【无名组】第一小组AW习作楼
本帖最后由 AetDezac 于 2011-10-15 22:55 编辑Rourorou、Fadotian、HeronAlps、AetDezac 报到先 占座先！ 本帖最后由 fadotian 于 2011-10-16 17:37 编辑
86 Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the
people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on
their own judgment.
In a democratic society, to what extent do the government should carry out the will of their citizens? Or do they should put their own judgement as the superiority over the collective opinions? I suppose that the situation is differentiated from case to case. In some particular circumstance when the government decisions link the interest of the public closely, the policy-makers, should necessarily embrace the public opinion into negotiation and discussion of policies. Yet in other realms, when the public opinions tend to be convoluted and inappropriate, the rulers, should play the role of leadership for the issue, but in a transparent and open way.
First of all, one characteristic of at least a democratic country is that the public are bestowed the right to rule this nation while the government, subordinated to the public will just serve to perform the collective decisions. Since the ultimate goal of one country is to maximize the well-being of its citizens, it is not strange that they have the right to decide what they really need. Besides, with the largest percentage occupied in national revenue, citizens as the tax-payers should be informed and approved consented to how to use their money. Thirdly, only the public know what they really need and what could make them feel felicitous. The policies relied on the need of masses could assist better allocation of resources and effective implementing of rules. For example, when it comes to some infrastructure construction such as the public transportation, depending on which could the government make the decision about the number and the types of the transportation, or how could they decide the location of the subway? It is possibly argued that the engineers or experts would make justifiable perception according to scientific analysis, yet without public consensus and surveys about the inclination for types of traffic when going out, policy-makers would not develop the most effective arrangement. Moreover, one salient aspect that most people oppose the government to make decision is that such patriarchal domination is likely to result in misdeed, and even totalitarianism. If there is no restraint for the power of the government, the result would be jeopodizing the public interest by appropriating public resources, corrupting and deceiving.
However, there are some particular realms where public opinions seem to have little effect on the whole benefit. One example lies in policies in military defense. With little knowledge and comprehensive consideration about the military issues, it is difficult for the public to reach a consensus about deploying the force or developing the facilities, nor would scads of people concern the armed force or military tactics which is far from their routine life. Such security issue should then be appointed to professionals in related subjects. Another example is space exploration, which seems to perform weak relationship with daily life and have no immediate boon for the public hardly supported by the majority of people who think government should contribute more effort to solve pressing problems. Yet the probe of outer space would benefit citizen in the long run by monitoring the movement of stars to predict the climate in future, develop new species by doing scientific experiment without gravity, or falicitating the efficient availability of communication. All of the advantages would not be fully apprehended by the public and they are not able to make the advantageous decisions. Therefore, it seems to be more appropriate that the government and pundits should take the major part of decisions. Yet the procedure of using funding and developing should be exposed to the public in transparent operation.
In sum, it is the public rather than the government have the supreme power to make judgement on the significant aspects in terms of the instant welfare of people as the whole, in other scope where the public could not reach rational and concordant conclusion, the government should make the leadership under the supervision of the whole.
附上我的提纲
开头 总体是不同意的。
1.（1）天赋人权，政府存在的意义是为了全民利益 （2）纳税者决定钱怎么用 （3）应该让群众去决定那些重要的决定，尤其是和民众息息相关的。有助于effective，以及社会稳定。例如在哪个地方建一个什么东西。（4）由政府决定会导致totalitarian, totalitarianism. 政府滥用权力，或者导致不公平。
2.让步，当然有些情况应该主要留给政府去考虑，因为人们不懂，而且很难形成一致的意见。（1）国家安全 （2）尖端科技space exploration
结尾
时间关系今天的argument来不及写啦 86Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the
people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on
their own judgment
Despite assorted effusions to the contrary, I embraced the belief that government officials should carry out the will of the people they serve. They are chosen to be representative of the will of the public. Whilst decisions made only on their own judgment will lead to some social problems such as privilege or government corruption. Government officials yet should determine on their own judgement when it is hard to get consensus over a controversial issue after considering the benefit of the public.
