Sign in register

Analysis of real questions and answers of comprehensive writing in 2017mba management joint examination

December 26, 2016 10:01      Think tank Business School      Reading volume:

The comprehensive ability test of the 2017 postgraduate entrance examination MBA management joint examination has been completed. The editor has sorted out the real questions and answer analysis of the comprehensive writing of the 2017mba management joint examination for your reference for the first time.

writing

▶ Demonstration effectiveness analysis 30 points for this sub topic Analysis of argumentation validity: analyze the defects and loopholes in the following argumentation, select several key points, write an article of about 600 words, and analyze and comment on the validity of the argumentation. (the general points of validity analysis of argument are: whether the definition and use of concepts, especially core concepts, are accurate and consistent, whether there are various obvious logical errors, whether the argument is tenable and supports the conclusion, whether the conditions for the conclusion are sufficient, etc.)

If we sum up some propositions of Xunzi, Shang Yang and Han Fei in ancient times, we can draw the following set of theories:

Human nature is "good honor and evil disgrace, good profit and evil harm", so people will pursue reward and escape punishment. Therefore, a monarch with sufficient power can govern his subjects as long as he uses reward and punishment.

Since human nature is good for profit and evil, it is neither possible nor necessary to seek honest people who do not seek self-interest in the selection of officials, because there is no such person in the world. In fact, the key to building a clean and honest government is to effectively prevent officials from abusing their power for personal gain after they are appointed.

How to prevent officials from abusing power for personal gain! Monarchs usually rely on the method of setting up supervisors, which is actually unreasonable. Because the supervisor is also a person who likes to benefit and evil, relying on the supervisor to stop other officials from abusing power for personal gain is to let some people who abuse power for personal gain stop others from abusing power for personal gain. As a result, they can only seek common self-interest.

Since it is unreasonable to rely on the establishment of inspectors, what should we rely on? Reward and punishment can be used to urge subjects to supervise. Whoever exposes officials' abuse of power for personal gain will be rewarded. Whoever does not expose the official's abuse of power for personal gain will be punished, and the subjects will expose the official's abuse of power for personal gain out of the nature of good profit, evil and joy.

▶ Mr. Chen Junhua's analysis:

Conclusion: as long as the monarch uses rewards and punishments, he can manage his subjects well.

The five logical problems that should be attacked are:

1. The views of the ancients may not be correct, let alone directly serve as the basis for governing the country without criticism and reflection. Moreover, the legalist point of view was only the words of one family in the pre-Qin period. In addition to Legalists, there are also Confucianism, Taoism, peasant... And later various political and legal theories in the West. Why do we have to take Legalists as the theoretical basis for governing the country now?

Moreover, in history, King Zhou of Shang Dynasty and Emperor Qin Shihuang, who ruled the country with severe punishment and cool law, did not have a good ending.

2. It may be necessary to use rewards and punishments to govern the subjects, but it is a logical mistake to confuse the sufficient conditions to deduce that as long as rewards and punishments can govern the subjects well. Just think, if there are serious natural and man-made disasters, leading to excessive poverty, people's livelihood, or serious injustice in society, leading to public anger, at this time, simple reward and punishment may not be effective. Moreover, if the object, timing, degree and fairness of the monarch's reward and punishment are inappropriate, or even reversed, it will directly lead to more serious public anger. In addition, if some righteous men who put aside their own life and death and devoted themselves to the pursuit of truth and justice are committed to overthrowing your tyranny, it may be useless for your monarch to reward and punish him.

3. Even if there are no absolutely honest people in the world, relatively speaking, some people are more honest than others. Therefore, it is possible to appoint relatively honest people. At the same time, because they are relatively incorrupt, the cost of appointing them in the prevention and control of corruption and the construction of a clean government should be lower than that of appointing greedy people, and the supervision should be easier.

4. The Ombudsman is also a human being and may abuse power for personal gain. Therefore, relying on the prosecutor may not completely eliminate personal gain, but it is not necessary to introduce the Ombudsman. This method is completely useless. It is unreasonable. Because they can reduce other people's seeking personal gain, and the probability of collusion should be lower than that of officials seeking personal gain alone without supervisors.

5. Is it reasonable and feasible to introduce the method of subject supervision and disclosure if the official supervision law is unreasonable? Imagine, if there were no prosecutors, how would the monarch know that his subjects knew that an official had committed a crime and did not expose it? After the subjects exposed an official, how to judge the truth of these revelations? In addition, the mutual shielding between subjects and officials can not be solved by the method of subject supervision.

