急求英语高手翻译！！明天教论文了！！！100分！！！翻译好再追加100分！！急！！

Question

座位轮换制——另一种制度设计的优劣
抨击“占座”的人，往往会指出占座违背了公平的原则，每个人都应当平等的拥有占有好座位的机会。于是他们提出他们认为公平的制度-座位轮换制，即每人编号入座，每周逐排调动。
这种制度的优越性在于，首先它的操作性较强，同时它为人们提供了明确的预期。你可以不必为占座操心，因为座位就在那里等你，因此你可以更灵活地安排自己的时间。其次，正如它的支持者所言，在长期内每个人都有机会获得好位子（当然也必然获得坏位子），于是实现了一种表面上的公平。
而这种制度的弊端在于其极有可能引发不效率的结果，因此从实质上背离了公平原则。首先，由于它是强制性的而非建立在个人意志自由选择的基础上的，于是就会出现两种情况，一方面，那些给予某些座位最高评价的人得不到该座位，而另一方面，某些人可能由于对这门课不感兴趣而对这些座位评价很低。于是这些座位无法在他们身上发挥最大效用，甚至还会由于他们的缺席而导致资源的无谓损失。这种趋势的出现，正如一方面穷人食不裹腹，一方面富人挥霍无度的反差。你能说这是公平的吗？其次，座位轮换制显然使前面论及的种种占座所带来的好处都无法实现。
综上，不难发现，座位轮换制弊大于利，而导致其不效率的根本原因在于其违背了竞争原则。考察“座位轮换制”，我们会发现他与计划经济思维模式何其相似，而几十年单一计划经济带来经济落后的教训告诉我们，竞争观念必须加强。
运用“行政”手段——对占座不效率的克服
至此，我们已经看到了占座带来的种种优越性。但是这一制度在具体实施中，由于运用不当也可能造成不效率的出现。因此，我们还需进一不讨论对这种不效率的抑制。
比如说，如果8点上课，而楼门6点就打开了，由于竞争的存在，意味着占座人必须6点前赶到，这便加大了占座的机会成本，而影响人们的获利。于是，在一定情况下，当人们认为机会成本超过了其收益时，便会退出竞争，而使得占座带来的优越性得不到发挥。更严重的是，由于必定有人坚守阵地，而这个坚定者作为一个理性人，为了弥补这部分增加的机会成本必定会努力扩大收益。由于此时不存在其他竞争者，他想占多少座位都不受限制，于是便形成了其对座位的垄断，那些对座位高评价的人仍无法得到座位，从而导致不效率，不公平。那么是不是需要对占座的数量加以限制呢？答案是不需要，也不可能（因为没有人可以监督其占了多少座位）。事实上，只要将开门时间做一调整即可。当调整到上课前半小时时，由于大量竞争者的介入便有效地遏制了这一情况。
再如，有人长期以本占座，妄图一劳永逸，对付这一行为的措施是开门前将本收回，以保证每个人有平等竞争的机会。