To start with, government officials chosen stand for the interest of the public, which is the essence of the election. Therefore, it is reasonable that they should carry out the wills of the people who elect them. As public servants, the overall goal of any government is to improve the general welfare of the society as a whole. If the government neglects the wills of the people and does on its own way, the government will lose the support from the public, which will result in even worse conditions. Indian riot, which happened in the beginning of the year, is in the sense that the general welfare of the society is damaged like unemployment, poverty, soaring prices and so forth. Hence ,to maintain the stability of the society and implement obligations, the government officials should carry out the will of the people they serve.
Moreover, if officials base their decision on their own judgment, the situation that most of them determine based on their own interests as foothold. It is known to all that the most possible matter is the government corruption. In the interest of themselves, they even neglect legitimate mechanism, violate the laws and even deceive the public to make their own decisions. The Greek financial crisis broke out in the sense that the government officials made wrong decisions which aggravate the problem and the condition of corruption is heavier. Making decisions on one's own without taking into consideration the will of th people they serve, to the extreme, will lead to autocracy. Nero, the Roman emperor, was a typical despot who never cared about the idea of the citizens. His tyranny led the society in disorder and he was finally overturned. Therefore, the government officials should not base their decisions only on their own judgment.
The government officials, however, should determine on their own judgment sometimes when there is a controversial issue based on the wills of the general welfare of the society. Then they should consider all the aspects of the issue and make conclusions to decide how to do. Abraham Lincoln, in the society that there is an intense conflict between slaves and slave owners in the United States at that time, finally decided to abrogate the helotism leading to the civil war in 1861. In retrospect, it was a wise decision to sacrifice a part of people's interest for the more benefits that would bring to the society. Thence, government officials should use their judgment and wisdom to influence the public with conscience and sense of responsibility when there is a hiatus among the wills of the different people.
In conclusion, the government officials should make decisions according to the general welfare of the society to avoid the corruption and autocracy. But when not all the wills of the people can be satisfied, the government officials should determine under the discreet judgment.
我的提纲是
1.官员是由群众选出来的，应该追求大众的利益，按大家的意愿做决定
2.由官员自己做决定会导致坏的结果，如腐败、暴政
3.但当大众利益有所冲突时，官员应该按自己的判断做决定 Argument 7
In this argument, the author cites a recent national cesus showing a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten will decrease the sales of those children. So the autor recommended to open a cafe in the store by discontinuing the children's book section. However, the author depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First of all, one problem of the argument is that it assumes that the nationwide statistics about decline in the percetage of the population under age ten applied equally to the local children. Yet this might not be the case for a variety of possible reasons. Perhaps the number of lacal children is fortunately increased. And even assuming that there is a significant decline in the population of children, it is completely possible that the whole sales is unchanged or even rise ,if each children buy more books. Thus, the decline in number of children does not mean the same declien in the sales of children's books. Without ruling out such possiblities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that according to the national cesus, the sales of children's books will drop in the Monarch Books.
Similarly, the author's sweeping claim that opening the cafe would attract more customers depends on the assumption that local people are welcome to the cafe and will buy them. However, the assumption is hard to convince me. It is possible that people opposite the cafe because it destroy the atmosphere of the book store. Or perhaps the local people have not a habit to enjoy a cup of coffee in the bookstores. May be they prefer to enjoy reading in a more private and comfortable place like home. Absent evidence to support the assumption, the author's broad conclusion that opening the cafe would attract more customers is dubious at best.
Additionally, the argument relies on what might be a false assumption that Regal Books attracts more customers after opening its own cafe. The author does not take into consideration that the basic cost of opening a cafe might be high so that no one wants to afford it. It is possible that the situation of the cafe in the Regal Books is not good or even bad. Even if the cafe brings the Regal Books a lot of benfits, whether Monarch Books will be the same as Regal Books? It is possible that the customers who go to the Regal Books like coffee, but Monarch Books not. Or perhaps the coffee in the Regal Books is cheap because the location of it is remote. Without accounting for these possibilities, the author cannot convincingly conclude that the Monarch Books should open a cafe according to the Regal Books.
In conclusion, the argument's recommendation is based on the unconvincing assumptions. To achieve preditable results, the author must provide clear evidence that the sales of children's books really has a significant decline in the loacal place. The author must provide clear evidence that the local people advocate the opening of the cafe, and most of them are willing to buy. And I also want to know the condition of cafe in the Regal Books and the possibility of analogy between Regal Books and Monarch Books. Issue 86. Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.
