510二战，issue1+argue178练习，求打脸
16190
issue1 题目忘记copy了，是人和不同观点还是相同观点的学到东西更多。
I agree with the statement insofar that we could learn much from people whose views we share. However, whether we could learn more from them or those whose views contradict ours depends also on our attitudes, for other words, we can hardly tell if we can learn more from one side simply by wether we share our views
Admittedly, as the statement says, we can learn much from those who share our own views, because during the process of communicating with those people, we could get many new informations and knowledge about our own views. Anyway, one person's time and vigor is limited, thus by group studying or exchanging informations with each other, we are able to gather knowledge and information much more efficiently. While if we conmunicate with those whose views oppose ours, we would be likely to spend most of our time to discuss and debate to defend our own views.
Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we would learn less from those whose views contradict ours. In some situations, we do learn more from those people, for the benefit brought by discusses and debates in a polite and controllable way. Few would disagree with this suggestion, if not ignore the fact that nearly all the colleges and secondary schools are willing to promote the atmosphere of debating in their campus, just to make their students more enthusiastic, more active to speak out their own views, though these views might be very different to other ones, and encourage them to discuss in groups, not to make a consensus among them, not for am absolute answer, but to provide an incentive to make them consider deeply and profoundly about their own views, as well as others’ views. Because it is usually ridiculous to take the absolute righteousness of a viewpoint for granted, the very point is, rethink and try to improve our views and ideas, and obviously, debating with other people whose views contradict ours is a pretty good way to court such goal.
Moreover, whether we can learn from people, no matter whether their views we share or not, depends on the attitudes of ourselves to a big degree. The most important one is, whether we can keep modest enough to listen to other people, and acknowledge that there are flaws in our own views or our expression. A fitting negative instance of which is recent days’ debate television programs, where guests endlessly fight for their own views, seldom I have observed any of them concede the shortcoming of themsleves and their own ideas, let alone receive the goodness and credibility of another side, certainly, this agreesive attitude would keep us from learning from others. Besides, if we are able to dismiss the unnecessary and haughty persistence of "I am right", we could dramatically maximize what we can learn from others, no matter his or her views contradict ours or not.
To sum up, though whether people share their views or not does play a important role in the process of learning from each other, it is not the only factor. Our attitudes towards different views and their owners is also crucial. To make sure we can learn from both of them, we have to build a right attitude ourselves.
===========================================
TOPIC: ARGUMENT178 - The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president of the National Brush Company believes that a change of the way they pay their employees would lead to less cost and increase their profit, however, his report fails to show his statement's credibility persuasively for following reasons.
First, the president says that it would save money for the company, and even enhance the quality of their bruses, if they pay employees by the number of brushes they produce, instead of the time they work for. However, there is no strong reasoning between the policy and its expected outcome. What if their employees, for the purpose of making more money, increase the number of brushes they make per hours by reducing the quality of their products? If so, consumers would feel unsatisfied with their brushes, then just stop buying them from the company, which would certainly lead to a decrease of the company's profit.
Even if their employees would not sacrifice quality for quantity, this policy is unlikely to ensure more and better brushes, which the given report expects. For one thing, if not sacrifice the quality, employees have to work for the same hours for the same amount of brushes, if they are not willing to sacrifice their personal time to work for the same or more salaries, it is impossible to make more brushes each day. For another, there are many factors contribute to the quality of their products, for example, employees' skills and craftmanships, the quality of tools and machines, and employees' work status, all of which cannot be enhanced by this policy, thus, it is groundless to believe that the quality would be better simply by the change in the way they pay their employees. Besides, if the president does want to make his employees to work longer for more products per day, it is reasonable to predict a decline in the quality of their brushes, albeit these employees do not deliberately to reduce the quality, because it would increase the fatigue and discontent emotion of the employees.
Moreover, if like what the president states in his report, they would be able to reduce the staff size by this policy, the factories can hardly operate for fewer hours. For making the same number of productions with fewer staff, even though the efficiency is improved-which should be left to doudt, as discussed above-would require more hours to finish daily goals.
Finally, the president says that in this way they would make the best workers to keep jobs and then expect a profit. Notwithstanding I am afraid that if the National Brush Company really execute this policy, the best workers’ efficiency would suffer a decrease, because, even though they might make more money because they can produce more per hour than others, the leaving of other workers would make their tasks more burndensome, which would lead to a decline of their work status.
