process, it is more difficult to assess personality and work habits than to determine work experience and educational background. Even so, it is important to try and judge the less quantifiable (adj.sԼsA) characteristics of a prospective colleague or employeetSsuch as honesty, reliability, creativity, self-motivation, and the capacity to get along and work well with others. If it doesntt seem obvious that these are important qualities in a coworker, then consider the alternatives.

First of all, dishonest or unreliable workers harm an organization in many ways. Dishonest employees impose costs on a company whether they steal on the grand or small scale; just taking a few days of unwarranted sick leave here and there (from time to time) can add up to significant lost productivity. And lying about progress on a project can result in missed deadlines and even lost contracts. Unreliability works the same way; if an employee cannot meet deadlines or fails to appear at important meetings, the organization will suffer accordingly.

In addition, coworkers who lack motivation or creativity take some of the life out of an organization. To the extent that employees simply plug along, the company will be less productive In contrast, employees who have imagination and the motivation to implement ideas are productive and can spark those around them to greater achievement.

Finally, employees who cannot get along with or work well with others can as well be detrimental to the organization. The mere presence of a troublemaker is disruptive; moreover, the time such people spend on petty disagreements is time away from getting the job done successfully. In addition, those who cannot smoothly coordinate their efforts with others will end up making things more difficult for everyone else.

In conclusion, it may not be easy to judge the personality traits and work habits of prospective employees, but it certainly is worth the effort to try. Having coworkers who are honest, reliable, creative, self-motivated, compatible with one another and good team players will greatly enhance everyonets work life, and benefit an organization in the most significant waytSwith greater productivity.

49. tAsk most older people to identify the key to success, and they are likely to reply thard work.t Yet, I would tell people starting off in a career that work in itself (ʵ) is not the key. In fact, you have to approach work cautiouslytStoo much or too little can be self-defeating.t

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this view of work? Develop your position by using reasons and/or examples from your reading, experience, or observations.

There is no doubt that hard work contributes to success. Yet a person can work awfully (adv. ǳ, s, ʮ) hard and still achieve very little. In order to bring about success, hard work has to be directed by clear goals and the knowledge of how to reach them. Moreover, imagination, intelligence and persistence can be equally important to success.

Individual success is gauged by the extent to which one reaches his important personal goals. And it takes careful planning to set goals and discover the best means of realizing them. Before hard work even begins, therefore, considerable time and effort should be spent on planning.

Intelligence and imagination play important roles in planning. Imagination helps one to envision new solutions to problems, and new means by which to achieve goals. Intelligence helps one research and critically evaluate the possibilities that imagination has provided. Together, imagination and intelligence can even help one avoid certain kinds of hard work, by producing more efficient ways to accomplish goals.

Finally, persistence is crucial to success. Sometimes, rewards do not come quicklytSeven when one carefully sets the goals, creatively and intelligently plans ways to achieve them, and works hard according to plan. Tradition has it, for example, that Thomas Edison made thousands of attempts to create a light bulb before he finally succeeded. In the face of countless failures, he refused to quit. In fact, he considered each failure a successful discovery of what not to do!

In conclusion, it is true that there is no substitute for hard work. But hard work is an ingredient of success, and not the key. Hard work can produce real accomplishment only if it is directed by a plan involving some idea of onets goals and the means to them. And a good plan, as well as its successful implementation, requires imagination, intelligence, and persistence.

50. How far should a supervisor go in criticizing the performance of a subordinate? Some highly successful managers have been known to rely on verbal abuse and intimidation.

Do you think that this is an effective means of communicating expectations? If not, what alternative should a manager use in dealing with someone whose work is less than satisfactory? Explain your views on this issue. Be sure to support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Unsatisfactory employee performance demands appropriate response from a manager or supervisor. The question is what is appropriate? Some managers might claim that verbal abuse and intimidation are useful in getting employees to improve. While this may be true in exceptional cases, my view is that the best managerial responses generally fulfill two criteria: (1) they are respectful; and (2) they are likely to be the most effective in the long run.

Treating employees with respect is important in all contexts. Respect, in the most basic sense, involves treating a person as equal in importance to oneself. For a manager or supervisor, this means recognizing that occupying a subordinate position does not make a worker a lesser person. And it means treating subordinates as one would want to be treatedtShonestly and fairly. Using threats or verbal abuse to elicit better employee performance amounts to treating a worker like the office copy machinetSas an object from which to get what one wants.

Moreover, while verbal abuse might produce the desired reaction at a particular time, it is likely to backfire later. Nobody likes to be abused or intimidated. If such methods were the general practice in an office or division, overall morale would probably be low. And it is unlikely that employees would give 100 percent to managers who so obviously disregarded them.

More beneficial in the long run would be careful but clear feedback to the worker about specific deficiencies, along with ideas and encouragement about improvement. In addition, supervisors should allow employees to explain the problem from their point of view and to suggest solutions. Of course, a supervisor should never mislead a subordinate into thinking that major problems with work performance are insignificant or tolerable. Still, an honest message can be sent without threats or assaults on self-esteem.

In conclusion, supervisors should avoid using verbal abuse and threats. These methods degrade subordinates, and they are unlikely to produce the best results in the long run. It is more respectful, and probably more effective overall, to handle cases of substandard work performance with clear, honest and supportive feedback.

51. tThe presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices.t

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.

We ordinarily think, as the speaker does here, that the presence of competition is always healthy for business because it sparks efficiency and innovation. While competition is generally good for business in these respects, the speaker here ignores the many problems that can accrue from attempting to keep up with or beat a competitor, and that may be decidedly detrimental to a business.

Admittedly, competition among businesses can occasion (: BRING ABOUT, CAUSE) all sorts of improved practices. The need for competitive product pricing can motivate effective micro-management of production and marketing costs. Competition for market share can spark invention and innovation in product design that lead to the cutting edge of technology. External competition is known to inspire team spirit within an organization, thereby yielding greater productivity. And competition can challenge a company to streamline operations, thereby improving efficiency.

But taken too far, attempting to keep up with or beat competitors brings about detrimental results for a company. In some cases, companies compromise product quality by switching to inferior, less expensive materials in order to keep prices competitive. Other times, plant managers ignore important employee-safety measures just to save money. And companies are even known to trade off consumer safety in the interest of competition. Perhaps the paradigmatic case involved the Ford Pinto, where Ford management rejected an inexpensive retrofit (AA that would have saved hundreds of lives in rear-end collisions, solely in order to shave a few dollars off the carts sticker price (n. , , thereby enhancing the carts competitiveness.

Competition can even bring about large-scale social change that some consider undesirable. For instance, the emergence of large, efficient factory farms has resulted in the virtual disappearance of family farming in the U.S. And it isntt clear that the factory farms always improve farming practices, in the case of the tomato, the old homegrown kind are far superior in taste and texture to the tough, underripe version that has been genetically engineered for machine picking in huge quantity.

In conclusion, competition frequently motivates changes that are beneficial in many ways. But competition is a double-edged sword that can also result in inferior or unsafe products and dangerous working conditions for employees. Moreover, large competitors can swallow up smaller concerns without yielding noticeably better products or practices.

52. tSuccessful individuals typically set their next goal somewhattSbut not too muchtSabove their last achievement. In this way, they steadily raise their level of aspiration.t

In your opinion, how accurate is this statement? Explain, using specific reasons and examples from your reading, your own experience, or your observation of others.

I agree generally that setting new goals in small increments above past accomplishments is a reliable path to achieving those goals. I think anyone would be hard-pressed (AѵAAѵA) to find fault with this advice. Nevertheless, in some exceptional instances, a more dramatic tleap-frog (vt. aԾ)t approach may be more appropriate, or even necessary, to achieve a significant goal.

The virtues of setting goals in small, easily-attainable increments are undeniable. Overwhelming challenges are reduced to readily attainable tasks. A psychological boost is afforded by each intermediate success, helping to ensure that the achiever wontt become discouraged and give up. Each step in this process can raise onets level of aspiration, and in manageable proportions that make success more likely. Moreover, this approach can be used by anyonetSa sedentary office worker who decides to complete the New York Marathon; a paralegal (n. AʦAרְ, Aʦ) who wishes to become a surgeon; or a small business owner who aspires to become CEO of a Fortune 500 Company.

In some instances, however, the step-by-step (𲽵A) approach is not adequate. For example, many great creative achievementstSin art, music, and literaturetSare made not by the achieverts disciplined setting of incremental goals, but rather by a spontaneous flash of brilliance and intense creativity. Another exception to this approach is the case of the ultra-successful actor, model, or even socialite who might suddenly leap-frog to his or her goal through serendipity. Third, for those who have already achieved great things, taking baby steps toward the next goal would only frustrate them and slow them down. Suppose, for example, a recent gold medalist in the Olympic Gamest 100-meter sprint wishes to become a member the football franchise that won last yearts Super Bowl. What small, incremental accomplishments are needed to achieve his goal? None, aside from a phone call by his agent to the front office (n. ȫaԱ of the team. Admittedly, these are exceptional cases: yet they do exist.

In conclusion, setting modest but increasingly higher goals is generally good advice. Yet this approach may be inappropriate or inadequate under certain exceptional circumstances.

53. tThe term tuser-friendlyt is usually applied to the trouble-free way that computer software moves people from screen to screen, function to function. However, the term can also refer to a government office, a library, public transportation, or anything designed to provide information or services in an easy, friendly way. Just as all societies have many striking examples of user-friendly services, so do they abound in examples of user-unfriendly systems.t Identify a system or service that you have found to be either tuser-friendlyt or tuser-unfriendly.t

Discuss, from the userts perspective, in what way the system either is or is not easy to use and explain the consequences or effect of such a system.

If one focuses on systems such as financial services and telecommunications, where emerging technologies have the greatest impact, one sees increasing user-friendliness. However, in other systemstSpublic and private aliketSinefficiencies, roadblocks (n. A,Ia,A,Aa,Aѹ,ϰ), and other tunfriendlyt features still abound. One such example is the U.S. health-care delivery system.

To a large extent, the user-unfriendly nature of health-care delivery stems from its close tie to the insurance industry. Service providers and suppliers inflate prices, knowing that insurance companies can well afford to pay by passing on inflated costs to the insured. Hospital patients are often discharged prematurely merely because insurance fails to cover in-patient care beyond a certain amount or duration. In the extreme (,ǳ,ڼa), patients are sometimes falsely informed that they are well or cured, just so that the facility can make room for insured patients. Insurance providers reject claims and coverage intentionally and in bad faith (ʵaAAŵԵA) when the insured has suffered or is statistically likely to suffer from a terminal or other long-termtSand costlytSillness. Insurance companies also impose extreme coverage exceptions for pre-existing conditions. Both tactics are designed, of course, to maximize insurance company profits at the expense of the systemts user. Finally, new medical technologies that provide more effective diagnosis and treatment are often accessible only to the select (adj.tA few who can afford the most comprehensive insurance coverage.

The consequences of these user-unfriendly features can be grave indeed for the individual, since this system relates directly to a personts physical wellbeing and very life. For example, when a claim or coverage is wrongfully denied, lacking financial resources to enforce their rights, an individual customer has little practical recourse. The end result is to render health care inaccessible to the very individuals who need it most. These user-unfriendly features can be deleterious on a societal scale as well. An unhealthy populace is an unproductive one. Also, increased health-care costs place an undue burden on bread-winning (breadwinner: һisڵA, sҼƵA) adults who feel the squeeze of caring for aging parents and for children. Finally, these features foster a pervasive distrust of government, big business, and bureaucracy.

In sum, todayts tpoint-and-click (a)t paradigm inaccurately portrays the actual functionality of many systems, including our health-care delivery system, which is well-entrenched in self-interest and insensitivity to the needs of its users.

54. tPopular entertainment is overly influenced by commercial interests. Superficiality, obscenity, and violence characterize films and television today because those qualities are commercially successful.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this opinion. To support your position, use reasons and/or examples from your reading, your observations, or your experiences as a consumer of popular entertainment.

Clearly, most popular films and television shows are superficial and/or include a certain amount of violence or obscenity. Just as clearly, popularity leads to commercial success. But can we conclude that these productions are overly influenced by commercial interests? Perhaps not, since some popular films and television shows are neither superficial, obscene, nor violent. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that most such productions actually support, not disprove, the thesis that commercial interests dictate movie and television content. (AAбSaAtIS)

One would-be (ԳA) threat to the thesis can be found in lower-budget independent films, which tend to focus more on character development and topical social issues than on sensationalism. Recently, a few such films have supplanted Hollywoodts major studio productions as top box-office (adj. ƱsA) hits. Does this mean that profit potential no longer dictates the content of films? No; it simply suggests that the tastes and preferences of the movie-going public are shifting.

A second ostensible challenge to the thesis can be found in companies such as Disney, whose productions continue to achieve great popularity and commercial success, without resort to an appeal to baser interests. Yet it is because these productions are commercially successful that they proliferate.

The only cogent challenge to the thesis is found in perennial television favorites such as tNova,t a public television show that is neither commercially supported nor influenced. However, such shows are more in the nature of education than entertainment, and for every one program like tNovat there are several equally populartSand highly superficialtSprograms.

With few exceptions, then, commercial success of certain films and television shows is no accidental byproduct of popularity; it is the intentional result of producerst efforts to maximize profits.

55. tNever tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.t

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Explain your point of view by giving reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I agree that supervisors should under most circumstances merely tell subordinates what to do, but not necessarily how to do it. Of course, employees need adequate training in order to do a job. But beyond that, trusting employees to discover and develop their own methods for meeting a supervisorts expectations can produce surprising rewards that outweigh any pitfalls of such an approach.

First of all, restraint in directing the how-to (adj. aA, ָA aspect of a project signals the supervisorts confidence in an employeets intelligence and abilities. Sensing this confidence, the subordinate will often respond with his or her best work. This phenomenon lends truth to the adage that people rise to the level of what others expect from them.

Secondly, by allowing a subordinate to decide how best to attain an objective, a supervisor imparts a larger share of responsibility for the project to the subordinate. This alleviates some of the burden from the supervisor, who may have more time for other tasks as a result. At the same time, when the subordinate shares in the responsibility, he or she will probably feel more accountable for how the job turns out. The result is likely to be better job performance.

Thirdly, directing every step of a project often blocks a workerts own creativity, as well as creating animosity. Except in the training of a new worker with little or no experience, it would be naive and arrogant for any supervisor to assume there is one and only one best waytSthe supervisorts own waytSto get a job done. A bright, competent subordinate is likely to resent being led by the hand like a child. Allowing employees to choose their own means and methods will spark their ingenuity in ways that enhance productivity now and in the future, and will foster goodwill and mutual respect in the workplace.

In sum, telling a subordinate how to do a job is rarely the best management approach. Instead, supervisors should assign tasks without directing each step. When employees are left to choose methods for completing work, they will be bolstered by the supervisorts trust, motivated to greater creativity and inclined to feel accountable for outcomes.

56. tThe secret of business is to know something that nobody else knows.t

Explain what you think the above quotation means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Support your position with relevant reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This statement is ambiguous. It could mean, literally, that business success depends on knowing more than anyone else about onets operations, products and markets. Or it could be a subtle recommendation to acquire privileged information, by whatever means, to use for onets own advantage. I agree with the statement in the first sense. However, I strongly disagree with many implications of the second possible meaning.

