以下GMAT机经为澳际留学独家整理，转载请注明出处，若无注明发现必究!

以下澳际留学独家整理发布2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年5月GMAT作文机经，AI篇，2011年5月3日至2011年5月15日，共42题。澳际留学祝同学们GMAT考试顺利！

5. 本月3次

issue考的是环境那篇，科学家定义的对环境有益的standard 一直在变，问问公司要不要resist changing their product and process in reponse to new recomendation until the recommendation has been the government&aposs regulation.

上月机经 3次

原题：“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）

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.

6. 本月5次

V1.portray violent in entertainment product bring commercial benits so the those who creates entertainment product should continue incorporate violence in their product.

V2.大众媒体包括television，song等等由于涉及violence得到了好处，所以有些人建议这些涉及大众媒体的公司应当继续生产包括violence的产品。

考古：

Portrayals of violence have proven commercially successful in television programs, movies, songs, and other forms of popular entertainment. Therore, those who create popular entertainment should continue to incorporate violence into their products.

中文的大概意思是－在电视节目、电影、歌曲及其他形式的大众娱乐节目中加入暴力被证明是成功的商业模式。因此，那些创做流行的娱乐节目的人应该继续将其纳入到自己的产品中去。

类似AI054 ：Popular entertainment is overly influenced by commercial interests. Superficiality, obscenity, and violence characterize films and televsion today because those qualities are commercially successful. 北美范文 Clearly, most popular films and television shows are superficial and/or include a certain amount of violence or obscenity. Just as clearly, popularity leads to commercial success. But can we conclude that these productions are overly influenced by commercial interests? Perhaps not, since some popular films and television shows are neither superficial, obscene, nor violent. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that most such productions actually support, not disprove, the thesis that commercial interests dictate movie and television content. (哪有必要作这样的二次转折) One would-be (自称自许的)threat to the thesis can be found in lower-budget independent films, which tend to focus more on character development and topical social issues than on sensationalism. Recently, a few such films have supplanted Hollywood’s major studio productions as top box-office (adj. 票房的) hits. Does this mean that profit potential no longer dictates the content of films? No; it simply suggests that the tastes and prerences of the movie-going public are shifting.A second ostensible challenge to the thesis can be found in companies such as Disney, whose productions continue to achieve great popularity and commercial success, without resort to an appeal to baser interests. Yet it is because these productions are commercially successful that they proliferate. The only cogent challenge to the thesis is found in perennial television favorites such as “Nova,” a public television show that is neither commercially supported nor influenced. However, such shows are more in the nature of education than entertainment, and for every one program like “Nova” there are several equally popular—and highly superficial—programs. With few exceptions, then, commercial success of certain films and television shows is no accidental byproduct of popularity; it is the intentional result of producers’ forts to maximize profits.

以上澳际留学为大家收集整理发布2011年GMAT机经，以上2011年5月GMAT作文机经，AI篇，2011年5月3日至2011年5月15日，共42题。澳际留学祝同学们考试顺利！

以下GMAT机经为澳际留学独家整理，转载请注明出处，若无注明发现必究!

GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)GMAT机经,2011年5月GMAT作文机经AI(至5.15)(三)

以下GMAT机经为澳际留学独家整理，转载请注明出处，若无注明发现必究!

以下澳际留学独家整理发布2011年GMAT机经，以下2011年5月GMAT作文机经，AI篇，2011年5月3日至2011年5月15日，共42题。澳际留学祝同学们GMAT考试顺利！

5. 本月3次

issue考的是环境那篇，科学家定义的对环境有益的standard 一直在变，问问公司要不要resist changing their product and process in reponse to new recomendation until the recommendation has been the government&aposs regulation.

上月机经 3次

原题：“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）

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 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