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.”
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,谴责
loyal royal loyalty refuse adjust counterproductive attract retain reserve withhold uphold criterion criteria security ignore ignorance
1， 首先，完全根据年限来看，是不利于生产力进步的。——这样员工只要在企业里待着，表现平庸provide third-class performance就可以得到更多的奖励，这显然是不利于整个团队的morale的。一方面，老的不能激发;另一方面，有才干的年轻人也不会愿意加入这个企业。
2， 但也不能完全只看表现，还要在此同时考虑到年限。因为老员工又同时非常优秀的表现，为企业付出了更多的力量devote their entire life to the development of one corporation。如果完全一视同仁，也不一定更公平。反而很可能使老员工感到不公平treated unfairly，丧失对企业的loyalty。
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 isn’t 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.
unwarranted baseless groudless bottomless foundationless gratuitous groundless 私人产品private goods 公共产品public goods 外部性externality 非竞争non-rivalry 非排他non-excludability 竞争rivalry 排他excludability 理论 私人部门private sector 公共部门public sector收藏collection
扶植prop up 扶持support uphold 言过其实paint the devil blacker than he is 为公益的commonweal-oriented 限制constrain confine 负面影响negative impact 正面影响positive impact 绝对的absolute
保障guarantee safeguard 裸体naked
1， 艺术的巨大作用毋庸置疑：强调the perpetua永久的l virtue, such as bravery, affection, responsibility, honesty and so forth. The Lord of the rings; 同时，remind people of the intrinsic demerits stemmed from the dark side of humanity, such as aggression and greed. Shakespeare’s Macbeth instruct people that the insatiable贪得无厌 ambition is pernicious. 艺术应该受到支持，以便蓬勃发展。
2， 但是不能说政府应该扮演这个角色。首先，艺术需要自由的表达，而政府的资助一定在某种程度上限制这种自由。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，政府有更多的职责，需要有限的资源去处理。比如很多社会问题非常严重，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， 鉴于以上两点，应该把艺术的扶持工作交给大众。事实上，现在的很多公益机构charitarian are doing an excellent job in supporting the prosperity of arts.
Government/ the authorities
Support/finance/ patronize/ loan/ sustain/ pledge
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 society’s 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.