View1： It is human nature to admire then follow someone who is more competent than themselves.
View2： But a feature of a good leader is to organize people with different specialties together and let them perform as a whole. It is too ideal to expect the leaders to have all the specialties of his subordinates.范文：People are more likely to accept the leadership of those who have shown they can perform the same tasks they require of others. My reasons for this view involve the notions of respect and trust. It is difficult for people to fully respect a leader who cannot， or will not， do what he or she asks of others. President Clinton’s difficulty in his role as Commander-in-Chief （n. 总司令） serves as a fitting and very public example. When Clinton assumed this leadership position， it was well known that he had evaded military service during the Vietnam conflict. Military leaders and lower-level 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 computer 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 test， he undermined their trust to an even greater extent with his naive and largely bungled attempt to solve the problem of gays （《美俚》 同性恋者， 尤指男性同性者） 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.
34.合并至10
10. “Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person， not to government.”
“保护自然环境的责任完全属于每个个人，而非政府。”
View1： Experience tells us that individuals tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest， not on behalf of the environment or the public at large.
View2:the government has certain advantages in preserving the environment.
Evidence:the government can place certain regulations on the wastes and pollutants towards environment emitted by industries.
Fines deprived from corporations and individual ones that disobey the environmental regulations can be used on many ways such as preserve the forests， planting trees， create conserved areas that will improve our current situations.
范文：
While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankind’s best interest， environmental issues always involve a tug of war （n. 拔河， 两派间的激烈竞争） among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason， and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale， government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation.
Experience tells us that individuals （and private corporations owned by individuals） tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest， not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example， current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless， neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals.
Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement， environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own. Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards.
In the final analysis， only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility， government must do so.