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.
The ancient issue of debate proposed here clearly finds no definite solution though huge length of time has passed since its first appearance. Common sense of both modern Western culture and that of ancient Greek cities seem to confirm the superiority of the will of citizens over governments. It may, however, seem paranoid to demand every decision of elected officials to follow meticulously citizens’ will. In the middle this dilemma, I align myself with the viewpoint demanding officials’ own decisions. Now I would try to address the most appealing arguments on both sides, and my reason for supporting one of them.
To begin with, the nature and purpose of governments are to serve the citizenship, an axiom of modern political science. Common sense has it that without the authorization of citizens, there would be no means of justification for governments. And in order for citizens to authorize a government, that government must promise to carry out their will and the promise must be kept. Otherwise the government deserves only to be abandoned. Therefore it is necessary for officials to act according to the will of the people.
Another possible argument seeks its strength from the generally believed law that unrestrained power inevitably corrupt. And since we decided to transfer power to a group of people called officials, there is no reason why we do not bridle that power. Without proper constraint on them, servants would strive to become masters, it could only be worse if the servant is equipped with armies, weapons, which the master has decided not to use himself.
My argument goes, however, that the consequence of depriving officials’ freedom to make decisions can in some cases become enormously obnoxious, for that clears the way to mob rule. As Cicero commented in his De Re Publica (and I paraphrase), mob rule is the worst thinkable form of government. And if we demand our officials to always carry exactly the will of people, there’s nothing between our society and mob rule. Countless nations had fallen because their people refused any slightest government of officials, and thus fell into disorder and destitution, rather than general equality, as they usually claim to arrive at.
That leads naturally to the second point, that elected officials are generally more informed and trained to make important decisions than citizens diversified into many different trades. As Plato once argued (and I paraphrase), if shoemakers do their job better than others, then we have better let officials do the job of governing as well. Any ordinary citizen cannot have the necessary information and theoretical tools provided by modern sciences to decide on crucial issues of society, unless he is specifically educated in the field. While government officials tend to receive suggestions from experts of various disciplines, thus guaranteeing at least better judgment than common people.
In the final analysis, I concede that loyalty to the people they serve is important for government officials to fulfill their purpose, and failing to bridle their power leads to corruption and squander of public resources. The real-world restraint, however, demand that officials be given at least some degree of freedom, so they can better play their part as leadership of society, and build a wall against mob rule. 4# fadotian
In a democratic society, to what extent do（？句法没看懂） the government should carry out the will of their citizens? Or do they should put their own judgement as the superiority over the collective opinions? I suppose that the situation is differentiated from case to case. In some particular circumstance when the government decisions link the interest of the public closely, the policy-makers, should necessarily embrace the public opinion into negotiation and discussion of policies. Yet in other realms, when the public opinions tend to be convoluted and inappropriate, the rulers, should play the role of leadership for the issue, but in a transparent and open way.
