21. Job 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. 工作保險和工資應該建立在雇員績效的基礎上而非工作年限上。主要根據工作年限獎勵員工不利于人們保持高水平的生產力。

　　1. 一方面績效工資會促進工人的勞動生產率，使偷懶的工人得到懲罰;使專心工作投入較大的工人得到補償增大他們的激勵.

　　2. 另一方面,單純的使用績效工資也可能會打擊一部分工人的勞動積極性.因為有一些為公司服務很久的工人可能僅可能是由于年齡的原因勞動生產率下降.而且社會物價的總體水平也是應該考慮的因素之一,當存在通貨膨脹時候如果僅依照績效評價,那么工人整體的生活水平會下降也不利于勞動生產率.

　　productivity productive counterproductive security secure salary solely sole performance length incentive motivation enticement stimulus impetus incitement tenured professor associate professor achievement reward average worthwhile amply ample schedule salary condemn判刑,譴責

　　loyal royal loyalty refuse adjust counterproductive attract retain reserve withhold uphold criterion criteria security ignore ignorance

　　1， 首先，完全根據年限來看，是不利于生產力進步的。――這樣員工只要在企業里待著，表現平庸provide third-class performance就可以得到更多的獎勵，這顯然是不利于整個團隊的morale的。一方面，老的不能激發;另一方面，有才干的年輕人也不會愿意加入這個企業。

　　2， 但也不能完全只看表現，還要在此同時考慮到年限。因為老員工又同時非常優秀的表現，為企業付出了更多的力量devote their entire life to the development of one corporation。如果完全一視同仁，也不一定更公平。反而很可能使老員工感到不公平treated unfairly，喪失對企業的loyalty。

　　3， 應該綜合來看，考慮到表現相同的員工，根據服務年限不同得到不同的待遇。

　　View1. Performance plays an important role in the assessment procedural of employees.

　　View2. It is true that reward employees solely according to their seniority will affect the overall productivity, however, the year of services do contain some indication on specialty and experience. More over, when conducting work assessment of certain positions such as consultant, in which performance become hard to evaluate, seniority acts as useful supplement

　　According to the statement, in order to ensure high productivity, companies should base their employees 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 raises―though 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 resources―for two reasons. First, complacent employees will see no reason to become more productive. Secondly, those normally inclined to high achievement may decide the effort isnt 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 increases―also 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. Clearly, 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.

　　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.

　　很明顯，政府對支持藝術富有責任。但是，如果需要這個支持產生任何價值，政府必須對產生的藝術不加限制。

　　1. 政府對藝術富有責任這一論斷是毫無根據的。事實上政府應該把更多的精力投入到公共產品以及具有外部性的產品的生產與建設上。因為由經濟學的理論我們知道這些產品是非競爭非排他的，因此無法由私人部門提供。這也正是需要政府存在的理由。而藝術顯然是可以在私人部門解決的。私人收藏和私人裝飾都為藝術品提供了廣闊的市場，藝術品顯然不是公共產品。但是由于藝術品可能具有的外部性，如個人收藏可以讓擁有者以外的人賞心悅目，所以政府對藝術進行適當的扶植是應當的。但說政府對藝術負有責任，這顯然是言過其實。

　　2. 對于需要政府加以扶植的藝術例如公益性質的藝術展覽等，政府是需要對其加以限制的。政府的只能就是使社會的總收益最大。如果加以限制可以使其扶持的藝術行為為社會帶來更大的收益限制就是必要的。有人可能會反駁說這會對藝術的自由創作帶來負面的影響，但事實上絕對的自由是不存在的，適當的限制是對自由的保障。例如有些行為藝術，就應由政府出面限制觀看的人群年齡，實際上這并不會影響藝術創作。

　　unwarranted baseless groudless bottomless foundationless gratuitous groundless 私人產品private goods 公共產品public goods 外部性externality 非競爭non-rivalry 非排他non-excludability 競爭rivalry 排他excludability 理論 私人部門private sector 公共部門public sector收藏collection

　　扶植prop up 扶持support uphold 言過其實paint the devil blacker than he is 為公益的commonweal-oriented 限制constrain confine 負面影響negative impact 正面影響positive impact 絕對的absolute

　　保障guarantee safeguard naked

　　1， 藝術的巨大作用毋庸置疑：強調the perpetua永久的l virtue, such as bravery, affection, responsibility, honesty and so forth. The Lord of the rings; 同時，remind people of the intrinsic demerits stemmed from the dark side of humanity, such as aggression and greed. Shakespeares Macbeth instruct people that the insatiable貪得無厭 ambition is pernicious. 藝術應該受到支持，以便蓬勃發展。

　　2， 但是不能說政府應該扮演這個角色。首先，藝術需要自由的表達，而政府的資助一定在某種程度上限制這種自由。比如The government of Soviet Union, forced all the arts it subsidized to follow the party line and squashed those artists who resisted such control. 即使在democratic countries, such control is hidden and indirect, but still exist.