It goes without saying that competitive edge in business is a function of knowledge. It is crucial to fully understand the technology and uses of onets products; and it is prudent to micromanage operations, knowing as much as possible about the small details that can add up to a significant economic difference. It is also prudent, and legitimate, to take every measure to protect that knowledge as trade secrets, since they often play a pivotal role in a firmts competitiveness.

But the advice to know something that nobody else does could easily become distorted. If taken another way, the advice could recommend that one dig up (FIND, UNEARTH) dirt in order to damage or discredit a rival. It could also be taken to recommend stealing trade secrets (ҵAAܣҵAA) or other inside information from a competitor in order to gain an unfair business advantage. All of these tactics are some also violate civil and criminal laws. Moreover, the recommendation to find and use any information, even unfairly or illegally, can backfire. People who follow such advice risk civil liability, criminal prosecution, and the loss of an important business assettStheir good reputations.

In sum, I agree with the statement up to the point that it validates detailed and even proprietary knowledge as a key to competitiveness. Insofar as the statement sanctions unfair practices, however, following it would be unethical, bad for business, and damaging to the character and reputation of the perpetrator.

57. tEverywhere, it seems, there are clear and positive signs that people are becoming more respectful of one anotherts differences.t

In your opinion, how accurate is the view expressed above? Use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading to develop your position.

In determining whether we are becoming more respectful of one anotherts differences, one must examine both overt (open to view: MANIFEST) actions and underlying motives, as well as examining whether our differences are increasing or decreasing. The issue, therefore, is quite complex, and the answer is unclear.

Disrespect for one anotherts differences manifests itself in various forms of prejudice and discrimination. Since the civil rights and feminist movements of the 60s and 70s, it would seem that we have made significant progress toward eliminating racial and sexual discrimination. Anti-discriminatory laws in the areas of employment, housing (tլ,tsdwellings provided for people), and education, now protect all significant minority groups racial minorities and women, the physically challenged and, more recently, homosexuals. Movies and television shows, which for better or worse (adv. AsA) have become the cynosure of our cultural attention, now tout the rights of minorities, encouraging acceptance of and respect for others.

However, much of this progress is forced upon us legislative. Without Title 10 and its progenies, would we voluntarily refrain from the discriminatory behavior that the laws prevent? Perhaps not. Moreover, signs of disrespect are all around us today. Extreme factions still rally around bigoted demagogues; the number of thate crimest is increasing alarmingly; and school-age children seem to flaunt a disrespect toward adults as never before. Finally, what appears to be respect for one anotherts differences may in fact be an increasing global homogeneitytSthat is, we are becoming more and more alike.

In sum, on a societal level it is difficult to distinguish between genuine respect for one anotherts differences on the one hand and legislated morality and increasing homogeneity on the other. Accordingly, the claim that we are becoming more respectful of one anotherts differences is somewhat dubious.

58. tWhat is the final objective of business? It is to make the obtaining of a livingtSthe obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, and a minimum of luxuriestSso mechanical and so little time-consuming that people shall have time for other things.t

tS A business leader, circa 1930

Explain what you think the quotation above means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the view of business it expresses. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This quotation suggests that the ultimate purpose of business is to streamline and mechanize work, thereby minimizing it, so that people can make a living but still have time for other things in life. The assumptions behind this view of business are that the value of work is entirely instrumental, and that our work lives are distinct from the rest of our lives. I disagree with both assumptions.

Admittedly, work is to a large extent instrumental in that we engage in it to provide for our needs while leaving time and resources for other activitiestSraising families, participating in civic life, traveling, pursuing hobbies, and so forth. And these activities normally take place away from the workplace and are distinct from our work. However, for most people, work is far more than a means to these ends. It can also be engaging, enjoyable and fulfilling in itself. And it can provide a context for expressing an important part of onets self. However, work will be less of all these to the extent that it is streamlined and mechanized for quick disposal, as the quotation recommends. Instead, our jobs will become monotonous and tedious, the work of drones. And we might become drone-like in the process.

In addition, work can to some extent be integrated with the rest of our lives. More and more companies are installing on-site daycare facilities and workout rooms. They are giving greater attention to the ambiance of the break room, and they are sponsoring family events, excursions and athletic activities for employees as never before (adv. ǰA). The notion behind this trend is that when a company provides employees with ways to fulfill outside needs and desires, employees will do better work. I think this idea has merit.

In conclusion, I admit that there is more to life than work, and that work is to some extent a means to provide a livelihood. But to suggest that this is the sole purpose of business is an oversimplification that ignores the self-actualizing significance of work, as well as the ways it can be integrated with other aspects of our lives

59. tJuvenile crime is a serious social problem, and businesses must become more involved in helping to prevent it.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Juvenile delinquency is clearly a serious social problem. Whether businesses must become more involved in helping to prevent the problem depends, however, on the specific businesstSwhether it is culpable in creating the problem and whether its ownerst collective conscience calls for such involvement.

Although parents and schools have the most direct influence on children, businesses nonetheless exert a strong, and often negative, influence on juveniles by way of their advertisements and of the goods they choose to produce. For example, cigarette advertisements aimed at young people, music and clothing that legitimize tgang (a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially: a band of antisocial adolescents)t sub-culture (IIA), and toys depicting violence, all sanction juvenile delinquency. In such cases perhaps the business should be obligated to mitigate its own harmful actionstSfor example, by sponsoring community youth organizations or by producing public-interest ads.

In other cases, however, imposing on a business a duty to help solve juvenile delinquency or any other social problem seems impractical and unfair. Some would argue that because business success depends on community support, businesses have an ethical duty to give back to the communitytSby donating money, facilities, or services to social programs. Many successful businessestSsuch as Mrs. Fieldts, Ben & Jerryts, and TimberlandtShave embraced this philosophy. But how far should such a duty extend, and is it fair to impose a special duty on businesses to help prevent one specific problem, such as juvenile delinquency? Moreover, businesses already serve their communities by enhancing the local tax base and by providing jobs, goods and services.

In the final analysis, while businesses are clearly in a position to influence young people, whether they should help solve juvenile delinquency is perhaps a decision best left to the collective conscience of each business.

60. tEmployers should have no right to obtain information about their employeest health or other aspects of their personal lives without the employeest permission.t

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.

Determining whether employers should have access to personal information about employees requires that the interests of businesses in ensuring productivity and stability be weighed against concerns about equity and privacy interests. On balance (adv. ֮ܶ), my view is that employers should not have the right to obtain personal information about current employees without their consent.

A businesst interest in maintaining a stable, productive workforce clearly justifies right of access to certain personal information about prospective employees. Job applicants can easily conceal personal information that might adversely affect job performance, thereby damaging the employer in terms of low productivity and high turnover. During employment, however, the employeets interests are far more compelling than those of the employer, for three reasons.

First, the employer has every opportunity to monitor ongoing job performance and to replace workers who fail to meet standards, regardless of the reason for that failure. Second, allowing free access to personal information about employees might open the floodgates to discriminatory promotions and salary adjustments. Current federal lawstSwhich protect employees from unfair treatment based on gender, race, and marital status, may not adequately guard against an employerts searching for an excuse to treat certain employees unfairly. Third, access to personal information without consent raises serious privacy concerns, especially where multiple individuals have access to the information. Heightening this concern is the ease of access to information which our burgeoning electronic Intranets make possible.

In sum, ready access to certain personal information about prospective employees is necessary to protect businesses; however, once hired, an employeets interest in equitable treatment and privacy far outweighs the employerts interest in ensuring a productive and stable workforce.

61. tEven at its best, a government is a tremendous burden to business, though a necessary one.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I agree with the statement insofar as government systems of taxation and regulation are, in general, a great burden to business, and I agree that government constraints are needed to prevent serious harms that would result if business were left free in the singular pursuit of profit. However, I think the speaker states the obvious and begs the more relevant question.

Is government tat bestt a ttremendous burdent on business, as the speaker claims? I think one would be hard-pressed to find any small business owner or corporate CEO who would disagree. Businesses today are mired in the burdens that government has imposed on them: consumer and environmental protection laws, the double-tiered (tiera, ȼ) tax structure for C-corporations, federal and state securities regulations, affirmative action requirements, anti-trust laws, and so on. In focusing solely on these burdens, one might well adopt a strict laissez faire view that if business is left free to pursue profit the so-called invisible hand of competition will guide it to produce the greatest social benefit, and therefore that the proper nexus between business and government is no nexus at all.

Is government, nevertheless, a tnecessaryt burden on business, as the speaker also claims? Yes. Laissez faire (n. I, a) is an extreme view that fails to consider the serious harms that business would dotSto other businesses and to the societytSif left to its own devices. And the harms may very well exceed the benefits. In fact, history has shown that left entirely to themselves, corporations can be expected not only to harm the society by making unsafe products and by polluting the environment, but also to cheat one another, exploit workers, and fix pricestSall for profitts sake. Thus, I agree that government constraints on business are necessary burdens.

Ideally, the government should regulate against harmful practices but not interfere with the beneficial ones. But achieving this balance is not a simple matter. For instance, I know of a business that was forced by government regulation of toxic effluents to spend over 120,000 to clean up an area outside of its plant where employees had regularly washed their hands. The ttoxint in this case was nothing more than biodegradable soap. This example suggests that perhaps the real issue here is not whether government is a necessary burden on businesstSfor it clearly istSbut rather how best to ensure that its burdens dontt outweigh its benefits.

In sum, the speakerts two assertions are palpable (AsSA) ones that are amply supported by the evidence. The more intriguing question is how to strike the best balance.

62. tWhat education fails to teach us is to see the human community as one. Rather than focus on the unique differences that separate one nation from another, education should focus on the similarities among all people and places on Earth.t

What do you think of the view of education expressed above? Explain, using reasons and/or specific examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

This view of education seems to recommend that schools stress the unity of all people instead of their diversity. While I agree that education should include teaching students about characteristics that we all share, doing so need not necessarily entail shifting focus away from our differences. Education can and should include both.

On the one hand, we are in the midst of an evolving global community where it is increasingly important for people to recognize our common humanity, as well as specific hopes and goals we all share. People universally prefer health to disease, being nourished to starving, safe communities to crime-riddled ones, and peace to war. Focusing on our unity will help us realize these hopes and goals. Moreover, in our pluralistic democracy it is crucial to find ways to unify citizens from diverse backgrounds. Otherwise, we risk being reduced to ethnic, religious or political factions at war with one another, as witnessed recently in the former Yugoslavia (A˹). Our own diverse society can forestall such horrors only if citizens are educated about the democratic ideals, heritage, rights and obligations we all have in common.

On the other hand, our schools should not attempt to erase, ignore, or even play down (v. , , ) religious, ethnic or cultural diversity. First of all, schools have the obligation to teach the democratic ideal of tolerance, and the best way to teach tolerance is to educate people about different religions, cultures and so on. Moreover, educating people about diversity might even produce a unifying effecttSby promoting understanding and appreciation among people from all backgrounds.

In conclusion, while it may appear paradoxical to recommend that education stress both unity and diversity, it is not. Understanding our common humanity will help us achieve a better, more peaceful world. Toward the same end, we need to understand our differences in order to better tolerate them, and perhaps even appreciate them. Our schools can and should promote both kinds of understanding by way of a balanced approach.

63. tAs government bureaucracy increases, citizens become more and more separated from their government.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

At first glance, it would seem that increased bureaucracy creates obstacles between the citizens and those who govern, thereby separating the two groups. Closer examination reveals, however, that in many ways government bureaucracy actually bridges this gap, and that new technologies now allow for ways around the gap.

First of all, many government bureaucracies are established as a response to the needs of the citizenry. In a sense, they manifest a nexus between citizens and government, providing a means of communication and redress (n.A) for grievances that would not otherwise be available. For example, does the FDA (Food and Drug Administration[A]ʳƷҩI), by virtue of its ensuring the safety of our food and drugs, separate us from the government? Or does the FHA (Federal Housing AdministrationSitլ), by helping to make home ownership more viable to ordinary citizens, thereby increase the gap between citizens and the government? No; these agencies serve our interests and enhance the accessibility of government resources to citizens.

Admittedly, agencies such as these are necessary proxies for direct participation in government, since our societal problems are too large and complex for individuals to solve. However, technology is coming forward to bridge some of the larger gaps. For example, we can now communicate directly with our legislators by e-mail, visit our lawmakers on the Web, and engage in electronic town hall meetings. In addition, the fact that government bureaucracies are the largest employers of citizens should not be overlooked. In this sense, bureaucracies bridge the gap by enabling more citizens to become part of the government.

In the final analysis, one can view bureaucracies as surrogates for individual participation in government; however, they are more accurately viewed as a manifestation of the symbiotic relationship between citizens and the government.

64. tThe goal of business should not be to make as big a profit as possible. Instead, business should also concern itself with the wellbeing (n. ) of the public.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I agree that business has some obligation to the community and society in which it operates. As it stands, however, the statement permits one to conclude that this obligation should take precedence over the profit objective. By allowing for this interpretation, the speaker fails to appreciate the problems associated with shouldering business with an affirmative duty to ensure the publicts well being.

The primary reason why I agree business should have a duty to the public is that society would be worse off by exonerating business from social responsibility. Left entirely to their own self-interest, businesses pollute the environment, withhold important product information from consumers, pay employees substandard wages, and misrepresent their financial condition to current and potential shareholders. Admittedly, in its pursuit of profit business can benefit the society as welltSby way of more and better-paying jobs, economic growth, and better yet lower-priced products. However, this point ignores the harsh consequencestSsuch as those listed earliertSof imposing no affirmative social duty on business.

Another reason why I agree business should have a duly to the public is that business owes such a duty. A business enters into an implied contract with the community in which it operates, under which the community agrees to permit a corporation to do business while the business implicitly promises to benefit, and not harm, the community. This understanding gives rise to a number of social obligations on the part of the businesstSto promote consumer safety, to not harm the environmental, to treat employees and competitors fairly, and so on.

Although I agree that business should have a duty to serve the pubic, I disagree that this should be the primarily objective of business. Imposing affirmative social duties on business opens a Pandorats box of problemstSfor example, how to determine. (1) what the public interest is in the first place, (2) which public interests are most important, (3) what actions are in the public interest, and (4) how businesst duty to the public might be monitored and enforced. Government regulation is the only practical way to deal with these issues, yet government is notoriously inefficient and corrupt; the only way to limit these problems is to limit the duty of business to serve the public interest.

In sum, I agree that the duty of business should extend beyond the simple profit motive. However, its affirmative obligations to society should be tempered against the pubic benefits of the profit motive and against the practical problems associates

65. tThe rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.t

* homogeneity: sameness, similarity

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Although global homogeneity in a broader sense may not be as inexorable as the speaker here suggests, I agree that multinational corporations are indeed creating global sameness in consumer preferences. This homogeneity is manifested in two concurrent megatrends (n. ): (1) the embracing of American popular culture throughout the world, and (2) a synthesis of cultures, as reflected in consumer preferences.

The first trend is toward Americanization (A) of popular culture throughout the world. In food and fashion, once a nationts denizens tfall into the Gapt or get a taste of a Coke or Big Mac, their preferences are forever Westernized. The ubiquitous Nike tswoosh,t which nearly every soccer player in the world will soon don, epitomizes this phenomenon. In media, the cultural agendas of giants such as Time-Warner (SAֵֹ˾) now drive the worldts entertainment preferences. The Rolling Stones and the stars of Americats prime-time television shows are revered among young people worldwide, while Mozartts music, Shakespearets prose, and Ghandits ideology are largely ignored.