开头简洁明了，立场鲜明
First of all, one characteristic of at least a democratic country is that the public are bestowed the right to rule this nation while the government, subordinated to the public will just serve to perform the collective decisions. Since the ultimate goal of one country is to maximize the well-being of its citizens, it is not strange that they have the right to decide what they really need. Besides, with the largest percentage occupied in national revenue, citizens as the tax-payers should be informed and approved consented to how to use their money. （纳税人，这个点不错）Thirdly, only the public know what they really need and what could make them feel felicitous. The policies relied on the need of masses could assist better allocation of resources and effective implementing of rules. For example, when it comes to some infrastructure construction such as the public transportation, depending on which could the government make the decision about the number and the types of the transportation, or how could they decide the location of the subway? It is possibly argued that the engineers or experts would make justifiable perception according to scientific analysis, yet without public consensus and surveys about the inclination for types of traffic when going out, policy-makers would not develop the most effective arrangement.（大众需求促使官员做决定） Moreover, one salient aspect that most people oppose the government to make decision is that such patriarchal domination is likely to result in misdeed, and even totalitarianism. If there is no restraint for the power of the government, the result would be jeopodizing the public interest by appropriating public resources, corrupting and deceiving.我觉得这里1、2点可以并一段写，第3个观点单独一段，第4个观点可以扩展一下，也可以不用，因为下文也没有展开
However, there are some particular realms where public opinions seem to have little effect on the whole benefit. One example lies in policies in military defense. With little knowledge and comprehensive consideration about the military issues, it is difficult for the public to reach a consensus about deploying the force or developing the facilities, nor would scads of people concern the armed force or military tactics which is far from their routine life. Such security issue should then be appointed to professionals in related subjects. 两个例子间过度一下比较好Another example is space exploration, which seems to perform weak relationship with daily life and have no immediate boon for the public hardly supported by the majority of people who think government should contribute more effort to solve pressing problems. Yet the probe of outer space would benefit citizen in the long run by monitoring the movement of stars to predict the climate in future, develop new species by doing scientific experiment without gravity, or falicitating the efficient availability of communication. All of the advantages would not be fully apprehended by the public and they are not able to make the advantageous decisions.（军事和航天的例子，很好啊，之前都没想到） Therefore, it seems to be more appropriate that the government and pundits should take the major part of decisions. Yet the procedure of using funding and developing should be exposed to the public in transparent operation.这里关于透明化可以展开一下，或者就不用提及了
In sum, it is the public rather than the government have the supreme power to make judgement on the significant aspects in terms of the instant welfare of people as the whole, in other scope where the public could not reach rational and concordant conclusion, the government should make the leadership under the supervision of the whole.结尾总结，观点明确
文章思路很清晰，例子也很不错，语言很不错啊，有些单词我还去查字典了
正面观点思路再理一下分个层次写吧，更清楚（个人观点）
腐败、透明化如果没时间扩展就算了吧，否则感觉你讨论不清楚，论据不足的感觉
我觉得文章思路、语言没什么大问题，就是行文结构能更好点
继续加油~~ Despite assorted effusions to the contrary（你好像经常用这个）, I embraced the belief that government officials should carry out the will of the people they serve. They are chosen to be representative of the will of the public. Whilst decisions made only on their own judgment will lead to some social problems such as privilege or government corruption. Government officials yet should determine on their own judgement when it is hard to get consensus over a controversial issue after considering the benefit of the public.
To start with, government officials chosen stand for the interest of the public, which is the essence of the election. Therefore, it is reasonable that they should carry out the wills of the people who elect them.（从选举的角度讲第一个理由） As public servants, the overall goal of any government is to improve the general welfare of the society as a whole. If the government neglects the wills of the people and does on its own way, the government will lose the support from the public, which will result in even worse conditions（从政府的职责讲第二个理由+反面情况）. Indian riot, which happened in（貌似用at) the beginning of the year, is in the sense(in the sense 是什么呀？） that the general welfare of the society is damaged like unemployment, poverty, soaring prices and so forth. Hence ,to maintain the stability of the society and implement obligations（你这里好像又说了第三个理由，是为了社会稳定和执行obligation), the government officials should carry out the will of the people they serve.
Moreover, if officials base their decision on their own judgment, the situation that most of them determine based on their own interests as foothold(这个单词学习下，我从没用过）. It is known to all that the most possible matter is the government corruption. In the interest of themselves, they even neglect legitimate mechanism, violate the laws and even deceive the public to make their own decisions. The Greek financial crisis broke out in the sense that the government officials made wrong decisions which aggravate（用aggravated吗) the problem and the condition of corruption is heavier. Making decisions on one's own without taking into consideration the will of th people they serve, to the extreme, will lead to autocracy. Nero, the Roman emperor, was a typical despot who never cared about the idea of the citizens. His tyranny led the society in disorder and he was finally overturned. Therefore, the government officials should not base their decisions only on their own judgment.
The government officials, however, should determine on their own judgment sometimes when there is a controversial issue based on the wills of the general welfare of the society. Then they should consider all the aspects of the issue and make conclusions to decide how to do. Abraham Lincoln, in the society that there is an intense conflict between slaves and slave owners in the United States at that time, finally decided to abrogate the helotism（这个单词查不到，啥意思？） leading to the civil war in 1861. In retrospect, it was a wise decision to sacrifice a part of people's interest for the more benefits that would bring to the society. Thence（Therefore), government officials should use their judgment and wisdom to influence the public with conscience and sense of responsibility when there is a hiatus among the wills of the different people.
