【1010G精英组】ISSUR&ARGU 习作——by Group Choice

weili0612UID: 2767606

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."

With the study of history deeply and people who get higher education paying more attention on it, we have different opinions on the study. Some think it places too much emphasis on individuals. However, others still insist on heroes who can do others can’t determine and change history and should be the leading role of the study. In my own opinion, we should focus on individuals who were so influential at that time, because the famous few are the deputies of many people in the past.
The study of history is now mostly focused on the study on famous people, which is appropriate and reasonable. In truth, the famous and important individuals can’t affect history by their own power. All what they did are under the support of their adherents, who had the same ideology. They fought together to reach their goals and the leaders who are well-known now are just members of those groups. So the individuals are the deputies and their means are not isolated but represent plenty of people during that time. For instance, Martin Luther King was a leader in American history for black people’s human rights, but it was not only he wanted to be equal with palefaces but also many Negroes who were under whites’ discrimination. The study on Martin Luther King can help us know the black’s thinking and wish well at that time. It is also not only Lincoln but also innumerable his supporters want the unification of America. So I accept that the study history place much emphasis on individuals, which can help us know and understand most of the citizens’ ideology and wishes at the time.
The study of history should focus on individuals, but the researchers should know that the individuals are deputies of most groups of people who make the history and the most significant events were made by many normal guys rather than famous few. A leader’s born is for the need of representing and guiding others. Whether who he was, his duty is just to be a symbol to those adherents and he can also be replaced by some in the team. In history, Lincoln’s death doesn’t mean the end of America’s unification and eager for peace, his supporters still fought and made America a unified and civilized country in the world. And even leaders at that serious time couldn’t make decision by him own but discuss with his supporters and achieve their destinations together. Without many staff and soldiers, a general can’t win a war. The People’s Republic of China is not only built by chairman Mao but many soldiers, farmers and scholars who believe in chairman Mao and want to see a strong and unified country. So it is definitely true that the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten have a deep influence in history rather than the famous few.
I believe that the study should place mush attention on individuals to know the most people’s ideology in the past. And the progress of history is not decided by individuals but most people who had same opinions. Even Caesar, the famous king of Ancient Roma who wanted to rule the country by himself, was murdered by groups who opposed his autarchy.

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

第七次作业   ISSUE 48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1．历史研究是不是把太多重点放在对个人的研究上了？
2．历史上最重大的事件主要是由少数个人还是群体推动的？

提纲:
1.历史研究确实把太多重点放在个人研究上了，忽略了大众。
原因：
人们对于英雄的偏好。
大众在推动运动时，会倾向于推选出一个领袖，并甘于将大部分功劳归功于他， 使得历史学家本身得到的资料就多是关于个人的。
2. 历史上最重大的事件,并不一定是由著名的个人推动的,而应该是由某些已经被遗忘了的群体推动.

这篇文真是快把我命都写没了...感觉比第一次写ARGUMENT时还痛苦... 可能是心情不好的原因吧...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When making mention of the steam engine, it seems that we can just remind James Watt; when giving a reference to the Civil Rights Movement, it seems that we just think of Martin Luther king; when referring to China's upgrowth, it seems that we can just remember Chairman Mao. It is a fact, that among the deluge of historical references, few focus on the effect of populace. Considering that some most significant events and trends in the history were made possible by the noteless masses actually, the study of history do laid too much emphasis on the individuals.

As I mentioned before, some of the historical materials seems have no thing to do with the populace. Such a fact may lies in the three respects.
First and foremost, it is human nature that made us being inclined to worship leaders that with powers, thus we are always willing to make some individuals as the symbol of some certain things, and historians are no exception. So it is natural for us to pay the most attention to those famous one. Such a trend does not just happen in History. Many writers, no matter in the past or current, are fond in writing biographies for those famous people in history, some of them even devoted their life to study all of the reference about one historical hero just to figure out why he or she could reach such a great achievement as they managed to. Secondly, the masses that put spurs to the significant historical events are always willing to being led by a leader that they are in favor of, and they also willing to give the most honor to the very leader. To them, giving the leader honor is just same as giving themselves the honor. What’s more, they prefer to attribute the most success to their leader. Such a mentality seems no reasoning, but it does exist in most masses’ mind. Accordingly, the most references reserved are mainly talked about the great achievement of those leaders, and the following historians will continue focusing on the individuals as a result. The last but not the least reason is that those individuals do play a great role in the important history events and such a contribution made them outstanding.  All of these reasons lead to the overstating of individuals.