A second megatrend is toward a synthesis of cultures into a homogenous stew. The popularity of tworld musict and of the tNew Aget health care and leisure-time activities aptly illustrate this blending of Eastern, Western and third-world cultures. Perhaps nowhere is the cultural-stew paradigm more striking, and more bland (blander), than at the international tfood courtst now featured in malls throughout the developed world.

These trends appear inexorable. Counter-attacks, such as Ebonies, rap music, and bilingual education, promote the distinct culture of minority groups, but not of nations. Further homogenization of consumer preferences is all but (adv. ֱ,s..һ) ensured by failing trade barriers, coupled with the global billboard that satellite communications and the Internet provide.

In sum, American multinationals have indeed instigated a homogeneous global, yet American-style, consumerismtSone which in all likelihood will grow in extent along with free-market capitalism and global connectivity.

66. tManufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products are safe. If a product injures someone, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should be held legally and financially accountable for the injury.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries resulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for such injuries is unjustifiable.

Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an important and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and safety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials, and so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.

However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling. First, the standard is costly. It forces manufacturers to incur undue expenses for overbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the standard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-hand users receive safe products or adequate instructions and warnings. Finally, where the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the intended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware of, it seems the user, not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.

In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation, holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers.

67. tWork greatly influences peoplets personal livestStheir special interests, their leisure activities, even their appearance away from the workplace.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that our jobs greatly influence our personal interests, recreational activities and even appearance. While I agree that the personal lives of some people are largely determined by their work, in my view it would be a mistake to draw this conclusion generally. In my observation, the extent to which occupation influences personal life depends on (1) the nature of the work, and (2) how central the work is to onets sense of self.

On the one hand, consider my friends Steve and William. Steve works as a gardener, but after work he creates oil paintings of quality and poignancy. His leisure time is spent alternately at the sea, in the wilderness, and in dark cafes. William paints houses for a living, but on his own time he collects fine art and books in first edition, as well as reading voraciously in the area of American history. Their outside activities and appearance speak little about what Steve or William do for a living, because these men view their jobs as little more than a means of subsidizing the activities that manifest their true selves. At the same time, they have chosen jobs that need not spill over into their personal lives, so the nature of their jobs permits them to maintain a distinctive identity apart from their work.

On the other hand, consider my friend ShanatSa business executive who lives and breathes her work. After work hours you can invariably find her at a restaurant or bar with colleagues, discussing work. Shanats wardrobe is primarily redtSright off the dress-for-success page of a womants magazine. For Shana, her job is clearly an expression of her self-concept. Also, by its nature it demands Shanats attention and time away from the workplace.

What has determined the influence of work on personal lives in these cases is the extent to which each person sees himself or herself in terms of work. Clearly, work is at the center of Shanats life, but not of either Stevets or Williamts. My sample is small; still, common sense and intuition tell me that the influence of work on onets personal life depends both on the nature of the work and on the extent to which the work serves as a manifestation of onets self-concept (IҸAi).

68. tSince the physical work environment affects employee productivity and morale, the employees themselves should have the right to decide how their workplace is designed.t

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.

I agree that physical workspace can affect morale and productivity and that, as a result, employees should have a significant voice in how their work areas are designed. However, the speaker suggests that each employee should have full autonomy over his or her immediate workspace, I think this view is too extreme, for it ignores two important problems that allowing too much freedom over workspace (sռ) can create.

On the one hand, I agree that some aspects of workspace design are best left to the individual preferences of each worker. Location of personal tools and materials, style and size of desk chair, and even desk lighting and decorative desk items, can each play an important role in a workerts comfort, psychological wellbeing, concentration, and efficiency. Moreover, these features involve highly subjective preferences, so it would be inappropriate for anyone but the worker to make such choices.

On the other hand, control over onets immediate workspace should not go unchecked, for two reasons. First, one employeets workspace design may inconvenience, annoy, or even offend nearby coworkers. For example, pornographic pinups ([ǽϵA]żżƬ[AaaŮ˻ӰtǵAƬ]) may distract some coworkers and offend others, thereby impeding productivity, fostering ill-will and resentment, and increasing attritiontSall to the detriment of the company. Admittedly, the consequences of most workspace choices would not be so far-reaching. Still, in my observation many people adhere, consciously or not, to the adage that one personts rights extend only so far as the next personts nose (or ears. or eyes). A second problem with affording too much workspace autonomy occurs when workspaces are not clearly delineatedtSby walls and doorstSor when workers share an immediate workspace. In such cases, giving all workers concurrent authority would perpetuate conflict and undermine productivity.

In conclusion, although employees should have the freedom to arrange their work areas, this freedom is not absolute. Managers would be well-advised to arbitrate workspace disputes and, if needed, assume authority to make final decisions about workspace design.

69. tThe most important quality in an employee is not specific knowledge or technical competence. Instead, it is the ability to work well with other employees.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Whether the ability to work with others is more important than specific knowledge and technical competence depends on the specific job as well as the complexity of the jobts technical aspects. In general, however, social skills are more critical than technical competence to the ultimate success of an organizational unit.

Admittedly, some level of technical competence and specific knowledge is needed to perform any job. Without some knowledge of the systems, procedures, and vocabulary used in onets department or division, an employee cannot communicate effectively with peers or contribute meaningfully to team goals. By the same token, however, nearly every jobtSeven those in which technical ability would seem to be of paramount importancetScalls for some skill in working with other employees. Computer programmers, for example, work in teams to develop products according to agreed-upon specifications and timelines. Scientists and researchers must collaborate to establish common goals and to coordinate efforts. Even teachers, who are autonomous in the classroom, must serve on committees and coordinate activities with administrators and other teachers.

Moreover, employees can generally learn technical skills and gain specific knowledge through on-the-job (adj. ְA) training and continuing education (depending on the complexity of the skills involved). Social skills, on the other hand, are more innate and not easily learned. They are, therefore, requisite skills that employees must possess at the outset (adv. ,) if the organizational unit is to succeed.

In sum, specific knowledge does admittedly play a more critical role than social skills in some highly-technical jobs; nevertheless, the ability to work well with other employees is ultimately more important, since all jobs require this ability and since it is more difficult, to learn social skills on the job (ڹеA,ְA).

70. tSo long as no laws are broken, there is nothing unethical about doing whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new products.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker asserts that in creating and marketing products, companies act ethically merely by not violating any laws. Although the speakerts position is not wholly insupportable, far more compelling arguments can be made for holding businesses to higher ethical standards than those required by the letter of the law (AɵAAaa, AIA).

On the one hand, two colorable arguments can be made for holding business only to legal standards of conduct. First, imposing a higher ethical duty can actual harm consumers in the long term. Compliance with high ethical standards can be costly for business, thereby lowering profits and, in turn, impeding a companyts ability to create jobs (for consumers), keep prices low (for consumers), and so forth. Second, limited accountability is consistent with the tbuyer beware (tA, )t principle that permeates our laws of contracts and torts ([A]AAȨIS), as well as our notion in civil procedure that plaintiffs carry the burden of proving damage. In other words, the onus should be on consumers to protect themselves, not on companies to protect consumers.

On the other hand, several convincing arguments can be made for holding business to a higher ethical standard. First, in many cases government regulations that protect consumers lag behind advances in technology. A new marketing technique made possible by Internet technology may be unethical but nevertheless might not be proscribed by the letter of the laws which predated the Internet. Second, enforceability might not extend beyond geographic borders. Consider, for example, the case of tdumping.t When products fail to comply with U.S. regulations, American companies frequently markettSor tdumpttSsuch products in third-world countries where consumer-protection laws are virtually nonexistent. Third, moral principles form the basis of government regulation and are, therefore, more fundamental than the law.

In the final analysis, while overburdening businesses with obligations to consumers may not be a good idea in the extreme, our regulatory system is not as effective as it should be. Therefore, businesses should adhere to a higher standard of ethics in creating and marketing products than what is required by the letter of the law.

71. tCommercialism (a) has become too widespread. It has even crept into schools and places of worship. Every nation should place limits on what kinds of products, if any, can be sold at certain events or places.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Has commercialism become too widespread, particularly in schools, churches, and other places which traditionally have been safe havens from commercialism? If so, does the government have a responsibility to curb the problem? The answer to both questions, in my view, is no.

There is no evidence that commercialism is creeping into our churches. Admittedly, some commercial activity is present in our schools. Food service is increasing outsourced (outsourcing to fast-food chains; a plethora of goods and services is sold in college bookstores and advertised in their school newspapers; and students serve as walking billboards (a) for the companies whose logos appear on clothing. However, this kind of commercialism does not interfere with school activities; to the contrary, in the first two cases they contribute to the efficient functioning of the organization. Outsourcing food service, for example, is a cost-cutting measure which provides additional funding for teaching materials, facilities, and teacher salaries.

I do agree that, in general, commercialism is becoming more widespread, and that one of the byproducts may be a decline in the quality of our culture. Electronic billboards now serve as backdrops for televised sporting events, and Web sites must sell advertising space to justify maintenance costs. Does this mean that government should step in and ban the sale of products in certain venues? No. This would require that government make ad hoc (adj.رA), and possibly arbitrary, decisions as to which products may be sold or advertised at which places and events. These are value judgments that are best left to individual schools, churches, and other organizations. Moreover, the expense of enforcing the regulations may well outweigh the cultural benefits, if any.

In sum, while commercialism is undeniably becoming more widespread, it is minimally intrusive and works to the net benefit of society. As a matter of public policy, therefore, government should not attempt to regulate the extent of commercialism.

72. tCompanies should not try to improve employeest performance by giving incentivestSfor example, awards or gifts. These incentives encourage negative kinds of behavior instead of encouraging a genuine interest in doing the work well.t

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.

Providing employee incentives can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the promise of bonuses or gifts can spur workers to higher achievement. On the other hand, incentives can create resentment and internal competitiveness that are damaging to morale and to the organization. Even so, I think a carefully designed incentive program can operate to the net benefit (of) a company.

Incentive programs are counterproductive when the distribution of rewards appears to be personally biased, when the program recognizes just one kind among many important jobs in the organization, or when there are too few rewards available. For example, if a manager regularly rewards an employee who is perceived to be a favorite, coworkers will be resentful. Or if the company decides to recognize high sales, while ignoring an especially precise cost-assessment from the accounting department, the accountants may feel their work is not valued. Finally, if rewards are too few, some employees will become overly competitive, while others may simply stop trying.

However, incentive programs can be designed to avoid such pitfalls. First, the company must determine that it can provide sufficient rewards to motivate all employees. Then it must set, and follow, clear and non-arbitrary guidelines for achievement. Finally, management should provide appropriate incentives throughout the organization, thereby sending the message that all work is valued. Admittedly, even a thoughtfully designed incentive program cannot entirely prevent back-stabbing and unfair competitive tactics. But watchful management can quell much of this behavior, and the perpetrators usually show their true colors in time.

In sum, I think that the productivity inspired by thoughtful incentive programs will very likely outweigh any negative consequences. In the final analysis, then, I disagree with the speakerts recommendation against their use.

73. People often give the following advice: tBe yourself. Follow your instincts and behave in a way that feels natural.t

Do you think that, in general, this is good advice? Why or why not? Develop your point of view by giving reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The advice to act naturally or follow onets instincts can, admittedly, be helpful advice for someone torn between difficult career or (and) personal choices in life. In most situations, however, following this advice would neither be wise nor (be) sensible. Following onets own instincts should be tempered by codes of behavior appropriate to the situation at hand.

First of all, doing what comes naturally often amounts to impulsive overreaction and irrational behavior, based on emotion. Everyone experiences impulses from time to time, such as hitting another person, quitting onets job, having an extramarital affair, and so forth. People who act however they please or say whatever is on their mind without thinking about consequences, especially without regard to social situation, may offend and alienate others. At the workplace, engaging in petty gossip, sexual harassment (ɧ), or back-stabbing might be considered tnaturalt; yet such behavior can be destructive for the individuals at the receiving end as well as for the company. And in dealings with foreign business associates, what an American might find natural or instinctive, even if socially acceptable here, might be deeply insulting or confusing to somebody from another culture.

Second, doing what comes naturally is not necessarily in onets own best interests. The various behaviors cited above would also tend to be counterproductive for the person engaging in them. tNaturalt behavior could prove deadly to onets career, since people who give little thought before they act cannot be trusted in a job that requires effective relationships with important clients, colleagues, and others.

Third, the speaker seems to suggest that you should be yourself, then act accordinglytSin that order. But we define ourselves in large measure by our actions. Young adults especially lack a clear sense of self. How can you be yourself if you dontt know who you are? Even for mature adults, the process of evolving onets concept of self is a perpetual one. In this respect, then, the speakerts recommendation does not make much sense.

In sum, one should not follow the speakerts advice universally or too literally. For unless a personts instincts are to follow standard rules of social and business etiquette, natural behavior can harm others as well as constrain onets own personal and professional growth.

74. tThe people we remember best are the ones who broke the rules.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I strongly agree that rule-breakers are the most memorable (AA) people. By departing from the status quo, iconoclasts call attention to themselves, some providing conspicuous mirrors for society, others serving as our primary catalysts for progress.

In politics, for example, rule-breakers Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King secured prominent places in history by challenging the status quo through civil disobedience (sa, IAs͵s). Renegades such as Ghengus Khan, Stalin, and Hussein, broke all the human-rights trules,t thereby leaving indelible marks in the historical record. And future generations will probably remember Nixon and Kennedy more clearly than Carter or Reagan, by way of their rule-breaking activitiestSspecifically, Nixonts Watergate debacle and Kennedyts extra-marital trysts.

In the arts, mavericks such as Dali, Picasso, and Warhol, who break established rules of composition, ultimately emerge as the greatest artists, while the names of artists with superior technical skills are relegated to the footnotes of art-history textbooks. Our most influential popular musicians are the flagrant rule breakerstSfor example, be-bop (bebop: sֵAһ) musicians such as Charlie Parker and Thelonius Monk, who broke all the harmonic rules, and folk musician-poet Bob Dylan, who broke the rules for lyrics.

In the sciences, innovation and progress can only result from challenging conventional theoriestSi.e., by breaking rules. Newton and Einstein, for example, both refused to blindly accept what were perceived at their time as certain trulest of physics. As a result, both men redefined those rules, and both men emerged as two of the most memorable figures in the field of physics.

In conclusion, it appears that the deepest positive and negative impressions appear on either side of the same iconoclastic coin. Those who leave the most memorable imprints in history do so by challenging norms, traditions, cherished values, and the general status quotSthat is, by breaking the rules.

75. tThere are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that people are motivated only by fear and self-interest. This claim relies on the belief that human beings are essentially selfish, or egoistic. In my view, the speaker oversimplifies human nature, ignoring the important motivating force of altruism.

On the one hand, I agree that most of our actions result in large part from self-interest and from our survival instincts, such as fear. For example, our educational and vocational lives are to a great extent motivated by our interest in ensuring our own livelihood, safety, health, and so on. We might perpetuate bad personal relationships because we are insecuretSor afraidtSof what will happen to us if we change course. Even providing for our own children may to some extent be motivated by selfishnesstSsatisfying a need for fulfillment or easing our fear that we will be alone in our old age.

