issue48我的第一篇一休，不怕笑话。

AlexandraUID: 185174

我的第一篇 ISSUE 终于弄出来了，希望大家狠狠地拍，别给我面子。 谢谢。

题目：
（48 ）  "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."



提纲：
（1） 历史研究确实太过于强调个人的影响。
（2）历史不是有famous few ，也不是有groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten 创造的，历史不是有人的意识去创造的。

正文：

I fundamentally agree with the author’s first contention. As the author’s indicate, the study of history described more achievements of the famous few who were movers and shakers in history. However, I strongly disagree with the second contention that most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the key figures, but by groups of nameless and faceless people.

In the first place, history books involved emphasizing achievements of the specific individuals and placed them on a high position as thinking that they advanced the course of history. Admittedly, pointing out the specific individuals in history conduce to educate students. Such as appreciating the individuals' specific characters and using them as role models. Moreover, the specific figures also help students to study history and remember the significant events. Nevertheless, placing too much emphasis on specific figures can result in students ignoring the effects made by a myriad of people in the course of history. For example, George Washington, American military, is often memorialized as a hero leading the American people through the Revolution War against Britain. Emphasizing Washington as a prominent figure fails to acknowledge the importance of officer and soldiers who were integral in the Revolution War, and to ignore the power of thousands of the American people.

Secondly, although the specific figures in deed played a prominent roles in shaping the history and actions of the masses of people in history whose identities have long been possible forgotten also should be acknowledged, no one can make history. Individuals cannot influence society or history by their
will or characters, neither can groups. Only at a certain moment which historical conditions were ripe for, do individuals obtain the opportunities of playing a central role to shake a sufficient number of people with a level of consciousness and organization to transform the social relations. Take Mao zedong of china for instance. He was a grand leader of China and played an important figure in the Nationality Revolution Chinese. Had there been no Mao zedong, another figure would have played the same role, for historical conditions in that certain period of China wanted a "Mao zedong". As the Bismarck said, "We cannot make history, we must wait while it is being made."

To sum up, owing to the analyses above, the study of history does treat the famous few as leading actor in historical change.
In addition, in spite the second contention the author claims above is not entirely without support, I think actions and ideas by groups or individuals cannot affect the outcome of history. Hence nobody can make history.

AlexandraUID: 185174

字数是 439吧

czzbUID: 208982

I fundamentally agree with the author’s first contention. As the author’s indicate, the study of history described more achievements of the famous few who were movers and shakers in history. However, I strongly disagree with the second contention that most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the key figures, but by groups of nameless and faceless people.[ I strongly disagree with the second contention. In my view…………….]

In the first place, history books involved emphasizing achievements of the specific individuals and placed them on a high position as thinking that they advanced the course of history[played a pivot/paramount role in the progress of the history]. Admittedly, pointing out the specific individuals in history conduce to educate students. Such as appreciating the individuals' specific characters and using them as role models. Moreover, the specific figures also help students to study history and remember the significant events. Nevertheless, placing too much emphasis on specific figures can result in students ignoring the effects made by a myriad of people in the course of history. For example, George Washington, American military, is often memorialized as a hero leading the American people through the Revolution War against Britain. Emphasizing Washington as a prominent figure fails to acknowledge the importance of officer [officers]and soldiers who were integral[?这个词可以这样用吗] in the Revolution War, and to ignore[这个好像是和fail接的，意思反了] the power of[tens of ] thousands of the American people.

Secondly, although the specific figures in deed played a prominent roles in shaping the history and actions of the masses of people in history whose identities have long been possible forgotten[？？？] also should be acknowledged, no one can make history. Individuals cannot influence society or history by their
will or characters, neither can groups. Only at a certain moment which historical conditions were ripe for, do individuals obtain the opportunities of playing a central role to shake a sufficient number of people with a level of consciousness and organization to transform the social relations. Take Mao zedong of china for instance. He was a grand leader of China and played an important figure in the Nationality Revolution Chinese. Had there been no Mao zedong, another figure would have played the same role, for historical conditions in that certain period of China wanted a "Mao zedong". As the Bismarck said, "We cannot make history, we must wait while it is being made."

