issue16 求批改 3.29考，希望大家帮助

hardheadedUID：3557538

Issue 16

16. Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

作文
There is a controversial issue about the political leader’s behavior. Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles, while others believe that the leader should remain committed to certain objectives and principles. In my view, in most cases, effective political leaders should compromise with the public.

Admittedly, the public is not always right. Sometimes the elites of the society can make insightful decisions that the public can hardly achieve. Take the environmental problem for example, if political leaders don’t make regulations about environmental protection, most individuals or companies will not protect the environment spontaneously, since protection need extra work and money. If the political leader just compromise with the public, the government will not plan to protect the environment, so the welfare of the future generations will be affected. In this case, the political leader may oppose the public opinion because he knows that this important issue needs an insightful decision.

However, in most cases, the leader should yield to the public since the political leader can also make mistakes. The public opinion ensures the welfare of most people. Compromising with the public can also ensure the feasibility of the decision. For example, if the political leader wants to change the price of the public transportation, he will have to listen to voices from different groups. The final opinion shows the price that can be commonly accepted, so it’s a practical decision. This price cannot be too high, or it will hurt low-income families. The price is neither too low, since it must allow the government to have a proper amount of revenue. The public opinion will ensure the welfare of most people and keep the society stable. If the political leader make up a plan himself and force others to accept it, the price may be too high or too low. This mistake may severely affect the welfare of the people, and cause financial problems.

Besides ensuring people’s welfare and the feasibility of the decision, compromising to the public opinion can strengthen the democracy. Remaining committed to certain principles may contradict the public interest. If the leader wants to insist his own opinion, he may have to damage the democracy. The leader may commit bribery to change the Congress. This may even turn a country into tyranny. When people vote for the candidates, they expect that the candidate they vote for can represent their interest. The leader should represent the public by yielding to them. This is the meaning of democracy. Therefore, in order to strengthen the democracy, the political leader should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles.

Considering the advantage of yielding to the public and the consequence of possible mistakes resulted by insisting committed to certain objectives and principles, in order to be an effective leader, the person must compromise with the public and abandon his own principles.

xyzcjczUID：3549923

There is a controversial issue about the political leader’s behavior. Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles, while others believe that the leader should remain committed to certain objectives and principles. In my view, in most cases, effective political leaders should compromise with the public.

Admittedly, the public is not always right. Sometimes the elites of the society can make insightful decisions that the public can hardly achieve. Take the environmental problem for example, if political leaders don’t make regulations about environmental protection, most individuals or companies will not protect the environment spontaneously, since protection need extra work and money. If the political leader just compromise with the public, the government will not plan to protect the environment, so the welfare of the future generations will be affected. In this case, the political leader may oppose the public opinion because he knows that this important issue needs an insightful decision.（我觉得这段里最好加上  如果没有精英的决策， 就会陷入长时间的扯皮，从而证明题目中的效率）

However, in most cases, the leader should yield to the public since the political leader can also make mistakes. The public opinion ensures the welfare of most people. Compromising with the public can also ensure the feasibility of the decision. For example, if the political leader wants to change the price of the public transportation, he will have to listen to voices from different groups. The final opinion shows the price that can be commonly accepted, so it’s a practical decision. This price cannot be too high, or it will hurt low-income families. The price is neither too low, since it must allow the government to have a proper amount of revenue. The public opinion will ensure the welfare of most people and keep the society stable（社会稳定后面没有体现出来，后文只提到了经济问题）. If the political leader make up a plan himself and force others to accept it, the price may be too high or too low. This mistake may severely affect the welfare of the people, and cause financial problems.

Besides ensuring people’s welfare and the feasibility of the decision, compromising to the public opinion can strengthen the democracy. Remaining committed to certain principles may contradict the public interest. If the leader wants to insist his own opinion, he may have to damage the democracy. The leader may commit bribery to change the Congress. This may even turn a country into tyranny. When people vote for the candidates, they expect that the candidate they vote for can represent their interest. The leader should represent the public by yielding to them. This is the meaning of democracy. Therefore, in order to strengthen the democracy, the political leader should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles.

Considering the advantage of yielding to the public and the consequence of possible mistakes resulted by insisting committed to certain objectives and principles, in order to be an effective leader, the person must compromise with the public and abandon his own principles.

xyzcjczUID：3549923

也请帮忙批改一下https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1815099-1-1.html

hardheadedUID：3557538

xyzcjcz 发表于 2015-3-25 15:50
也请帮忙批改一下https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1815099-1-1.html

There is a controversial issue about the political leader’s behavior. Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles, while others believe that the leader should remain committed to certain objectives and principles. In my view, in most cases, effective political leaders should compromise with the public.