However, the comparison of the achievements made by individuals and masses will reveal the core of the history events, which is what a research merely based on the individuals can’t matched. If we take a look at the history facts, we can find out that without the simple steam engine invented by Denis Papin and the Newcomen steam engine made by Thomas Newcomen, James Watt may never be able to invent the well-known steam engine. And without the fearless and courageous Red Army, no matter how wise and farsighted Chairman Mao was, the People’s Republic of China will never exist, nor to say the famous Long March. According to those history facts, we should not forget that populace also play an important role in the history events and this is what historians must be borne in mind when doing the research of history.

There is every indication that the current historians do pay too much attention to the individuals. Since no one can fail to recognise the importance of the history progress that made by the populace, the historians can considered taking an interest to the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

issue48by Cynthia
When reading history books, we can easily notice that the authors usually placetoo much emphasis on the key characters of historical events. However, who madeour history? Are they the famous ones we admired or just the common people weneglected? In my point of view, individuals and groups together create thehistory. Just like on a field of battle, the famous individual is the general, while（赞） the common people are thesoldiers. In order to win the battle, general's right commands and thesoldiery's heroic fighting are both of great importance.
【历史书确实在名人身上投注了太多的关注。无名的人们和那些名人一样重要】

First of all, generally speaking, it is the great man that give the mass aright direction, or promote（赞） social development. Theytend to give the society advanced ideas, which could bring about more rapidpaces of scientific as well as social development. Such as Darwin, whose epoch-making（赞） book "The Origin of Species"puts forward the theory of biological evolution, consequently destroys the viewthat all species are immutable and created by God, and helps us to understandourselves more objectively. Such discovery not only influences the field ofbiology, but also people's philosophies and so on so forth. Without such kindof great scientists , maybe our philosophy today are still backward and thescience as well as society developed much slowly.
【名人们给予了大众一个重要的方向，并且促进了发展】

Simply put,we can not deny the individual's effect towards the social development, theyare like the light in darkness, the beacon on the sea, which can give usconfidence when we are down, point us the right direction when we are lost,encourage us to keep moving forward. Without them, the social development maybe slower, and the situation of backwardness may last for a longer time.
【我们不能否认个人对于社会发展的作用】

Although the great characters contribute a lot to the social development, the power（这里是不是可以换一个说法呢？比如contribution / sacrifice） of common people should not be ignoredas well. The great ones in history only provided advanced（这里可否用另外一个词呢？比如insightful?） ideas, only when these standpoints are accepted bycommon people, can their great affect(应该是effect吧) on social development be brought out. Suppose that Darwin's" the Origin of species" did not be supported by common people, it might beforgotten by history quickly, how can its significant contribute（ion） to the world come about?
【虽然名人们对于社会发展的贡献十分巨大，普通人的贡献同样不可被忽视】

In addition, in the era of dramatic social and technological development, thesociety become more and more democratic, thus a myriad of significant policy isnot made by only a few famous people, but by all the citizens together. Forinstance, we have the right to elect so that we can determine who to be ourpresident; we are able to attend the hearing(听证会可以用audition么？) so that we can anticipatein legislation and making policies. As a result, people's voice（可否用preference呢？） has had an unprecedented importance, and thus thehistory is made by every one of us.
【另外，随着社会与科技的进步，历史将由大家共同创造】

In a word, both the famous ones and the groups of people whose identities havelong been forgotten made the significant events and trends in history, neitherof them is dispensable. We need great individuals to lead the way, and thecommon people to follow behind to fulfill the great ideas, these two are complementary toeach other. Obviously, history is created by these two kind of people together.

首先来简要说一说你文章的优点。
1副词以及连词运用的十分好
2句式变化比较丰富
然而你的文章有以下几点我觉得是需要提高的：
1词汇的问题，相信你在写作的时候也应该能感觉到对于有些词汇的重复运用了。或许通过积累同义词可以扩展你的写作词汇，which 能让你的文章更加丰富。
2文章的内容问题，虽然你中间论证部分你写了四段，但是第二论证段只是对于第一论证段的一个概括和总结，这样单独成段是否有些意义呢？就像你第四论证段式对第三论证段的一个递进，你是否可以考虑将第二论证段修改为递进呢？
3文章的中例子问题，这个问题其实是大家普遍存在的吧。文中使用的达尔文的例子确实起到了效果，但是替换为其他更有说服力的例子会使文章更加好写吧。

lxklysUID: 2738043

issue48 by lxklys

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."


