GRE作文范文 Issue-21

"The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

Leaders come in all forms - from those running small groups of people in an office to heads of state that must lead millions or billions of people. Leaders also serve during different time periods marked by different states of the overall environment. National leaders may act in times marked by intense crises such as war, while others may serve during relative times of peace. Business leaders may operate during rapid economic changes and progress or relatively slow times, such as during a recession. An effective leader must be able to fit the situation, whether that means remaining consistently committed to particular principles and objectives or being able to go with the flow of change of opinion to best complete his or her mission. The mission or final goals desired would most likely determine which type of leader would be most effective in that particular situation.

One example would be to examine the actions of two consecutive Presidents of the United States. President Bill Clinton served during a relatively peaceful time of prosperity and economic growth in the United States. Personal proclivities aside, President Clinton seemed to run the country by gauging popular opinion through the heavy use of polling. With almost never varying consistency, President Clinton took stands on the issues that fell closely in line with the popular opinions of the country. Mr. Clinton's opinions sometimes changed overnight, apparently following the ebb and flow of the tide of popular opinion. Most people in the world would agree that President Clinton did a good job of running the country during his administration and that he was an effective leader, whether or not they agree with how he conducted his personal life.

In stark contrast, George W. Bush had served little more than eight months as President when his leadership was subjected to one of the strongest tests possible. The worst terrorist attacks on the United States in history struck just as the economic conditions of the country seemed to be sliding towards recession. War and economic distress came to the country at the same time. Mr. Bush acted quickly and decisively on both fronts. War was all but declared against the ruling Taliban government of Afghanistan and the worldwide Al-Quaida terrorist organization. During the same time period, Mr. Bush's administration made several rapid adjustments to the government's prime lending rates. Many leaders worldwide and some opponents at home questioned some of his decisions. Popular opinion in the rest of the world often portrayed President Bush as acting as a "lone ranger" without regard to the opinions of the rest of the world. Through it all, President Bush stayed with his decisions, including the controversial statement regarding Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil". No one can seriously argue that President Bush has not been an effective leader while remaining consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Both Presidents took the opposite extremes proposed by the above issue statement, but both have been proven to be effective leaders. The situations were different and possibly called for a different type of leadership in order for the final goals to be reached.

Other levels of leadership also would likely require different actions of a leader in different situations. When times are good, it may be easier to follow along with popular opinion as long as it does not appear to be particularly disruptive. Usually when the majority of the population of a country or the stockholders of a corporation are happy, there is little call for rapid changes. However, when times turn tough, a leader that can make the difficult decisions to stay with certain principles and objectives is required. Although they may not be the popular opinions, they may be the best ones for the overall good of the country or company. An effective leader is one who can determine which approach will most likely lead to the accomplishment of the overall mission.

参考译文

一位强有力的领导人最根本的品质就是能够一如既往地坚持特定的原则和目标。任何一个容易受舆论影响而很快改变立场的领导人很少能有什么建树。

　　领导人是分成很多种类的--有那些只是管理较少人的办公室头头儿，也有领导着成百万上亿人的国家元首。由于不同时期社会大环境的差异，领导人任职期间也会呈现出不同的特点。有的国家领袖经历的时期危机四伏，比如经历了战争，而有的却度过了一段相对和平的时期。有的商界领袖处于经济快速变化增长时期而有的却恰恰相反，比如遇到了经济不景气。一位强有力的领导人必须能够适应所处的环境，无论这意味着坚守特定的原则目标还是为了最好地完成使命而能够灵活改变策略。想要达成的使命或最终目标最能够决定在特定形势下什么样的领导人最能够实施有力的领导。

　　举个例子，让我们来看看美国两位连续执政的总统。比尔·克林顿总统执政时期的美国社会相对稳定繁荣，经济有所增长。抛开他的个人癖性不谈，克林顿似乎是通过大量民意测验考察舆论来治理国家的。几乎每一次他所采取的立场都是与国家民众的意见紧密保持一致。克林顿先生的观点有时会在一夜之间发生转变，这显然是随舆论潮流进行调整的结果。世界上多数人会认同这样一个观点，即克林顿在任职期间表现良好，是一位强有力的领导人，无论他们对他私生活方面的做法是否赞同。