To sum up, owing to the analyses above, the study of history does treat the famous few as leading actor in historical change.
In addition, in spite the second contention the author claims above is not entirely without support, I think actions and ideas by groups or individuals cannot affect the outcome of history. Hence nobody can make history.

嗯。。。语言方面呢 我觉得你词汇量很大 这点我很佩服 但是运用起来不是特别成熟（个人看法） 可能还需要精雕细琢

结构上 在开头段， 你把题目的两句话完全拆开了，这种写法当然是可以的 我觉得你对第二个论述没有很充分 为什么大众也不能创造历史 那么到底什么made history?没有说得太清楚 可能是限时的原因？

in my view, the most important single criteria for a high-scored issue is to revael      that you have understood the complexity of the issue in question. 也就是说你只是说我的reason123是不够的 单单采取中间路线是不够的 重要的是你要能展现出你理解了正反双方的观点 不论你采取什么 都要自圆其说 有立有驳 这样才能得高分

我也刚刚上手，很多不成熟的意见 一起加油哦！

d_messiahUID: 177468

I fundamentally agree with the author’s first contention. As the author’s indicate, the study of history described more achievements of the famous few who were movers and shakers in history. However, I strongly disagree with the second contention that most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the key figures, but by groups of nameless and faceless people.

In the first place, history books involved emphasizing achievements of the specific individuals and placed them on a high position as thinking that they advanced the course of history读起来有些上不来气，加适当的标点是否会更好？ . Admittedly, pointing out the specific individuals in history conduce to educate students. Such 直接和前面接上得了as appreciating the individuals' specific characters and using them as role models. Moreover, the specific figures also help students to study history and remember the significant events. Nevertheless, placing too much emphasis on specific figures can result in students ignoring the effects made by a myriad of people in the course of history. For example, George Washington, American military, is often memorialized as a hero leading the American people through the Revolution War against Britain. Emphasizing Washington as a prominent figure fails to acknowledge the importance of officer and soldiers who were integral in the Revolution War, and to ignore the power of thousands of the American people 美国人.觉得华盛顿的例子似乎不太合适，在美国人面前谈强调华盛顿的不好，似乎有点......，你自己斟酌吧，个人意见

Secondly, although the specific figures in deed played a prominent roles in shaping the history and actions of the masses of people in history whose identities have long been possible forgotten also should be acknowledged, no one can make history还是读着不顺，建议适当加些标点 . Individuals cannot influence society or history by their
will or characters, neither can groups. Only at a certain moment which historical conditions were ripe for, do individuals obtain the opportunities of playing a central role to shake a sufficient number of people with a level of consciousness and organization to transform the social relations. Take Mao zedong of china for instance. He was a grand leader of China and played an important figure in the Nationality Revolution Chinese. Had there been no Mao zedong, another figure would have played the same role, for historical conditions in that certain period of China wanted a "Mao zedong". As the Bismarck said, "We cannot make history, we must wait while it is being made."这段话你想说历史的发展是必然吗？哪个英雄站出来都是历史的必然？我总觉得这个观点和题目的不是很回应，题目是想说在研究历史时过多地强调了个人，而很大一部分的成绩的取得是一些人共同的结果。自己也有些晕了，一会儿再看看

To sum up, owing to the analyses above, the study of history does treat the famous few as leading actor in historical change.
In addition, in spite the second contention the author claims above is not entirely without support, I think actions and ideas by groups or individuals cannot affect the outcome of history. Hence nobody can make history.

AlexandraUID: 185174

回czzb：
            你好，先谢谢 你看我的文章。我以后会去看你的所有文章（如果我发现的话）。 对与你说的 “integral[?这个词可以这样用吗] ”，我看了，我认为可以这样用。
   还有“ignore[这个好像是和fail接的，意思反了] ”，为什么啊？？  我的意思是，遗忘了 群众的作用。 是我没有表达出来吗？  
你后面说的 那几点，我很同意。接受。  谢谢你对我的帮助！！！！


     补充一下，你以后改作文，用上颜色吧，不然，很难看到你的修改。知道怎么用吗？？ 不知道QQ里留言，教你。


回d_messiah ：
                           也很谢谢你哦，好校友哦。我很佩服你对逻辑问题的看法啊。 谢谢！！！！1

AlexandraUID: 185174

我自己也很没有把握，在美国人面前说 他们心目中的大英雄的不是？？