Answer 1

　　Seat rotation system - pros and cons of alternative system design
　　Criticized the "occupying a seat", often occupying a seat will be pointed out that contrary to the principle of fairness, everyone should have equal opportunity to share good seat. So they put forward their view that a fair system - seat rotation system, in which each number to be seated, a week-by-row transfer.
　　The superiority of this system is the first of its strong interoperability, and it provided people with a clear expectation. You do not have to worry about occupying a seat, because the seat to be there for you, so you have more flexibility to arrange their own time. Secondly, as its supporters said, in the long run everyone the chance to get a good seat (of course, bound to get bad seats), so to achieve a fair on the surface.
　　The drawbacks of this system lies in its not very likely lead to efficient results, so in essence, a departure from the principle of equity. First, because it is mandatory rather than based on individual freedom of choice on the basis of the will, and so there will be two cases, on the one hand, those who give some of the seats were not the highest rating of the seats, while the other respect, some people may be due to lack of interest in this course evaluation of these seats is very low. So these seats can not be the most of them, or even because of their absence led to the unnecessary loss of resources. The emergence of this trend, as food is not wrapped one hand, the poor belly, on the one hand the contrast between rich and extravagant. Can you say that this is fair? Secondly, the front seat rotation has clearly addressed all the benefits of occupying a seat can not be achieved.
　　To sum up, easy to see that more harm than good seat rotation, and lead to the root causes of inefficiency in its violation of competition principles. Investigation "seat rotation system", we will find him and thinking how similar the planned economy, and economy of a single plan for decades of economic backwardness of the lesson tells us that the concept of competitiveness must be strengthened.
　　The use of "administration" means - not a seat on the efficiency of overcoming
　　So far, we have seen the advantages brought about by occupying a seat. However, the concrete implementation of this system, due to improper use can also cause the appearance of inefficiency. Therefore, we need not discuss further the efficiency of this inhibition is not.
　　For example, if the 8:00 class, and 6 to open the doors of the parlor, because the existence of competition, which means occupying a seat must arrive before 6:00, which would increase the opportunity cost of occupying a seat, people have been affected Lee. Thus, in certain circumstances, when people think that the opportunity cost in excess of its earnings, they will withdraw from the competition, and so bring the advantages of not occupying a seat to play. More seriously, some people will stick to the ground, and this firm as a rational person who, in order to compensate for the increased opportunity cost of this part will certainly make efforts to expand revenue. Because there are no other competitors at this time, he wanted to share how many seats are not restricted, so they formed a monopoly of its seats, those seats are still high evaluation can not be seating people, leading to inefficiency and unfair. It is not required to limit the number of seat on it? The answer is no, they can not (because no one can monitor their accounts for the number of seats.) In fact, as long as the time to do an adjustment to opening the door. When adjusted to a half hour before class, due to the involvement of a large number of competitors will effectively curb the situation.
　　Again, it was long to the seat on an attempt to once and for all, the measures to deal with this behavior prior to the back door to ensure everyone has equal opportunities to compete.

Answer 2

Seat rotation-another kind of system design of the pros and cons

Attack of a "" person, often of a will point out against the fair principle, everyone should have good seats have equal opportunity. So they made their thought justice system-a seat rotation, that each person Numbers get seats, by row to a week.

This system, it first superiority in the feasible, at the same time it to provide a clear expectations. You don't have to worry about, because for accounting for a seat on there waiting for you, so you can be more flexible schedule their own time. Second, just as it's supporters said, and in the long run each person has a chance to get a good seat (of course will get bad seat), then realized a on the surface of the fair.

And this system is in its disadvantages is likely to cause not the efficiency of the result, so from essence from the fairness principle. First of all, because it is forced and not based on personal choice on the basis of free will, and then there will be two kinds of circumstances, on one hand, those given to some seat people do not have the highest evaluation seat, and on the other hand, some people may be because of this course is not interested to these seats and evaluation is very low. So these seats can't play on them in the maximum effect, and it can even because of their absence in the senseless loss and resources. The appearance of this trend, as on one hand the poor food not wrapped abdomen, on the one hand, the rich free-spending contrast. Can you say this is fair? Second, obviously get rotated seat in front of a variety of accounting for talks about the benefits of all can not be achieved.

In conclusion, it is not hard to find, seat rotation do more harm than good, and lead to its not the efficiency of the basic reason is that it violates the principle of competition. Investigation "seat", we will find that rotation he and planned economy thinking mode, and how similar decades a single plan to bring economic economy behind the lesson of competitive concept, must be strengthened.

Use "administrative" means to account for a not-the efficiency of the overcome

So far, we've seen a variety of superiority of brought. But this system in the concrete implementation, due to improper use can also cause not the emergence of efficiency. Therefore, we need to go to this discussion inhibition of efficiency.

For example, if a class at 8, and went to open the 6 PM, due to competition, means that accounts for the existence of a man must before six o 'clock, this will increase to the seat of the opportunity cost, and affect people's profit. And so, in certain circumstances, when people think the opportunity cost more than its earnings, will be out of competition, and makes the superiority of the bridge of bring not play. The more serious is, because must stand your ground, and this was the firm as a rational people, to make up for this part of the increased opportunity cost will make efforts to expand the gains. Because there is no other competitor, he want to existing accounts for how many seats are not restricted, and formed the seat to the monopoly, the high seat of the people who still can't get evaluation seat, leading to not efficiency, it's not fair. So is the need to limit the number of seats? The answer is not to need, might not (because no one can supervise their accounts for how many seats). In fact, as long as will open the door to the time to do a adjustment can. When adjusted to half an hour before the class, because of the intervention of the competitors will effectively curb the situation.

Be like again, someone to this account for a long-term, tried to deal with it once and for all the behavior of the door will open the measures is back, to ensure that everyone has equal competition opportunities.