On the other hand, to assert that all of our actions are essentially motivated by self-interest and fear is to overemphasize one aspect of human nature. Humans are also altruistictSthat is, we act to benefit others, even though doing so may not be in our own interest. The speaker might claim that altruistic acts are just egoistic ones in disguisetSdone to avoid unpleasant feelings of guilt, to give oneself pleasure, or to obligate another person. However, this counter argument suffers from three critical problems. First, some examples of altruism are difficult to describe in terms of self-interest alone. Consider the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his companions. It would be nonsensical to assert that this soldier is acting selfishly when he knows his action will certainly result in his own immediate death. Second, the argument offends (I) our intuition that human motivation is far more complex. Third, it relies on a poor assumption; just because we feel good about helping others, it does not follow that the only reason we help is in order to feel good.

In sum, the speaker oversimplifies human nature. All human motivation cannot be reduced to fear and self-interest. We can also be motivated by altruism, and the pleasure we might take in helping others is not necessarily an indication that our actions are selfish.

76. tFor a leader there is nothing more difficult, and therefore more important, than to be able to make decisions.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I agree that decisiveness is one clear mark of an effective leader. However, the speaker goes further to make the dual claim that decision-making is the most difficult and the most important aspect of a leaderts job. In my view, this additional claim amounts to an overstatement that fails to consider other aspects of a leaderts job that are either difficult or important.

First of all, decisiveness is not necessarily the most difficult aspect of a leaderts job. In fact, leaders rise to their positions typically because decisiveness comes easily or naturally to them. In this sense, the speakerts claim runs contrary to actual experience. Also, for some leaders the stress and the burden of their job pose more difficulties for them than the mere act of making decisions. For other leaders, balancing professional and personal life, or even time management in general, may be the most challenging aspect of the job, since leaders are typically very busy people.

Secondly, decisiveness is not necessarily the key factor in determining the quality of leadership. Decisiveness does not guarantee a good decision. An effective leader must also have wisdom, perspective, clear vision, judgment, and courage. Moreover, other factors such as trust and respect for others may be equally or more critical, since subordinates may not be willing to devote themselves to the plans and goals of a leader they mistrust or hold in low regard. Even the best decision will be of little value without the commitment of others to carry it out. Simply put, without someone to lead, a person cannot be a leader.

To sum up, I agree with the speaker only insofar as the ability to make decisions is a necessary ingredient of successful leadership. However, decision-making is not necessarily the most difficult aspect of every leaderts job; nor is it necessarily the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of a leader.

77. Although tgeniust is difficult to define, one of the qualities of genius is the ability to transcend traditional modes of thought and create new ones.

Explain what you think the above statement means and discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this definition of genius. In your discussion, be sure to include at least one example of someone who, in your opinion, exemplifies genius or a particular characteristic of genius. (Attention!)

I strongly agree that true genius is the ability to see beyond conventional modes of thinking and to suggest new and better ones. This definition properly sets genius apart from lesser instances of critical acumen, inventiveness or creativity. Under this definition, a true genius must successfully (1) challenge the assumptions underlying a current paradigm, and (2) supplant the old paradigm with a new, better, and more fruitful one.

This two-pronged (having a usually specified number of parts or approaches *a two-pronged strategy*) standard for true genius is aptly illustrated by examining the scientific contribution of the 15th-century astronomer Copernicus (A). Prior to Copernicus, our view of the universe was governed by the Ptolemaic (A춯˵A) paradigm of a geocentric (ԵISAA) universe, according to which our earth was in a fixed position at the center of the universe, with other heavenly bodies revolving around it. Copernicus challenged this paradigm and its key assumptions by introducing a distinction between real motion and motion that is merely apparent, in doing so, he satisfied the first requirement of a true genius.

Had Copernicus managed to show only that the old view and its assumptions were problematic, we would not consider him a genius today. Copernicus went on, however, to develop a new paradigm; he claimed that the earth is rotating while hurtling (hurtle: v.) rapidly through space, and that other heavenly bodies only appear to revolve around the earth. Moreover, he reasoned that his view about the earthts real motion could explain the apparent motion of the sun, stars and other planets around the earth. It turned out he was right; and his theories helped facilitate Galileots empirical observations, Keplerts laws of planetary motion, and Newtonts gravitational principle.

To sum up, I find the proposed definition of true genius incisive and accurate; and the example of Copernicus aptly points up (v. ʹa, s) the two required elements of true genius required by the definition.

78. Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any societyts past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes.

In your opinion, which is more importanttSpreserving historic buildings or encouraging modern development? Explain your position, using reasons and examples based on your own experiences, observations, or reading.

The issue of whether to raze an old, historic building to make way for progress is a complex one, since it involves a conflict between our interest in preserving our culture, tradition, and history and a legitimate need to create practical facilities that serve current utilitarian purposes. In my view, the final judgment should depend on a case-by-case analysis of two key factors.

One key factor is the historic value of the building. An older building may be worth saving because it uniquely represents some bygone era. On the other hand, if several older buildings represent the era just as effectively, then the historic value of one building might be negligible. If the building figured centrally into the cityts history as a municipal structure, the home of a founding family or other significant historical figure, or the location of important events, then its historic value would be greater than if its history was an unremarkable one.

The other key factor involves the specific utilitarian needs of the community and the relative costs and benefits of each alternative in light of those needs. For example, if the need is mainly for more office space, then an architecturally appropriate add-on (aʽt;׷ӣ) or annex might serve just as well as a new building. On the other hand, an expensive retrofit (AAT) may not be worthwhile if no amount of retrofitting would permit it to serve the desired function. Moreover, retrofitting might undermine the historic value of the old building by altering its aesthetic or architectural integrity.

In sum, neither modernization for its own sake nor indiscriminate preservation of old buildings should guide decisions in the controversies at issue. Instead, decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering historic value, community need, and the comparative costs and benefits of each alternative.

79. tThe ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee, and it is worth more than any other commodity under the sun.t

This first part of this statement means that interpersonaltSor socialtSskills can be marketed as part of a bundle of assets that one might tout to a prospective client, customer, or especially employer. Presumably, the extent and value of these skills can be gauged by onets previous experience with clients and customers or at jobs requiring a significant amount of teamwork and cooperation among workerstSas measured by factors such as onets tenure in such a job and letters of reference (letter of reference: tѯt֤At֤) from supervisors. While this claim seems plausible in the abstract (adv. , A), it ignores critical valuation problems. Furthermore, the claim that the ability to deal with people exceeds the value of all other commodities is an overgeneralization (n. aa), since relative values depend on particular circumstances.

The first problem with this claim is that it is far more difficult to quantify the value of interpersonal skills, or other human qualities, than the value of commodities such as coffee or sugar, which can be measured, weighed, or otherwise examined prior to purchase. To a large extent, the ability to work with people is a quality whose true value can be determined only after it is purchased, then tried and tested for a period of time. Additionally, its value may vary depending on the idiosyncrasies of the job. For example, a technically-oriented programmer or researcher might function well with a team of like-minded (־ȤͶA) workers, yet have trouble dealing with management or marketing personnel.

The second problem with this claim is that it overgeneralizes in asserting that the ability to work with people is tworth more than any other commodity.t The relative value of this ability depends on the peculiarities of the job. In some jobs, especially sales, ambition and tenacity are more valuable. In other areas, such as research and development, technical skills and specific knowledge are paramount. Moreover, in some businesses, such as mining or oil-drilling, the value of raw materials and capital equipment might be far more important a commodity than the social skills, or most other skills, of employeestSdepending on the economic circumstances.

In sum, the ability to deal with people is purchasable only to a limited extent, since its full value cannot be determined prior to purchase. Moreover, its full value depends on the organizational unit as well as the nature of the business.

80. tAs individuals, people save too little and borrow too much.t

From your perspective, how accurate is the view expressed above? In your discussion, be sure to consider the conditions under which it is appropriate to save money and the conditions under which it is appropriate to borrow. Develop your position using reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Whether an individual saves too little or borrows too much depends on the purpose and extent of either activity. While appropriate and prudent in some circumstances, either can be irresponsible in excess. The evidence suggests that, on balance, people today tend to borrow irresponsibly and are on the brink of saving irresponsibly as well.

Traditionally, saving is viewed as a virtue, while borrowing is considered a vice. However, just the opposite may be true under certain circumstances. Foregoing saving in favor of immediate spending may at times be well justified. A serious hobbyist (AAsA), for example, may be justified in foregoing saving to spend money on a hobby that provides great joy and fulfillmenttSwhether or not it also generates income. A relatively expensive automobile is justifiable if the additional expense provides added safety for the owner and his family. And foregoing saving is appropriate, and often necessary, for trainy day (iʱ, )t medical emergencies or unanticipated periods of unemployment. Borrowing can also be prudenttSif the loan is affordable and applied toward a sound long-term investment.

Were saving and borrowing limited to these types of scenarios, I would aver that people today save and borrow responsibly. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. Americans now purchase on credit far more expensive automobiles, relative to income, than ever before (adv. IsIʱs)tSvehicles that are far more than what is needed for safe transportation. Excessive credit-card debt, another type of unjustifiable borrowing, is at record levelstSand risingtSamong American households. Does the baby-boomerst current penchant for retirement investing compensate for these excesses? Probably not. This trend is fueled by unrealistic expectations of future returns; it may therefore, escalate to speculation and, at its height, widespread leveragingtSi.e., borrowing. Such speculation is more suited to highly sophisticated investors who can well afford to lose their entire investment than to average Americans and their nest eggs (n. IS, ӦAAi).

In conclusion, while people seem to be saving aggressively today, their investment choices and concomitant high spending and borrowing levels call into question the assertion that we are indeed a tnation of savers.t

81. tNo one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success or tget richt in business by conforming to conventional practices or ways of thinking.t

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.

Whether a conformist can achieve lasting success or tget richt in business depends primarily on the type of business involved. Iconoclasts rise to the top in newer industries and in those where consumer demand is in constant flux. Conformists ultimately prevail, however, in traditional service industries ensconced in systems and regulations.

In consumer-driven industries, innovation, product differentiation, and creativity are crucial to lasting success, in the retail and media sectors, for example, unconventional products and advertising are necessary to catch the attention of consumers and to keep up with the vagaries of consumer tastes. Those who take an iconoclastic approach tend to recognize emerging trends and to rise above their peers. For example, Ted Turnerts departure from the traditional format of the other television networks, and the responsiveness of Amazon.com to burgeoning Internet commerce, propelled these two giants to leadership positions in their industries. And in technology, where there are no conventional practices or ways of thinking to begin with, companies that fail to break away from last yearts paradigm are soon left behind by the competition.

However, in traditional service industriestSsuch as finance, accounting, insurance, legal services, and health caretSlasting success and riches (pl. Ƹ, Ʋ) come not to nonconformists but rather to those who can deliver services most effectively within the confines of established practices, policies, and regulations. Of course, a clever idea for structuring a deal, or a creative legal maneuver, may play a role in winning smaller battles along the way. But such tactics are those of conformists who are playing by the same ground rules (, [˶]atݵA˶A) as their peers; winners are just better at the game.

In conclusion, while non-conformists tend to be the wildly successful players in technology-driven and consumer-driven industries, traditionalists are the winners in system-driven industries pervaded by policy, regulation, and bureaucracy.

82. tBusiness and government must do more, much more, to meet the needs and goals of women in the workplace.t

What do you think of the opinion expressed above? In your discussion, be sure to use reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The issue here is whether business and government are doing enough to help meet the needs and goals of women in the workplace. I agree with the speaker insofar as many employers can do more to accommodate the special needs of women in their role as mothers. However, it seems to me that business and government are doing their fair share otherwise for women in the workplace.

Women differ fundamentally from men in their child-bearing ability. Related to this ability is the maternal instinct (n. AԱA)tSa desire to nurture that is far stronger for women than for men, generally speaking. At a minimum, then, businesses should acknowledge these fundamental differences and accommodate them so that a female employeets job and career are not jeopardized merely for fulfilling her instinctive role as a female. More and more businesses are providing maternal leave with full benefits, day-care facilities, and job-sharing programs to accommodate these special needs of women. In my observation, however, many businesses can do more in these respects.

However, beyond accommodating these fundamental differences, neither business nor government has a special duty to improve the status of women at the workplace. The government already has an obligation to enact and enforce anti-discrimination laws, and to provide legal means for seeking redress in cases of discrimination. Moreover, business and government both have a legal duty to abide by (v. , ) those laws by way of their hiring, salary, and job-promotion policies. Discharging (discharge: AAְAAŵ) this duty should, in my view, suffice to serve the special interests of women in the workplace. While many would argue that de facto double standards still run rampant and largely unchecked, this claim raises subjective perceptions about fairness that can neither be confirmed nor dispelled with certainty.

In sum, business and government can always do more to accommodate women in their special role as mothers. Otherwise, insofar as they are adhering to our current anti-discrimination laws, business and government are discharging their duty to help meet the needs and goals of women at the workplace.

83. tWe shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.t

Explain what you think this statement means and discuss the extent to which you do or do not agree with it. Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples from your experience, observations, or reading.

I believe this statement should be interpreted broadlytSto mean that we are influenced by the exterior shape of buildings, as well as by the arrangement of multiple buildings and by a buildingts various architectural and aesthetic elements. While I doubt that buildings determine our character or basic personality traits, I agree that they can greatly influence our attitudes, moods, and even life styles.

On the structural and multi-structural scales, the arrangement of numerous buildings can shape us in profound ways. High-density commercial districts with numerous skyscrapers might result in stressful commuting, short tempers, a feeling of dehumanization, and so on. A tcampust arrangement of smaller, scattered buildings can promote health, wellbeing, and stress reduction by requiring frequent brisk outdoor jaunts. Buildings with multiple floors can also tshapet us, literally, by requiring exercise up and down stairs.

As for floor plans and internal space, physical arrangement of workspaces can shape workerst attitudes toward work and toward one another. Sitting in small, gray cubicles lined up in militaristic (adj. aA) rows is demoralizing, leaving workers with the feeling that they are little more than impersonal cogs of some office machine. But creative design of workspaces in varied arrangements can create feelings of uniqueness and importance in each employee. Workspace relationships that suggest some sort of hierarchy may breed competitiveness among coworkers, and may encourage a more bureaucratic approach to work.

Finally, as for aesthetic elements, the amount of light and location of windows in a building can shape us in significant psychological ways. For most people, daily tasks are more enjoyable in settings with plenty of natural light and at least some natural scenery. Choice of colors can influence our mood, concentration, and efficiency. Numerous psychological studies show that different colors influence behavior, attitudes, and emotions in distinctly different ways. Yellow enhances appetite, blue has a tranquilizing effect, and gray is the color of choice for companies who want their workers to be subservient.

In sum, our buildings, the space around them and the space within them, can affect us in important ways that influence our outlook on life, relationships with coworkers, and even physical health and wellbeing.

84. tA business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services; customers should have the responsibility of gathering information about the products or services they may want to buy.t

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.

Requiring businesses to provide complete product information to customers promotes various consumer interests, but at the same time imposes burdens on businesses, government, and taxpayers. On balance, the burdens outweigh the benefits, at least in most cases.

A threshold problem with disclosure requirements is that of determining what constitutes tcompletet information. Admittedly, legislating disclosure requirements clarifies the duties of business and the rights of consumers. Yet determining what requirements are fair in all cases is problematic. Should it suffice to list ingredients, instructions, and intended uses, or should customers also be informed of precise specifications, potential risks, and results of tests measuring a productts effectiveness vis-a-vis (tԣtȽ) competing products? A closely related problem is that determining and enforcing disclosure standards necessarily involves government regulation, thereby adding to the ultimate cost to the consumer by way of higher taxes. Finally, failure to comply may result in regulatory fines, a cost that may either have a chilling effect on product innovation or be passed on to the customers in the form of higher prices. Either result operates to the detriment of the consumer, the very party whom the regulations are designed to protect.

