加拿大ps代写
EssayQuality提供：加拿大ps代写、新西兰留学文书代写、个人陈述代写、留学生paper代写、北美网课作业代写、加拿大网课代修、北美essay代写、出国留学论文代写、网课作业代修、网课代上、澳洲代写、essay代写、assignment代写、管理学网课代修.....
Argumentative Essay结尾段的写法
结尾段需要包含文章所有要点，并以深刻的思想结束全文。结尾的时候一定要点题，对于自己的观点一定要明确地表现出来。
1）总结法：对essay所论述的内容进行总结归纳，申明文章主题思想，总结自己的想法观点。
2）后果法：对essay所讨论的现象或者问题可能产生的一系列后果进行相关预测分析，以便采取积极的应对策略。
3）呼吁法：以呼吁的方式进行结尾，呼吁大家行动起来。呼吁不是空喊，要有实际的号召力。
Argumentative Essay写作：注意用词的准确
Argumentative Essay需要注意的一点是用词准确，意思就是说保证文章的相关论证保持客观公正。要达到这样的要求，就需要恰当地使用一些限定词，这样就能最大限度地提高文章的说服力和可信度。
经常用到的限定词有很多，例如perhaps, mainly, commonly, typically, often等，都是较为常见的。 在写作的过程中，一定要在用词准确的基础上避免口语化，以书面语的形式展现自己的观点和想法。限定词要多使用单词，比如look into的效果远远低于investigate，单词更显正规， 短语更为通俗化。
The second perspective that will be discussed within the context of unilateral managerial decisions is pluralism. Keenoy and Anthony (1992) indicated that the 1970s debate about pluralism was centred on 'the appropriateness of pluralistic methods to the achievement of social justice"; an ethical controversy regarding how the business organizations should be managed'. Chigara (1995) indicated that 'Pluralism holds that employers and employees interests are diametrically opposed to each other, and that they are held in the balance by the common need of keeping the enterprise alive. For pluralists, the trade union is a welcome vehicle for communication'. Oram (1984, p. 23) added to the above that 'Pluralists see trade unionism as merely one more example of a competitive pressure group which Western democratic society accommodates as a matter of course. Pluralists also see that within legal limits, trade union aspirations can be fulfilled sometimes by imposing their wishes in ways which management may see as arbitrary. Trade unions are seen as presenting legitimate challenges to managerial rule with one outcome being in the form of agreed rules, regulating terms and conditions of employment'. Dobson (1982) indicated that in the pluralist approach, it is implicit to industrial relations a great belief in the virtues of collective bargaining since it is the method which is used to resolve conflicts. Dobson (1982) stated that 'other forms of job regulation-especially unilateral regulation by employer, trade union and workgroup-are usually condemned, since they over-ride the interests of other groups'. The author then aired the views of the critics to pluralism as stipulating that 'the legitimacy of collective bargaining is based on certain assumptions, most notably the assumption that all interest groups possess approximate equality of power, so that the eventual compromise reflects equal concessions by all the parties. Even the commonly used definition of collective bargaining of joint job regulation, seems to suggest equality between the parties. Dobson (1982) added that 'Critics of pluralism have argued that power is very rarely distributed equally, and since in the long run the employer can move his production and investment elsewhere, power is predominantly concentrated in the hands of the employer'. For the very same reasons other researchers such as Gunnigle (1992) pointed out to the rise of Neo-pluralism. Gunnigle (1992) stated that Neo-pluralism presented a second type of HRM which 'involves moves towards greater consensualism and commitment in unionized companies. It is characterized by what might be termed a "dualist" approach, involving the use of HRM techniques such as direct communications with employees and performance related pay systems alongside established collective bargaining procedures'. Pluralism then seem to think that organisation conflicts does exist and that employers and employees interests may be different, however, having accepted this they also accepted that these conflicts are resolvable and that trade unions and the process of collective bargaining are more than capable of attaining a resolution. This assumes that power is equally distributed between employers, employees and unions. Hence, collective bargaining works efficiently. However, researchers also doubt this assumption. Dobson (1982) disputed this unrealistic balance of power and stated 'A more realistic view of collective bargaining, which takes account of the varying power balances between employers and workers, would see collective bargaining straddling the continuum between unilateral worker regulation on the one hand and unilateral employer regulation on the other. Such an approach would bring into question the pluralist assumption that collective bargaining is necessarily good per se, for at the extremes of the continuum the substantive content of a collective agreement may be identical to that of a unilateral decision'. Dobson as such dismissed the application of collective bargaining as equal to unilateral decision within the imbalance of power that exists in reality. Ackers (1994) agrees with Dobson's view and stated 'Today, the narrow, institutional version of pluralism is unsustainable. Any view of industrial relations as simply collective bargaining would confine it to a minority activity in a declining sector of the economy'.