Admittedly, the public is not always right. Sometimes the elites of the society can make insightful decisions that the public can hardly achieve. Another aspect is that the political leader can shorten the time used to reach an agreement, this can help the society to be more effective. Take the environmental problem for example, if political leaders don’t make regulations about environmental protection, most individuals or companies will not protect the environment spontaneously, since protection need extra work and money. If the political leader just compromise with the public, the government will not plan to protect the environment, so the welfare of the future generations will be affected. Under such circumstance, a prominent political leader may accelerate the formation of policies related with environmental protection. In this case, the political leader may oppose the public opinion because he knows that this urgent issue needs an insightful decision.

However, in most cases, the leader should yield to the public since the political leader can also make mistakes. The public opinion ensures the welfare of most people. Compromising with the public can also ensure the feasibility of the decision. For example, if the political leader wants to change the price of the public transportation, he will have to listen to voices from different groups. The final opinion shows the price that can be commonly accepted, so it’s a practical decision. This price cannot be too high, or it will hurt low-income families. The price is neither too low, since it must allow the government to have a proper amount of revenue. The public opinion will ensure the welfare of most people and make the policy easy to be accepted. If the political leader make up a plan himself and force others to accept it, the price may be too high or too low. This mistake may severely affect the welfare of the people, and cause financial problems.

Besides ensuring people’s welfare and the feasibility of the decision, compromising to the public opinion can strengthen the democracy. Remaining committed to certain principles may contradict the public interest. If the leader wants to insist his own opinion, he may have to damage the democracy. The leader may commit bribery to change the Congress. This may even turn a country into tyranny. When people vote for the candidates, they expect that the candidate they vote for can represent their interest. The leader should represent the public by yielding to them. This is the meaning of democracy. Therefore, in order to strengthen the democracy, the political leader should yield to public opinion and abandon his own principles.

Considering the advantage of yielding to the public and the consequence of possible mistakes resulted by insisting committed to certain objectives and principles, in order to be an effective leader, the person must compromise with the public and abandon his own principles.


我修改了我的，等一下改你的。
29日前能够互改吗

xyzcjczUID：3549923

hardheaded 发表于 2015-3-25 16:15
There is a controversial issue about the political leader’s behavior. Some people believe that in ...

你还打算写吗？……

hardheadedUID：3557538

xyzcjcz 发表于 2015-3-25 18:43
你还打算写吗？……

之前写的一直没有限时，昨晚模考issue没时间检查，argument第3个论点没写完

没看懂你在说什么

xyzcjczUID：3549923

hardheaded 发表于 2015-3-26 18:25
之前写的一直没有限时，昨晚模考issue没时间检查，argument第3个论点没写完

没看懂你在说什么

就是我们在考前也只有2天时间了……你还打算写吗？  今天又写了篇A  后面估计没时间写了……

xyzcjczUID：3549923

hardheaded 发表于 2015-3-26 18:25
之前写的一直没有限时，昨晚模考issue没时间检查，argument第3个论点没写完

没看懂你在说什么

我时间一直不够……卡时间写的话……只有350左右……这字数够吗？  

hardheadedUID：3557538

xyzcjcz 发表于 2015-3-26 19:29
我时间一直不够……卡时间写的话……只有350左右……这字数够吗？

后面两天我应该也只能看套路
我猜350有点少吧，400够了
具体字数不清楚

BesalUID：3504586

楼主的定冠词the用法好像有问题，用的过多了。
还有need=〉needs
还有in most cases，用了两次。
The price is neither too low。=〉should/could not be too low either.
关于楼上加上去的，那句话，effective society，我已经混乱了。我们说的不是effective leader吗？
此外，楼主的最后一段，依我之见，会不会太过绝对了，感觉可以摘抄出来做题目，写一篇argue。我认为，写成那种婉约式的会不会好一些。因为公众意见五花八门，有好有坏，作为一个领袖，关键是有辨认出这种好坏的能力，并不是一味的去随大流。因为那不是民主，是无主见了。领袖需要找准自己的定位。

小小意见，仅供参考。
楼主加油！祝你考试好成绩~

iwishicanUID：3155544

楼主作文考的怎么样？可以说说你的感受么？考了什么题目，现场写得如何？有什么经验感想可以说说么？不知道还会不会来看论坛。

hardheadedUID：3557538

iwishican 发表于 2015-5-20 18:53
楼主作文考的怎么样？可以说说你的感受么？考了什么题目，现场写得如何？有什么经验感想可以说说么？不知道 ...

我3.5，不过我是学物理的，所以作文这个分够

iwishicanUID：3155544

hardheaded 发表于 2015-7-7 14:28
我3.5，不过我是学物理的，所以作文这个分够

恭喜啦