GMAT考试：Issue写作范文三

　　5.

　　Which is a more productive method of performing a group task: allowing ail group members to share in the decision making, duties and responsibilities, or appointing one member to make decisions, delegate duties and take responsibility? The speakers opinion is that the first method is always the best one. In my view, however, each of these alternatives is viable in certain circumstances, as illustrated by two very different examples.

　　A jury in a criminal trial is good example of a group in which shared decision-making, duties, and responsibility is the most appropriate and effective way to get the job done. Each member of the jury is on equal footing with the others. While one person is appointed to head the jury, his or her function is to act as facilitator, not as leader. To place ultimate authority and responsibility on the facilitator would essentially be to appoint a judge, and to thereby defeat the very purpose of the jury system.

　　By way of contrast, a trauma unit in a hospital is a case in which one individual should assume responsibility, delegate duties and make decisions. In trauma units, split-second decisions are inherently part of the daily routine, and it is generally easier for one person to make a quick decision than for a team to agree on how to proceed. One ould argue that since decisions in trauma units are typically life-and-death ones, leaving these decisions to one person is too risky. However, this argument ignores the crucial point that only the most experienced individuals should be trusted with such a burden and with such power; leaving decisions to inexperienced group members can jeopardize a patients very life.

　　In conclusion, I agree that in some situations the best way to accomplish a task is through teamwork―sharing responsibility, duties and decision making. However, in other situations, especially those where quick decisions are necessary or where individual experience is critical, the most effective means is for one individual to serve as leader and assume ultimate responsibility for completing the job.

　　6.

　　The speaker here defines success simply as the ability to choose how to spend ones life. Under this definition, people who have the freedom to do whatever they want at any time they choose would presumably be the most successful ones, while those who have no such freedom would be the biggest failures. Viewing the definition in this light reveals three serious problems with it.

　　The chief problem with this definition of success is that by the definition nearly all people would be regarded as failures. The reason for this is simple. Most people have extremely limited choices in what they can do and when they can do it. In other words, unrestricted freedom of choice is a luxury only a few people―perhaps a handful of tyrannical dictators and ultra-wealthy individuals―can afford.

　　Secondly, people who have a high degree of freedom in choosing their lifestyle often acquire it through means that would not earn them the accolade of being successful. For example, lottery winners or people who inherit a great deal of money may be able to spend their life in any way they choose, but few people would regard them as successful merely due to their financial fortune.

　　A third reason this definition of success is unacceptable is that it repudiates some of our basic intuitions about success. For most people, success is related to achievement. The more you achieve, the more successful you are; conversely, the less you achieve the less successful you are. Defining success in terms of freedom of choice ignores this intuition.

　　In sum, the proposed definition of success is far too limiting, and it belies our intuition about the concept. I think that most people would agree with me that success is better defined in terms of the attainment of goals.