GRE作文范文 Issue-17

"The only responsibility of corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, is to make as much money as possible for their companies."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Corporate executives do have a responsibility to make money for their companies. For publicly owned companies, this means that they must find a way to maximize shareholder value. People buy shares in a company because they want to make money, therefore the more money that the company makes, the more money the stockholder can potentially make. But it would be wrong to say that, without qualification, making as much money as possible is an executive's only responsibility. Shareholder value can be maximized in ways other than by making money, such as the corporation's treatment of the global environment and people, the corporation's image, and its long-term viability as a stable corporation.

First of all, corporate executives have a duty to protect our natural environment and to not exploit human resources, particularly in lesser-developed countries. These poorer countries sometimes have poorly developed legal systems and laws that can be used unfairly by companies, even though the companies are actually operating within the limits of the law in that country. As an example, a pharmaceutical company should not be allowed to test new drugs on people in a poor country even though it is perfectly legal under that country's laws. Similarly, a chemical company should not be allowed to use manufacturing processes in a developing country that pollute and destroy the environment, whether those manufacturing processes are legal or not in that nation. Corporate executives must take it upon themselves to ensure that it operates ethically in all countries and that the corporation does not exploit lax operating laws in underdeveloped parts of the world.
Secondly, a related responsibility of corporate executives is to make sure that the company reflects a positive image to the rest of the world, thus giving stockholders and owners a sense of pride in being a part of that company. Most people do not want to be associated with a company that is seen as greedy or exploitive. If corporate executives focus solely on making as much money as possible, there can be a backlash against that company for appearing too materialistic and uncaring. Executives at multinational companies such as McDonalds and Wal-Mart have recognized this problem in the past and have now become heavily involved in the communities in which their stores are located through charitable programs. As just one example, McDonalds operates "Ronald McDonald's homes" which give parents a place to stay near hospitals where their children are undergoing medical treatment. Corporate executives have a responsibility to ensure that their companies are seen as "people friendly" rather than just focusing on bringing in more money.

A third and also related responsibility of corporate executives is to ensure the long-term viability of their companies. Employees, as well as other stakeholders, need to know that the company executives are interested in building an enduring institution. A good example of this responsibility not being honored is that of the Enron energy company and Arthur Andersen bankruptcy and accounting scandal. In this case, corporate executives abdicated their responsibilities to both companies in order to maximize short-term profit and possibly their own bonuses and stock options. Enron used misleading documents and practices that overstated its income by hundreds of millions of dollars. As Enron's accountants, Arthur Andersen certified that Enron's bookkeeping was all in order when in actuality they knew otherwise. Both companies' executives failed to look at the possible effects on the long-term viabilities of the companies. As a result, Enron has declared bankruptcy and Arthur Andersen, one of the world's most respected accounting firms, is being broken up into small pieces. Corporate executives have the responsibility to make sure that the corporation will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

Corporate executives do have a responsibility to make as much money as possible. But they also have the responsibility to do so in a manner that helps to protect the world's environment and people, that reflects a positive corporate image, and that will guarantee the long-term survival of the company.

参考译文

只要不违法，公司决策者的唯一责任就是为公司尽可能地多赚钱

　　为公司赚钱确实是公司决策者的责任。对于股份由多方共有的公司，这意味着他们必须找到能将股东利益最大化的方法。人们在一个公司购买股份就是想要赚钱，因此，公司赚的钱越多股东的潜在收益也就越大。但是，如果绝对地说赚钱就是公司决策者的唯一目的，那就大错特错了。除了赚钱，股东的利益还可以通过其它手法达到最大化，比如公司对全球环境、人类的贡献、公司的形象以及它作为一个稳定的组织所具有的长期生命力。首先，公司决策者有保护我们的自然环境以及不对人力资源，特别是欠发达地区的人力资源，进行剥削的责任。在这些较为贫穷的国家中，法制系统的发展也较为不完备，因此有些公司就利用法律从事有失公正的商业运作，虽然它们表面上并没有超出该国的法律规定。举个例子，制药厂不应该被准许利用贫穷国家的人来做新药的实验，即便在该国这是完全合法的事情。与此相似，化工公司在发展中国家的生产过程不应该对该国的环境造成污染或破坏，无论生产过程本身在该国是否合法。公司决策者应该承担起责任以确保其公司在所有国家的运作都符合道德标准，确保其公司不去利用世界上不发达地区存在疏漏的现行法律。

