【正文】 on technology makes possible universal access to information, thereby providing a democratizing influence on our culture.　　In sum, while mechanical automation may have created a society of slaves to modern conveniences and unfulfilling work, digital automation holds more promise for improving our lives without enslaving us to the technology.法學院入學考試(LSAT)寫作范文集錦8　　Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced. 　　To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Develop your position by giving specific reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. (國家和藝術(shù)的關系)　　The speaker argues that government must support the arts but at the same time impose no control over what art is produced. The implicit rationale for government intervention in the arts is that, without it, cultural decline and erosion of our social fabric will result. However, I find no empirical evidence to support this argument, which in any event is unconvincing in light of more persuasive arguments that government should play no part in either supporting or restricting the arts.　　First, subsidizing the arts is neither a proper nor necessary job for government. Although public health is generally viewed as critical to a society39。s difficulty in his role as CommanderinChief serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position, it was wellknown that he had evaded military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lowerlevel personnel alike made it clear that they did not respect his leadership as a result. Contrast the Clinton case with that of a business leader such as John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, who by way of his training and experience as a puter engineer earned the respect of his employees.　　It is likewise difficult to trust leaders who do not have experience in the areas under their leadership. The Clinton example illustrates this point as well. Because President Clinton lacked military experience, people in the armed forces found it difficult to trust that his policies would reflect any understanding of their interests or needs. And when put to the lest. He undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive and largely bungled attempt to solve the problem of gays in the military. In stark contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower inspired nearly devotional trust as well as respect because of his role as a military hero in World War II. In conclusion, it will always be difficult for people to accept leaders who lack demonstrated ability in the areas under their leadership. Initially, such leaders will be regarded as outsiders, and treated Accordingly. Moreover, some may never achieve the insider status that inspires respect and trust from those they hope to lead.法學院入學考試(LSAT)范文集錦14　　Businesses and other organizations have overemphasized the importance of working as a team. Clearly, in any human group, it is the strong individual, the person with the most mitment and energy, who gets things done. 　　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. (個體和整體)　　The relationship between teamwork and individual strength, energy, and mitment is plex。s interest for schools to inculcate the democratic values of respect and tolerance, and perhaps even additional values that humanize and enrich a society.法學院入學考試(LSAT)寫作范文集錦10　　A powerful business leader has far more opportunity to influence the course of a munity or a nation than does any government official. 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. (人民和政府的關系)　　Historical examples of both influential public officials and influential business leaders abound. However, the power of the modernera business leader is quite different from that of the government official. On balance, the CEO seems to be better positioned to influence the course of munity and of nations.　　Admittedly the opportunities for the legislator to regulate merce or of the Jurist to dictate rules of equity are official and immediate. No private individual can hold that brand of influence. Yet official power is tempered by our checkandbalance system of government and, in the case of legislators, by the voting power of the electorate. Our business leaders are not so constrained, so their opportunities far exceed those of any public official. Moreover, powerful business leaders all too often seem to hold de facto(actual) legislative and judicial power by way of their direct influence over public officials, as the Clinton Administration39。 for the society, it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.　　Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests server by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining obscene or offensive language or behavior. But in my view, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.　　In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resul