GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文二一

　　21. 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 isnt 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.