第一次写issue70~求拍，狠狠地拍…还有4天上战场

碎碎syUID: 2784070

TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
WORDS: 515          TIME: 00:45:00        

The speaker asserts that the leader in any field should give their power to the successor and this is the surest path to success. I agree with the speaker insofar as the power of the enterprise can't also stay in one's hand, but the statement is too extreme in two respects.
Firstly, I'm inclined to support the contention that the new leader for an enterprise is necessary. For example, in a company, changing a leader may bring new ways to solve the problems and help the company to go through the difficulties. The new one will show his full energy and intelligence to the company while the former one can't give the company new ideas. On the contrary, if the leader keeps his power for a long time, he may lost himself and refuse listening to other's, "I'm the empire, everyone should obey my words" will be what he keeps in mind. If the leader may step down the power, others will keep this in mind: It's my chance, if I work harder and then I'll get this job. So this system encourages the staffs and contributes to the morale.
Secondly, the speaker definition the time limit in this system in 5 years. Actually, it depends. For example, during the World War II, the president of America, Roosevelt, who became the president in 1933 and broke the rule that the president should step down after 8 years. However, this situation was acceptable, the America need him and if the president changed during that urgent situation, the politics might change and this would also effect on the international relationship, even the result of the war. (The successor of Roosevelt, Truman didn’t like Soviet and couldn't be nice to Stalin, this would totally destroyed the allies)
Thirdly, the speaker contends that this system worked in all the profession and it's the surest path to success. As far as I am concerned, there are some fields don't need to change the leader frequently, such as a university. Take Stanford University for instant, Professor Sterling was the fifth president of the university and he became to take this job in 1949 and has been on the position for 19 years. During his period, Stanford University developed quickly by lot of money raised by Professor Sterling and many projects he put forward. Moreover, there are some ways can promote the enterprise, and they are more essential than the revitalization through new leadership. Such as the quantity of the products, keep sincerity to the consumer and as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The vital path for the enterprise varied from different fields.
In sum, from what has been mentioned above, the allegation has considerable merit, those in power should step down and turn it to the revitalization, but there are some other important things should be took into account: the background, the time limit, the distinctions between different professions, the other significant ways to success and so on. In a word, the speaker put forward an uncompleted method and it need consummate.

谢谢大侠们了……

碎碎syUID: 2784070

我知道有很多语法错误还有单词用错地方，但是哎……自己不知道怎么改

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

The speaker asserts that the leader in any field should give their power to the successor and this is the surest path to success. I agree with the speaker insofar as the power of the enterprise can't also stay in one's hand, but the statement is too extreme in two respects.

Firstly, I'm inclined to support the contention that the new leader for an enterprise is necessary. For example, in a company, changing a leader may bring new ways to solve the problems and help the company to go through the difficulties. The new one will show his full energy and intelligence to the company while the former one can't give the company new ideas. On the contrary, if the leader keeps his power for a long time, he may lost himself and refuse listening to other's(others’ suggestion?), "I'm the empire, everyone should obey my words" will be what he keeps in mind( in his mind…这句话有点chi-glish的感觉，或者说，because he believe that “……”). (Furthermore)If the leader may step down the power, others will keep this in mind: It's my chance, if I work harder and then I'll get this job. So this system encourages the staffs（staff） and contributes to the morale.(这个观点不错啦，不过说的有点不得要点，是不是可以说成 leader-changing offers a chance to all the staff, it may encourage them working harder in order to gain the position. So, they will make more contributions to the company. 我只是举个例子，差不多就是这个意思，如果没理解错误的话。By the way, staff是全体员工，像people一样，木有加s一说，还有encourage本身就有鼓励的意思，两个有些重复了，如果非要用鼓舞士气的话用enhance要好过contribute)

Secondly, the speaker definition the time limit in this system in 5 years. Actually, it depends（？没啦？没明白这个意思）. For example, during the World War II, the president of America, Roosevelt, who became the president in 1933 and broke the rule that the president should step down after 8 years. However, this situation was acceptable, the America need him and if the president changed during that urgent situation, the politics might change and this would also effect（effect是vt，你是不是想说have effect on, effect 做动词的时候有实现、招致的意思，如果说影响是affect） on the international relationship, even the result of the war.（这一句没看懂） (The successor of Roosevelt, Truman didn’t like Soviet and couldn't be nice to Stalin, this would totally destroyed the allies)(这一句可以不用~跟上文也没什么联系。如果非要说来解释的话，并不取决于个人喜好，这么解释未免偏颇，斯大林也不是完全没责任，冷战他占很大因素)

Thirdly, the speaker contends that this system worked in all the profession and it's the surest path to success. As far as I am concerned, there are some fields don't need to change the leader frequently, such as a university（如果说fields 的话，个人觉得这里用education是不是更合适？这个我拿不准啦）. Take Stanford University for instant, Professor Sterling was the fifth president of the university and he became to take this job in 1949 and has been on the position for 19 years. During his period, Stanford University developed quickly by lot of money raised by Professor Sterling and many projects he put forward. Moreover, there are some ways can promote the enterprise, and they are more essential than the revitalization through new leadership. Such as increasing quantity of the products(or improve quality?提高数量不好说，按需求定的这是), keeping sincerity to the consumer and as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address: a government of the people, by the people, for the people.（政府为人民说明了什么？focusing more on its people?） The vital path for the enterprise varied from different fields.（这句话不通吧，是不是the vital paths for promoting enterprise in different fields are varied）

In sum, from what has been mentioned above, the allegation has considerable merit, those in power should step down and turn it to the revitalization, but there are some other important things should be took into account: the background, the time limit, the distinctions between different professions, the other significant ways to success and so on. In a word, the speaker put forward an uncompleted method and it need consummate.

