issue43~感觉写的不好，求猛拍~~

juvleoUID: 2738018

TOPIC: ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
WORDS: 633          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/3/23 21:31:54
Does a leader have to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards to be an effective leader, as the statement suggests? Admittedly, it is crucial and essential for a leader to follow the ethical and moral rules of the society or else he would not be surpported by the people. However, I fundamentally disagree with the statement since it is not necessary and realistic to require the leaders to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.
First and foremost, there is no denying the fact that it is essential for public officials to follow the normally accepted moral and ethical standards of the society. Only by obeying these rules themselves can their decisions fit the common ideology and therefore be accepted by the public. Immoral leaders might be able to win surpport from the public in the short term, but once the public realize that they have been cheated, the immoral leaders will soon be abandoned. Our history abounds in examples that could demonstrate this point. Nixon became the first president in American history who ended up by impeachment, as a result of the world-famous Watergate scandal; Bill Clinton almost ended his career disgracefully, when his sexeual  relationship with Monica was discovered and shown to the public; Sadam Hussein once had a surpporting rate of one hundred percent when he was in power, but once the American Army arrived, no one was willing to sacrifice his life for him due to his long-time immorally monoarchy in Iraq. All these examples reveal that the public won't accept a leader who can not fit the ethical and moral rules of the society, thus neither can his leadership be effective.
Despite the fact that it is essential for our leaders to follow the rules on the common standard with issues related to ethic and morality, however, I am not with the statement on the point that it requires leaders to maintain the highest standard and also because it neglects other important aspects to be an effective leader.
In the first place, it is not clear with definition of the statement "highest ethical and moral standards". As we all know, the world today is a world of diversity and tolerates different cultures, opinions and ideology. What is treasured in one country might be thought as a sign of insulting or illiterate in other areas. So there are no specific rules that are accepted world wildly as highest, thus we cannot require leaders to fit rules that does not exist. What's more, even if we take ethics such as honest as "good ethics" that are commonly believed, neither can we require leaders to obey them all the time. An apt illustration of this point involves SARS. In retrospect, during the disease the infection was so severe that the government had to cut the number of infection that is report to the public to avoid nationwide panic, and in fact, these policies had positive effects on the long-term efforts for fighting against the disease.
In the second place, whether maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards or not should not be regarded as the only standard of evaluating the effectiveness of the leadership of a leader. Some of the decisions that seem immoral are made under a consideration in the whole perspective, such as Truman dropped two atom bombs in Janpan and caused millions of deaths of innocent people, simultaneously, it directly led to the end of the war. Furthermore, some leaders might make mistakes and these mistakes should not be magnified. For example, we shouldn't neglect the great efforts of Bill Clinton because of his sexual scandal.
From the analysis above, I deem it crucial and essential for leaders to follow the moral and ethical standards of the society, but I fundamentally disagree with the statement because it overstates its importance.

plukaUID: 2721764

Does a leader have to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards to be an effective leader, as the statement suggests?（话说，这个开头很眼熟= =） Admittedly, it is crucial and essential for a leader to follow the ethical and moral rules of the society or else（otherwise） he would not be surpported by the people. However, I fundamentally disagree with the statement since it is not necessary and realistic to require the leaders to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.（建议强调一下highest，以跟前一句支持服从道德的观点更明显地区别开）


First and foremost, there is no denying the fact that it is essential for public officials to follow the normally accepted moral and ethical standards of the society. Only by obeying these rules themselves can their decisions fit the common ideology and therefore be accepted by the public. Immoral leaders might be able to win surpport from the public in the short term, but once the public realize that they have been cheated, the immoral leaders will soon be abandoned. Our history abounds in examples that could demonstrate this point. Nixon became the first president in American history who ended up by impeachment, as a result of the world-famous Watergate scandal; Bill Clinton almost ended his career disgracefully, when his sexeual  relationship with Monica was discovered and shown to the public; Sadam Hussein once had a surpporting rate of one hundred percent when he was in power, but once the American Army arrived, no one was willing to sacrifice his life for him due to his long-time immorally monoarchy in Iraq（例子简洁明了，不错）. All these examples reveal that the public won't accept a leader who can not fit the ethical and moral rules of the society, thus neither can his leadership be effective.（发展得不错~）