In conclusion, the government officials should make decisions according to the general welfare of the society to avoid the corruption and autocracy. But when not all the wills of the people can be satisfied, the government officials should determine under the discreet judgment.
第一段观点有点不太清晰，好像是3个分论点是吧，但是第3个分论点只是稍微提了下
第二段我觉得没什么问题吧
第三段说理有点简单，如何通盘考虑呢，我觉得还可以再扩展讲得具体点深入点。具体怎么扩展我们可以讨论下。不过这一段从一些有controversy的角度入手，我觉得比我那个想法清楚一点，因为我是从军事和尖端科技入手，有点牵强，你觉得呢
我自己那个透明化的也讲不清楚。 Argument 7The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books.
"We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of books on all subjects. Clearly, opening the café would attract more customers. Space could be made for the café by discontinuing the children's book section, which will probably become less popular given that the most recent national census indicated a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten. Opening a café will allow Monarch to attract more customers and better compete with Regal Books, which recently opened its own café."
The board recommends a café be opened in Monarch Books (MB) using the space currently occupied by children’s books. Citing the result from a nationwide census, the board asserts that the proportion of children in local population would decrease; therefore it is worthwhile to replace children’s books section with a café. One other bookstore’s successful experience has also been used to back up the suggestion. Several flaws in the argument, however, have rendered it unconvincing.
One first flaw is that the result of recent census can only reflect what has happened in recent years. Though the proportion of children in total population is falling, this proportion can be expected to rise in the future. The board has to come up with convincing reasons that the trend of diminishing children will continue in the foreseeable future.
Further, the nationwide census hardly lends any credibility to the board’s assertion that children’s proportion in the local population will decrease in the future. It may be the case that the amount of children is steadily going up in the place where MB is located. Since MB has be doing business in the same place for over twenty years, it is reasonable to concentrate on the local demographical trends.
Moreover, given the possibility that the ratio of children in the local community may not have fallen or would fall in the future, the chance remains that adults coming to MB mainly came to buy children books for their kids. If this is the case, then cancelling children’s book section will be very unwise. Before the board could demonstrate substantiated reasons for their claim, I will not be ready to accept their recommendation.
Finally, the fact that Regal Bookstore succeeded after opening a café does not guarantee that MB will benefit from imitating the strategy. The café in Regal may have been opened very early and generates revenue or other benefit mainly through elderly customers. Besides, Regal’s café may be of higher quality than that MB could hope to arrive at, leaving the expected benefits of opening a café unworthy of the required cost.
In the final analysis, the benevolent board had failed to distinguish the nationwide demographic trend from that in the local area. And they have inferred unwarrantedly from past changes the expected trend. To better judge the argument, I would also need to know the possible level of quality MB’s new café may reach in foreseeable future, as well as the proportion of adult customers coming to the bookstore to buy books mainly for their children. The ancient issue of debate proposed here clearly finds no definite solution though huge length of time has passed since its first appearance. Common sense of both modern Western culture and that of ancient Greek cities seem to confirm the superiority of the will of citizens over governments. It may, however, seem paranoid（这个词可以等于extreme吧） to demand every decision of elected officials to follow meticulously citizens’ will. In the middle this dilemma, I align myself with the viewpoint demanding officials’ own decisions. Now I would try to address the most appealing arguments on both sides, and my reason for supporting one of them.
To begin with, the nature and purpose of governments are to serve the citizenship, an axiom of modern political science. Common sense has it that without the authorization of citizens, there would be no means of justification for governments. And in order for citizens to authorize a government, that government must promise to carry out their will and the promise must be kept. Otherwise the government deserves only to be abandoned. Therefore it is necessary for officials to act according to the will of the people.（政府应该为人民服务）
Another possible argument seeks its strength from the generally believed law that unrestrained power inevitably corrupt. And since we decided to transfer power to a group of people called officials, there is no reason why we do not bridle that power. Without proper constraint on them, servants would strive to become masters, it could only be worse if the servant is equipped with armies, weapons, which the master has decided not to use himself.