These burdens must be weighed against the interest in protecting consumers against fraud and undue health and safety hazards. To assume that businesses will voluntarily disclose negative product information ignores the fact that businesses are motivated by profit, not by public interest concerns. However, consumers today have ready access to many consumer-protection resources, and may not need the protection of government regulation. Although health and safety concerns are especially compelling in the case of products that are inherently dangeroustSpower tools, recreational equipment, and the liketSor new and relatively untested products, especially pharmaceuticals, narrow exceptions can always be carved out for these products.

In conclusion, while stringent disclosure requirements may be appropriate for certain products, businesses and consumers alike are generally better off without the burdens imposed by requiring that businesses provide complete product information to all customers.

85. tAdvertising is the most influential and therefore the most important artistic achievement of the twentieth century.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Advertising is dearly the most influential art form in this century. It is therefore tempting to think it is also the most important. However, great artistic achievement is determined by criteria beyond mere influence. And when examined against these criteria, the genre of advertising does not measure up (v.sϸ, sϱ׼) as truly important.

To begin with, great art inspires us to look at the human situation from new perspectives. For example, early impressionist paintings challenge our thinking about visual perception and about the nature of the reality we assume we see. Other works, like Rodints tThe Thinker,t capture for our reflection the essential value of human rationality. In stark contrast, advertising encourages people not to think or reflect at all, but simply to spend.

In addition, the significance of great artistic achievement transcends time, even when it reflects a particular age. Yet advertising, by its very nature, is transient; in an eye-blink, todayts hot image or slogan is yesterdayts news. Of course, the timelessness of a work cannot be determined in its own time. Still, itts hard to imagine even the most powerful advertisement living beyond its current ad campaign.

Admittedly, one adtSAndy Warholts painting of the Campbell Soup cantShas achieved timelessness. But notice the irony; the packaging or advertising image was banal until it was elevated above mere graphic design to high art. The lesson here is that advertising, in itself, probably will not achieve great importance as art. But taken up by the artist as content in a larger commentary on society, it can become transcendent.

In sum, artists will no doubt continue to comment on advertising and on the materialistic values it reflects and promotes. But the ads themselves, however influential in marketing terms, fail to fulfill all the criteria for important art.

86. tWhether promoting a product, an event, or a person, an advertising campaign is most effective when it appeals to emotion rather than to reason.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading

There are two traditional advertising tactics for promoting a product, event, candidate, or point of view. One is to provide reasons; the other is to bypass reasons altogether and appeal strictly to emotion. Considered in isolation, emotional appeals are far more effective. But many of the most influential ads combine slim reasons with powerful appeals to emotion.

To appreciate the power of emotional appeals we need only consider the promotion of sodas, beer, cigarettes, cosmetics and so on. This advertising is the most successful in the industry; and it trades almost exclusively on the manipulation of our desires, fears and senses of humor. In fact, it wouldntt make sense to offer up (v. ) arguments, because there really arentt any good reasons for consuming such products.

Even so, some of these products are advertised with at least superficial reasoning. For instance, in the promotion of facial moisturizers it has become popular to use the image of a youthful woman with fresh, unlined skin along with the claim that the product tcan reduce the signs of aging.t This is indeed a reason, but a carefully couched one that never really states that product users will look younger. Still, countless middle-aged women will pay twice as much for products that add this claim to the expected image of youthfulness that trades on (v. A) their fears of growing old.

One of the most clever and ironic combined uses of reason and emotion is seen in the old Volvo slogan, tVolvo, the car for people who think.t The suggested reason for buying the car is obvious: it is the intelligent choice. But the emotional snare (something deceptively attractive) is equally clear; the ad appeals to onets desire to be included in the group of intelligent, thoughtful people.

In conclusion, I agree that appeals to emotion are more powerful tools than arguments or reasoning for promoting products. It is no coincidence that advertising agencies hire professional psychologists, but not logicians (A߼ѧ). Still, in my view the most influential advertisements mix in a bit of reasoning as well.

87. tAs technologies and the demand for certain services change, many workers will lose their jobs. The responsibility for those people to adjust to such change should belong to the individual worker, not to government or to business.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with specific reasons and/or examples drawn from your reading, your observations, or your own experience.

As technology and changing social needs render more and more jobs obsolete, who is responsible for helping displaced workers adjust? While individuals have primary responsibility for learning new skills and finding work, both industry and government have some obligation to provide them the means of doing so.

l agree that individuals must assume primary responsibility for adjusting to job obsolescence, especially since our educational system has been preparing us for it. For decades, our schools have been counseling young people to expect and prepare for numerous major career changes during their lives. And concerned educators have recognized and responded to this eventuality (aAt) with a broader base of practical and theoretical coursework that affords students the flexibility to move from one career to another.

However, industry should bear some of the responsibility as well. It is industry, after all, that determines the particular directions technological progress and subsequent social change will take. And since industry is mainly responsible for worker displacement, it has a duty to help displaced workers adjusttSthrough such means as on-site training programs and stipends for further education.

Government should also assume some of the responsibility, since it is partly government money that fuels technological progress in industry. Moreover, government should help because it can helptSfor example, by ensuring that grants and federally insured student loans are available to those who must retool (to reequip with tools) in order to find new work. Government can also help by observing and recording trends in worker displacement and in job opportunities, and by providing this information to individuals so that they can make prudent decisions about their own further education and job searches.

In conclusion, while individuals should be prepared for future job changes, both government and industry shoulder obligations to provide training programs, funding and information that will help displaced workers successfully retool and find new employment.

88. tEach generation must accept blame not only for the hateful words and actions of some of its members but also for the failure of other members to speak out (v. 󵨵˵, ˵) against those words and actions.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The issue at hand is whether each generation is blameworthy for the hateful words and actions of some of its members, and for the failure of others to denounce those hateful words and actions. In my view, it does not make clear sense to hold a vague abstraction like a generation responsible for anything. Nevertheless, each person has a duty to resist hateful words and actions, and to speak out against them.

Admittedly, up to a point we have no legal obligation to resist hateful words. Given our First Amendment right of free speech, we are entitled to say whatever hateful things we wish, as long as our words do not harass, slander, libel, incite to riot, or otherwise cause significant harm. Even so, this legal entitlement does not absolve us of deeper moral duties. For example, all persons are morally bound not to harm others, and to be helpful where it is important and within our capacity. The rhetoric of hate violates both these duties by promoting attitudes and social climates in which those who are hated are refused help and often harmed.

Not so clear is the issue of whether we also have a moral duty to denounce the hateful rhetoric and conduct of others. I believe we do, for silence is perceived as tacit approval or at least indifference. Seen this way, silence helps foster hateful attitudes and related harm. In other words, not speaking out is just another way to fail in our obligations to be helpful and not harmful. Moreover, as individuals we are able to speak out against hateful words and actions, in a variety of ways. By teaching tolerance to our children, for example, we can help them understand and appreciate differences among people, and therefore understand that hate-based responses to difference are simply wrong.

In sum, while it makes no sense to hold a generation responsible for anything as a group, I agree that every individual bears responsibility for speaking out against hateful words and behavior, as well as for resisting them.t

89. tThe study of history is largely a waste of time because it prevents us from focusing on the challenges of the present.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading

The speaker suggests that studying history is a waste of time because it distracts us from current challenges. Posed this way, the question carries the assumption that the study of history has no bearing on present problems or their possible solutions. On the contrary, history can provide examples, perspectives and insights that are directly relevant to contemporary challenges.

One way that studying history can help us face new challenges is by showing us inspirational (еA) examples of success. For instance, we can learn from the experience of the great inventor Thomas Edison that sometimes a series of apparent failures is really a precursor to success. Also consider the journey of Lewis and Clark into the Northwest Territory. Understanding the motivations needed to overcome adversities they faced can help to inspire modern-day explorers and scientists.

Studying history can also help us avoid repeating mistakes. For instance, we can learn from the failure of Prohibition during the 1930s that it can be a mistake to legislate morality. And future generations might learn from the 1997 indictment of the tobacco industry that it is bad policy to trade off the wellbeing of consumers in order to secure profits.

Finally, the study of history is important because we cannot fully appreciate our present challenges without understanding their historical antecedents. Consider the issue of whether California should be officially bilingual. The treaty that transferred California from Mexico to the United States stipulated that California must embrace both Spanish and English as official languages. Those who view the current bilingual debate as purely a contemporary issue might bring to the debate a more enlightened viewpoint by appreciating this historical fact and the events that led to the treaty.

In sum, though the past might seem distant, it is far from irrelevant. Studying history can inspire us to achievement, help us avoid costly mistakes, and help us simply appreciate that in most cases wetve been down this road before.

90. tPeople often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. What they fail to see, however, is that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand.t

Which do you find more compelling: the complaint about products that do not last or the response to it? Explain your position using relevant reasons and/or examples drawn from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Sample essay 1:

This topic raises the issue of whether, on balance, consumers are damaged or benefited by quality-cutting production methods. Indisputably, many consumer products today are not made to last. Nevertheless, consumers themselves sanction (s) this practice, and they are its ultimate beneficiariestSin terms of lower prices, more choices, and a stronger economy.

Common sense tells us that sacrificing quality results in a net benefit to consumers and to the overall economy. Cutting production corners not only allows a business to reduce a productts retail price, it compels the business to do so, since its competitors will find innovative ways of capturing its market share otherwise. Lower prices stimulate sales, which in turn generate healthy economic activity. Observation also strongly supports this claim. One need only look at successful budget retail stores such as Walmart as evidence that manytSand perhaps mosttSconsumers indeed tend to value price over quality.

Do low-quality products waste natural resources? On balance, probably not. Admittedly, to the extent that a product wears out sooner, more materials are needed for replacement units. Yet cheaper materials are often synthetics, which conserve natural resources, as in the case of synthetic clothing, dyes and inks, and wood substitutes and composites. Moreover, many synthetics and composites are now actually safer and more durable than their natural counterpartstSespecially in the area of construction materials.

Do lower-quality products waste human resources? If by twastet we mean tuse up unnecessarily,t the answer is no. Many lower-quality products are machine-made ones that conserve, not waste, human labortSfor example, machine-stitched or dyed clothing and machine-tooled furniture. Moreover, other machine-made products are actually higher in quality than their man-made counterparts, such as those requiring a precision and consistency that only machines can provide. Finally, many cheaply made products are manufactured and assembled by the lower-cost Asian and Central American labor forcetSa legion for whom the alternative is unemployment and poverty. In these cases, producing lower-quality products does not twastet human resources; to the contrary, it creates productive jobs.

In the final analysis, cost-cutting production methods benefit consumers, both in the short-term through lower prices and in the long run by way of economic vitality and increased competition. The claim that producing low-quality products wastes natural and human resources is specious at best.

Sample essay 2 (6):

Many people feel that products are not made to last, and correspondingly, many natural and human resources are wasted. On the other hand, it can be noted that such manufacturing practices keep costs down and hence stimulate demand. In this discussion, I shall present arguments favoring the former statement and refuting the latter statement.

Products that are not made to last waste a great deal of natural and human resources. The exact amount of wasted natural resources depends on the specific product. For example, in the automobile industry, the Yugo is the classic example of an underpriced vehicle that was not made to last. Considering that the average Yugo had (not thast since they are no longer produced!) a life expectancy of two years and 25,000 miles, it was a terrible waste.

Automobile industry standards today create vehicles that are warranted for about five years and 50,000 miles. By producing cheap Yugos that last less than half as long as most cars are warranted, the Yugo producer is wasting valuable natural resources. These same resources could be used by Ford or Toyota () to produce as Escort or Tercel that will last twice as long, thereby reducing the usage of natural resources by a factor of two.

Human resources in this example are also wasteful. On the production side, manufacturers of a poor quality automobile, like the Yugo, get no personal or professional satisfaction from the fact that their product is the worst automobile in the United States. This knowledge adversely affects the productivity of the Yugo workers.

Conversely, the workers at the Saturn plants constantly receive positive feedback on their successful products. Saturn prides itself in its reputation for quality and innovation as is seen in its recent massive recall to fix defect. This recall was handled so well that Saturnts image was actually bolstered. Had a recall occurred at a Yugo plant, the bad situation would have become even worse.

Another factor in the human resources area is the reaction by the consumer. A great deal of human resources have been wasted by Yugo owners waiting for the dreaded tow truck to show up to haul away the Yugo carcass. Any vehicle owner who is uncertain of his/her vehiclets performance at 7 AM as he/she is about to drive to work, senses a great deal of despair. This is great waste of human resources for the consumer.

91. tGovernment should establish regulations to reduce or eliminate any suspected health hazards in the environment, even when the scientific studies of these health hazards are incomplete or contradictory.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The stated opinion is that government should regulate any suspected environmental health hazards, even if relevant scientific evidence is conflicting or incomplete. While I agree that itts often wiser to err on the side of caution, I think the speakerts blanket assertion goes too far. Government reaction to specific cases should be decided on the basis of two considerations: (1) the degree of evidential uncertainty, and (2) the seriousness of the risk involved.

The greatest uncertainty arises from contradictory evidence. Consider an analogy taken from medical research, where one study links caffeine to increased risk of heart disease, while another claims there is no correlation between the two. Provided that both studies used sufficiently large and random samples, and the results were statistically significant in each case, it is difficult to decide whether to give up coffee. If the effect in question were a little sleep disturbance, then it might be reasonable to sustain moderate intake of caffeine. But with a risk as serious as cancer, it would be reasonable to abstain, pending more conclusive evidence.

Lesser degrees of uncertainty stem from incomplete evidence. One highly publicized case involved early studies suggesting that chloroflourocarbon emissions accelerate ozone depletion in our atmosphere. Some scientists were unsure whether the models were correct; CFC-producing businesses took their case against regulation to Congress and the public, arguing that the scientific evidence was inconclusive. But of course, waiting for conclusive evidence could mean the eventual destruction of life on our planet. The U.S. government wisely decided first to limit, and then prohibit most CFC production. The risks of being wrong in this case are enormous; today most of the international community is working toward the virtual elimination of chloroflourocarbons.

In sum, I believe it is unreasonable to give blanket prescriptions concerning government reaction to health hazards in the environment. Where uncertainty is greatest, and risks are relatively small, it would be wise to wait for more scientific evidence. But when the risks are great, government should regulate against environmental health hazards, even in the face of uncertainty.

92. tEmployees should show loyalty to their company by fully supporting the companyts managers and policies, even when the employees believe that the managers and policies are misguided.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The issue is whether employees should show loyalty to their firms by unequivocally supporting company managers and policies. I agree that employees have a binding duty to be loyal to their employers. However, loyalty does not always mean mindless (AͷAԵA, AAӵA) support of superiors and their polices. Moreover, in extreme circumstances, the duty to be loyal may be overridden by a more important duty.

Employee loyalty is best understood as a commitment to seek the interests of the firm. In plain terms, the interests of the firm are to increase stockholder wealth. Most of the time, and for most employees, this will mean following the orders and policies of those in charge.

Sometimes, however, executives or managers may set counterproductive policies. An employee who clearly sees this might better serve the firmts intereststSand be loyaltSby questioning the misguided policies rather than silently obeying them. For this reason, many companies will endure the presence of an occasional iconoclast among the ranks. Although such independent thinkers are annoying from a managerial standpoint, they often put up (ṩ) the creative idea that saves the bottom line.

