GMAT范文之所以称为范文，代表它的写作整体水平是比较高的，考生在备考
100. “If a nation is to ensure its own economic success, it must maintain a highly competitive educational system in which students compete among themselves and against students from other countries.”
“如果一个国家要确保它的经济成功，它必须保持有高度竞争力的教育系统，在其中学生们相互竞争，还和国外的学生进行竞争。”
1， advantage: make students better prepared for the future competition, etc.
2， disadvantages:very pressure and stressful
3， a refined educational system is preferred
View1: education play a very important part in determine a nation’s economic success.
Employees, government regulation strategies, corporate management level, technology—competitive power of products
View2: as the development of open market and global economy, education is also required to face international challenge.
Although sometimes competition might produce desired results such as efficiency and productivity, I still believe that our national economic success will be better promoted by an educational system that encourages cooperative learning among students, and with students from other countries.
being competitive fixes our focus externally, on marking and beating the progress of others with whom we compete. Such external motivation can direct our attention away from creative solutions to our problems, and away from important human values like cooperation and fair play. Indeed, a highly competitive environment can foster cheating and ruthless back-stabbing within an organization, and ill-will and mistrust among nations. In the extreme case, competition between nations becomes war.
I don’t think it is a good idea to design an educational system that focuses mainly on competition. For although a little competition might produce desired results, in the long run too much competition will be destructive. Instead, I believe that our national economic success will be better promoted by an educational system that encourages cooperative learning among students, and with students from other countries.
Granted, competitiveness is an important aspect of human nature. And, properly directed, it can motivate us to reach higher and produce more, not to mention meet deadlines. But being competitive fixes our focus externally, on marking and beating the progress of others with whom we compete. Such external motivation can direct our attention away from creative solutions to our problems, and away from important human values like cooperation and fair play. Indeed, a highly competitive environment can foster cheating and ruthless back-stabbing within an organization, and ill-will and mistrust among nations. In the extreme case, competition between nations becomes war.
On the other hand, an environment of cooperation encourages us to discover our common goals and the best ways to achieve them. At the national and international levels, our main interests are in economic wellbeing and peace. In fact, economic success means little without the security of peace. Thus, global peace becomes a powerful incentive for developing educational models of cooperative learning, and implementing exchange programs and shared research projects among universities from different countries.
Moreover, research suggests that cooperative settings foster greater creativity and productivity than competitive ones. This has been shown to be the case both in institutions of higher learning and in business organizations. If true, it seems reasonable to argue that national economic success would be similarly tied to cooperative rather than competitive effort.
In conclusion, competition can provide an effective stimulus to achievement and reward. Even so, I believe it would be unwise to make competition the centerpiece of our educational system. We stand to reap greater benefits, including economic ones, by encouraging cooperative learning.
106. “All archeological treasures should remain in the country in which they were originally discovered. These works should not be exported, even if museums in other parts of the world are better able to preserve and display them.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“所有考古文物应该保存在他们原本被发现的那个国家里。这些物品不应该被出口，哪怕世界其他地区的博物馆可以更好的保护和展示他们也不行。”
1， 对该国的尊重也可以让人更好的理解这些文物因为有相应的文化背景
2， 如果没有能力保护的时候应该另想办法
3， 要有完善的体系支撑上述思想，最终目的是更好的保护文物让全人类受益
View1: generally speaking, original countries is best place to preserve and display their antique treasures.
Evidence: cultural recognition, historical integrity , show respect to the original counties. Examples: It’s a great shame and pity for all Chinese to see our antique treasures, which originally belonged to the palace of Qing dynasty and be robbed during the First World War, displaying in the Great British museum.
View2: However, under some circumstance, it could be better to transport the antiques to other places for better preservation.
Evidence: war, the authority ignore the value of certain antiques or lack the ability to properly preserve it: skills,
But when condition permitting, the treasures should be returned to their mother country.
Whether archaeological treasures should remain in the countries where they are found is a complex and controversial issue. I sympathize with the view that antiquities should remain in the country of their discovery. But given real-word considerations, it is sometimes best to place archaeological treasures wherever they will be safe and well-preserved.
Recent antiquities laws throughout the world reflect my point of view that the ancient treasures of a place should remain there. It seems outrageous that Greeks or Egyptians must visit the British Museum to see the best remnants of their distant past; and this link is grounds for a vague but justified claim to ownership.
However, cultural ownership is only one consideration. Historically, ancient treasures have been most interesting to two groups: scholars and robbers. Admittedly, the two are sometimes indistinguishable, as when Schliemann stole out of Turkey with an immense trove of what he mistakenly thought was King Priam’s treasure. Schliemann eventually placed his collection in the relatively safe hands of national museums, where it took the vicissitudes of war to destroy part of it. But none of Schliemann’s find would be available to the Turkish people or the world if plunderers had got there first.
Often, the plunderers do get there first. When Carter found the tomb of Tutankhamen, tomb-robbers, largely Egyptian, had carried off the treasures from bombs of other pharaohs. The fact that the world, including the Egyptians, have the exhaustively cataloged and well-preserved wonders of the Tutanhkamen find is owing to Carter and his associates. This, then, becomes the only argument for exporting ancient treasures to safer locations: it is a lesser evil than not having the treasures at all.
In sum, it is usually best to leave archaeological treasures within the country of their discovery. Even so, it is sometimes necessary to relocate them. This, however, leaves open two important and related issues: which specific situations justify relocation; and, whether there is ever an obligation to restore collections to the country where they were found.