帮忙讨论aa的18、28这两道题！！！

shashapy

[求助]帮忙讨论aa的18、28这两道题！！！
这两题这个月都出现过，没什么思路，望g友指点一二。

18。The following is an excerpt from a memo by the head of a government department:
“Neither stronger ethics regulations nor stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure ethical behavior doing business with this department are urged to abide by, and virtually all of these companies have agreed to follow it. We also know that the code is relevant to the current business environment because it was approved within the last year and in direct response to specific violations committed by companies with which we were then working— not in abstract anticipation of potential violations, as so many such codes”
28. The following appeared in the editorial section of local newspaper
Commuter use of the nee subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.

maryland

给MM贴两篇范文，希望对你有用。[em23]

18.          In this argument, the head of a government department concludes that the
department does not need to strengthen either its ethics regulations or its enforcement
mechanisms in order to encourage ethical behavior by companies with which it does
business. The first reason given is that businesses have agreed to follow the
department's existing code of ethics. The second reason is that the existing code is
relevant to the current business environment. This argument is unacceptable for several
reasons.
        The sole support for the claim that stronger enforcement mechanisms are
unnecessary comes from the assumption that companies will simply keep their promises
to follow the existing code. But, since the department head clearly refers to rules
violations by these same businesses within the past year, his faith in their word is
obviously misplaced. Moreover, it is commonly understood that effective rules carry
with them methods of enforcement and penalties for violations.
        To show that a strengthened code is unnecessary, the department head claims that
the existing code of ethics is relevant. In partial clarification of the vague term
"relevant," we are told that the existing code was approved in direct response to
violations occurring in the past year. If the full significance of being relevant is that the
code responds to last year's violations, then the department head must assume that those
violations will be representative of all the kinds of ethics problems that concern the
department. This is unlikely; in addition, thinking so produces an oddly short-sighted
idea of relevance.
        Such a narrow conception of the relevance of an ethics code points up its
weakness. The strength of an ethics code lies in its capacity to cover many different
instances of the general kinds of behavior thought to be unethical to cover not only last
year's specific violations, but those of previous years and years to come. Yet this author
explicitly rejects a comprehensive code, preferring the existing code because it is
"relevant" and "not in abstract anticipation of potential violations."
        In sum, this argument is naive, vague and poorly reasoned. The department head
has not given careful thought to the connection between rules and their enforcement, to
what makes an ethics code relevant, or to how comprehensiveness strengthens a code.
In the final analysis, he adopts a backwards view that a history of violations should
determine rules of ethics, rather than the other way around.

28.          The author concludes that the local transit company must either reduce tares for
the shuttle buses that transport people to then- subway stations or increase parking fees
at the stations. The reasons offered to support this conclusion are that commuter use of
the subway train is exceeding the transit company's expectations, while commuter use
of the shuffle buses is below projected volume. This argument is unconvincing because
the author oversimplifies the problem and its solutions in a number of ways.
        To begin with, by concluding that the transit company must either reduce shuttle
fares or increase parking fees, the author assumes that these are the only available
solutions to the problem of limited shuttle use. However, it is possible that other  
factors-such as inconvenient shuttle routing and/or scheduling, safety concerns, or an
increase in carpools—contribute to the problem. If so, adjusting fares or parking fees
would might not solve the problem.
        In addition, the author assumes that reducing shuttle fees and increasing parking
fees are mutually exclusive alternatives. However, the author provides no reason for
imposing an either/or choice. Adjusting both shuttle fares and parking fees might
produce better results. Moreover, if the author is wrong in the assumption that parking
fees and shuttle fees are the only possible causes of the problem, then the most effective
solution might include a complex of policy changes—for example, in shuttle fares,
parking fees, rerouting, and rescheduling.
        In conclusion, this argument is weak because the author oversimplifies both the
problem and its possible solutions. To strengthen the argument the author must examine
all factors that might account for the shuttle's unpopularity. Additionally, the author
should consider all possible solutions to determine which combination would bring
about the greatest increase in shuttle use.

[此贴子已经被maryland于2002-11-21 10:52:41编辑过]