（反面来说，腐败问题）
My argument goes, however, that the consequence of depriving officials’ freedom to make decisions can in some cases become enormously obnoxious, for that clears the way to mob rule. As Cicero commented in his De Re Publica (and I paraphrase), mob rule is the worst thinkable form of government. And if we demand our officials to always carry exactly the will of people, there’s nothing between our society and mob rule. Countless nations had fallen because their people refused any slightest government of officials, and thus fell into disorder and destitution, rather than general equality, as they usually claim to arrive at.（还是要有人领导，否则就天下大乱）
That leads naturally to the second point, that elected officials are generally more informed and trained to make important decisions than citizens diversified into many different trades. As Plato once argued (and I paraphrase), if shoemakers do their job better than others, then we have better let officials do the job of governing as well. Any ordinary citizen cannot have the necessary information and theoretical tools provided by modern sciences to decide on crucial issues of society, unless he is specifically educated in the field. While government officials tend to receive suggestions from experts of various disciplines, thus guaranteeing at least better judgment than common people.（officials比通常人有知识）
In the final analysis, I concede that loyalty to the people they serve is important for government officials to fulfill their purpose, and failing to bridle their power leads to corruption and squander of public resources. The real-world restraint, however, demand that officials be given at least some degree of freedom, so they can better play their part as leadership of society, and build a wall against mob rule.
好吧。我就理了个思路。典型两分法。有些语句的用法很凝练。你是认为这是个很难解决的问题，所以就两面都写，那么你支持哪个呢？ 86 .Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.
Whether the social policy should be decided by the masses or a cabinet of government, even only one dictator, has been contended since the era of ancient Greece. Some people who believe in meritocracy often assert that the authorities must enact policies and laws based on their own judgments, while, on the other hand, others insist that the majority of people must be decision makers. I strongly agree the later idea while can not absolutely ignore the preeminent individual’s effect in the history of human beings.
Considering the history of civilization, we should admit that every era has its own heroes or heroines who often symbolize the greatness of that period of time. The luminaries tend to play the leading role in the administration of society, especially when the unpredictable crises and chaos fall upon the community. For instance, instead of Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, as well as his governing team, won the campaign of president of the US during the Great Depression and took the strict policy known as the New Deal to restore the economics. As a result, Uncle Sam not only survived in the greatest Depression he had ever been through, but made an unprecedented leap to becoming the greatest economical body in the whole world after the World War II. The prowess and volition of the leaders of a nation, to some extent, ensure the rapid development of a fledging nation.
However, the nation decided by a small group of politicians or even only one autocrat has inclination to despotism and suffering of innocent people. We have piles of examples, such as Gadhafi’s 43-year tyranny of Libya or Mubarake’s corruption during his regnum of Egypt, not to mention Nazi Germany’s atrocities on other nations and races. Based on those lessons, or say calamities, in the history, sociologists and statesmen have the common view that public power must be harnessed by supervising of the most parts of people, at least a relatively big commission of representatives. As such view becomes the principal of some democratic nations, parliaments or congresses began to wield the authority’s power which used to be the privilege of the royals.
Moreover, there is no doubt that the masses are the group which should receive the service from government, as well as part with some personal power, like having weapons. In that case, officials, no matter how arbitrary they are, are obliged to consider the demanding of the people whom they serve, though the overwhelmingly leaning to the opinion of majority has the risk of anarchy, even ochlocracy. For instance, President Obama won the campaign of 2008 by his ‘change’ policy which catered to the common people’s complaints of Bush’s frustrated governing. It is thus clear that the people’s demand plays a more significant role than elite’s consideration.
In conclusion, as the governing body of society, the officials should balance their decisions between the people’s requirement and their own judgments. They also ought to consider more about the people’s opinion when the conflictions really occur in the case. Only in that way can the government serve the masses in the reciprocal manner and deserve the legitimate power which the common people offered to them. 7# AetDezac
The ancient issue of debate proposed here clearly finds no definite solution though huge length of time has passed since its first appearance.我想起了你的开头行为格式 Common sense of both modern Western culture and that of ancient Greek cities seem to confirm the superiority of the will of citizens over governments. It may, however, seem paranoid to demand every decision of elected officials to follow meticulously citizens’ will. In the middle（有of吗？） this dilemma, I align myself with the viewpoint demanding officials’ own decisions. Now I would try to address the most appealing arguments on both sides, and my reason for supporting one of them.开头觉得套话有点多，而且你还是没告诉考官你的观点，我觉得开门见山的方式比较好（纯属个人意见）
To begin with, the nature and purpose of governments are to serve the citizenship, an axiom of modern political science. Common sense has it that without the authorization of citizens, there would be no means of justification for governments. And in order for citizens to authorize a government, that government must promise to carry out their will and the promise must be kept. Otherwise the government deserves only to be abandoned. 下结论前可以举个例子说明一下，否则有点空洞Therefore it is necessary for officials to act according to the will of the people.
