GMAT考试写作指导：Issue写作范文六一

会计考友

61.        I agree with the statement insofar as government systems of taxation and
) K  q) X" ?: T$ P  S+ Kregulation are, in general, a great burden to business, and I agree that government
5 i0 z! p; C3 ?/ D) V7 x9 m% M2 ^# Y6 Gconstraints 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
* \+ H* d8 |0 r6 }/ _) Kwho 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
8 f$ L; E5 }" ?& t+ ^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,
0 Y' D. c7 `. r3 j; N  _and therefore that the proper nexus between business and government is no nexus at all.
4 ]1 Z$ o" z# J! ~7 p- I      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
7 T5 v0 m# N, C* hthat business would do—to other businesses and to the society—if left to its own
' O& n0 _6 Y$ I0 z  j& l( z$ {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
1 j, a, k% O2 D% ]society by making unsafe products and by polluting the environment, but also to cheat
( k5 `, s# r- rone another, exploit workers, and fix prices -all for profit's sake. Thus, I agree that
6 l% ^: W7 s6 a5 w6 y/ @  ]1 qgovernment 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
6 C* d/ i. X6 tspend 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
9 |; X9 P/ d8 A: V( N5 M3 Rbiodegradable 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
" G5 q* q5 q7 @- b9 Fhow best to ensure that its burdens don't outweigh its benefits.
* }  f- ?' P6 q* z( Y/ ~      In sum, the speaker's two assertions are palpable ones that are amply supported by
the evidence. The more intriguing question is how to strike the best balance.