澳际留学为正在备考GMAT的同学整理了gmat机经，2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年6月gmat作文AI机经，共39题，时间从2011年6月3日至2011年6月22日。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利！

（19）本月机经 8次 上月机经5次

No.42 Scientists are continually redining the standards for what is benicial 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.”

42. “科学家在不断重新制定对环境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的标准。由于这些标准不停变动，面对新建议，公司应该保持他们的产品和流程不变直到新的建议成为国家标准为止。”

提供观点：

1. 科学家的建议也并不一定都是正确的。很有可能他的结论适用面很窄。或者他所得到的数据有错误等等。

2. 对企业来说频繁的变更产品和生产流程会造成很大的经济损失

3. 诚然等待国家制定标准很可能存在滞后等问题但是比较起来以上的问题还是应该等待国家制定标准。此外一个折中的方案是国家成立专门的机构快速地对新的方案和建议做出评价并迅速制定标准

split the difference lag evaluate

View1: The recommendations given by scientists are usually controversial or have inconsistent perspectives on same questions, thus can not provide clear directions on actions that companies should adopt,

View 2: changing products and processes too often will inevitably increase cost and lower productivity. Therore do harm to the companies .

View3: while waiting for government regulations may draw back the processes of solving the problems, it is relatively a better strategy for companies to follow. We can count on the authorities to speed up the process of conversion between scientific discoveries and official regulations.

北美范文：

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 fectiveness. Although a wait-and-see (adj. 观望的) 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. 非常, 极端), to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement measures.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly rlect 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 (pork: government money, jobs, or favors used by politicians as patronage) than by societal concerns.

Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous fects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur bore regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency 美国环保署) 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 bore reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speaker’s 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.

（20）本月机经 9次 上月机经0次

V1 现在人都追求长寿，但是不应该最大限度的提高average life span.因为许多人说这样会给资源很大负担，并且会影响每一个人的life quality.

V2人们都想extend the human life span，可是这样会浪费资源，降低每个人的生活质量

原题:Although most people wish to live long lives, attempting to significantly extend the average human life span would be a mistake. If achieved, this would place an enormous burden on resources, lowering the quality of life for everyone.

熟睡的水 (ID: 579104)提供观点

What if , by the end of this century, we could more than double average life-span to between 160 and 180? Given that possibility, these are the issues that should be thoroughly discussed and debated. At some point, the number of people may become sa large that it exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, making life miserable for the vast majority of humans (and impossible for other species), even sowing the seeds for our own destruction. The quality of life for very old people may be severely diminished, if changing the boundaries of aging is not accompanied by reasonable health. Certain tissues and organs may deteriorate even as life-span is markedly prolonged, so people may live 140 years with ever –worsening sight, hearing, mental function, and musculoskeletal function. Meanwhile, we might be expected to work, support ourselves, and pay taxes until age 80, 90, 110 or older. Some of us will outlive our resources and spend our extended years live in poverty. This would likely create intense adversarial relations between younger and older persons as they compete for limited jobs and resources.

澳际留学为大家整理2011年gmat机经，以上2011年6月gmat作文机经，AI，共39题，2011年6月3日至2011年6月22日。澳际留学祝大家考试顺利！

gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)gmat机经,2011年gmat机经,6月作文机经AI(至6.22)(十二)

澳际留学为正在备考GMAT的同学整理了gmat机经，2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年6月gmat作文AI机经，共39题，时间从2011年6月3日至2011年6月22日。澳际留学祝大家GMAT考试顺利！

（19）本月机经 8次 上月机经5次

No.42 Scientists are continually redining the standards for what is benicial 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.”

42. “科学家在不断重新制定对环境什么是有利的，什么是有害的的标准。由于这些标准不停变动，面对新建议，公司应该保持他们的产品和流程不变直到新的建议成为国家标准为止。”

提供观点：

1. 科学家的建议也并不一定都是正确的。很有可能他的结论适用面很窄。或者他所得到的数据有错误等等。

2. 对企业来说频繁的变更产品和生产流程会造成很大的经济损失

3. 诚然等待国家制定标准很可能存在滞后等问题但是比较起来以上的问题还是应该等待国家制定标准。此外一个折中的方案是国家成立专门的机构快速地对新的方案和建议做出评价并迅速制定标准

split the difference lag evaluate 上123456下

共6页

阅读全文

更多出国留学最新动态，敬请关注澳际教育手机端网站，并可拨打咨询热线：400-601-0022