Despite the fact that it is essential for our leaders to follow the rules on the common standard with issues related to ethic and morality, however, I am not with the statement on the point that it requires leaders to maintain the highest standard and also（删） because it neglects other important aspects to be an effective leader.（个人觉得这种“想证此非主要，就证还有其他主要因素”的方法有些不对劲。要证明highest moral level非必需，可以讨论为啥非必需，如果没有这个是否还能过，有了这个是否有坏处云云。但是直接转移视线说还有别的很重要，有些奇怪。就好像一个人说“维生素不可缺少”，另一个人反驳曰“蛋白质很重要”——俩人讨论的不是一件事情，没法驳倒）


In the first place, it is not clear with definition of the statement "highest ethical and moral standards". （根据上面过渡段的暗示，俺本以为下文会开始讨论other important aspects，结果又绕回道德。这两段中的衔接还可以考虑下）As we all know, the world today is a world of diversity and tolerates different cultures, opinions and ideology. What is treasured in one country might be thought as a sign of insulting or illiterate in other areas. So there are no specific rules that are accepted world wildly（world-widely） as highest, thus we cannot require leaders to fit rules that does not exist.（私以为把范围扩大到世界层面不妥。leader领导的是国家，或者地区，不是世界；他们的支持来自本地民众，于是只要符合的道德准则能够为本地人所接受所支持就差不多了吧）（何必非要说各个国家跟地区的道德差异咧，同一地区不同阶层就有很多差异看法了） What's more, even if we take ethics such as honest as "good ethics" that are commonly believed, neither（nor） can we require leaders to obey them all the time.（加点分析和解释更好。为啥此类morality不合适？可加于此，或例子末尾） An apt illustration of this point involves SARS. In retrospect, during the disease the infection was so severe that the government had to cut the number of infection that is report to the public to avoid nationwide panic, and in fact, these policies had positive effects on the long-term efforts for fighting against the disease.（TS只提到最高道德这一定义的模糊性，但what's more实际是一个新观点。建议修改TS把它包括进去）

In the second place, whether maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards or not should not be regarded as the only standard of evaluating the effectiveness of the leadership of a leader. （同过渡段后俺说的，指出“最高道德并非唯一标准”不能证明“最高道德并非必要”——人家可以理解为它很必要但是不唯一嘛。想驳“必要”，还是需要釜底抽薪直面题目）Some of the decisions that seem immoral are made under a consideration in the whole perspective, （这个观点想说明啥？跟TS联系得不好。TS曰，最高道德非唯一，于是下面读者会期盼解释为啥非唯一，或者还有哪些因素云云。这里猛然出来一个“某些非道德抉择也是情有可原的”，有点硌）such as Truman dropped two atom bombs in Janpan and caused millions of deaths of innocent people, simultaneously, it directly led to the end of the war（突出重点。突出“结束战争”。上让步句）. Furthermore, some leaders might make mistakes and these mistakes should not be magnified（句意不够清晰）. For example, we shouldn't neglect the great efforts of Bill Clinton because of his sexual scandal.（回头看过渡段。明明白白写着“because it neglects other important aspects to be an effective leader.”，这不是明显地暗示读者会讨论other important aspects么？然而下文还是绕着道德转圈，没能实现读者的这个期待，可惜了。）


From the analysis above, I deem it crucial and essential for leaders to follow the moral and ethical standards of the society, but I fundamentally disagree with the statement because it overstates its importance.
首先，语言不错，除了偶尔有些不顺之外大体很流畅。但是思路稍微绕了一点，可惜没能釜底抽薪地解决题目。论证方面例子不错了，能多一些分析和解释更好。

以上，加油~

plukaUID: 2721764

对了。such as不能接句子：such as Truman dropped two atom bombs in Janpan and caused millions of deaths of innocent people, simultaneously, it directly led to the end of the war。换用for example。

juvleoUID: 2738018

2# pluka

Pluka果真是高手，点的非常犀利透彻，受教了！

Does a leader have to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards to be an effective leader, as the statement suggests?（话说，这个开头很眼熟= =） Admittedly, it is crucial and essential for a leader to follow the ethical and moral rules of the society or else（otherwise） he would not be surpported by the people. However, I fundamentally disagree with the statement since it is not necessary and realistic to require the leaders to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.（建议强调一下highest，以跟前一句支持服从道德的观点更明显地区别开）
对啊，这个开头是比较老土，是西卡鲁推荐的写法。。我正在尝试修改。。


