[color=#3366FF]issue110，模考出来的，改了语法而已[/color]
110 "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."当我们通过研究历史来考虑自身问题的时候，我们就会变成说故事的人。因为我们不可能直接了解过去，只有通过解释一些史料来构造历史，所以探索历史更多是一件创造性的事业而不是客观的追寻。所有的历史学家都是讲故事的人。
History has passed already. Because of the objective limits, historians can never know the past directly. Do historians become storytellers while exploring history as the arguer asserts? The answer is Yes; while historians construct history, they become storytellers to some degree.
First of all, as the remaining evidence is too vague to tell historians exactly what the past is like, historians have to apply to their creativity to complete the missing information. Because of erosion of the long time, the documents get lost; architecture collapsed; and no witness alive. However, we need to know what the past is like; in this case, historians have to take advantage of their creativity, at the basis of erudite knowledge about history, to interpret the remaining evidence. For example, If there are some characters on a pot, historians will try to explain what these characters mean. We can get from historians' interpretation some information about the vague history.
However, the interpretation involves so much subjectivity that nobody can stipulate that historians be right or complete. Though historians tend to be erudite, however, creativity originates from subjectivity rather than knowledge. For supporting evidence one needs look no further than fierce controversies about certain history issue in the field of history. Different historians can have different interpretation of the same evidence. How could people choose from these various even contradicting opinions? Does the leading voice truly mean what happened thousands years ago? No one can ensure it. I still remember how the controversy on an ancient war ends. Though historians can not persuade each other at the beginning, an ancient poem revealed enough information about the war convincingly. Only after that, the history of the war was entrenched.
Moreover, politics can exert onto historians negative influence that can undermine the objectivity of their interpretation. On some occasions government does not expect that some history issues be objectively reflected. In order to encumber the progress of historians, the government either hides valuable evidence or directly threatens historians to give up. Considering the FBI, which always holds confidential documents about important history issues, it can never provide to historians evidence that can prove who killed Kennedy. There remain some extreme examples. Simaqian, one of the greatest historians of china, was hurt dramatically by the emperor of his times because he want to write a book about some history issues. From these examples we can see how dramatically negative influence can impair historian's objectivity.
In sum, while historians want to reconstruct a history, they have no choice but to become storytellers. On most occasions he himself does not know what the history is like; on others, he are forced to lie. 110 "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."
当我们通过研究历史来考虑自身问题的时候，我们就会变成说故事的人。因为我们不可能直接了解过去，只有通过解释一些史料来构造历史，所以探索历史更多是一件创造性的事业而不是客观的追寻。所有的历史学家都是讲故事的人。
History has passed already. (字数太少，句子过于简单，建议多加入一些修饰成分)Because of the objective limits, historians can never know the past directly. Do historians become storytellers while exploring history as the arguer asserts? The answer is Yes（yes）; while historians construct history, they become storytellers to some degree.
First of all, as the remaining evidence is too vague to tell historians exactly what the past is (was) like, historians have to apply to their creativity to complete the missing information. Because of erosion of the long time, the documents get lost; architecture collapsed; and no witness (has been) alive. However, we need to know what the past is(was) like; in this case, historians have to take advantage of their creativity, at the basis of erudite knowledge about history, to interpret the remaining evidence. For example, If there are some characters on a pot, historians will try to explain what these characters mean. We can get from historians' interpretation some information about the vague history.