And, on occasion, company policy might be plainly unjust or harmful to society. Consider the well-known example of Roger Boisjoly, the Morton-Thiokol engineer who had early concerns about the ill-fated launch of the space shuttle Challenger. In such situations, conscience may require an employee to disregard ordinary loyalty and dispute the decisions made by superiors. And, if speaking out to company insiders is ineffective, the employee might recognize an overriding duty to go public, and blow the whistle on the firm.

In conclusion, employees have an important duty to be loyal to their employers. This duty, however, is not rightly construed as simple obedience; its most important feature is commitment to promote the employerts interest in making a profit. Occasionally, loyalty in this regard can require an employee to challenge unproductive company policies. And at times the duty to be loyal might itself be outweighed by obligations of conscience.

93. tTo be successful, companies should trust their workers and give them as much freedom as possible. Any company that tries to control employeest behavior through a strict system of rewards and punishments will soon find that such controls have a negative effect on employee morale and, consequently, on the companyts success.t

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 stated opinion is that success in business is promoted by giving employees the greatest possible freedom, and avoiding strict systems of punishment and reward. Although I agree with the speakerts viewpoint, I would qualify (T, T) it somewhat. Employee freedom must be balanced against sound systems of managerial control and accountability. And certain rewards are appropriate, and are effective incentives to work harder and better.

First of all, current research suggests that employee freedom is good for business. For example, employees who are give the freedom to develop their own methods for completing tasks. In addition, employees with a larger role in company decision-making processes experience a sense of greater investment in their work and, in turn, become more productive. Even so, employee freedom cannot be unlimited. To keep projects successfully on track, some system of managerial control is needed.

Secondly, employers who motivate worker with rigid systems of reward and punishment are finding that this method often backfires. For one thing, people resent and resist being driven by the whip, so to speak (adv. sI,saA˵). For another, employees who focus on the promise of an external reward tend to be less personally committed to the task at hand. The reason is obvious: the reward becomes more important than the work. In both cases, quality and productivity are likely to suffer.

Nonetheless, employees who hope to be retained or promoted should expect to be held accountable for their job performance. Furthermore, there should be special compensation for work done creatively, or especially well. For example, an unexpected bonus at the end of a successful project is a fitting reward that provides an incentive for future effort without risking the pitfalls of a stricter system.

In sum, it is better for business to avoid controlling employees by harsh and inflexible methods, including strict punishments and reward. People work more creatively and productively when given a measure of freedom on the job. Still, this does not mean that organizations should abandon systems of accountability, or managerial control over projects.

94. tIf parents want to prepare their children to succeed in life, teaching the children self-discipline is more important than teaching them self-esteem.t

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 teaching children self-discipline is more important to their future success than helping them develop self-esteem. I think the formula ought to be reversed. Granted, self-discipline is a critical element of success. Still, a personts estimation of self forms the basis from which all onets life choices, for good or ill (sA), are made.

First of all, it is important to understand the concept of self-esteem. Many psychologists recommend nurturing self-esteem in children above all else. Detractors (ڮߣ) of this viewpoint denounce the prescription, arguing that it encourages children to grow up self-absorbed, overbearing, insolent and worse. But this criticism misconstrues self-esteem, which should not be confused with egotism or arrogance. Instead, self-esteem begins with onets positive assessment of self-worth (n. [=self-esteem], A,Դ, Ըs), and sustains personal characteristics like confidence, competence, and even caring.

Given this understanding, it is difficult to overrate the connection between self-esteem and personal success. A child who grows up believing she is worthwhile, strong and able is more likely to be self-assured and well-adjusted. And this, in turn, will dispose her to attempt challenging projects and nurture positive associations with others.

Admittedly, success is rare for those who procrastinate or cannot stay focused on the task at hand. However, there are many examples where self-discipline in the absence of healthy self-esteem has lead to undesirable and even tragic outcomes. Take the menial worker who is meticulous on the job, but cannot envision herself capable of greater achievement. Or, in the extreme case, consider the scooters at Columbine High School, whose plans were exacting and carefully executed. They did not lack self-discipline, though they reportedly suffered very low self-esteem.

In conclusion, self-esteem is the most fundamental feature of personal accomplishment. For this reason, it is vital that parents nurture it in their children. It is also important to teach children self-discipline; however, it is incorrect to place its significance above that of self-esteem.

95. tCompanies are never justified in employing young children, even if the childts family would benefit from the income.t

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 it is wrong for a company to employ young children, even if the childts family needs the income. I strongly agree with this position. There are many reasons in favor of it, and few that would justify even the most exceptional cases of child employment.

To begin with, young children are easy targets or exploitation and abuse. Employment is basically a contractual relationship between a firm and its employees. This relationship imposes duties of loyalty and standards of work on employees; at a minimum, it also obligates employers to compensate workers fairly and provide them with reasonably safe work environments. Because of their age, young children are not yet fully able to grasp their rights in this kind of arrangement. Therefore, they are not likely to recognize exploitive (adj. =exploitative) treatment by employers, such as overly long work periods, unfair wages, unsafe working conditions, and so on.

In addition, early employment can seriously harm children in other ways. First, it robs them of their most valuable commoditytSchildhood and the important schooling (ѧУ) and play that normally comes with it. This, in turn, can diminish their potential to become well-adjusted and accomplished adults. Even in the privileged circumstances of Hollywood stardom, successful young actors face huge obstacles in their development toward adulthood. Biographies of child stars are replete with stories of early substance abuse and psychological problems that stem from too much success, too soon. The recent tragic death of Dana Plato illustrates this point clearly.

Moreover, family need is hardly a justification for employing young children. In our culture as well as many others, public programs are available to assist those in dire financial need. Thus there is little rationale for thinking that economic need outweighs the palpable dangers of childhood employment.

In sum, companies should not employ young children. Early work seriously jeopardizes the wellbeing and future prospects of children. Moreover, financial need is not a compelling reason for child labor when alternatives are available.

96. tIn order to understand a society, we must examine the contents of its museums and the subjects of its memorials. What a society chooses to preserve, display, and commemorate is the truest indicator of what the society values.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker alleges that understanding a society requires examining its memorials and museums, since their subject matter and contents are the truest indicators of what a society values. I agree that we can learn a great deal about a society through its museums and memorials. However, these may not be the ttruestt indicators of social values. To discover other values that shape a society, we also need to examine it popular forms of expression.

Museums and memorials offer important evidence of what a society holds dear. For instance, early war memorials symbolize abstract virtues such as courage and honor, as well as combat victory. Later memorials honoring the fallen in Vietnam tend to emphasize individual sacrifice that will present its history in ways that underscore its hardships, achievements and ideals. When museums present evidence of a social failing, such as racism, the intent is to stress a cherished ideal, such as equality, that has been violated.

However, museums and memorials reflect a societyts official values, not necessarily its most pervasive or influential ones. To discover the common values that significantly affect daily life, we must explore a societyts popular media, its forms of entertainment and its advertising. From the media we learn about peoplets interests and viewpoints. Looking at popular entertainment tells us whether people enjoy representations of sex and violence, or stories of courage and valor. And advertising appeals to basic material values; it shows us what individuals are willing to buy, and why. In examining these popular forms of expression, we can see that the everyday preferences and values that shape a society are frequently at odds with its official ideals.

In conclusion, to develop a complete picture of what a society is like, we need to understand its officially sanctioned values as well as its popular ones. For this reason, it is important to examine popular forms of expression, as well as the content of a societyts museums or the subjects of its memorials.

97. tIn business, more than in any other social arena, men and women have learned how to share power effectively.t

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 stated opinion is vague, with no clear meaning for tsharing power effectively.t But if this phrase is intended to convey the idea that roughly equal numbers of men and women occupy prestige and high-paying positions in business, then I believe the claim at issue is mistaken for two reasons.

First of all, it is not the case that women are demonstrably more successful at attaining powerful positions in business than in other social arenas. Admittedly, the percentage of women earning degrees and entering the business world is significantly greater than in other prestigious professions such as medicine, engineering or science. However, the ratio of women in graduate business programs and in business management positions is about the same as in law schools and firms, or in Ph.D. programs and in teaching positions in higher education. In business, law and higher education, the proportion of professional women is around 40 percent.

Secondly, very few women achieve the highest-level positions in business. Recent studies indicate that women occupy just under 3 percent of corporate executive positions from the vice president level on up. And more importantly, this percentage has not changed significantly during the past ten or fifteen years, a period during which the number of women in management careers in record numbers, they are setting into lower level jobs while their male counterparts are achieving the more powerful ones.

There is considerable controversy about the reasons why women tend to crowd around the bottom of the business career ladder. Some blame the proverbial glass ceiling, said to be held firmly in place by an told boy network.t Others claim that women are naturally held back as they struggle to fulfill the dual roes of professional and family caregiver. In any case, women are not any more successful in achieving powerful positions in business than in some other high prestige careers; and they do not share power effectively with men and within the business world itself.

98. tIn order to accommodate the increasing number of undergraduate students, college and universities should offer most courses through distance learning, such as videotaped instruction that can be accessed through the Internet or cable television. Requiring students to appear at a designated time and place is no longer an effective or efficient way of teaching most undergraduate courses.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

In response to the challenge of providing education for an expanding undergraduate population, one tempting solution is to replace university teachers and classrooms with distance learning technologies like the Internet or cable television. However, I believe that these technologies are best suited as valuable support resources, not as replacements for the traditional face-to-face classroom experience.

Admittedly, the Internet or cable television may be more cost-effective than traditional classrooms as means for quickly transmitting information to a large number of students. And, computer-generated standardized tests are a cheap way to assess information acquisition. However, there is much more to teaching than conveying information. Likewise, there is more to learning than a demonstrated ability to pass standardized tests.

Teaching just begins with the delivery of information. After that, teaching involves the complex and often spontaneous process of dialogical reasoning about the information at hand. This process includes clarifying, analyzing, evaluating, criticizing and synthesizing information and points of view, as well as creatively and logically exploring alternatives, solutions and new design possibilities. Done well, teaching further provides effective models of rationality and moral responsibility. It is difficult to see how flat technology can replace the human element in these essential aspects of the teaching craft.

In the same way, absorbing information is just the starting point of learning. To learn is also to develop habits of careful, critical and creative thinking about information and to acquire a hunger for learning more. Moreover, learning is fundamental to a personts emerging rational autonomy and sense of moral responsibility to others. These dispositional aspects of learning are difficult to foster in technical packages or to assess; nonetheless they are at the heart of what learning is supposed to produce: educated persons.

In conclusion, I believe that distance learning technologies are best used as efficient supplements to teaching and learning. We cannot think that technology will make a good substitute for the classroom without relying on the unlikely assumption that students are effective autodidacts (n. ѧ, ѧɹA), and can develop educated dispositions and habits of mind in the absence of teachers and mentors. This assumption, I fear, would effectively reduce education to unreflective training.

99. tIf a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

I dontt think it is a good idea to design an educational system that focuses mainly on competition. For although a little competition might produce desired results, in the long run too much competition will be destructive. Instead, I believe that our national economic success will be better promoted by an educational system that encourages cooperative learning among students, and with students from other countries.

Granted, competitiveness is an important aspect of human nature. And, properly directed, it can motivate us to reach higher and produce more, not to mention meet deadlines. But being competitive fixes our focus externally, on marking and beating the progress of others with whom we compete. Such external motivation can direct our attention away from creative solutions to our problems, and away from important human values like cooperation and fair play (ƽ, ƽt). Indeed, a highly competitive environment can foster cheating and ruthless back-stabbing within an organization, and ill-will and mistrust among nations. In the extreme case, competition between nations becomes war.

On the other hand, an environment of cooperation encourages us to discover our common goals and the best ways to achieve them. At the national and international levels, our main interests are in economic wellbeing and peace. In fact, economic success means little without the security of peace. Thus, global peace becomes a powerful incentive for developing educational models of cooperative learning, and implementing exchange programs and shared research projects among universities from different countries.

Moreover, research suggests that cooperative settings foster greater creativity and productivity than competitive ones. This has been shown to be the case both in institutions of higher learning and in business organizations. If true, it seems reasonable to argue that national economic success would be similarly tied to cooperative rather than competitive effort.

In conclusion, competition can provide an effective stimulus to achievement and reward. Even so, I believe it would be unwise to make competition the centerpiece of our educational system. We stand to reap greater benefits, including economic ones, by encouraging cooperative learning.

100. tIn order to force companies to improve policies and practices considered unethical or harmful, society should rely primarily on consumer actiontSsuch as refusal to buy productstSrather than legislative action.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Consumer action is an important tool for responding to harmful or unethical business practices. However, it is not always an especially effective one. Thus I disagree with the stated opinion, and would argue that legislative action is an equally important means for constraining the activities of business.

Ideally, consumer action would be the best free market response to harmful or unethical business activity. Consider widespread public support for the United Farm Workerst table grape boycott, called by late union leader Cesar Chavez in protest of injustices against field workers. The boycott worked; eventually loss of revenues forced California grape growers to agree to fairer working conditions. This is what Adam Smith had in mind when he argued that business, left free to pursue profit, would be guided by the so-called invisible hand of competition to produce the greatest social benefit.

However, history has shown the hand of competition sometimes to be inept as well as invisible in guiding the modern corporation. Limited solely by the forces of competition, corporations have been known to steal from one another, exploit workers, inflate prices, market harmful products, lie in advertising and pollute the environment. Moreover, consumer response has had little if any effect on many such practices.

Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to direct an effective consumer response. In a time of large conglomerates and multi-tiered international corporations, consumers may not know which company is responsible for a given harm or injustice. Additionally, those harmed by a business may not be its consumers. For instance, if a clothing chain subcontracts to foreign garment companies that seriously exploit their workers, few of the storets customers would stop shopping there out of sympathy for faceless (SAA) workers thousands of miles away. Finally, consumer action takes time; it took years for the UFW boycott to succeed. Sometimes the harm in question is simply too great to wait for the invisible hand.

In conclusion, consumer action should not be the primary means of reacting to undesirable business practices. Some legislation is necessary to curb business activities that create serious harm or injustice.

101. tThe automobile has caused more problems than it has solved. Most societies would probably be much better off if the automobile had never been invented.t

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 most societies would be better off without the invention of the automobile. Granted, automotive transportation has imposed tremendous costs on society. Nevertheless, I disagree with the stated opinion, for the automobile has produced even greater benefits.

Admittedly, automobiles create serious social problems. Highway vehicles are responsible for a large share of the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other toxic emissions that pollute our air. Moreover, chemical gasoline additives designed to reduce air pollution have resulted in unexpected ground and water contamination. Debilitating and often fatal pollution-related respiratory diseases are causing health care costs to skyrocket. Similarly rising are the costs of auto accident-related injuries and deaths, which emergency room personnel claim amount to an epidemic. In addition, crowded urban areas now experience the psychological phenomenon of road rage, which often leads to assault injuries and deaths. And, out-of-use vehicles are unsightly litter in front yards, junkyards and the countryside.

However, automobile use is not the sole factor leading to these problems and their associated costs. Overpopulation is another contributing cause; if there were fewer people, and fewer people with cars, the problems mentioned above would be less severe as well. But give the current global population explosion, it is difficult to imagine very many things in society functioning at all without automotive transportation.

