GMAT考试中GMAT的写作成绩对考生申请留学有着重要的影响，考生在备考的过程中要加强对
“The rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.”
* homogeneity: sameness, similarity
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“跨国公司的兴起导致全球一体化。因为所有地方的人们都开始需要同样的服务和产品，地区差异正迅速消失。”
1. The so-called cultural innovation does exists. Let's take KFC as an example. Its standard design, decoration and food supplied in every chain all around the world influence people consume its product and service.
2. However, to say the multinational corporations do no good to promote and improve the unique culture of the nations where their branches are located is very imprudent.
3. Ideally, the multinational corporations should incorporate the culture of the target country's cultrue with the corporate culture and the culture it belongs to.
反对。
1， 首先，前提是错误的。因为各地差异不同，所以全球化的大公司，想在所有地方都提供一样的产品服务是不现实的。empirical evidence: 很多成功的大企业，往往是那些充分认识到不同，从而采用不同的策略的。不能保持完全一致的策略，let alone 更不用说完全一样的产品和服务。比如：KFC等fast food，在中国都针对口味偏好开发了很多新产品。
2， Moreover, 地区差异不会消失，有更深层次的原因on much deeper level。第一，文化的差异，信仰的不同，很难靠产品和服务改变。比如，即使使用最先进的日本Panasonic产的电视，美国人用来传播transmit democratic principles, while中国人可能用来publicize the thoughts of Mao, or Confucius… 第二，习俗的差异，custom。比如，尽管很多年轻人在中国开始celebrate the Valentine’s Day, 但是在所有中国人心中，最重要的节日仍然是Spring Festival。这是什么样的产品都不能改变的。
Optional words:
Homogeneity/ homogeneous/ homogenize/
Difference/ divergence/ deviation/ variance/ disagreement/ conflict
Thesis sentence:
View1: the development of multinational corporations does enhance global unity by bringing the same methods of business administration as well as products and services throughout the world.
Evidence: western fast food bring by global chain express such us McDonald’sand KFC have change our diet habits a lot
View2: however, the effect of multinational corporations is far from eliminating regional deference. The corporations itself is blend in the regional features.
Evidence: Lay’s, one of the most successful multinational food manufacturers, add some flavor of traditional Asian dishes to its potato chips in order to attract foreign customers.
Although global homogeneity in a broader sense may not be as inexorable as the speaker here suggests, I agree that multinational corporations are indeed creating global sameness in consumer preferences. This homogeneity is manifested in two concurrent megatrends: (1) the embracing of American popular culture throughout the world, and (2) a synthesis of cultures, as reflected in consumer preferences.
The first trend is toward Americanization of popular culture throughout the world. In food and fashion, once a nation’s denizens “fall into the Gap” or get a taste of a Coke or Big Mac, their preferences are forever Westernized. The ubiquitous Nike “swoosh,” which nearly every soccer player in the world will soon don, epitomizes this phenomenon. In media, the cultural agendas of giants such as Time-Warner now drive the world’s entertainment preferences. The Rolling Stones and the stars of America’s prime-time television shows are revered among young people worldwide, while Mozart’s music, Shakespeare’s prose, and Ghandi’s ideology are largely ignored.
A second megatrend is toward a synthesis of cultures into a homogenous stew. The popularity of “world music” and of the “New Age” health care and leisure-time activities aptly illustrate this blending of Eastern, Western and third-world cultures. Perhaps nowhere is the cultural-stew paradigm more striking, and more bland (blander), than at the international “food courts” now featured in malls throughout the developed world.
These trends appear inexorable. Counter-attacks, such as Ebonies, rap music, and bilingual education, promote the distinct culture of minority groups, but not of nations. Further homogenization of consumer preferences is all but ensured by failing trade barriers, coupled with the global billboard that satellite communications and the Internet provide.
In sum, American multinationals have indeed instigated a homogeneous global, yet American-style, consumerism—one which in all likelihood will grow in extent along with free-market capitalism and global connectivity.
66. “Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products are safe. If a product injures someone, for whatever reason, the manufacturer should be held legally and financially accountable for the injury.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above. Support your point of view with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“制造商对保证他们的产品的安全负责。如果一个产品伤害了某人，不论什么原因，制造商都应该对伤害负法律和经济责任。”
1. Manufactures are resposible for providing the consumers with safe and reliable products and they are also responsible for supplying clear and detailed instrctions. That is the basic requirement for a qualified manufacture.
2. To satisfy the need of the consumers for convenient and user-friendly product will benefit the manufacture at the same time. Because during the process in pursue of the consumers' satisfaction the manufactures have to make innovations and a lot of P&D, which will enhance the manufactures and make them competetive in the rival with others.
3. However, if the manufacture has already done well to provide excellent and safe product plus clear and detailed instructions and it is the consumers' misconduct that should be blamed for the incidence, then the manufacture is not responsible for the injury.
View1: safe is one of the most important features of products
View2: the extremely strict standard of safe liability is costly and unfair to the manufacturers.
Evidence: this standard force manufactures to do excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits, Consumers are then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices.
nothing can be absolutely safe if used inappropriately. while manufacturers have given clear guide on how to keep and use their product, it is still impossible for manufactures to ensure their products being under proper use. More over, a large number of victims are not direct customers but second-hand users, who can not receive all instructions and guidance.
In determining whether manufacturers should be accountable for all injuries resulting from the use of their products, one must weigh the interests of consumers against those of manufacturers. On balance, holding manufacturers strictly liable for such injuries is unjustifiable.
Admittedly, protecting consumers from defective and dangerous products is an important and worthwhile goal. No doubt nearly all of us would agree that health and safety should rank highly as an objective of public policy. Also, compelling a high level of safety forces manufacturers to become more innovative in design, use of materials, and so forth. Consumers and manufacturers alike benefit, of course, from innovation.
However, the arguments against a strict-liability standard are more compelling. First, the standard is costly. It forces manufacturers to incur undue expenses for overbuilding, excessive safety testing, and defending liability law suits. Consumers are then damaged by ultimately bearing these costs in the form of higher prices. Second, the standard can be unfair. It can assign fault to the wrong party; where a product is distributed through a wholesaler and/or retailer, one of these parties may have actually caused, or at least contributed to, the injury. The standard can also misplace fault where the injured party is not the original consumer. Manufacturers cannot ensure that second-hand users receive safe products or adequate instructions and warnings. Finally, where the injured consumer uses the product for a purpose or in a manner other than the intended one, or where there were patent dangers that the user should have been aware of, it seems the user, not the manufacturer, should assume the risk of injury.
In sum, despite compelling interests in consumer safety and product innovation, holding manufacturers accountable for all injuries caused by their products is unjustifiably costly to society and unfair to manufacturers.