GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文六一

　　61. I agree with the statement insofar as government systems of taxation and

　　regulation are, in general, a great burden to business, and I agree that government

　　constraints are needed to prevent serious harms that would result if business were left

　　free in the singular pursuit of profit. However, I think the speaker states the obvious and

　　begs the more relevant question.

　　Is government at best a tremendous burden on business, as the speaker claims?

　　l think one would be hard-pressed to find any small business owner or corporate CEO

　　who would disagree. Businesses today are mired in the burdens that government has

　　imposed on them: consumer and environmental protection laws, the double-tiered tax

　　structure for C-corporations, federal and state securities regulations, affirmative action

　　requirements, anti-trust laws, and so on. in focusing solely on these burdens, one might

　　well adopt a strict laissez faire view that if business is left free to pursue profit the so-

　　called invisible hand of competition will guide it to produce the greatest social benefit,

　　and therefore that the proper nexus between business and government is no nexus at all.

　　Is government, nevertheless, a necessary burden on business, as the speaker also

　　claims? Yes. Laissez faire is an extreme view that fails to consider the serious harms

　　that business would do―to other businesses and to the society―if left to its own

　　devices. And the harms may very well exceed the benefits. In fact, history has shown

　　that left entirely to themselves, corporations can be expected not only to harm the

　　society by making unsafe products and by polluting the environment, but also to cheat

　　one another, exploit workers, and fix prices -all for profits sake. Thus, I agree that

　　government constraints on business are necessary burdens.

　　Ideally, the government should regulate against harmful practices but not interfere

　　with the beneficial ones. But achieving this balance is not a simple matter. For instance,

　　I know of a business that was forced by government regulation of toxic effluents to

　　spend over $120,000 to clean up an area outside of its plant where employees had

　　regularly washed their hands. The toxin in this case was nothing more than

　　biodegradable soap. This example suggests that perhaps the real issue here is not

　　whether government is a necessary burden on business―for it clearly is―but rather

　　how best to ensure that its burdens dont outweigh its benefits.

　　In sum, the speakers two assertions are palpable ones that are amply supported by

　　the evidence. The more intriguing question is how to strike the best balance.