GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文四二

　　42. 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 effectiveness. Although a wait-and-see 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, to shut down the operation if the company cannot afford abatement

　　measures.

　　Secondly, the argument assumes that the government regulations will properly

　　reflect 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 than by societal concerns.

　　Thirdly, waiting until government regulations are in place can have disastrous

　　effects on the environment. A great deal of environmental damage can occur before

　　regulations are implemented. This problem is compounded whenever government

　　reaction to scientific evidence is slow. Moreover, the EPA 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

　　before reacting to warnings about environmental problems. The speakers 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.