The most general benefit of the automobile is increased mobility, which in turn provides for the efficient delivery of emergency services, medical supplies, housing materials, fresh food and other important goods to large numbers of people. Moreover, the automobile contributes to the employment picture in two ways: the industry provides many jobs, and people are more likely to get jobs if they own and drive automobiles. The automobile also provides other benefits, like recreation and convenience, that are not quite in category of basic need. But their importance should not be underestimated. Recreation contributes significantly to quality of life and wellbeing. And sheer convenience opens up possibilities for the realization of many additional goods, like helping those in need.

In conclusion, the invention of the automobile was indeed a mixed blessing. But the benefits of automotive technology outweigh its harms, particularly in a heavily populated world.

102. tAn advanced degree may help someone get a particular job. Once a person begins working, however, the advanced degree and the formal education it represents are rarely relevant to success on the job.t

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.

I strongly disagree with the speakerts opinion that earning an advanced degree is rarely relevant to success on the job. Granted there are many technical disciplines that experience rapid tinformation turnover,t leaving specific information acquired in onets graduate or professional program quickly outdated. Nonetheless, there are many features of advanced formal education that will contribute to success both on and off the job throughout onets lifetime.

To begin with, even in such areas as computer science, where it is estimated that much of what a student learns today will be obsolete in just five years, an advanced degree and the education it represents will continue to be of benefit. Unlike undergraduate education, which is divided into a number of small educational units every term, post-baccalaureate (<A>ѧsѧI) education is concentrated on deeper learning in fewer areas. Moreover, most graduate education requires extended, critical focus on complex issues or research projects. And even if the technical information relevant to completing a graduate-level project becomes outmoded, the learned critical methods and problem-solving approaches will not.

This is because such methods and approaches require ability in creative and logical thinking. It takes significant interpretative and analytical skill to successfully learn a body of complex material or research a difficult issue. Moreover, developing a sophisticated research project or solving a complex technical problem require those skills plus the abilities to creatively envision alternatives, and logically rule out all but the best ones.

Finally, it takes discipline and persistence to complete an advanced degree. Because of the sheer scope and complexity of the material, issues and problems studied at the graduate level, it is not easy to bring a thesis or research project to completion. Giving up is a constant temptation. Those who succeed demonstrate traits of character that will serve them for a lifetime.

In conclusion, earning an advanced degree will be an element in most peoplets success on the job, even though the information they learn in graduate or professional school may become obsolete. Advanced study fosters important reasoning and problem-solving skills, as well as character traits like discipline and persistence. These skills and traits cannot help but contribute to personal success.

103. tMost people today place too much emphasis on satisfying their immediate desires. The overall quality of life would be greatly improved if we all focused instead on meeting our long-term needs.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker claims that the overall quality of life would be better if people would resist satisfying immediate desires and focus on long-term needs. I tend to agree. Common examples related to health and financial security serve as an apt basis for my agreement.

To begin with, long-term good health is necessary to optimal quality of life. Even so, there are those who use tobacco or abuse substances, fully understanding the dire health consequences of such behavior. In addition, many people have existing health problems that can be alleviated or eliminated with proper nutrition and exercise, yet persist in enjoyable but unhealthy habits. Less dramatically, many of us lack the discipline to invest one half hour, three times a week, in sustained aerobic exercise that can slow the aging process and contribute to improved health.

Secondly, a good quality of life requires long-term financial security. Yet, in our consumerist society, far too many people spend money they should be saving or investing, just to own the latest technological toy or go on a dream vacation. Worse yet, others will use credit, spending money they dontt even have, to gratify immediate desires for consumer products, recreation or entertainment. In all cases, they are literally stealing from their own future wealth and security in order to seize short-term satisfaction. Financial worry, delayed retirement and even impoverished old age are common outcomes in such scenarios.

Finally, immediate gratification on the part of some can diminish the quality of life for others. Family and friends suffer from a loved onets ill-health or financial instability. And careful, disciplined people end up giving away some of their wealth, through taxation, in order to subsidize public programs for those who have traded immediate gratification for poverty or ill-health.

In conclusion, the stated opinion is correct, we would all be better off in the long run if more people chose to forego satisfaction of current desires. Of course, not every detriment to quality of life is an outcome of personal choice. But a great many problems do result from undisciplined seeking of instant gratification.

104. tThe value of any nation should be measured more by its scientific and artistic achievements than by its business successes.t

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.

It is tempting to concede the speakerts opinion that achievements in art and science are more significant to the worth of a nation than its tmeret business successes. Still, I disagree with the view because it overlooks the several ways that commercial success supports artistic accomplishment and scientific progress. It also ignores the extent to which commercial success renders a nation more secure, and better able to promote human rights and political stability throughout the world.

First of all, art and science have always depended upon the patronage of successful business. Consider Italyts powerful banking clan, the Medici family, and their support for artists such as Michelangelo (AsSʻAT[1475-1564,aIAոʱڳɾsAsѧ,]) and Raphael. Substantial scientific and artistic support now comes from foundations established by extraordinarily successful business families like the Rockefellers, Gettys, Carnegies and Mellons. In addition to their private-sector foundation funding, successful businesses also pay taxes that are returned to university art and science programs. And, many businesses form partnerships with universities to further scientific discovery and related technological progress. Finally, both art and science are highly successful business enterprises in their own right.

Secondly, the value of a nation is related to its ability to defend itself, and to help promote peace and justice among other nations. A nation is more capable in both regards when its businesses enjoy greater success. For example, the current return of Kosovars to their homeland was facilitated by a cost-intensive military effort that required funding from, among other sources, tax revenues from business. In addition, a wealthy nation can, by means of its trade agreements, use its economic strength to encourage other countries to extend greater human rights to their citizens. Finally, a wealthy nation can depend on an expansive weapons industry in the private sector; and it can fund an effective military to carry out national defense.

In sum, it is simplistic to suppose that achievement in art and science is more important to the value of a nation than the success of its businesses. The latter is essential to national and world security. And, business success is deeply connected to accomplishment in art and science.

105. tAll archeological treasures should remain in the country in which they were originally discovered. These works should not be exported, even if museums in other parts of the world are better able to preserve and display them.t

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.

Whether archaeological treasures should remain in the countries where they are found is a complex and controversial issue. I sympathize with the view that antiquities should remain in the country of their discovery. But given real-word considerations, it is sometimes best to place archaeological treasures wherever they will be safe and well-preserved.

Recent antiquities laws throughout the world reflect my point of view that the ancient treasures of a place should remain there. It seems outrageous that Greeks or Egyptians must visit the British Museum to see the best remnants of their distant past; and this link is grounds for a vague but justified claim to ownership.

However, cultural ownership is only one consideration. Historically, ancient treasures have been most interesting to two groups: scholars and robbers. Admittedly, the two are sometimes indistinguishable, as when Schliemann stole out of Turkey with an immense trove (ղصAItֵAI) of what he mistakenly thought was King Priamts treasure. Schliemann eventually placed his collection in the relatively safe hands of national museums, where it took the vicissitudes of war to destroy part of it. But none of Schliemannts find would be available to the Turkish people or the world if plunderers had got there first.

Often, the plunderers do get there first. When Carter found the tomb of Tutankhamen, tomb-robbers, largely Egyptian, had carried off the treasures from bombs of other pharaohs ([ŰA]). The fact that the world, including the Egyptians, have the exhaustively cataloged and well-preserved wonders of the Tutanhkamen find is owing to Carter and his associates. This, then, becomes the only argument for exporting ancient treasures to safer locations: it is a lesser evil than not having the treasures at all.

In sum, it is usually best to leave archaeological treasures within the country of their discovery. Even so, it is sometimes necessary to relocate them. This, however, leaves open two important and related issues: which specific situations justify relocation; and, whether there is ever an obligation to restore collections to the country where they were found.

106. tThe most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This way, each worker completes a small portion of the task but contributes to the whole.t

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 stated opinion is that the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This strategy is probably cost-effective (tɱA) in many situations. However, I think that it works against important organizational values over time.

Distinct divisions of labor are efficient for a number of reasons. First of all, workers with few highly specific skills are usually cheaper to hire than those with broader education and experience. Secondly, it is less expensive to train employees in narrow areas. Finally, strict compartmentalization (n., ) of tasks makes it easier for managers to control employees, and, therefore, to control and increase productivity. But however profitable this strategy might be in the short run, it can ultimately work against the organization.

To begin with, fragmenting work into small units leads to employee alienation. Those responsible for only a detailed component of a project can easily lose sight of larger organizational goals and their own importance in achieving them. Research indicates that they then become less committed to their work, and less productive. Of course, unproductive employees can be replaced. But replacement is costly; and high employee turnover is bad for organizational morale.

In addition, compartmentalizing tasks can stifle creativity, as well as undermine self-motivation and pride in onets work. With little collaboration or even communication between discrete work units, larger creative insights are lost. And, cooperative efforts usually foster a series of common purpose and pride in accomplishment.

Of course, diversifying jobs and increasing worker participation in larger projects could lead to lower productivity. But the experience of large manufacturing corporations like General Motors shows just the opposite. When GM facilities implemented these and other strategies to improve work-place quality, they reported that productivity increased.

In conclusion, I believe that organizing work into discrete tasks will compromise important organizational values like creativity, self-motivation, commitment and pride in accomplishment. So, although there are times when small divisions of labor will be necessary, generally work should be diversified, and workers should have greater involvement in projects overall.

107. tPeople are overwhelmed by the increasing amount of information available on the computer. Therefore, the immediate goal of the information technology industry should be to help people learn how to obtain the information they need efficiently and wisely.t

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 because of the vast amount of information available on the Internet and its accessibility to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection ([]InternetS), it is increasingly important that people be able to access their target information efficiently, without confronting great amounts of irrelevant information along the way. I agree with this view. Additionally, individuals need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff on the Internet, since with increasing information comes increasing misinformation (n. I, I).

It is possible today to sit down at onets computer with a specific question in mind, one that can be safely presumed to have an answer somewhere in cyberspace (n. Asռ). But there is no guarantee that the questioner will have an easy time of finding that answer, and there are several reasons for this unhappy fact. For one thing, there is no comprehensive tdirectoryt or tindext to the information stored on the net. Another problem is that people do not always describe a subject the same way. So if one person searches for information under a certain label, only if whoever provides the desired information used the same label will the first person find the information easily.

A different kind of problem is the fact that, as commercial enterprises, the proprietors (ߣS) of commercial search engines are subject to financial pressures and thus tend to favor some candidates for search result lists over others. What this means is that, if you do a search on a particular topic, the company that owns the search engine is likely to display most prominently those items whose producers pay the most for such display.

Finally, we must remember that anyone with modest equipment and expertise can establish a Website. The result is that unless one knows from whom one is obtaining information, one must be circumspect about the integrity of the information as well as the motives of the information provider.

108. tEmployees should not have full access to their own personnel files. If, for example, employees were allowed to see certain confidential materials, the people supplying that information would not be likely to express their opinions candidly.t

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 is whether employees should have full access to their own personnel files. The speaker claims that they should not, pointing out that such access could diminish the condor of those supplying information. To some extent, I agree with this viewpoint. Although employees are entitled to be accurately informed about the substance of performance reviews or complaints in their files, at times there will be good reason not to identify information sources.

First of all, employers have a right to control some information pertinent to (adj. ..йصA) their business success. Unproductive or uncooperative workers can seriously harm an organization; for this reason, employers need to have accurate information about employee performance. But when employees have full access to their own personnel files, co-workers and even supervisors will often find it difficult to give frank criticism of underachievers (n. ɾ͹t,ѧҵAIǱAѧ) or to report troublemakers. So although employees have legitimate claims to know what has been said about them, they are not always entitled to know who said it.

Secondly, employers are obligated to control some information when their employees are accursed of unlawful conduct. Since employers are responsible for wrongdoing (ISA) at the workplace, they must investigate charges of, for example, drug activity, possession of firearms, or harassment. But again, without assurances of anonymity, accusers may be less forthright. Furthermore, they may be in jeopardy of retaliation by the accused. So while workers under investigation may be generally informed about complaints or reports, they should not know who filed them. Even so, employers do not enjoy an unlimited right to gather and keep confidential information about employees. For example, it would be unjust to investigate an employeets political viewpoints, religious preference, or sexual orientation. Such invasions of privacy are not warranted by an employerts right to performance-related information, or duty to protect the workplace from criminal wrongdoing.

In conclusion, limiting employee access to personnel files is sometimes warranted to encourage candor and prevent retaliation against information sources. At the same time, employers have no right to solicit or secure information about the private lives of their workers.

109. tAll personnel evaluations at a company should be multi-directional tS that is, people at every level of the organization should review not only those working tundert them but also those working tovert them.t

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 employees at all levels in an organization should review one another, including those working tovert them as well as tundert them. I agree in part. Often companies will conduct two different kinds of periodic review, one to justify decisions regarding promotion and pay, and another to increase overall efficiency by assessing employee performance. Multi-directional evaluation should never be part of the first kind of review; however, it can be valuable in the second kind and, therefore, should be used there.

On the one hand, lower-level employees have too much organizational power if their evaluations are used in decisions about the pay or promotions of their superiors. Employees can intimidate superiors with the threat of bad review. Also employees can use the review process to retaliate against those at higher levels. In either case, the authority of a manager or an executive can be seriously compromised, and productivity is lost in the process.

On the other hand, the most revealing criticisms of a superiorts style often come from those subject to it. In a process of review that isntt connected to promotion or pay, employees at all levels can be more comfortable and forthright about sharing concerns. In turn, every employee is more likely to get accurate feedback, including constructive criticism, that will help each nurture strengths and improve areas of weakness. In this way (adv. a), multi-directional evaluation can greatly enhance organizational efficiency.

Furthermore, multi-directional evaluation in this context helps prevent worker alienation and subsequent lowered productivity. Widening the performance review process will very likely foster a greater sense of personal involvement in onets work, especially among lower-level employees. Recent studies have shown that people who feel more invested in their jobs tend to work more cooperatively and productively.

In conclusion, there is an important role for multi-directional personnel evaluation in the workplace. While it should be clearly separate from issues of promotion and pay, as part of the performance review process it can encourage better employee relations and higher productivity.

110. tThe most effective business leaders are those who maintain the highest ethical standards.t

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 assertion at issue is that business people who uphold the highest ethical standards are the most effective leader. I strongly agree with this statement. For a while (adv. ʱ), unethical behavior might seem effective. But a few examples from the investment banking industry keenly illustrate how dishonesty and corruption in leadership can bring a business to its knees, shattering the trust of its employees and ruining its reputation with clients.

Consider the cases of Michael Milken, former head of junk bond trading at Drexel Burnham Lambert, and Paul Mozer, formerly in charge of Salomon Brotherst government bonds trading. Each of these men engaged in double-dealing (sAǣƭ) and other illegal acts, reaping tremendous profits for their companies, and winning the admiration of subordinates and superiors alike. However, their successes were relatively short-lived (AAAA꼻һֵA). Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations in each case revealed massive wrongdoing. As a result, Drexel went out of business. And Salomon Brothers barely recovered, after suffering the forced resignations of its top executives, a financially devastating loss of reputation, and the exodus of many valued employees.

Moreover, Salomonts survival is probably owing entirely to its subsequent leadership under Warren Buffett. Buffett, who was on the Salomon Brother board of directors at the time of the scandal, was brought in to (bring in to: vt. ..,A..S,A..I) save the beleaguered company. His success in keeping it afloat at all can be directly tied to his sterling ethical reputation in the international business community at the time. Buffettts reputation restored at least some lost confidence among clients and investors, and probably prompted some employees to reconsider their decisions to leave the company.

