2018/11/4托福独立写作范文:A government decided to spend money on training courses of up-to-date skills at workplaces for adults aged over 25

来源:原创作品 | 2020-03-151392


2018/11/4托福独立写作范文:The government is planning to spend money to pay for all adults 25 years-old or older to take a training course on the most up-to-date skills at the workplace. Do you think the idea will be a good use of money? Why or why not?



1.帮助professional life

a. 提高效率的技能:政府可以训练职员去学习如何在工作中减少错误,如何在各项工作中节约时间从而提高他们的效率技能,而人们效率的技能并不会得到提高如果政府在其他方面投资。

b. 晋升的技能: 政府应该投资一些专业课程教人们如何在工作上面晋升,譬如教人们如何使用PPT,word等办公软件,从而帮助人们晋升。

2. 帮助personal development

a. 人际交往 政府可以投资举办一些大型活动,在活动期间人们会更多的在一起交流,从而锻炼他们的人际交往能力。

b. 时间管理 政府应该将钱投资在培养员工的时间管理技能方面,比如教会员工如何优先化任务和将任务按紧急程度进行标签,这对员工的个人发展有好处。


In an ideal world, people pay taxes to the government not because they have to, but because they expect to see a return on that tax money. The return might be government services or it might be government programs that improve the nation’s economy. One such program some governments are discussing is paying for a modern workplace skills training course for all adults who are 25 years-old or older. I hope the program never develops, because I think it’s a terrible waste of tax payer money.

First, there is no one-size-fits-all for workplace skills. The skills that one industry needs can be very different from the skills another industry needs. With a large, government training program, most people will probably be wasting their time learning skills they don’t need. Therefore, the government will be wasting our money. For example, I had a summer job at McDonald’s, and we had a mandatory employee training session one day. The problem was that my store didn’t decide what the training would be on, some big corporate McDonald’s office decided. The training focused entirely on customer interaction: how to make their visit pleasant, how to handle complaints, and so on. However, I worked in the back of the shop cleaning dishes. I literally never interacted with customers. It was a complete waste of my time.

On top of that, it’s a bad idea because it would reduce individuality among companies and their workers. At the moment, each company has a slightly different workplace culture. Those cultures grow into different types of employees who develop different types of products or services. If the government began training programs for all adults, it would lead into one unified skill set and one unified workplace culture. The things that make one company different from another would start to disappear. Everything would become homogenized, and I think that would be a shame. As it is now, companies can decide if they need to hold their own training, and if they do they can then decide on what they want that training to look like. That’s how it should work.

In short, good training is valuable, but bad training is a waste of time and money. There is no way for something as large as the government to efficiently and effectively operate a workplace skills training program. It would be a poor use of our taxes and it would erode the unique character of each company.


A society needs a competent workforce equipped with up-to-date skills. Otherwise, it will be unproductive and fall behind the time. However, when the administration spends money on a nationwide work skills development training program where eligible trainees are only adults at the age of 25 or older, it should not expect the desired return.


First, the age of 25 may be a late point of start. Instead, an earlier age would be far desirable.


Second, what is the scale of the program? Is a nationwide scale too wide? A large-scale program will soon meet many difficulties: there may be regional differences that tear the program apart; there may be additional costs that add up to a colossal amount; there may be cases of corruption during the distribution of money to the local districts. For example, just as a national school curriculum has to be alteredevery time as it is adopted in every individual region, a national training program has to go through the many times of change–too many to remain original. If the arrangement cannot remain the way it is, no effects should be credited to the original.


Third, is it an ongoing program at regular times? What if it cannot survive administrative changes and be a permanent undertaking?


To conclude, hardly can I be optimistic about the effectiveness of the program. I think it is more likely to be a failure or a borderline pass than to be a success.


天道智思开设多种托福课程 ,小班教学,提分更快