0510G同主题写作第五期——Issue48
0510G同主题写作第五期－－Issue48"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."
一、题目出现频率
到目前为止，在7月份机经中出现频率为3次。
二、题目分析：
这道题目由两句话组成，所以可以归类为“1 + 1”类型的题目。因此，对于这道题目的分析可以首先通过单独分析这两句话来找到破题点。
先看第一句：The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. 这一句里的关键词不是别的，正是加了下划线的“too much”。对于这样一个表示程度的词，我们可以首先问自己一个问题：历史研究中对于个人的重视程度是否过度了？在这里，根据每个人对于这个问题的看法，有的会同意这种说法，而其他的可能会反对。因此在第一句话中，首先出现了两种观点。
分析了第一句话，回答了第一个问题，让我们再来看第二句话：The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.对于出题者来说，第一句就相当于背景陈述，而他真正的观点是在这一句。这是一个历史由谁来创造的问题。我们仍然可以有一系列的问题来问自己：（1）那些被遗忘的人民群众是否参与了创造历史的进程？（2）如果参与了，他们的贡献有多大？（3）如果参与了，他们在哪些方面的贡献比较突出？（4）注意这句话中加了下划线的“most significant”，如果人民群众参与了创造历史的进程，那么对于这些事关历史进程的最重大的事情上，他们的贡献程度又是如何呢？
对于人民群众这一方面，我们可以问这些问题；同样，对于the famous few，我们也可以问这些问题。而对于这些问题的回答，就可以构成文章的主干。
另外要提醒的一点是，“1 + 1”类型的题目虽然可以写的内容多，但是也正因为内容多了，各部分之间的衔接就显得格外重要。例如这题，如何在写作中把两句话的内容紧密的联系在一起，也是文章能否得到高分的一个关键。
三、网友的讨论
以前版上很活跃、水平也很高的G猫同学曾经拿这道题目去请教她在美国的朋友。虽然当时她问的问题主要是针对issue开头的写法问题，但是她朋友的回复中，也加入了对这道题的看法，所以贴上来，希望对大家能有所帮助。
原贴的连接：https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=252668&extra=&highlight=%2BG%C3%A8&page=1。
G猫提的问题：
Now I have question about the beginning of the issue. I feel that it is impossible for me to write an good beginning in such a short time. there may be two choices. one is to prepare a template, which is full of junk words; the other is the simplest beginning, just state my theme with very simple words (seems very ugly).
I give you two examples:
(1)template:
In a modern society, people always face the dilemma to choose whether AA
A or BBB. This problem is the much debated one in that it affects every
body in their daily lives. People may prefer one to another although so
me may have no opinions about it at all. Before rendering my opinion, I
think it is necessary to take a glance at the arguments of both sides.
(2)the very simple beginning:
In the history study, placing much emphasis on individuals is necessary and now this emphasis is not too much. In addition, the study of history does not forget the role of groups of people in the significant historical events and tends.
回复：
I think the template is better than the theme. I think that the review books recommend that you . The problem with the template introduction, however, is that it will force you to present both sides of the argument. I think that this is , and your score will depend only on how well you present one single opinion. So for example, if the statement is "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten," [下面是构思的方法, 大家可以参考, 我觉得很有用] first think of the viewpoint you will write about. It does not really matter whether you agree or disagree with the statement, but how well you argue your opinion. So usually I will take about 2-3 minutes to think about which opinion I can think of more arguments and I will write them down. For example:
Emphasis of individuals good:
--easier for students to remember history
--allows students to appreciate specific characters and use them as role models
--educates students on important prominent figures in politics and history
Emphasis of individuals negative:
--does not acknowledge groups of individuals who were equally important
--ignores the importance of society's influences
--does not acknowledge the full extent of difficulty and conflict that occurred
In this case, I think that my arguments for agreeing with the statement that emphasis on indviduals is negative are better. So, I may write an introduction that acknowledges the other viewpoint, but mostly introduces my own opinion. For example:
"As the author of the statement indicates, the study of history often involves emphasizing the achievements of specific individuals who were important to specific historical movements or events. Pointing out specific individuals can be a positive tool in educating students in history. Central figures in history help students to remember specific events. In addition, they give students specific figures that can be emulated as role models. Even so, however, I agree with the author of the statement that there is too much emphasis on indiviuals and that groups of people who are equally important are forgotten. For example, Abraham Lincoln is often memorialized as the central figure in the Civil War and the emancipation of American slaves. Emphasizing Lincoln as a central figure in this large movement fails to acknowledge the actions of thousands of other individuals, including the slaves themselves, that was integral in the Civil War. In addition, placing emphasis on a single individual may cause students to ignore the importance of the history itself. They may remember Lincoln and his name, but fail to understand the gravity of the slave situation that occurred at that time."