Another possible argument seeks its strength from the generally believed law that unrestrained power inevitably corrupt. And since we decided to transfer power to a group of people called officials, there is no reason why we do not bridle that power. Without proper constraint on them, servants would strive to become masters, it could only be worse if the servant is equipped with armies, weapons, which the master has decided not to use himself.论点明白，突然发现下文however，恍然为什么之前都没有详细论述了……
My argument goes, however, that the consequence of depriving officials’ freedom to make decisions can in some cases become enormously obnoxious, for that clears the way to mob rule. As Cicero commented in his De Re Publica (and I paraphrase), mob rule is the worst thinkable form of government. And if we demand our officials to always carry exactly the will of people, there’s nothing between our society and mob rule. 西塞罗不太认识，不过好厉害，我这人都不认识，果然是学哲学的Countless nations had fallen because their people refused any slightest government of officials, and thus fell into disorder and destitution, rather than general equality, as they usually claim to arrive at.这段是说限制政府，让官员完全听从大众等同于暴民政治，会引发社会混乱。我觉得加个例子比较好
That leads naturally to the second point, that elected officials are generally more informed and trained to make important decisions than citizens diversified into many different trades. As Plato once argued (and I paraphrase), if shoemakers do their job better than others, then we have better let officials do the job of governing as well.名人再次出现，这次我认识了！！ Any ordinary citizen cannot have the necessary information and theoretical tools provided by modern sciences to decide on crucial issues of society, unless he is specifically educated in the field. While government officials tend to receive suggestions from experts of various disciplines, thus guaranteeing at least better judgment than common people.例子啊~~快出现吧~~
In the final analysis, I concede that loyalty to the people they serve is important for government officials to fulfill their purpose, and failing to bridle their power leads to corruption and squander of public resources. The real-world restraint, however, demand that officials be given at least some degree of freedom, so they can better play their part as leadership of society, and build a wall against mob rule.结尾观点明确！
果然是学哲学的，引用的话都不错
但是例子太少了，论证也不够充分，有种没看够的感觉，整体有点散
语言我好多都没看懂，果然我道行还 @rourou
In this argument, the author cites a recent national cesus showing a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten will decrease the sales of those children. So the autor recommended to open a cafe in the store by discontinuing the children's book section. However, the author depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
First of all, one problem of the argument is that it assumes that the nationwide statistics about decline in the percetage of the population under age ten applied equally to the local children. Yet this might not be the case for a variety of possible reasons. Perhaps the number of lacal children is fortunately increased. And even assuming that there is a significant decline in the population of children, it is completely possible that the whole sales is unchanged or even rise ,if each children buy more books [嗯，好论点啊]. Thus, the decline in number of children does not mean the same declien in the sales of children's books. Without ruling out such possiblities, the author cannot justifiably conclude that according to the national census, the sales of children's books will drop in the Monarch Books.
Similarly, the author's sweeping claim that opening the cafe would attract more customers depends on the assumption that local people are welcome to the cafe and will buy them . However, the assumption is hard to convince me. It is possible that people opposite the cafe because it destroy the atmosphere of the book store. Or perhaps the local people have not a habit to enjoy a cup of coffee in the bookstores. May be they prefer to enjoy reading in a more private and comfortable place like home. Absent evidence to support the assumption, the author's broad conclusion that opening the cafe would attract more customers is dubious at best.