However, the interpretation involves so much subjectivity that nobody can stipulate that historians be right or complete. Though historians tend to be erudite, however, creativity originates from subjectivity rather than knowledge. For supporting evidence one needs look no further than fierce controversies about certain history issue in the field of history. Different historians can have different interpretation of the same evidence. How could people choose from these various even contradicting opinions? Does the leading voice truly mean what happened thousands years ago? No one can ensure it. I still remember how the controversy on an ancient war ends. Though historians can not persuade each other at the beginning, an ancient poem revealed enough information about the war convincingly. Only after that, the history of the war was entrenched.(这一段论证很有力，无语法错误)
Moreover, politics can exert onto historians negative influence that can undermine the objectivity of their interpretation. On some occasions government does not expect that some history issues be objectively reflected. In order to encumber the progress of historians, the government either hides valuable evidence or directly threatens historians to give up. Considering the FBI, which always holds confidential documents about important history issues, it can never provide to historians evidence that can prove who killed Kennedy. There remain some extreme examples. Simaqian, one of the greatest historians of china, was hurt dramatically by the emperor of his times because he want（wanted） to write a book about some history issues. From these examples we can see how dramatically negative influence can impair historian's objectivity.(例子似乎很牵强)
In sum, while historians want to reconstruct a history, they have no choice but to become storytellers. On most occasions he himself does not know what the history is like; on others, he are forced to lie.（lie 从何说起？）
偶是菜鸟，意见仅供参考。 History has passed already. Because of the objective limits, historians can never know the past directly. Do historians become storytellers while exploring history as the arguer asserts? The answer is Yes; while historians construct history, they become storytellers to some degree.
First of all, as the remaining evidence is too vague to tell historians exactly what the past is like（未必吧，近代史够详细了吧）, historians have to apply to their creativity to complete the missing information. Because of erosion of the long time, the documents get lost; architecture collapsed; and no witness alive. However, we need to know what the past is like; in this case, historians have to take advantage of their creativity, at the basis of erudite knowledge about history, to interpret the remaining evidence. For example, If（if） there are some characters on a pot, historians will try to explain what these characters mean. We can get from historians' interpretation some information about the vague history.
However, the interpretation involves so much subjectivity that nobody can stipulate that historians be right or complete. Though historians tend to be erudite, however, creativity originates from subjectivity rather than knowledge. For supporting evidence（加个逗号） one needs look no further than fierce controversies about certain history issue in the field of history. Different historians can have different interpretation of the same evidence. How could people choose from these various even contradicting opinions? Does the leading voice truly mean what happened thousands years ago? No one can ensure it. I still remember how the controversy on an ancient war ends. Though historians can not persuade each other at the beginning, an ancient poem revealed enough information about the war convincingly. Only after that, the history of the war was entrenched.
Moreover, politics can exert onto historians negative influence that can undermine the objectivity of their interpretation. On some occasions government does not expect that some history issues be objectively reflected. In order to encumber the progress of historians, the government either hides valuable evidence or directly threatens historians to give up. Considering the FBI, which always holds confidential documents about important history issues, it can never provide to historians evidence that can prove who killed Kennedy. There remain some extreme examples. Simaqian, one of the greatest historians of china, was hurt dramatically by the emperor of his times because he want（wants） to write a book about some history issues. From these examples we can see how dramatically negative influence can impair historian's objectivity.一个例子就够了，写的透一点， 我发现老米最爱“重复”
In sum, while historians want to reconstruct a history, they have no choice but to become storytellers. On most occasions he himself does not know what the history is like; on others, he are(is) forced to lie.
嘿嘿，两处he want（wants），he are(is) 要注意阿
还是满篇he ，雪夭同学白提醒了
嗯，感觉， 你把historian写得一无是处，不太好吧
不太会改文章，你凑合这看吧， 我也想写这一题 我再带领女同胞揣你~~~~~~~ 实在不是歧视女同胞，我对女同胞饱含深情，天地可鉴阿
我们写中文的时候也常常用 '他' 的阿
还有英雄，英雌的哪道题，雪夫，哦不对，雪夭你写下就知多麻烦了 我以前写过，用one，person，they，
luminary不知道可以不，
bty，want很口语的，不能用 很不错了
我刚才模了一下,还没写到你一半,丢脸!!!!!!!
加油,加油 coolwit 不错不错，加油，写了很多字啊，语言也不错，就是body3似乎有点牵强，但是我不确定，个人看法。 谢谢大姐
你平时模考怎么写出600来的啊
羡慕啊
页:
[1]