　　其次，公司决策者的另一个相关的职责就是确保公司在世界上具有良好的形象，这样股份持有人和公司所有者都会为自己是公司的一部分而感到自豪。大多数人都不愿意把自己同一个贪婪的或剥削人的公司联系在一起。如果公司决策者关心的只是尽可能地多赚钱，那么该公司就有可能因为显得太过自私、重实利而招致强烈的反对。跨国公司如麦当劳、沃尔马特的决策者早在过去就已经意识到了这个问题，因此它们现在就能够通过开展慈善计划而与分店所在社区保持紧密的联系。让我们仅仅看其中的一个例子：麦当劳在医院附近开设了"罗纳德·麦当劳之家"，为有小孩在医院进行治疗的家长提供逗留之处。公司决策者有责任让公司与社会民众建立友好的关系而不仅仅是赚钱。

　　公司决策人的第三个而且与以上也相关的职责是确保公司长期的生命力。公司职员以及其他股份持有人都需要知道，他们公司的决策者是要将公司长久办下去的。安龙能源公司和亚瑟·安德森公司的破产及财务丑闻案是一个很好的反面实例子。这两个公司的决策者都为了扩大短期收益，或者可能是为了自己的收益和股利，而忽略了自己的责任。安龙利用容易产生误导的文件和行动将收入额夸大了上亿美元。作为安龙的财会公司，亚瑟·安德森公司在两者都知道实情的情况下证实安龙公司的帐目准确。两个公司的决策者都没有看到他们的这些做法给公司长久生命力可能带来的后果。结果，安龙公司宣布破产，而曾是世界最负盛名的财会公司之一的亚瑟·安德森公司也落得个分崩离析的下场。公司决策人有责任保证公司在可以预见的未来都一直生存下去。

　　为公司赚钱确实是公司决策者的责任。然而他们也有着保护世界环境和人类、树立公司良好形象的责任和确保公司长期生存下去的责任。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-17

For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters as for Gulf Coast oysters, and that the trend began shortly after harmful bacteria had been found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. The arguer further states that there is now a process for killing the bacteria and that due to the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, consumers will be willing to pay the same for Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast oysters, and there will therefore be greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers. At first glance, the argument seems reasonable, but a closer inspection reveals that it is based on faulty logic and it ultimately remains unconvincing.

The first problem with the argument is that it assumes a direct cause and effect relationship between the discovery of the harmful bacteria in the Gulf Coast oysters and the trend of California consumers paying twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast. There is no such causal relationship demonstrated in this argument. First of all, it could be purely coincidental that the bacteria discovery and the California trend began around the same time. Secondly, it is possible that oysters from the Atlantic Coast are larger or perhaps have a better taste than those from the Gulf Coast. Consumers would therefore be likely to pay more for oysters that were bigger or tasted better. Additionally, there may be a perception of status by eating oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as opposed to the Gulf Coast. Californians are notoriously trendy, and regardless of the quality, they may perceive that eating Atlantic Coast oysters is fashionable whereas eating Gulf Coast oysters is not. The argument is critically weakened by failing to address these additional possible causes for the differences in prices that Californians are willing to pay for oysters.
Once the idea of the finding of the bacteria as the cause of the price difference is called into question, the rest of the argument becomes equally problematic. The arguer assumes that once consumers become aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they will be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast oysters as for northeastern Atlantic coast oysters. For one thing, consumers may not have been concerned about the safety of the oysters in the first place, thus it is unlikely that they will change their minds about the prices that they are willing to pay for any oysters.