Additionally, the argument relies on what might be a false assumption that Regal Books attracts more customers after opening its own cafe. The author does not take into consideration that the basic cost of opening a cafe might be high so that no one wants to afford it. [这句话和主题有关系吗……] It is possible that the situation of the cafe in the Regal Books is not good or even bad. Even if the cafe brings the Regal Books a lot of benfits, whether Monarch Books will be the same as Regal Books? It is possible that the customers who go to the Regal Books like coffee, but Monarch Books not. Or perhaps the coffee in the Regal Books is cheap because the location of it is remote. Without accounting for these possibilities, the author cannot convincingly conclude that the Monarch Books should open a cafe according to the Regal Books.
In conclusion, the argument's recommendation is based on the unconvincing assumptions. To achieve preditable results, the author must provide clear evidence that the sales of children's books really has a significant decline in the local place. The author must provide clear evidence that the local people advocate the opening of the cafe, and most of them are willing to buy . And I also want to know the condition of cafe in the Regal Books and the possibility of analogy between Regal Books and Monarch Books.
我认为，除去偶尔的一些用词不当，这篇A似乎抓住了原文里所有重要的逻辑漏洞。但是如果能让每段的中心句更加清晰地点出这段的意思，同时避免像倒数第二段里那样看起来有些离题的句子，我想会更好的。 Whether the social policy should be decided by the masses or a cabinet(内阁成员？是否有必要呢，直接government怎么样） of government, even only one dictator, has been contended since the era of ancient Greece(这句话不懂呀）. Some people who believe in meritocracy（我觉得用elite会不会好一点） often assert that the authorities must enact policies and laws based on their own judgments, while, on the other hand, others insist that the majority of people must be decision makers(decision-makers）. I strongly agree the later idea while can not absolutely ignore the preeminent individual’s effect in the history of human beings.
Considering the history of civilization, we should admit that every era has its own heroes or heroines who often symbolize the greatness of that period of time. The luminaries tend to play the leading role in the administration of society, especially when the unpredictable crises and chaos fall upon the community. For instance, instead of Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, as well as his governing team, won the campaign of president of the US during the Great Depression and took the strict policy known as the New Deal to restore the economics. As a result, Uncle Sam not only survived in the greatest Depression he had ever been through, but made an unprecedented leap to becoming the greatest economical body in the whole world after the World War II. The prowess and volition of the leaders of a nation, to some extent, ensure the rapid development of a fledging nation.（你这段写的是精英的作用吧。我觉得有点问题呀。话题只是问群众和政府在做决策的关系，和国家繁荣关系不大吧）
However, the nation decided by a small group of politicians or even only one autocrat has inclination to despotism and suffering of innocent people. We have piles of examples, such as Gadhafi’s 43-year tyranny of Libya or Mubarake’s corruption during his regnum of Egypt, not to mention Nazi Germany’s atrocities on other nations and races（你的例子真够多的）. Based on those lessons, or say calamities, in the history, sociologists and statesmen have the common view that public power must be harnessed（harness用在这里不是很恰当吧，harness一般是利用什么东西来生产呀，例如利用水发电之类的，我觉得用constrained) by supervising of the most parts of people, at least a relatively big commission of representatives(一堆代表，把群众具体化了，学习）. As such view becomes the principal of some democratic nations, parliaments or congresses began to wield the authority’s power which used to be the privilege of the royals.
Moreover, there is no doubt that the masses are the group which should receive the service from government, as well as part with some personal power, like having weapons（这后半句什么意思？看不懂）. In that case, officials, no matter how arbitrary they are, are obliged to consider the demanding of the people whom they serve, though the overwhelmingly leaning to the opinion of majority has the risk of anarchy, even ochlocracy. For instance, President Obama won the campaign of 2008 by his ‘change’ policy which catered to the common people’s complaints of Bush’s frustrated governing. It is thus clear that the people’s demand plays a more significant role than elite’s consideration.（这段是说政府要考虑群众的意见）
In conclusion, as the governing body of society, the officials should balance their decisions between the people’s requirement and their own judgments. They also ought to consider more about the people’s opinion when the conflictions really occur in the case. Only in that way can the government serve the masses in the reciprocal manner and deserve the legitimate power which the common people offered to them.
第一段我觉得和topic不是很符合吧。有些地方写得有点让人搞不清楚。我觉得有些想法展开得不错。但是整个文章的结构比较散，点与点之间联系不够
页:
[1]
2