While not every case of unethical leadership is quite so public or devastating as these, they do illustrate an important point. In any business, once corruption at the top becomes known, the predictable outcome will be damaged reputation, lower worker morale, and, along with them, lost productivity.

In conclusion, unethical conduct at the leadership level in a company might go unnoticed and serve onets interests in the short-term. However, in the long run it will work against onets effectiveness and may even prove ruinous.

111. tBecause of recent advancements in business and technology, the overall quality of life in most societies has never been better than at the present time.t

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 stated opinion is that recent advancements in business and technology have made overall quality of life better than ever. I disagree somewhat with the speakerts viewpoint. For although such advancements have improved our lives in many respects, they have also diminished our quality of life in other ways.

Clearly, progress in business and technology has produced many benefits. For example, we can research problems and their solutions in minutes on the Internet; productivity is at an all-time (adj. sǰA, AA) high. And we can get more done in less time, leaving more time for hobbies, entertainment or other leisure activities. We can even mix a little work into our leisure time, by taking our laptops (aЯʽA) and cell phones on vacation (ڶȼ). This way, we can stay one step ahead on projects at work, anticipating deadlines and staying in touch with co-workers and important clients.

In addition, leisure time has itself been enhanced by business and technology. Never before have we had so many spectacular diversions available, or so many leisure- and entertainment-related businesses vying for our attention. Moreover, we can obtain everything form airline tickets to a language course and holiday wardrobe (ͷ via the Internet, in the convenience of our own homes.

Nevertheless, advances in business and technology have compromised our quality of life as well. For all the wonders of computers, they have spawned their own special illnesses and ailments, like severe eyestrain (۾ƣ), back and neck problems, and carpal tunnel syndrome (n. s. And though we now have a world of information available in a keystroke (һA), some of this informationtSlike pornography, hate group diatribes and bomb-building instructionstSare harming our society, especially our children. Even apparently harmless material, like direct mail advertising and telephone soliciting, is endlessly annoying. Finally, family life is sometimes a casualty of all this progress, with parents and children spending more time transfixed (ʹt) before their computer monitors and less time together.

In conclusion, advances in business and technology are a mixed blessing. For while we enjoy many benefits of this so-called progress, in many ways it has changed our lives for the worse.

112. tIn most fieldstSincluding education, politics, and businesstSthe prevailing philosophy never stays in place very long. This pattern of constantly shifting from one theoretical position to another is an inevitable reflection of human nature: people soon tire of the status quo.t

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 the prevalent philosophies in many areas change frequently, a result of people tiring of the statue quo. I disagree with this claim because, first, philosophical perspectives do not change frequently; and, second, it is not mere tiresomeness that lies at the root of such changes.

Consider first the field of higher education, where the longtime objectives of broadly educating and civilizing students now clash with the business-oriented goal of producing efficient workhorses (sA) for the world of commerce (world of industry). With the power of money behind it for ammunition, the latter just might win. But, this change will hardly be due to anyonets boredom with the status quo. Instead, it will be an outcome of evolving social and economic forces.

Secondly, consider changes in political philosophy. A traditional liberal philosophy is that government should provide for the underprivileged through various public assistance programs. One outcome of a plain welfare program, however, was that recipients lingered for years on its rolls. The liberal point of view is now evolving to one that endorses some public stipend, but requires a return to the workforce. I think this change has come about as an attempt to improve ideology on the basis of past failures, not simply because people grew tired of the existing order.

Finally, consider the transition in business from models of rigid management control to the cooperative workplace. Whereas traditionally workers complied with orders dictated from the top and were motivated by strict reward/punishment systems, many employees today participate in the decisions affecting their work, and are motivated by more cooperative projects. This shift, moreover, is the result of extensive research that shows stricter models result in lower productivity.

In conclusion, philosophical changes in the areas of education, politics and business are not frequent, but slowly evolve. Furthermore, the transitions in question are the outcomes of socioeconomic change, research, and lessons from past failures, not tedium associated with the status quo.

113. tIt is essential that the nations of the world increase spending on the building of space stations and on the exploration of other planets, even if that means spending less on other government programs.t

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The author believes that increased spending on space stations and the exploration of other planets is essential. I disagree with this view, and I especially disagree with the claim that such spending should take place at the expense of other government programs.

Increased funding for the space program would be justified only if it could be shown that money spent on space programs would improve the lives of people on Earth more than money spent in other areas that directly affect the wellbeing of human. But there is no evidence that space programs can benefit people to a greater extent than, for example, medical care, medical research, education or environmental protection.

Admittedly, the space program has produced a great many (adj.sܶ) tspinoff (n. Ʒ,A)t results that make life better in ways that have nothing to do with space. But if the nations of the world were to make as substantial an investment in medical researchtSor environmental protection, or marine explorationtSmany unforeseen but useful byproducts would certainly result. And it seems unwise to argue that we should invest huge sums of money in a project, hoping it will produce virtually unforeseen good results, particularly when the alternative is to invest the same money in projects that are certain to produce substantial benefits.

It remains to consider whether the avowed goals of the space programs can justify increased spending. But those goals are unclear. We explore the universe out of scientific curiosity, which might warrant spending at the current level. But we are producing as much information now as the scientific community can reasonably assess. Without convincing arguments that some currently unstated goal will be served by more spending, there can be no justification for taking money from other programs.

Therefore, it is not essential to increase funding for the space program, or to sacrifice other programs on its behalf. Space exploration does not yield the obvious benefits to humans that other government programs do. And neither the promise of spinoff benefits nor the current goals of the program justify increased spending.

114. tTechnology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together.t

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 speakerts 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. A, IA sitting glazed-eyed (adj. AITA, Asa͵A) before his computer screen in a basement, attic, bedroom, or office cubicle. While this scene is a caricature, of course, itts true that practically everybody who uses email or surfs the Internet does so alone, with only his or her computer for company (adv. a). 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. [ϰߵ]) 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 onets interest in nearly anything, from aardvarks (n. []) to zippers. Such contacts may be ephemeral, but they can be a great source of information and amusement as well. I would hazard a guess that for each person who sits neurotically 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.

134. tAlthough many people object to advertisements and solicitations that intrude into their lives through such means as the telephone, the Internet, and television, companies and organizations must have the right to contact potential customers and donors whenever and however they wish.t

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 speakerts opinion is that government should not restrict advertising or soliciting though the mail, telephone, Internet, or television. Up to a Point, I agree with this viewpoint. However, I strongly disagree with the reasoning that businesses and organizations enjoy a right to advertise or solicit, at any time and through any means.

It is doubtful that such a sweeping right can be defended by the usual appeals to freedom of speech or free market economics. First of all, public expression is justifiably limited when it is obscene or causes significant harm; federal communication guidelines that apply to advertising and soliciting reflect this. Secondly, free markets must satisfy certain criteria, including that full information about competing products be held by everyone, and that competition not be unfairly thwarted. Under these conditions, it would be hard to defend any but purely informational advertising; in contrast, most actual advertising is designed to manipulate peoplets appetites, desires or sense of loyalty.

Even so, we should be wary of government restrictions on advertising or soliciting. Government involvement in our free pursuits is justified only to prevent substantial harm to society. When advertisements or solicitations are clearly harmful, as is obvious with much pornography on the Internet, then government should intervene to restrict such messages, particularly those directed at children. But although endless sales pitches (pitch) and pleas for charity are certainly annoying, most of them are not all that damaging.

Moreover, consumers can limit the number of ads and solicitations they receive. For instance, consumer-protection organizations provide information about how to remove oneself from mailing lists. Most credit card companies offer customers the choice to receive direct mail or telephone advertising. Software companies and Internet servers provide programs and other means for restricting information received online. And telephone solicitors will, upon request, place consumers on their tno callt list.

In conclusion, government generally should not restrict advertising or soliciting through the media, mail, telephone or Internet. This is best left to consumers, who have means available to them. However, with respect to ads or solicitations that create serious harm to society, especially to children, government restrictions are justified.

GMAT ISSUE

education

DOCUMENTE SIMILARE

115aISSUEIA

1. In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.

2. tIt 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 worldts energy resources for future generations.t

3. tCorporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A tflatt organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.t

4. tOf all the manifestations* of power, restraint in the use of that power impresses people most.t

5. tAll 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.t

6. tThere is only one definition of success tS to be able to spend your life in your own way.t

7. tThe best way to give advice to other people is to find out what they want and then advise them how to attain it.t

9. tEmployees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.t

10. tIn any enterprise, the process of making or doing something is ultimately more important than the final product.t

11. tWhen someone achieves greatness in any field tS such as the arts, science, politics, or business tS that personts achievements are more important than any of his or her personal faults.t

12. tEducation has become the main provider of individual opportunity in our society. Just as property and money once were the keys to success, education has now become the element that most ensures success in life.t

13. tResponsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.t

14. tOrganizations should be structured in a clear hierarchy in which the people at each level, from top to bottom, are held accountable for completing a particular component of the work. Any other organizational structure goes against human nature and will ultimately prove fruitless.t

15. tNations should cooperate to develop regulations that limit childrents access to adult material on the Internet.t *

16. tPublic buildings reveal much about the attitudes and values of the society that builds them. Todayts new schools, courthouses, airports, and libraries, for example, reflect the attitudes and values of todayts society.t

18. tIf the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society.t

20. tIn this age of automation, many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines. But, in fact, machines are continually improving our lives.t

21. tJob security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.t

22. tClearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced.t

23. tSchools should be responsible only for teaching academic skills and not for teaching ethical and social values.t

24. tA powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a community or a nation than does any government official.t

25. tThe best strategy for managing a business, or any enterprise, is to find the most capable people and give them as much authority as possible.t

26. tLocation has traditionally been one of the most important determinants of a businessts success. The importance of location is not likely to change, no matter how advanced the development of computer communications and others kinds of technology becomes.t

27. tA companyts long-term success is primarily dependent on the job satisfaction and the job security felt by the companyts employees.t

28. tBecause businesses use high-quality advertising to sell low-quality products, schools should give students extensive training in how to make informed decisions before making purchases.t

29. tToo many people think only about getting results. The key to success, however, is to focus on the specific task at hand and not to worry about results.t

30. tCompanies benefit when they discourage employees from working extra hours or taking work home. When employees spend their leisure time without tproducingt something for the job, they will be more focused and effective when they return to work.t

31. tFinancial gain should be the most important factor in choosing a career.t

32. tYou can tell the ideas of a nation by its advertisements.t

33. tPeople 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.t

34. tAll 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.t

35. tBusiness relations are infected through and through with the disease of short-sighted motives. We are so concerned with immediate results and short-term goals that we fail to look beyond them.t

36. tBusinesses and other organizations have overemphasized the importance of working as a team. Clearly, in any human group, it is the strong individual, the person with the most commitment and energy, who gets things done.t

37. tSince science and technology are becoming more and more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.t

38. tCourtesy is rapidly disappearing from everyday interactions, and as a result, we are all the poorer for it.t

39. tIt is difficult for people to achieve professional success without sacrificing important aspects of a fulfilling personal life.t

40. tWith 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.t

41. tThe best way to preserve the natural environment is to impose penaltiestSwhether fines, imprisonment, or other punishmentstSon those who are most responsible for polluting or otherwise damaging it.t

43. tThe most important reason for studying history is not that knowledge of history can make us better people or a better society but that it can provide clues to solving the societal problems that we face today.t

44. tAll companies should invest heavily in advertising because high-quality advertising can sell almost any product or service.t

45. tThe most effective way for a businessperson to maximize profits over a long period of time is to follow the highest standards of ethics.t

46. Businesses are as likely as are governments to establish large bureaucracies, but bureaucracy is far more damaging to a business than it is to a government.

47. The primary responsibility for preventing environmental damage belongs to government, not to individuals or private industry.

48. In matching job candidates with job openings (ְIsȱְIsȱ,ְsȱ,ҵ), managers must consider not only such variables as previous work experience and educational background but also personality traits and work habits, which are more difficult to judge.

49. tAsk most older people to identify the key to success, and they are likely to reply thard work.t Yet, I would tell people starting off in a career that work in itself (ʵ) is not the key. In fact, you have to approach work cautiouslytStoo much or too little can be self-defeating.t

50. How far should a supervisor go in criticizing the performance of a subordinate? Some highly successful managers have been known to rely on verbal abuse and intimidation.

51. tThe presence of a competitor is always beneficial to a company. Competition forces a company to change itself in ways that improve its practices.t

52. tSuccessful individuals typically set their next goal somewhattSbut not too muchtSabove their last achievement. In this way, they steadily raise their level of aspiration.t

54. tPopular entertainment is overly influenced by commercial interests. Superficiality, obscenity, and violence characterize films and television today because those qualities are commercially successful.t

55. tNever tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.t

56. tThe secret of business is to know something that nobody else knows.t

57. tEverywhere, it seems, there are clear and positive signs that people are becoming more respectful of one anotherts differences.t

58. tWhat is the final objective of business? It is to make the obtaining of a livingtSthe obtaining of food, clothing, shelter, and a minimum of luxuriestSso mechanical and so little time-consuming that people shall have time for other things.t

59. tJuvenile crime is a serious social problem, and businesses must become more involved in helping to prevent it.t

60. tEmployers should have no right to obtain information about their employeest health or other aspects of their personal lives without the employeest permission.t

61. tEven at its best, a government is a tremendous burden to business, though a necessary one.t

62. tWhat education fails to teach us is to see the human community as one. Rather than focus on the unique differences that separate one nation from another, education should focus on the similarities among all people and places on Earth.t

63. tAs government bureaucracy increases, citizens become more and more separated from their government.t

64. tThe goal of business should not be to make as big a profit as possible. Instead, business should also concern itself with the wellbeing (n. ) of the public.t

65. tThe rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.t

66. tManufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products are safe. If a product injures someone, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should be held legally and financially accountable for the injury.t

67. tWork greatly influences peoplets personal livestStheir special interests, their leisure activities, even their appearance away from the workplace.t

68. tSince the physical work environment affects employee productivity and morale, the employees themselves should have the right to decide how their workplace is designed.t

69. tThe most important quality in an employee is not specific knowledge or technical competence. Instead, it is the ability to work well with other employees.t

70. tSo long as no laws are broken, there is nothing unethical about doing whatever you need to do to promote existing products or to create new products.t

71. tCommercialism (a) has become too widespread. It has even crept into schools and places of worship. Every nation should place limits on what kinds of products, if any, can be sold at certain events or places.t

72. tCompanies should not try to improve employeest performance by giving incentivestSfor example, awards or gifts. These incentives encourage negative kinds of behavior instead of encouraging a genuine interest in doing the work well.t

73. People often give the following advice: tBe yourself. Follow your instincts and behave in a way that feels natural.t

74. tThe people we remember best are the ones who broke the rules.t

75. tThere are essentially two forces that motivate people: self-interest and fear.t

76. tFor a leader there is nothing more difficult, and therefore more important, than to be able to make decisions.t

77. Although tgeniust is difficult to define, one of the qualities of genius is the ability to transcend traditional modes of thought and create new ones.

78. Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any societyts past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes.

79. tThe ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee, and it is worth more than any other commodity under the sun.t

80. tAs individuals, people save too little and borrow too much.t

81. tNo one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success or tget richt in business by conforming to conventional practices or ways of thinking.t