First and foremost, there is no denying the fact that it is essential for public officials to follow the normally accepted moral and ethical standards of the society. Only by obeying these rules themselves can their decisions fit the common ideology and therefore be accepted by the public. Immoral leaders might be able to win surpport from the public in the short term, but once the public realize that they have been cheated, the immoral leaders will soon be abandoned. Our history abounds in examples that could demonstrate this point. Nixon became the first president in American history who ended up by impeachment, as a result of the world-famous Watergate scandal; Bill Clinton almost ended his career disgracefully, when his sexeual  relationship with Monica was discovered and shown to the public; Sadam Hussein once had a surpporting rate of one hundred percent when he was in power, but once the American Army arrived, no one was willing to sacrifice his life for him due to his long-time immorally monoarchy in Iraq（例子简洁明了，不错）. All these examples reveal that the public won't accept a leader who can not fit the ethical and moral rules of the society, thus neither can his leadership be effective.（发展得不错~）
前面时间还比较充裕写的比较细，所以错误少点，写完一段还能小总结一下，呵呵~


Despite the fact that it is essential for our leaders to follow the rules on the common standard with issues related to ethic and morality, however, I am not with the statement on the point that it requires leaders to maintain the 【“highest”】 standard and also（删） because it neglects other important aspects to be an effective leader.【because on one hand the standard of "highest" is not clear, on the other hand, it not not necessary to require leaders to maintain the highest standard morally and ethically.】（个人觉得这种“想证此非主要，就证还有其他主要因素”的方法有些不对劲。要证明highest moral level非必需，可以讨论为啥非必需，如果没有这个是否还能过，有了这个是否有坏处云云。但是直接转移视线说还有别的很重要，有些奇怪。就好像一个人说“维生素不可缺少”，另一个人反驳曰“蛋白质很重要”——俩人讨论的不是一件事情，没法驳倒）Pluka你说的非常有道理，我很赞同！
可能其实吧我的意思是要当一个effective leader有时候不是必须非得遵守最高的道德规范。这个是我这个句子写的文不表义，写完以后半天不知道怎么继续往下写。


In the first place, it is not clear with definition of the statement "highest ethical and moral standards". （根据上面过渡段的暗示，俺本以为下文会开始讨论other important aspects，结果又绕回道德。这两段中的衔接还可以考虑下）【我想那个过渡段改一下应该就好了吧】As we all know, the world today is a world of diversity and tolerates different cultures, opinions and ideology. What is treasured in one country might be thought as a sign of insulting or illiterate in other areas. So there are no specific rules that are accepted world wildly（world-widely） as highest, thus we cannot require leaders to fit rules that does not exist.（私以为把范围扩大到世界层面不妥。leader领导的是国家，或者地区，不是世界；他们的支持来自本地民众，于是只要符合的道德准则能够为本地人所接受所支持就差不多了吧）（何必非要说各个国家跟地区的道德差异咧，同一地区不同阶层就有很多差异看法了）【太正确了，我怎么当时没想到呢！】 {What's more, even if we take ethics such as honest as "good ethics" that are commonly believed, neither（nor） can we require leaders to obey them all the time.（加点分析和解释更好。为啥此类morality不合适？可加于此，或例子末尾）【窃以为我后面的这个例子就是在说明为什么不能总是要求leaders always maintain them，虽然举得不太恰当，就是说SARS中政府部门可能向公众瞒报疫情人数来避免Panic，（虽然这不一定存在，但是老美应该会觉得它存在吧）这样不诚实，但确实是effective leader应该做的事吧】 An apt illustration of this point involves SARS. In retrospect, during the disease the infection was so severe that the government had to cut the number of infection that is report to the public to avoid nationwide panic, and in fact, these policies had positive effects on the long-term efforts for fighting against the disease.【我其实应该在这个SARS的例子后面总结一下，但是打字太慢没有时间了。。】（TS只提到最高道德这一定义的模糊性，但what's more实际是一个新观点。建议修改TS把它包括进去）【Pluka这点提的很好，我以后会注意的】}我知道了，以上大括号里的论点+论据应该放在下面一段，结合Truman的例子论证unnecessary，会比较有说服力。