▶ Mr. Tian Ran's analysis:

Analysis of argumentation validity: analyze the defects and loopholes in the following argumentation, select several key points, write an article of about 600 words, and analyze and comment on the validity of the argumentation. (the general points of validity analysis of argument are: whether the definition and use of concepts, especially core concepts, are accurate and consistent, whether there are various obvious logical errors, whether the argument is tenable and supports the conclusion, whether the conditions for the conclusion are sufficient, etc.)

If we sum up some propositions of Xunzi, Shang Yang and Han Fei in ancient times, we can draw the following set of theories: Human nature is "good honor and evil disgrace, good profit and evil harm". So people will pursue rewards and escape punishment. Therefore, a monarch with sufficient power can govern his subjects as long as he uses reward and punishment.

1. Lack of conditions: the use of reward and punishment is not enough to govern the subjects, and other conditions are needed. This is a typical "as long as..." form of conditional absence.

Since human nature is good for profit and evil, it is neither possible nor necessary to seek honest people who do not seek self-interest when selecting officials, because there is no such person in the world. In fact, the key to building a clean and honest government is to effectively prevent officials from abusing their power for personal gain after they are appointed.

2. Improper inference: human nature is good for profit and evil. It is impossible and unnecessary to seek honest people.

How to prevent officials from abusing their power for personal gain? Monarchs usually rely on the method of setting up supervisors, which is actually unreasonable. Because the supervisor is also a person who likes to benefit and evil, relying on the supervisor to stop other officials from abusing power for personal gain is to let some people who abuse power for personal gain stop others from abusing power for personal gain. As a result, they can only seek common self-interest.

3. Confused concept: the concept of good profit and evil harm can not be replaced at will with the concept of abuse of power for personal gain. Supervisors are human beings, who may be good for profit and evil for harm, but they can not be said to abuse power for personal gain. The former is human nature, the latter is actual behavior, and all supervisors cannot be generalized. Therefore, it can not be launched to seek self-interest.

4. False argument: since the reason of collusion for private interests is not appropriate, whether it is an appropriate method to set up a supervisor remains to be discussed. It can not be simply concluded that it is unreasonable.

Since it is unreasonable to rely on the establishment of inspectors, what should we rely on? Reward and punishment can be used to urge subjects to supervise. Whoever exposes officials' abuse of power for personal gain will be rewarded. Whoever does not expose the official's abuse of power for personal gain will be punished, and the subjects will expose the official's abuse of power for personal gain out of the nature of good profit and evil harm.

5. Self contradiction: although subjects may not be supervisors, they are also human beings. According to the logic in the text, they will abuse power for personal gain like supervisors, resulting in collusion for personal gain. If this method does not work because the supervisor is a person, it will also not work if the subjects supervise.

▶ essay writing 35 points for this sub topic Argumentation: according to the following materials, write an argumentation of about 700 words with a self-made title.

An enterprise has encountered such a problem: whether to use the limited funds to expand production or to develop new products? Some people advocate investing in expanding production, because according to market research, the original products can sell well for three to five years, so as to obtain reliable and rich profits. Some people advocate investing in R & D of new products, because although there are great risks, there may be several times or even dozens of times the profits of the former behind the risks.

▶ Mr. Chen Junhua's analysis:

Analysis of this year's Argumentation: A better idea is to make reasonable decisions according to the actual situation.

The topic involves two viewpoints: first, it advocates expanding production; Second, advocate the development of new products.

Of course, logically, we can also launch the third idea, the balanced idea: part of the funds are used to expand production and part of the funds are used to develop new products.

Therefore, for this topic, theoretically, candidates can write the rationality of the first point of view (the real market and profit are very important to enterprises, why...), the rationality of the second point of view (innovation and future market and profit are important, why...), and the rationality of the third point of view (both based on reality and looking to the future...)

However, strictly speaking, there are some problems with the third way of writing. Because the title stem is written like this: "an enterprise encounters such a problem: whether to use the limited funds to expand production or to develop new products?" therefore, the title stem only presupposes two options. Therefore, choosing one of the two possibilities should be the most relevant and safest.

Also, whether you choose the first point of view or the second point of view as your own argument, you must respond to the other point of view (in fact, refute), otherwise your examination is not comprehensive enough and you should deduct points.

Finally, the more difficult point of this topic is that no matter which of the first three views you simply choose, it may be a metaphysical way of thinking: you don't know the specific situation of this enterprise. How can you talk to yourself and point out that you want to expand production or develop new products? Think about it. If you write like this, will the marking teacher think you know management?