[这种开头我在argument的6分范文里有看到过，觉得这种开头显得很有逻辑,而且接下来的文章层次也会很清晰.不过这段开头的长度赶的上body了.不过大家可以发现, 她在开头部分已经部分展开了,对于我们来说,我觉得这种开头的思想可以借鉴, 也是容易学习的,不过没必要像她一样在开头就对观点进行一定程度的展开, 这个至少对我来说很难, 本来就没多少例子好举,都放开头了, body干脆没话说了, 要么就是说来说去都是重复.
说到这里, 她这种举例的方式我们可以在body里借鉴. 就是怎么让一个general, vague的观点具体化, 并且focus on你的观点.举例说来, 从individual 具体到Lincoln, 从group of people 具体到slaves, central figure 对应too much emphasis, 而forgotten对应fail to acknowledge, 没有一句多余的话——这就是逻辑.
希望对大家能有帮助：）]
This kind of introduction may seem difficult to write, but as you can see, I simply took the short notes I wrote about each opinion and summarized them into an introduction paragraph. In addition, I used a specific example to illustrate the argument of my essay. I think if you practice this kind of introduction, it will become very easy very quickly.
四、相关素材
Can individuals change history?
MOST HISTORY books treat historical change as the accomplishment of great men (and an occasional woman). According to this view, the movers and shakers in history are the Napoleons, Lincolns and FDRs of the world.
This view is also applied to revolutions. George Washington, Robespierre, Lenin--these men shaped history, and the actions of the masses of people in these revolutions were merely events scripted by their leaders.
The only difference between the treatment of Washington and Lenin as great men is that Washington, as a leader of the American Revolution, gets a plus sign in front of his name, whereas Lenin, a leader of a working-class revolution, gets a minus sign.
The opposite, though less popular, view is that history follows a path which no individual can influence--"great men" are merely agents for its realization. According to this view, individuals and their actions are purely products of historical conditions.
Had there been no Napoleon Bonaparte, another figure would have played the same role, because historical conditions in the period of the early 18th century demanded a "Napoleon." "We cannot make history," wrote Bismarck, taking this to its extreme. "We must wait while it is being made."
The first view serves as an ideological justification for the rule by a minority--"great" kings, presidents and leaders have special qualities that give them the ability to rule whereas the rest of the "herd" must follow. But the second view can also serve as a means to justify brutal exploitation and suffering. How can you fault a ruler whose actions are historically determined and therefore beyond his control?
Both of these ideas are mistaken, though they contain elements of truth. There are, for example, a few cases where different scientists working independently of each other made the same discovery--historical conditions were ripe for it.
Individuals do indeed make history. But they cannot influence society or history in any direction they so choose. Individuals cannot exert their will independently of the social conditions in which they find themselves. "Individuals can influence the fate of society," wrote the Russian Marxist George Plekhanov, "by virtue of definite traits in their nature. Their influence is sometimes very considerable, but the possibility of its being exercised and its extent are determined by society’s organization and the alignment of its forces.
"An individual’s character is a ‘factor’ in social development," concludes Plekhanov, "only where, when and to the extent that social relations permit it to be."
Many examples come to mind. It may, for example, have been possible for a philosopher in ancient Greece to dream of circumnavigating the globe, but the technology and knowledge for such a voyage did not exist until the 15th century.
An early Christian may have dreamed of a society free of exploitation where wealth is shared, but only with the development of modern capitalism have the material conditions been created which make such a world possible.
For ideas expressed by groups or individuals to become a material force that can affect the outcome of history, therefore, there must be both the objective conditions and the subjective conditions. To put it crudely: if there is not enough food to go around, then my dream of feeding everyone is not realizable. But if there is enough food to go around--and capitalist production has now made that a reality--there still must be the subjective conditions to make a world free of hunger possible.
