HELP ME PLZZZZZZ .........hu hu hu hu hu hu hu ,

Xin lỗi vì pót chủ đề hỡi vô duyên ạ , hix


CẤP CỨU ................Cứu tớ với, tớ học tiếng Đứcs từ nhỏ, bay giờ đang ở Phápm toàn học bàng tiếng pháp, hix, năm nay nẵm cuối, trường bắt học TA mà ko dạy ngữ pháp gì cả, toàn tương text vào rồi bắt thảo luận.Vói một người bắt đầu học như tớ là quá khó hixhix
Thú 2 này đến lượt tớ phải thảo luận trước lớp, chết mất thôi
Chủ đề thầy cho đọc là bài sau : và bắt dựa vào bài text để thảo luận về 1 trong 3 chủ đề sau , tớ biết học tiếng ko ai giúp duoc, nhưng cái này ngoài khả năng của tớ , bạn nào có thể giúp được tớ không ạ, nếy không các bạn cho tớ xin ý kiến và nêu đại ý giúp tớ, hix, lo quá ạ

DEBATE ( chon 1 trong 3 chủ đề để thảo luận )
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsory[/b

]bài TEXT
the loch Ness MonsterA risk can be insured also when no statistics is available, and even when no theoretical analysis seems possible. This is brought out by the following case reported by Brown (1973):
In 1971 the whisky distillery Cutty Sark offers an award of one million pounds for the capture of the monster assumed to live in Loch Ness. Apparently Cutty Sark has second thoughts about the liability this promise could lead to, and approached Lloyd?Ts about insurance. As usual Lloyd?Ts was obliging, and agreed to cover the risk against a premium of £2.500. From the insurance contract or ?oslip?, reproduced in Brown?Ts book, it is evident that Lloyd?Ts observed all the proper forms. It is stated that the risk is covered only if the monster is captured alive between 1st May 1971 and 30th April 1972. Further the slip says:
?oAs far as this insurance is concerned the Loch Ness Monster shall be deemed to be:

1) In excess of 20 feet in length

2) Acceptable as the Loch Ness monster to the curators of the Natural History Museum, London?

As the last con***ion the underwriters added the standard clause in marine insurance that if the sum insured should be paid, the monster would become the property of the underwriters at Lloyd?Ts. This con***ion should make the insurance contract virtually risk-free to the underwriters.

One must assume that there were a number of underwriters at Lloyd?Ts who were firmly convinced that there was no monster in Loch Ness, and hence should be willing to accept the whole risk at a nominal premium. They were however cautious. The leading underwriter accepted to cover only 7, 5% of the risk, and none of his colleagues accepted a higher share. The explanation of this caution may be that at the time there were a committee at Lloyd?Ts monitored the underwriting of members. If this committee found that an underwriter had accepted risks which were not commensurate with his resources, it would give him a polite warning. It is possible that there was some members of this committee who did not believe that the insurance cover given to Cutty Sark was risk-less, and hence might suggest that the underwriter should reduce their engagement in others risk.

As for Cutty Sark, somebody in the top management of the company must have believed that there might be a monster in Loch Ness, and that the probability that it should be captured during the next twelve months was not negligible.

The example above may lead one to believe that every risk is insurable. In theory this may be true, but in practice it is not.

DEBATE
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsory?

To tu_lanh :
Gerbich cũng muốn giúp bạn lắm , nhưng hôm nay không có thời giờ đọc kỹ bài of bạn .
Gerbich cho bạn vài ideas về vấn đề này , hy vọng bạn có thể từ đó mà nghĩ ra .. đâu bạn thử xem rồi post bài lên đây . G. sữa or cho thêm ý kiến ..
chúc bạn may mắn
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
Dependent upon type of policy for which the person is applying .
- Are not required for car insurance or home owners insurance but anything where loss of life is at risk may be required .
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
Yes, like any business regulation or oversight by a non invested person will keep matters fair and help to reduce unscrupulous scams .
3. Insurance should always be compulsory
No , instances where a person may be insured by another''s work and the duplication of insurance is not needed . Also , instances where a person may not be able to pay and should have option not take it .. also matter of risk which low risk may not need it .