Therefore, my personal suggestion is: in the process of writing the article, we should try to reflect the dialectical thinking of specific situation and specific analysis. That is, the best idea of this topic is to make reasonable decisions according to the actual situation.

The outline of the article can be built as follows:

The first paragraph quotes the topic material and leads to the decision-making problem.

The second paragraph: some people may agree with the first view and advocate expanding production because the reason is; Some people may agree with the second view, advocating the development of new products, because the reason is. However, I want to say: do you know the specific situation of this enterprise? How can you make decisions for others without knowing the specific situation of this enterprise?

Paragraph 3: I think if the current business situation of this enterprise is still good and there is no immediate survival crisis, then it should mainly focus on the future; If the current survival of this enterprise is a serious problem, then we should strive to pursue reliable profits now.

The fourth paragraph is the same with our real life. We should also make decisions according to the actual situation, and we can't point fingers and talk nonsense without understanding the specific situation. For example, the advertising design of cleaning shampoo.

However, it is regrettable that blind decision-making and blind command without understanding the actual situation are also common. For example, Wang Ming

Of course, the idea of examining the topic of the argumentation is different. My personal opinion is only my personal opinion, for your reference only. It is very possible that those who follow me will prosper; But it is not necessary for those who oppose us to die. For example, if you intend to "consider all opinions and make the right decision", it is entirely possible.

▶ Mr. Tian Ran's analysis:

Using Mr. Tian Ran's pay examination method, we can find the correct writing points. The P (problem pain point) of this question is whether the enterprise uses the limited funds to expand production or to develop new products. A (attitude) is to support the latter. Because the original title has the obvious attitude word "although... But", and it says "behind it is several times or even dozens of times the profits of the former". Therefore, the propositioner supports the choice of R & D and innovation. Y (key word keyword) of this question is the above "limited", "or", "although, but", "several times or even dozens of times". These key words can help us find problem and attitude. Without these key words, we can't be sure whether the question must be chosen or not, and the question tends to the latter. With these key words, we can make this judgment.

Candidates note that there are the words "limited funds" and "or", which still refers to the relationship between "or". Therefore, first of all, this topic must not be written as expanding production and developing new products. Such "fence riding" and "peacemaker" practices will certainly not work. The original question has been set as one of two. You can't try to tamper with the original question. Writing an article that not only needs to expand production, but also needs to be invested in R & D is a partial composition, which is expected to be about 15 points.

The correct elements of this question are "decision-making", "taking risks", "giving up the short term for the long term" and "innovation". Some students will write innovation alone. Here's a response - writing "innovation" alone is a barely qualified intention. The score is expected to be 18-20, but it's difficult to be higher. Writing "dare to innovate" is a qualified intention, and you can get 20-22 points. We should note that innovation and the courage to innovate are two different themes. The word Yong is very important here.

This topic contains the connotation of decision-making and taking risks, so it is not just innovation. It is an innovation with a complex background and selection problems. The better idea of this question can be: 1. Give up short for long and be brave in innovation 2. Dare to take risks and innovate 3. Take a long-term view and dare to take risks 4. Take a long-term view and have the courage to innovate

The above four ideas can have a starting score of more than 23 points, which is a very good idea. In short, the exact intention of this question should be: 1. Take a long-term view or choose between short and long 2. Dare to take risks or choose between 3. Innovation

It should be a combination of the above three options, which is more appropriate. Why not write innovation alone? Because the innovation of this topic is an innovation under the background of a difficult problem, not a simple and comfortable innovation. I think the best choice is the first of the three choices. The word "long-term" is better than the other word. The second choice is to dare to take risks and choose. We use the word "dare" in common, but risk and choice are not the primary focus, because no matter which of the two subject words of risk and choice is written in the examination room, it is difficult to write (of course, if you are especially good at writing these two words, I just say it is not easy for most candidates). Then select "three, innovation".

Therefore, I think the best intention is to focus on the long term and be brave in innovation.

(this courage means daring to take risks and make choices with real swords and guns. It's OK to be brave in innovation, as mentioned earlier)

  • Source / duxue.com





Introduction to the hundred day landing of MBA joint examination》Official attack!!!

Live online, master problem solving skills immediately!!

You can also get it free of charge《2022MBAJoint examination preparation packageoh~

                                              Free for limited timeclickSign up now  http://mbapedia4.com/sbdm/ke/pc/#/column/611? from_ source=sxydb

© 2021 mbapedia.com, All rights reserved. 

Min Gong Wang an Bei No. 35020302032707