　　然而，与克林顿的情形迥然不同的是，乔治·W·布什上任刚满八个月，其领导地位就遇到了最大的威胁。美国遭受了历史上毁灭性最强的恐怖主义袭击，而此时国家的经济状况也正趋于不景气。战争与经济衰退在同一时期到来。布什总统在这两个条战线都展开了迅速而果断的行动。美国向阿富汗的独裁塔利班政府及全世界的恐怖组织宣战。同时，布什对美国政府的基本贷款利率做出了几次快速调整。他的一些决策受到了世界上许多领导人及国内反对派的质疑。世界其他国家的舆论常常把布什描述为一位"孤独的突击队员"，他采取行动时从不顾及其他国家的看法。无论如何，布什坚持着他的决策，包括他把伊朗、伊拉克和朝鲜定为"邪恶轴心"的有争议的论断。没人能否认坚守特定原则和目标的布什总统不是一位强有力的总统。在上述的不同情形中，克林顿和布什两位总统采取了绝然不同的两种做法，然而他们两位都被证明是强有力的领导人。不同的形势需要有不同的领导风格来达成最终目标。

　　其它层次上的领导职务也要求领导人在不同的情况下采取不同的行动。形势一片大好时，只要公众舆论不带来混乱，遵循舆论来进行决策是很容易的。通常来说，只要一个国家的大多数人或一个公司的股东觉得满意，很少会有人要求进行剧烈的变革。然而，当时局变得困难起来时，就需要有一位能坚守特定的原则目标而做出艰难决策的领导人了。尽管这些决策可能并不符合大众的观点，但是它们却是最有利于国家或公司的整体利益的决策。一位强有力的领导人应该是一个最知道用什么样的方法最有利于他完成全部使命的人。

 

GRE作文范文 Argument-21

The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.

嘉文博译Sample Essay

"In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes. We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer hours---resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year."

In this argument, the president of the National Brush Company states that the company has decided to pay employees for each brush that they produce rather than for the time that they spend producing the brushes. The president states that this will lead to the production of more and better brushes, allowing the company to reduce its staff size and save money on electricity and security costs by operating the factories for fewer hours. The president also states that the changes will allow the company to keep the best workers and ensure a profit for the company in the coming year. In theory, the president's idea sounds good, but a closer examination reveals that his or her conclusions are based on nothing more than guesswork, not hard facts.

There is not really any argument here; the president merely states conclusions with no basis in fact. First of all, the president states that by paying employees by the brush produced, rather than for the time spent at work, the company will get better brushes in greater quantity. On the contrary, it is likely that paying employees by the brush will lead to lower quality rather than better quality brushes. The incentive will be for employees to produce as many brushes as they possibly can, thus they will try to work as fast as they can with little regard for quality. Although there will likely be an increase in the quantity of the brushes produced, it is likely that they will be of lower quality as the employees race to produce as many as possible. Without some type of quality control mechanism, the president's conclusion that there will be more, higher quality brushes is likely based on wishful thinking rather than fact.

Secondly, the president refers to saving money by reducing staff size and operating the factories for fewer hours. This does not follow any type of logical reasoning, certainly none that is present in the president's annual report. There is no evidence presented on which to base the assumption that there can be a reduction in staff. Additionally, employees will expect to work the same number of hours so that they may produce as many brushes as possible to maximize their incomes. It does not follow that there will be savings from staff reductions or from operating the factories fewer hours. Indeed, it is likely that the employees will be motivated to work longer hours to produce even more brushes, thus leading to increased rather than decreased factory hours. Furthermore, unless the company establishes a production ceiling for the number of brushes produced, there will likely be no savings in electricity or security costs as the factories will continue to stay open at least the same, if not more, hours than before the change.

