Irma

托福獨立寫作  高分範文 (三)

其實托福獨立寫作是有一定的文章架構，所以一開始可以先依照ETS 官方所透露的托福的獨立寫作幾篇高分範文去查看：根據問題這些考生在每個段落到底是怎麼寫的，從中去了解怎樣的寫作方法才可能在EST考官那拿到高分。就好比下面兩篇文章可以比較得知，第一篇範文很明顯地第一段沒有先破題(紅色區塊)，他到最後一個段落點出自己的意見，感覺還是很接近中式文章的寫作方法；但相較於第二篇文章，不僅於一開始就自己的論點，其中的論證也是不偏不倚沒有跑題，雖然舉得例子不多比起第一篇，但是並無太大影響。

 TASK： Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

企業是否應該終身雇傭一個人？用具體的理由和觀點支持你的觀點。

第一篇範文：

   There are many advantages and disadvantages to off employees job security for life. In Japan, for example, prospective employees know that their employers will provide them with job security for their entire working days and they are better able to plan for their future and family. However, many businesses are now realizing that their employees have less motivation to work and this leads to less profits for the company. I will describe the advantages and disadvantages of this system in this essay and I will show that ultimately “jobs for life” is not good for a society.

　　Job security is very important for both the employee and the employer. For the employee, job security is important because she can depend on her source of income and better plan her future accordingly. For the employer, the employee represents an investment because of the number of hours of training required and the company will continue to have a return on this investment. As we all know, feeling secure about where our future income will come from is very important for our well-being—anybody who has lost a job and has had trouble finding a new one knows that this transition period can cause a lot of anxiety.

　　However, job security tends to lead to decreased productivity. In general, employees who are certain that they can never lose their jobs tend to work less efficiently, thereby contributing to an overall reduction of productivity in the company. A common example all over the world is that of civil servants. In Thailand, for example, many government workers are so indolent that it can take days or months for something to be finished that should only take a few days. It is not uncommon to walk into a government office and see employees filing their nails, making personal calls on the telephone, taking three-hour lunches, or surfing the Internet for fun.

　　Finally, the model of capitalism is proving to be the most efficient model that we have right now. This model of job security completely contradicts the foundations of capitalism. We can see in the United States now that people are starting to change jobs, even careers more and more often.

　　Some career consultants even recommend that employees find new jobs every three to five years. Even in countries that still offer job security for life, this model is showing signs of dying out. For example, in Japan, once famous for its lifelong jobs, both employees and employers are starting to expect that these jobs will not last a lifetime. Many of my Japanese friends travel back and forth between the United States and Japan are have been able to find temporary professional jobs while they are in Japan.

　　In short, I disagree that companies should offer their employees jobs for life. We can see this example in some parts of the world and in other areas in the United States, but these examples are generally regarded as outmoded ways of conducting business. Finally, the models of capitalism, even though it may seem cruel, the so-called “law of the jungle,” are proving to be the most effective way to raise the standard of living of a country.

第二篇範文：

  According to the high unemployment ratio, it becomes harder and harder to acquire a desirable job. There are various factors to account for this problem, such as unstable economic markets, salaries. People nowadays tend to believe companies should hire their employees for their entire lives. When it comes to this, another question arises: does this policy really eliminate the current question they are facing? I'm afraid not. This new hire policy could just bring more problems than now.  

  It really sounds great that employees could have a job for their entire lives, but their attitudes toward jobs may drive their boss crazy. With higher job security, employee never worry about losing jobs, nor will they work hard as before, even they could not get the salaries as much as before. In the long run, they become less competitive and begin to spend more time on recreation. What's more, personal promotion has no relation with employees' performance in some places, such as public service and governmental departments. And this will definitely make workers be negative to jobs.  

  Due to that consequence, companies have also been victims. When their employees do not work hard, it could be disaster to them. As we all know, people's living standards have been promoted a lot and they become so picky that companies have to be more efficient and more outstanding to survive in the unprecedentedly competitive environment. Nokia, which used to be one of the largest cell phone companies in the world, now is experiencing its crisis because people prefer smarter and cuter cell phones, such as iPhone. In this case, the question comes to the employees again, how could companies get the difficulties over?   

  What's more, the whole society could not get rid of negative effects under that situation. For example, in China, there are many big companies which government holds numbers of stocks of. When they are going to bankrupt, government is supposed to invest more money which should be spent on education or welfare to them. And if they get no extra money, a number of people will lose their jobs, which produces much more pressure on social security and stability.   

  In conclusion, people may get seemly higher security jobs, but actually they do not. Hiring for entire life could just ease the employment pressure in some certain period. After that, the outcome is unpredictable. However, if human source department focus on the avenues of enhancing supervising, managing and stimulating policies, this new hire system may work well.