总结一下吧，思路是有的，观点还算清楚，一半肯定一半否定的保守路线。这个没有问题。另外强大的一点是能在限时的情况下写出这么多例子的确不容易。
However, 还是要说下缺点。
第一，
最重要的一点，这篇不像I而像A。你也有这个感觉吧？I和A的区别在于，你可以更自由地发挥你的观点，只有一个明确观点的引导就可以了。而A是建立在已给的题目上寻找错误从而反驳。你的思路没错，但是段落主题句有问题。不用强调说speaker说了什么，你开头已经说过了，下面就是develop你的观点了。比如，第二点你完全可以说虽然我认同leader应该更换，但是不是所有情况下都需要频繁更换，因为有人不需要换；第三点可以说成，换不换要分领域说的，不是所有领域都要换的。在你的开头就不用说two respects了，因为说了这句话，rater就会想，下面要说那两点了。可是你body第一段并不说的这个。完全可以用你的主题句的意思去替换，我认为speaker太绝对了，因为不一定所有情况都要频繁更换，不一定每个领域都要换。这样rater就会很清楚的知道，你要分三段写啦。
第二，
段落中的逻辑关系问题，思维太跳跃，往往损害了你的表达
。注意句子和句子之间的联系，关联词可以用啊，什么however，nevertheless, furthermore, so ,therefore, thus. 要让读者看出来，你说这句话是什么意思，指向是什么。不然，你丰富的例子不就浪费了么？比如，林肯的话是没错，你的意思应该是政府应该关心人民多于关心政权交替，那么你在那几个方面里面就可以说，公司可以提高产品质量（数量），保持诚信，政府的话关心人民生活，提高人民素质，因为什么呢，因为林肯说过。。。这样是不是好一点呢？
第三，
要说到句子了，语法错误还是有的，一些细节问题需要注意下。鉴于你的时间有限，如果时间充足的话我会建议你看草木的语法帖子。让我受益匪浅。而且，免不了chi-glish啦，说出来就有点别扭。由于我的词汇量相当有限，所以也不能给你改太仔细，还请见谅。不过我有个建议，如果单词不会用，那就换简单的，避免错误。虽然有些单词看起来很高深的样子，如果用错，反而得不偿失。
我还有两天要考试了，限时还没有成功，你应该觉得有信心，比我强多了不是么？接下来的几天就是集中练习，继续修正。加油吧，相信你：）

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

第一次写issue70~求拍，狠狠地拍…还有4天上战场
TOPIC: ISSUE70 - "In any profession-business, politics, education, government-those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."
WORDS: 515          TIME: 00:45:00        

The speaker asserts that the leader in any field should give their power to the successor and this is the surest path to success. I agree with the speaker insofar as the power of the enterprise can't also stay in one's hand, but the statement is too extreme in two respects.

Firstly, I'm inclined to support the contention that the new leader for an enterprise is necessary. For example, in a company, changing a leader may bring new ways to solve the problems and help the company to go through the difficulties. The new one will show his full energy and intelligence to the company while the former one can't give the company new ideas. On the contrary, if the leader keeps his power for a long time, he may lost himself and refuse listening to other's, "I'm the empire, everyone should obey my words" will be what he keeps in mind. If the leader may step down the power, others will keep this in mind: It's my chance, if I work harder and then I'll get this job. So this system encourages the staffs and contributes to the morale.

Secondly, the speaker definition the time limit in this system in 5 years. Actually, it depends. For example, during the World War II, the president of America, Roosevelt, who became the president in 1933 and broke the rule that the president should step down after 8 years. However, this situation was acceptable, the America need him and if the president changed during that urgent situation, the politics might change and this would also effect on the international relationship, even the result of the war. (The successor of Roosevelt, Truman didn’t like Soviet and couldn't be nice to Stalin, this would totally destroyed the allies)

Thirdly, the speaker contends that this system worked in all the profession and it's the surest path to success. As far as I am concerned, there are some fields don't need to change the leader frequently, such as a university. Take Stanford University for instant, Professor Sterling was the fifth president of the university and he became to take this job in 1949 and has been on the position for 19 years. During his period, Stanford University developed quickly by lot of money raised by Professor Sterling and many projects he put forward. Moreover, there are some ways can promote the enterprise, and they are more essential than the revitalization through new leadership. Such as the quantity of the products, keep sincerity to the consumer and as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address: a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The vital path for the enterprise varied from different fields.

In sum, from what has been mentioned above, the allegation has considerable merit, those in power should step down and turn it to the revitalization, but there are some other important things should be took into account: the background, the time limit, the distinctions between different professions, the other significant ways to success and so on. In a word, the speaker put forward an uncompleted method and it need (to be) consummate.

谢谢大侠们了……

有argument的味道。看了小九的修改，我觉得像A不是不可以。本来是对议题的表述持自己的观点。问题是，重点是你的自己的观点受制于整个议题，零碎缺乏整体感，没主线。这就是她所谓的段落间的逻辑关系了。
对于thirdly的这一点我比较没有想通。个人觉得这一点是比较难以反驳的。而你university的例子没有说服我。
另，New leadership 的部分可以用事实说话，但是你忽略了一个前提，new leader的产生是因为公司出现危机陷入困境或者迟迟没有起色而需要的。这个在金融危机的大背景下有很多例子可以举。
改革的原因是现状的不善。假如一个leader，如你所举的Stanford university’s president的例子，做得好好的，还很有成就有替换的必要吗？这点我建议你思考清楚，也许可以作为你逻辑链的一段。

加油！祝顺利！

littlepeng3UID: 2193339

:)