　　3， 其次，政府有更多的職責，需要有限的資源去處理。比如很多社會問題非常嚴重，environment, criminality, education, starvation it is not a wise decision for the government to allocate the limited resources on arts while ignoring the more urgent demand cited above.

　　4， 鑒于以上兩點，應該把藝術的扶持工作交給大眾。事實上，現在的很多公益機構charitarian are doing an excellent job in supporting the prosperity of arts.

　　Optional words:

　　Government/ the authorities

　　Art/artist

　　Support/finance/ patronize/ loan/ sustain/ pledge

　　Thesis sentence:

　　The inevitable representation of human civilization, art must be count in the responsibilities that government carries. But support without restrictions will probably lead to fruitless.

　　View1: government should support art

　　Evidence: because arts have very important functions in our civilization. for example:

　　Paintings arouse imagination

　　Music heal broken heart and purify dirty minds

　　View2: unselected supporting of arts will probably lead to fruitless

　　Evidence: Some radical forms of arts go beyond the acceptance of the masses and contradict our social moral. for example: posters features blood and violence

　　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 societys very survival and therefore an appropriate concern of government, this concern should not extend tenuously to our cultural health 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 to relegate normative decisions as to which art has value to a few legislators and jurists , 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.

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

　　一個有力的企業領導比一個政府官員有更多的機會影響一個社團或國家的方針。

　　1. 每一個政府官員都很難自己做出決策。每一個政令的頒布表面上仿佛是由一個人宣布的，其實背后的程序過程都是十分繁雜的。seperation of the three powers In this work he argued that the three powers a state has are the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial and that for a state to remain democratic, these powers must be separated and there must be checks and balances to prevent a single group from acquiring control over two or more of them.

　　任何一個政府官員做出決定都可能受到上司甚至是同事的限制，即使是總統，其實也僅僅是他的領導班子共同商議做出結論，更何況三權分立在保護了民主的同時本身也限制了每個個人甚至是每個group的決策權利以及對國家和社區的影響。

　　2. 而企業領導往往會有更大的決策權，而他們的決策也更容易被貫徹。在一個經濟為中心的國家相應的他們的對社區和國家的影響力也就更大。

　　3. 誠然在一個以政治為中心的國家里，企業領導對社區和國家產生影響的機會會較少，但經濟是政治的基礎，離開經濟政治是毫無影響力可言的。此外由于上面所說過的原因政府官員對社區和國家的影響同樣不會很大。

　　goverment order procedure process complex complicated intricate higher-up subordinate superior

　　restict restriction confine constrain curb administration collective the seperation of the three powers: the legislative the executive and the judicial decision-making carry out implement perform politics-centered economy-centered influence effect impact historical influential abound

　　on balance=with all things considered admittedly opportunity commerce commercial check-and-balance system 制約平衡制度 scandal illuminate illumination luminous lumination technic technical technology technician technological entity equity seems to pale next to...

　　Yet the impact seems to pale next to those of our modern captains of industry.

　　by virture of for the sake of on the account of

　　1. Admittedly, 領導人的作用有時不象企業家一樣apparent. 因為國家的發展，人們的生活，與企業closely related. 比如GATES，領導了信息產業革命;Rockefeller，控制國家的石油命脈took control of American oil supply。企業家通過影響企業的行為，從而直觀上影響人course of a community.

　　2. 但是，企業的一切影響is based on its existence, which is permitted by the government. 政府制定各種policy來允許企業的存在，企業家的一切行為需要被政府允許才能產生作用。

　　3. Moreover, 影響一個國家，需要強大的power, which can be only generated from absolutely authority. 這樣的絕對權力是企業不具備的。Yet even a cursory review of the history reveals substantial evidence that it is the government leader rather than the business leader that can make the pivotal decision when the nation is in crisis. 比如，在經濟recession，企業的力量無法使經濟好轉，revive the economy of the whole nation, 只有政府運用行政措施，制定positive policy to stimulate the companies and thus the economy of the whole nation. 比如Roosevelt. Bill Clinton. financial policy

　　View 1: Unlike business leader, government power is likely to subject to many more restraints. Our check-and-balance system, the legislation influence and the voting power are all factors that temper the power of government official to the course of a community or a nation. Moreover, powerful business leaders all too often seem to hold the actual legislative and judicial power by their financial supporting of official activities such as governmental elections.

　　View2: While take more thorough consideration, the government official is likely to have more direct and broad influence on a community and a nation.

　　Evidence: various approach to influence other than financial approach

　　In addition the governmental official have the abilities to regulate commerce,

　　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 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 Administrations 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 existence. Of course, many modern-day public servants have made the most of their opportunities―for 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.

　　26. Location has traditionally been one of the most important determinants of a businesss 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.

　　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.

　　從傳統上講地址是一家企業成功的最重要決定因素。不論計算機通訊和其他技術發展的如果先進，地址的重要性將不會改變。