There must be a level of consciousness and organization among a sufficient number of people to transform social relations and create a new system of production and distribution. In this scenario, the role of individuals can be decisive at certain key moments--but only if they are a link in a chain of other factors. I’ll come back to this in my next article.
文章转自：http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-1/437/437_09_MakingHistory.shtml。
通过以上的一些简单的分析，相信大家都对这题目有了一定的认识，以后的深入就要靠大家的共同努力，欢迎大家将自己对题目理解、提纲贴出来讨论。
[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-16 at 23:17 ] 挖哈哈哈，支持一下，挖哈哈哈去了 今天出的晚了，up一下！ 支持,
都两点了,注意休息,
汗,好象这句话是别人经常对我说的,
我知道，今晚一定会有的，终于让我等到了，明天写！
我知道，今晚一定会有的，终于让我等到了，明天写！
回复 #1 staralways 的帖子
俺贴俺的提纲：
绝对同意
1. 从科学史上说，科学技术的进步都是由少数人创造的
2. 从社会学上说，领袖的力量起到了决定性的作用
总结
大家拍一下，俺的开头和总结吧，实在写不好。另外我觉得我举的例子都是历史的例子，有用a证明a的嫌疑。
The speaker claims that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals because in his/her opinion the significant events and trends in history is made possible not by a famous few, but by the group of people whose identities have been forgotten. Albeit I concede his/her assertion embraces certain logical point, I disagree with the speaker because predicated on the careful scrutiny of science history and social history it is the famous few who play a crucial role on the history stage rather than group of nameless people.
To begin with, our society is inclined to pin its hope on the academic elites who act as a decisive factor to ultimately change the status quo. One can only observe the scientific history to find the support. In changing the notion that earth is in a fix position as the centre of the universe, Copernicus' heliocentric theory paved the way for corroborating observation of Galileo one century ago; then predicated on the data of Galileo and Tycho Brahe's note as a long string of the careful transcribed recording Kepler built up his three laws for planetary motion which is the predecessor of Newton's gravity theory upon which the modern astronomy established. This marvelous chain of development of astronomy demonstrates that it is because these famous scientists not the public who are the direct impetus to promote the development of science. When it comes to the field of art, parallel situation exits. Considering commence of the Renaissance after Dark Age, it is signed by famous artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci.
Secondly, in sociology, the relationship between famous few and mass is just like the one involving architects and builders in which we can not simply generalize that architects is more critical to builders or inversely. Admittedly, in democratic society in stable period, the progress is to some extend made possible by group of people, I would be hard pressed to identify any watershed social event attributable to a leaderless group. Especially in the crisis of nation's history and society-transformer when the power would be centralized into the hand of individuals such as president the famous few steer the direction of history. Considering presidents of the United States who has always been put in an conspicuous place by the study of history as the chief commander of armed force they bear the accountability for nation's security, while have power to formulate the war strategy in times of war all of that indicate the indisputable significant influence on history. For example in World War II Roosevelt authorized the Manhattan project to produce the atomic bomb which funded the victory of the United States. At the same time the mass that have been simplified as one name such as army force actually only fellow leader's rule, or pursue the trace of leader. On this point, it is the famous few who determine the direction of history in large measurement.
To sum up, in the development of science and art, it is the famous few who ultimately decide the direction of science; nevertheless, in sociology, the situation is much complicated. In fact, the famous few do denote decisive contribution of the progress of society, but we cannot neglect the power of mass who ultimately accomplish the plan and destination of the former. 写好了
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300868
[ Last edited by neeagle on 2005-7-16 at 12:39 ] 占座。今天交一篇issue，一篇arg
交作业：
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=301406
[ Last edited by tangjihede on 2005-7-17 at 19:31 ] 顶一个，希望来得及交作业 占个座，前两天写过的，吃完饭改改再来交~~~
修改版
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=298779&pid=1622643&page=1#pid1622643
[ Last edited by 蝴蝶结 on 2005-7-16 at 17:28 ] 前几天写的了
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300315 占位:) 交作业了
提纲
1、 虽然不应忽视大众的角色，但把重点放在名人身上是有理由地
2、 历史是由名人和大众共同创造的
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=300810 不行了，又要难产了