In the second place, whether maintaining the highest ethical and moral standards or not should not be regarded as the only standard of evaluating the effectiveness of the leadership of a leader. （同过渡段后俺说的，指出“最高道德并非唯一标准”不能证明“最高道德并非必要”——人家可以理解为它很必要但是不唯一嘛。想驳“必要”，还是需要釜底抽薪直面题目）Some of the decisions that seem immoral are made under a consideration in the whole perspective, （这个观点想说明啥？跟TS联系得不好。TS曰，最高道德非唯一，于是下面读者会期盼解释为啥非唯一，或者还有哪些因素云云。这里猛然出来一个“某些非道德抉择也是情有可原的”，有点硌）【如果我这一段改为就是说某些非道德抉择也是情有可原的是不是就还好了。。】such as Truman dropped two atom bombs in Janpan and caused millions of deaths of innocent people, simultaneously, it directly led to the end of the war（突出重点。突出“结束战争”。上让步句）Good idea~~. Furthermore, some leaders might make mistakes and these mistakes should not be magnified（句意不够清晰）. For example, we shouldn't neglect the great efforts of Bill Clinton because of his sexual scandal.（回头看过渡段。明明白白写着“because it neglects other important aspects to be an effective leader.”，这不是明显地暗示读者会讨论other important aspects么？然而下文还是绕着道德转圈，没能实现读者的这个期待，可惜了。）


From the analysis above, I deem it crucial and essential for leaders to follow the moral and ethical standards of the society, but I fundamentally disagree with the statement because it overstates its importance.
首先，语言不错，除了偶尔有些不顺之外大体很流畅。但是思路稍微绕了一点，可惜没能釜底抽薪地解决题目。论证方面例子不错了，能多一些分析和解释更好。

以上，加油~

这篇文章写完以后总觉得不太对劲，看了看也不知道是什么问题，Pluka一语道破天机哈哈~~
总结一下，主要的问题出在后半部分，写作时间一紧大脑就缺氧短路了导致论点和论据根本不搭调。。其实转折后的第一段的What's more和转折后的第二段想表达的是一个意思，应该合并，当时怎么没发现，郁闷。。
同时，以后还要注意对于TS的完善和尽量加入每一段的总结和扩展，开头还需要琢磨琢磨。。

还有一点，我把这篇文章还给了一个美国友人看了看，结果他对于我的论点表示反对，他说虽然没有统一的highest 的标准，但是对于公众来说要求leaders obey highest moral standard 是没有问题的。并且引说："You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time"，他同时还对Issue153的论点表示了支持，就是那个"Students should bring a certain skepticism to whatever they study. They should question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively."的问题，美国友人说道：“The term 'a certain' which is used with the term skepticism is not intended to be nor does it mean "for sure".
In this use, a certain skepticism means some skepticism.
I would hope that you have a certain skepticism about most everything you hear or read, and this does in no way mean that you should not believe anything.
In this use it means "some but not much"
I expect this may well be the key to this paper, and what they are trying to get from you is that you understand this meaning of the word.”  我有些疑虑了，难道我们真是理解错了，那后果岂不是很严重。。全部反对行不通了。。？


我现在的写作模式是受西卡鲁的影响，全部反对，有没有哪些比较公认的题是必须得赞成的啊？

plukaUID: 2721764

俺同意那位美国友人的说法，即，公众“要求”领导人服从最高道德标准是很有理由的。不过这个要求是否能够实现，是否时刻受到重视，就值得商榷了。很多时候人们一方面期待领导人有道德，一方面又觉得只要能干好就OK管什么其他。肯尼迪啊Johnson啊啥的婚外情早曝光了，照样被认为是好总统。贝卢斯科尼的脸被打开了花儿，也有意大利人坚持认为他是心目中理想的领袖。所以其实有时那个啥道德标准也就是期待一下，在不过火的时候还是更重视（也许是潜意识地重视）能力的。
certain skeptism没错呀~写这题的时候大家也多半会考虑certain的问题来个让步的，没事。ISSUE题目里没有啥公认的必须赞成的，只有“相对而言写赞成会比较容易”的，不要被“公认”框住了，自己觉得有道理就行~