只說(shuō)寫作。在11月上我強(qiáng)化班、考前點(diǎn)題班的學(xué)生，或者參考了博客上關(guān)于12月份預(yù)測(cè)的朋友，看到12號(hào)這道考題之后，是否發(fā)現(xiàn)是我講的原題?我在考前點(diǎn)題的時(shí)候，重點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)了：最后一次考試需要注意職業(yè)發(fā)展類和科技類的考題，而這次的題目不正是我點(diǎn)出的兩種話題的綜合嗎?來(lái)源：www.examda.com
Using modern technology to work at home benefits workers only, but not employers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
這道題目實(shí)際上是一道“骨灰級(jí)”的考題的語(yǔ)義擴(kuò)大，以前見(jiàn)過(guò)的“是否同意在家辦公”或者“在家辦公的利弊”就是這道考題的原型，只是這道題目加上了“高科技手段”這樣一些限定字眼，其實(shí)完全可以具體化到“computers, the Internet, telecommunicating”等常見(jiàn)的科技類型。
這篇文章如果按照中庸的方式去寫，會(huì)比較容易構(gòu)思一些，也就是主體加讓步的方式。下面提供一些思路，供大家參考。
1.在家工作的員工的生活方式首先將會(huì)改變?？梢造`活支配自己的時(shí)間flexible time allocation，不再需要朝九晚五的生活nine-to-five routine，能騰出時(shí)間照顧老人陪伴小孩。
2.在家工作改善了生活質(zhì)量，創(chuàng)造了更多的生產(chǎn)力productivity，空閑的時(shí)間，提供了更多的教育和更少的污染。
3.管理者可以看到好處：病假sick leave的減少，年假annual leave的減少，工人補(bǔ)償減低以及辦公成本的節(jié)省
4.遠(yuǎn)程辦公的靈活性是未來(lái)的趨勢(shì)
1.在家辦公的人面臨著被社交圈拋棄的危險(xiǎn)：may face the risk that they will be left out of the communication loop.
2.在家辦公可能不會(huì)受到來(lái)自同事的干擾，但是卻要面臨電視、家務(wù)和家庭成員的干擾。
3.在家辦公意味著沒(méi)有支援，也不能在緊要關(guān)頭得到指導(dǎo)了和幫助。
4.雇主需要擔(dān)心職員是否足夠自律。
閱讀
There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum. But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends。
A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the “l(fā)abor-market premium to skill”—or the amount college graduates earned that’s greater than what high-school graduate earned—decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (報(bào)復(fù)性地) since the 1980s. In 2005, The typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned $50,900, 62% more than the $31,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma。
There’s no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn’t come down merely to dollars and cents. Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board $49,260 in 2007-08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student ($35,542)? Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student ($17,380) there? Not likely。
No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren’t evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product—like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider。
As with automobiles, consumers in today’s college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets. This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program). And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products. So which is it? Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car? In keeping with the automotive world’s hottest consumer trend, maybe it’s best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合動(dòng)力汽車); an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends。
Using modern technology to work at home benefits workers only, but not employers. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
這道題目實(shí)際上是一道“骨灰級(jí)”的考題的語(yǔ)義擴(kuò)大，以前見(jiàn)過(guò)的“是否同意在家辦公”或者“在家辦公的利弊”就是這道考題的原型，只是這道題目加上了“高科技手段”這樣一些限定字眼，其實(shí)完全可以具體化到“computers, the Internet, telecommunicating”等常見(jiàn)的科技類型。
這篇文章如果按照中庸的方式去寫，會(huì)比較容易構(gòu)思一些，也就是主體加讓步的方式。下面提供一些思路，供大家參考。
1.在家工作的員工的生活方式首先將會(huì)改變?？梢造`活支配自己的時(shí)間flexible time allocation，不再需要朝九晚五的生活nine-to-five routine，能騰出時(shí)間照顧老人陪伴小孩。
2.在家工作改善了生活質(zhì)量，創(chuàng)造了更多的生產(chǎn)力productivity，空閑的時(shí)間，提供了更多的教育和更少的污染。
3.管理者可以看到好處：病假sick leave的減少，年假annual leave的減少，工人補(bǔ)償減低以及辦公成本的節(jié)省
4.遠(yuǎn)程辦公的靈活性是未來(lái)的趨勢(shì)
1.在家辦公的人面臨著被社交圈拋棄的危險(xiǎn)：may face the risk that they will be left out of the communication loop.
2.在家辦公可能不會(huì)受到來(lái)自同事的干擾，但是卻要面臨電視、家務(wù)和家庭成員的干擾。
3.在家辦公意味著沒(méi)有支援，也不能在緊要關(guān)頭得到指導(dǎo)了和幫助。
4.雇主需要擔(dān)心職員是否足夠自律。
閱讀
There are few more sobering online activities than entering data into college-tuition calculators and gasping as the Web spits back a six-figure sum. But economists say families about to go into debt to fund four years of partying, as well as studying, can console themselves with the knowledge that college is an investment that, unlike many bank stocks, should yield huge dividends。
A 2008 study by two Harvard economists notes that the “l(fā)abor-market premium to skill”—or the amount college graduates earned that’s greater than what high-school graduate earned—decreased for much of the 20th century, but has come back with a vengeance (報(bào)復(fù)性地) since the 1980s. In 2005, The typical full-time year-round U.S. worker with a four-year college degree earned $50,900, 62% more than the $31,500 earned by a worker with only a high-school diploma。
There’s no question that going to college is a smart economic choice. But a look at the strange variations in tuition reveals that the choice about which college to attend doesn’t come down merely to dollars and cents. Does going to Columbia University (tuition, room and board $49,260 in 2007-08) yield a 40% greater return than attending the University of Colorado at Boulder as an out-of-state student ($35,542)? Probably not. Does being an out-of-state student at the University of Colorado at Boulder yield twice the amount of income as being an in-state student ($17,380) there? Not likely。
No, in this consumerist age, most buyers aren’t evaluating college as an investment, but rather as a consumer product—like a car or clothes or a house. And with such purchases, price is only one of many crucial factors to consider。
As with automobiles, consumers in today’s college marketplace have vast choices, and people search for the one that gives them the most comfort and satisfaction in line with their budgets. This accounts for the willingness of people to pay more for different types of experiences (such as attending a private liberal-arts college or going to an out-of-state public school that has a great marine-biology program). And just as two auto purchasers might spend an equal amount of money on very different cars, college students (or, more accurately, their parents) often show a willingness to pay essentially the same price for vastly different products. So which is it? Is college an investment product like a stock or a consumer product like a car? In keeping with the automotive world’s hottest consumer trend, maybe it’s best to characterize it as a hybrid (混合動(dòng)力汽車); an expensive consumer product that, over time, will pay rich dividends。