Furthermore, the arguer assumes that greater profits will follow for Gulf Coast oyster producers with the introduction of the new bacteria killing process, at least after consumers have been made aware of the safety of Gulf Coast oysters. It does not follow that there will automatically be greater profits for the Gulf Coast oyster producers. First of all, the bacteria killing process may be more expensive, thus adding to the costs producing oysters. Unless they are able to increase prices with the new process or somehow reduce other costs, it is unlikely that there would be a corresponding rise in profits. Furthermore, the argument states that only California consumers have been willing to pay twice as much for northeastern Atlantic oysters, not consumers in general. It is possible that everywhere else, everyone already pays about the same for both types of oysters, or perhaps even more for Gulf Coast oysters. There would therefore be little or no net gain in profits by introducing the bacteria killing process for Gulf Coast oyster producers.

In summary, this argument ignores several logical possibilities that severely undermine its premise. Without addressing the different possible reasons for the pricing difference other than the finding of harmful bacteria in Gulf Coast oysters, and by the baseless assumption that profits would increase with the increased safety of those oysters, the arguer fails to convince the reader about the accuracy of his conclusion.

参考译文

　　在过去的五年里，加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。在发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎具有有害细菌后不久，就开始了这种倾向。但是，科学家现在已经发明了杀死这种细菌的方法。一旦使消费者明白墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强的安全性，他们可能会愿意付出与大西洋北海岸牡蛎相同的价格购买墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎，随之而来的就是墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎生产者更大的利润。

　　在这一个论证中，论证者声称加州的消费者宁肯付出墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎两倍的价钱去购买大西洋北岸的牡蛎，而且这一倾向开始于发现墨西哥湾沿岸几例生牡蛎含有有害细菌后不久。论证者继而说道，现在已有了杀死这种细菌的方法，而且由于墨西哥湾已增强的安全性，消费者将会愿意付出同样的价钱购买墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎和大西洋沿岸牡蛎，从而墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者将获得更大的利润。初看起来，论点似乎合情合理。但是，仔细分析就会表明，它的逻辑基础是不正确的，而且它是不能令人信服的。

　　 论证的第一个问题在于它假定发现墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎含有有害细菌与加州消费者愿付一倍的价钱去购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎这一倾向之间的直接的那一因果关系。但是论证中却没有揭示这类的因果关系。首先，发现细菌和加州的那一倾向在同时发生，很可能纯粹是巧合。其次，很可能大西洋海岸的牡蛎比墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎个儿更大，味儿更鲜。再其次，吃大西洋北海岸的牡蛎而非墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎，很可能表明一种身份感。加州人是赶潮流闻名的，所以且不说质量如何，他们可能觉着吃大西洋海岸的牡蛎是一种时尚，而吃墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎却不时尚。论证因没有说明这些可能造成加州人乐意为吃牡蛎而付出的价格差异的原因而极大地削弱了说服力。

　 一旦把发现细菌看作价格差别的原因这种观点受到质疑，论证的其余部分就同样地成了问题。论证者假定，一旦消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎已增强了的安全性，他们将会愿意付出与购买大西洋北海岸牡蛎同样的价钱去购买墨西哥湾海岸的牡蛎。首先，消费者可能根本就没有关心过牡蛎的安全性，因此，他们不太可能改变他们对想买的任何牡蛎所付的价钱的看法。

　　再者，论证者假定，随着使用新的灭菌方法，至少在消费者清楚了墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的安全性之后，墨西哥湾海岸牡蛎的生产者将获得更大的利润。事实上，并非会自动地给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来更大的利润。首先，灭菌方法可能更昂贵，从而增加了生产牡蛎的成本。除非他们能够用新方法提高价格或者在一定程度上减少成本，否则就不可能会相应地提高利润。再者，论证声称，只有加州的消费者，并非普通消费者愿意付出一倍的价钱购买大西洋北海岸的牡蛎。可能在其他地方人人都已经付同样的价钱购买这两种牡蛎，甚至为墨西哥湾沿岸的牡蛎付更高的价钱。因而，引进新的灭菌方法并不会给墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎生产者带来多大利润，甚至根本没有利润。

　　总之，这一论点忽视了几个与其前提严重相悖的逻辑可能性。除了提到墨西哥湾沿岸牡蛎的有害细菌外，论证者并没有说明价格差异不同的其它可能原因，而且只凭利润会随着牡蛎的安全性的增强而增长这一毫无根据的假设，他无法让读者信服其结论的正确性。

嘉文博译郑重声明：