- 最后登录
- 2021-2-22
- 在线时间
- 4673 小时
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 声望
- 762
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 907
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 6161
- UID
- 2565872
- 声望
- 762
- 寄托币
- 12296
- 注册时间
- 2008-10-30
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 907
|
吸收阳光 发表于 2012-10-11 19:28
10.10 topic:宽度和广度
10.11 topic:互联网
10.13 topic:社会 (没能限时完成)
10.24 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The most important characteristic for politics is to accept responsibility for mistake. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
(The question isn't completely grammatical – 'responsibility for mistakeS', for example – and I suspect it would have been 'politicians' rather than 'politics'. But I'm not going to be picky.)
Politics, as the top building (Have you ever thought about what exactly 'top building' means? Does it mean the tallest building, literally or figuratively? Does it mean the building of the best quality? Does it mean the building/construction where the most powerful people live?) of the human society, reflects the conditions of human development in most aspects. In the democratic society, people are more tolerant to those who make mistakes. There is a saying that the most important characteristic for politics is to accept responsibility for mistakes. Personally speaking, I cast doubt on the statement about the most important characteristic. There are many other politics issues that should be paid attention on.
Admittedly, we have to acknowledge the reality that no one could make no mistakes (This is grammatical in many varieties of English, most famously the American Vernacular, but it's NOT grammatical in what is generally accepted as standard English. I know what you want to say – in Chinese it's perfectly acceptable – but in proper written English you have to say 'no one could not make any mistake (at all)', but even this is very tedious, so I'd suggest you to avoid fancy things like double negation altogether. A simple 'everyone errs sometimes' would do.), even the people involved in politics. Even though people make mistakes in political issues, for example, a terrible policy leading to the depression of local economy or a rising criminal rate (This is not a complete sentence. Everything following 'even though' is one clause – the 'for example' bit cannot be a separate clause because it supports the 'even though' part instead of contradicting it. 'Even though' signals a contradiction in meaning, that a 'but' is going to follow – 'even though the weather forecast says rain, (so the logical thing to do is to stay in, but) we still plan to go out' – so if your sentence with 'even though' didn't have a 'but' in meaning, it's not a complete sentence.). If the governors could stand up and accept the responsibility of the mistakes, with the effective actions they takes the bad situation would turn better. Meanwhile, the public could trust their officers and governors as well.
Acceptation for the responsibility of mistakes is great and awesome. Nevertheless, it is just an idea about the things which have happened. The more crucial things we should focus on are how we could prevent the happening of mistakes. That is the purpose of our society's development in aspects like the political rules, the limitation of rights, and the operation mode of society. We nowadays have a more effective and cleaner government with a l ess rate of making mistakes, which owes to the progress of politics design.(I don't see how this whole paragraph is relevant at all. It doesn't seem to directly support 'accepting responsibility for mistakes is not the most important characteristic'. Always keep in mind what the ultimate answer you're to give is, and remember to come back to it. You can even see this gap in your outline written in Chinese – you plan to talk about良好的政治制度,社会模式, but how exactly is this relevant to 承担犯错的责任 or 尽可能的避免错误的发生??)
Furthermore, even though people are willing to accept the responsibility for mistakes, there are varieties of complicated conditions that the dealers could not make with the results (I'm not really sure what this means. 'Dealers' are NOT people who generally just deal with things, and dealers don't 'make conditions' 'with the results' anyway..). Take the leaking of the oil in the ocean as an example. The oil company chose to hide the facts of oil leaking instead of taking actions to repair the leakage when they found the accident at the first time. Since they made mistakes by delaying the repairing works, the situation of oil leaking becomes increasingly worse. If only they could do the right things, regardless of the frame of companies or other slightly factors (Not quite understanding this either.), choosing to repairing the leakage at once. Things would get better. The company, the fish famers and even the ocean environment would not suffer such a great loss.(Again, I don't see how this example is relevant. You talked about a mistake but you didn't talk about whether the company, in your opinion, did take responsibility for the matter, or not, or somewhere in between. In generally, there's very little in your description of an example that can make a reader relate to the question/issue at hand – it's not enough to just throw in an example. You need to show how this example is relevant, either by use of language, or explicit statements. An explicitly argued example would go roughly like this: 'My point is that A causes B. My example is that C happens, then D. C is an example of A, and D is an example of B, therefore this example proves my point.')
From what we discussed above, we could conclude that people should stress more on the prevention of mistakes instead of dealing with the result for mistakes, which could mostly solve the problem about political issues originally.
总结:
你的表意很有些不清楚的地方,请注意避免翻译的倾向。。另外就是光说道理的时候还好,但是举例子阐述道理的时候就没有把例子和论点的联系很明确地摆出来,基本属于为举例而举例论述。。
|
|