ISSUE19 越写越晕， 恳请大家指教
19"If a society is to thrive, it must put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens."Should a society put its own overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens if it is to thrive, as the speaker asserts? I disagree with the speaker. In my view, a truly prosperous society lies in the well-being of its individual citizens.
When it comes to the thrift of a society, such questions almost invariantly stream into our heads: What is its economic status in the world? Or is it advanced in science? Or has it flourishing art? In fact, people have become accustomed to use such gauges to assess the prosperity of a society, which lead to various index to compare the relative thrift of societies, such as: comprehensive ability, the economic capacity, and scientific level. Admittedly, such kind of evaluation in some way reflects the prosperity of a society. However, if a society puts too much emphasis on such index which signifies the overall success of a society, the government will tend to make such decisions which help improve the society’s total economic, scientific and artistic level so as to boast itself, regardless of the true need of the society, and therefore ignore the real necessity of its people. Accordingly, such overall success is only a kind of ostentatious palm and cannot signify the real boom of that society. For example, can we label a country a thrived one when most of its citizens are suffering from hunger even if the country’s overall revenue is very high? Similarly, is it justifiable for a country to dump money into luxury opera or plush museum in order to flourish its art, with many young children having no opportunity to receive fundamental education? If a nation invests large sums of money to develop the most advanced science in order to elevate its scientific identity in the word, while most of its farmers are harrowing and planting with the most primitive tool, can we say science is booming in that nation? In short, if a society puts its overall success before the well-being of its individual citizens, it is very likely to purse such superfluous prosperity which has no concrete advantage to its average citizen.
In fact, if a society ignores its citizen's well-being, the stability of the society will be threatened, let alone its thrift. After all, a society is constituted by individual citizens, who are the fundamental force for the existence and development of the society. History tells us that if a society has no considering for its citizens, it will eventually bring harm to itself. For example, the Soviet Government spent so much money on the research of advanced military weapons and gave no consideration to its people who were inflicting the shortage of basic necessities. Although Soviet attained great success on its research and became a most advanced scientific country, it ended up disbanding, and one main reason is that its citizens’ well-being is not insured by the government.
Moreover, a society's ultimate power of development stems from its citizens. Therefore, the premise of a society’s prosperity is the satisfaction of its citizens’ demands. In other words, if only a citizen’s own well-being is fulfilled, will he be inclined to devote himself to the society. Admittedly, there are indeed some paragons who are willing to sacrifice their own interest for the large good, and they deserve our respect. However, for a common people, generally, self-interest is the most important. And once their self-interest are met, it is very likely they are willing to contribute the overall success of the society. This can be explained by Abraham H. Maslow’s demands theory, in which Maslow divides people's needs to five stages: physical, safety, love, respect and self-realization. And we can define existence, safety as citizen's well-being and regard self-realization as the disposition that people devote themselves for society. According to Maslow's theory, we can see that only when people's lower demands are met, can they purse their higher demands. Thus if a society is to thrive, it must meet their needs first.
In sum, if a society is to thrive, it must put its citizens' wellbeing before its overall success, otherwise, its existence and development cannot be realized. 应该是和原来相比进步了一大块。提几个问题：第一body，However, if a society puts too much emphasis on such index which signifies the overall success of a society, the government will tend to make such decisions which help improve the society’s total economic, scientific and artistic level so as to boast itself, regardless of the true need of the society, and therefore ignore the real necessity of its people. 这一块儿你采取的写法是先论述，然后下一段用soviet的例子。但是我感觉前面这样论述不够有力，似乎有一种自顾自的感觉，有false assumption的嫌疑。如果首先用实例（注意，是“实”例）consolidate你的assumption，然后在下一段追击一下，我觉得这样的调整对全局会有帮助。
Moreover, a society's ultimate power of development stems from its citizens. Therefore, the premise of a society’s prosperity is the satisfaction of its citizens’ demands. Body3的这个开头比较犯忌讳。第一句的TS压根儿还没论证立刻一个Therefore，如果你的TS作为assumption是错的怎么办？前面的TS并不是common sense，这时候用Therefore并不好，先把assumption证明了再说。哪怕是写成一句话Since...., ....，逃避掉论证，都比现在分开的写法要好。（当然逃避论证的结果我可说不好）
Society's thrift？这个用法没见过。我没法确定，自己求证一下吧。
进步很不小。加油吧。 首先感谢imong的修改和鼓励 :) 。事实上，这篇文章在写到后来的时候，我都不知道自己在写什么了。什么马斯洛啊， 都是写之前没有想到的，写的时候不知道怎么蹦出来的。写完后， 又对自己丧失信心了， 一气之下， 扎进被窝，一觉睡到11点，起来看到imong 的修改与鼓励，信心辈增！
引： 这一块儿你采取的写法是先论述，然后下一段用soviet的例子。但是我感觉前面这样论述不够有力，似乎有一种自顾自的感觉，有false assumption的嫌疑。如果首先用实例（注意，是“实”例）consolidate你的assumption，然后在下一段追击一下，我觉得这样的调整对全局会有帮助。
我的想法是先在第二段指出put emphasis on overall sucess 的危害，然后第三段立论：社会的稳定需要个人的福利得到满足， 然后第四段进一步说社会的发展也需要首先满足个人福利。
第二段是否一定要用实例呢？ 我的三个一般范围内的反问是否不够有力？
引：Moreover, a society's ultimate power of development stems from its citizens. Therefore, the premise of a society’s prosperity is the satisfaction of its citizens’ demands. Body3的这个开头比较犯忌讳。第一句的TS压根儿还没论证立刻一个Therefore，如果你的TS作为assumption是错的怎么办？前面的TS并不是common sense，这时候用Therefore并不好，先把assumption证明了再说。哪怕是写成一句话Since...., ....，逃避掉论证，都比现在分开的写法要好。（当然逃避论证的结果我可说不好）
我把主题句合并成为： Moreover, a society's ultimate power of development stems from its citizens. and the premise of a society’s prosperity is the satisfaction of its citizens’ demands. 是否可以？ 后面用马斯洛的理论说明可以吗？ However, if a society puts too much emphasis on such index which signifies the overall success of a society, the government will tend to make such decisions which help improve the society’s total economic, scientific and artistic level so as to boast itself, regardless of the true need of the society, and therefore ignore the real necessity of its people. Accordingly, such overall success is only a kind of ostentatious palm and cannot signify the real boom of that society.
问题在于后面三个反问都是基于你的预设：这种情况确实存在。如果不存在呢？那就是先虚拟一个assumption然后推出错误的结论。因此我认为这里需要很有力的例子。而且However这里已经连续作了几步推论都还没有支持，基本上是论点接论点了。
我对Maslow不熟悉。
页:
[1]