想跟大家交流一下想法~~~上一次只有2.5，如果这次能考的满意一点一定写点回忆和心得什么的回报社会！
I agree with the statement insofar that we could learn much from people whose views we share. However, whether we could learn more from them or those whose views contradict ours depends also on our attitudes, for other words, we can hardly tell if we can learn more from one side simply by wether we share our views
Admittedly, as the statement says, we can learn much from those who share our own views, because during the process of communicating with those people, we could get many new informations and knowledge about our own views. Anyway, one person's time and vigor is limited, thus by group studying or exchanging informations with each other, we are able to gather knowledge and information much more efficiently. While if we conmunicate with those whose views oppose ours, we would be likely to spend most of our time to discuss and debate to defend our own views.
Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we would learn less from those whose views contradict ours. In some situations, we do learn more from those people, for the benefit brought by discusses and debates in a polite and controllable way. Few would disagree with this suggestion, if not ignore the fact that nearly all the colleges and secondary schools are willing to promote the atmosphere of debating in their campus, just to make their students more enthusiastic, more active to speak out their own views, though these views might be very different to other ones, and encourage them to discuss in groups, not to make a consensus among them, not for am absolute answer, but to provide an incentive to make them consider deeply and profoundly about their own views, as well as others’ views. Because it is usually ridiculous to take the absolute righteousness of a viewpoint for granted, the very point is, rethink and try to improve our views and ideas, and obviously, debating with other people whose views contradict ours is a pretty good way to court such goal.
Moreover, whether we can learn from people, no matter whether their views we share or not, depends on the attitudes of ourselves to a big degree. The most important one is, whether we can keep modest enough to listen to other people, and acknowledge that there are flaws in our own views or our expression. A fitting negative instance of which is recent days’ debate television programs, where guests endlessly fight for their own views, seldom I have observed any of them concede the shortcoming of themsleves and their own ideas, let alone receive the goodness and credibility of another side, certainly, this agreesive attitude would keep us from learning from others. Besides, if we are able to dismiss the unnecessary and haughty persistence of "I am right", we could dramatically maximize what we can learn from others, no matter his or her views contradict ours or not.
To sum up, though whether people share their views or not does play a important role in the process of learning from each other, it is not the only factor. Our attitudes towards different views and their owners is also crucial. To make sure we can learn from both of them, we have to build a right attitude ourselves.
===========================================
TOPIC: ARGUMENT178 - The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.
"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."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The president of the National Brush Company believes that a change of the way they pay their employees would lead to less cost and increase their profit, however, his report fails to show his statement's credibility persuasively for following reasons.
First, the president says that it would save money for the company, and even enhance the quality of their bruses, if they pay employees by the number of brushes they produce, instead of the time they work for. However, there is no strong reasoning between the policy and its expected outcome. What if their employees, for the purpose of making more money, increase the number of brushes they make per hours by reducing the quality of their products? If so, consumers would feel unsatisfied with their brushes, then just stop buying them from the company, which would certainly lead to a decrease of the company's profit.
Even if their employees would not sacrifice quality for quantity, this policy is unlikely to ensure more and better brushes, which the given report expects. For one thing, if not sacrifice the quality, employees have to work for the same hours for the same amount of brushes, if they are not willing to sacrifice their personal time to work for the same or more salaries, it is impossible to make more brushes each day. For another, there are many factors contribute to the quality of their products, for example, employees' skills and craftmanships, the quality of tools and machines, and employees' work status, all of which cannot be enhanced by this policy, thus, it is groundless to believe that the quality would be better simply by the change in the way they pay their employees. Besides, if the president does want to make his employees to work longer for more products per day, it is reasonable to predict a decline in the quality of their brushes, albeit these employees do not deliberately to reduce the quality, because it would increase the fatigue and discontent emotion of the employees.
Moreover, if like what the president states in his report, they would be able to reduce the staff size by this policy, the factories can hardly operate for fewer hours. For making the same number of productions with fewer staff, even though the efficiency is improved-which should be left to doudt, as discussed above-would require more hours to finish daily goals.
Finally, the president says that in this way they would make the best workers to keep jobs and then expect a profit. Notwithstanding I am afraid that if the National Brush Company really execute this policy, the best workers’ efficiency would suffer a decrease, because, even though they might make more money because they can produce more per hour than others, the leaving of other workers would make their tasks more burndensome, which would lead to a decline of their work status.
想跟大家交流一下想法~~~上一次只有2.5，如果这次能考的满意一点一定写点回忆和心得什么的回报社会！
0条回复