Finally, the president states that the changes in policy will ensure that the "best" workers keep their jobs, and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year. Once again, these are baseless conclusions. Which workers will the company consider to be the best: those that produce the most brushes or those that produce the highest quality brushes? It would be dangerous to conclude that the best workers are those that produce the highest number of brushes, as a purely numerical merit system does not take quality into consideration. Such a system might actually lead to the dismissal of the best workers while keeping those whose only quality is that of speed, not of craftsmanship. Furthermore, there is no guarantee of profits for the company in the coming year with this new policy. Should the "pay by the brush" policy encourage employees to speed up production while sacrificing quality, it is likely that the company would lose sales and therefore profits. There is no evidence presented in the argument to back up the conclusion that the best workers will stay and profitability will be ensured.

To summarize, there is no evidence presented by the president that the plan will lead to the specified conclusions. Without further factual evidence that the plan will perform as advertised, the president appears to be engaging in wishful thinking rather than rational planning.

参考译文

　　下文摘自国家制刷公司总裁的年度报告。

　　为了省钱，我们国家制刷公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。我们相信，这一政策将致使生产更多、更好的刷子，将使我们缩减工作人员，并将使公司的工厂工作时间缩减，其结果是节省用电和安全费用。这些变化，将会保证那些最优秀的工人继续有工作，公司在来年将获得利润

　　 在这一论证中，国家制刷公司的总裁声称，公司决定按每位雇员制刷数量计付工资，而不是按他们制刷所花的时间付酬。总裁声称，这将致使生产更多更好的刷子，因工厂工作时间减少而裁减工作人员，节省电力和安全开支。总裁还说，这些变化将使公司拥有最优秀的工人并保证公司在来年赢利。理论上，总裁的说法听起来很好。但仔细审视，我们会发现，他/她的结论完全基于猜测，而非令人信服的事实。

　 其实，这位总裁根本没有进行论证。他/她仅仅提出了没有事实根据的结论而已。首先，总裁声称，以制刷数量计付雇员工资而不是按工作时间付酬，公司将生产更多更好的刷子。相反，很可能计件付酬这一做法将导致低质量的而非高质量的刷子。这一刺激方式将促使雇员努力生产更多的刷子，因而他们会尽快地工作而忽视质量。虽然很可能在制刷数量上会有增加，但是由于雇员竞相制造更多的刷子，很可能会致使质量降低。在没有质量控制机制的情况下，总裁所谓将生产更多更好的刷子这一结论很可能是基于良好的愿望，而不是事实。

　　第二，总裁谈到减少工作人员和减少工厂工作时间可以省钱。这一点也不符合任何形式的逻辑推理，更与总裁年度报告内容无关。没有证据证明有必要裁减工作人员。此外，雇员会希望工作同样的时间，以便尽可能多地制造刷子，最大限度地增加收入。所以裁减工作人员和缩短工厂工作时间并不会省钱。的确，很可能雇员将被迫工作更长的时间来生产更多的刷子，其结果是增加而不是减少工厂工作时间。进而言之，除非公司确定一个制刷数量的最高限度，否则将不会在电力上有任何节约，也不会在安全费用上有任何节约，因为工厂将比变革前工作更长的时间，至少也是与变革前同样的时间。

　　最后，总裁声称，政策的变革将会确保"最优秀"的工人继续拥有他们的工作，而且公司在来年将获利。又一次，这些都是毫无根据的结论。什么样的工人是公司认为最优秀的呢？生产最多刷子的工人呢，还是生产质量最好的刷子的工人呢？说最优秀的工人是那些制刷数量最多的，这将是非常危险的，因为纯粹的数字评估体制没有把质量考虑进去。这样的体制实际上会导致最优秀的工人遭淘汰而保留那些以速度为要素而不是以工艺为要素的工人。再者，实施这一新政策并不能保证公司在来年获利。如果"计件工资制"的政策鼓励雇员提高生产速度但牺牲质量，那么很可能公司将蒙受销售损失从而也蒙受利润损失。论证过程中并没有提供证据来支持最优秀的工人将被留在公司以及利润将获得保证这一结论。

　　总之，总裁并没有提供证据来证明这一计划将产生他/她所标榜的那些结果。因为没有进一步的证据来证明计划将会按所宣传的那样得到实施，所以总裁显得在做一厢情愿的揣测，而不是在进行理性的推论。

嘉文博译郑重声明：