History:
Individual
Group
历史的重大事件是由个人还是由群体创造的？
为什么会这样说，说团体的作用更大一些？
如果强调团体忽视个人会怎么样？
Whether we emphasize too much on individuals in the study of history? Whether the most significant events and trends in history were made by groups of people but possible not by the famous few? In my opinion, from the empirical evidences, the speaker’s statement overstates the group’s function for the history, however, dismisses the famous few.

Admittedly, with respect to the history of ancient china, the significant ones mainly mean some architecture such as the great wall, Dujiang weirs, terra-cotta army and the like. Indeed, their built depend on the painstaking labor of the groups mostly. In those ages, without the inventions of advanced tools, even some high technology such as IT, these projects base on much manpower were completed mainly by the groups’ efforts. To some extent, without the groups’ endeavors, these noticeable architectures for fortifying the frontier, helping the irrigation may just exists in somebody’s mind as an imagination, and certainly, the offspring can’t benefit from these outstanding projects, either.

While we should recognize the groups of people have an impact on the history, at the same time we must consider that lack of individual’s prompt, savvy leadership, and wise determination, the most significant events and trends in history could not occur, even though the groups’ energy is powerful. After all, most meaningful reform or something important in history always needs one person to dominate the whole condition and to encourage the groups of people to act. One apt illustration of this point refers to the Agrarian revolution, noted as a beginning of the modernization of china during the 1927, leaded by Zedong, mao, as a principal architect and a chairman of china later. In respect, without his sage judgment of the condition at that time and insistence on the armed struggle, maybe the significant victory of revolution in China history has to be waited for a longer time, even doesn’t appear. Although someone will state that hadn’t the groups cooperate with the leader, the revolution would not have succeeded at last. But I have to assert we should appraise this significant event’s cause by its fundamental factor more, and the groups’ function is just to be taken as a secondary one.

Zeidong, mao is just one sample in the political realm to indicate it’s individual that be responsible for the most significant events and trends in history. Thoughtful article production, medical invention, and scientific creation of the past are nearly ascribable to the certain famous few such as Michelangelo, Alexander Fleming, and Einstein, for their own excellent natural endowments and sedulity mainly. Maybe lack of the sufficient demand of these productions and inventions, these individuals can’t become the famous few. Nevertheless, in my opinion, what to signify the history is often one’s insightful mind and aptitude. And if we overstates the groups’ function and slander the individual’s, their individual enthusiasm of creation may be squandered validly ,for lacking belief in they can shape the history just by themselves.

In addition, to emphasize the famous few is to meet the society’s development, to some extent, for we can call on children even all the populace to learn the famous ones’ specific characteristic such as integrity, bravery, and use them as models, which will be constructive for the society’s harmony.

From the analysis made above, I strongly commit to the notion that we should emphasize the significant events and trends were made by groups of people. Regarding the observation in some political and other fields referred above, the statement neglects the rooted factor to cause these noticeable changes in history so that fails to recognize without the individual’s brilliant tactics and dominations, groups of people may not be motivated to operate a successful thing harmoniously. And this emphasis really does help for society’s development. As a result, I persistently believe that history is shaped by some famous few but not the groups.

toywangUID: 2700880

The study of history places too much emphasis 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

Begin
to state my stand:
1 群众的作用，在历史进程中没有群众或normal people 是不行的。并非说历史是由individuals 早就的，只能说历史是有 all individuals 早就的，只是someone is outstanding however.
2 imagine in the development of history without any normal people .it was absolutely impossible. A general without any soldier, a revolution has no people to support.
And the function of famous few is to lead the followed people .without these followed people ,leader will not use any more
3 as to the so called famous few are just杰出人物的出现是历史发展的必然，是一定的社会历史条件的产物，即所谓时势造英雄，时势召唤英雄，锻炼英雄，筛选英雄。


What comes to our mind When we talk about some events in history? To be honest, some people’s names emerge to my mind. But that do not means I only focus no these outstanding people, what really need attention is the huge group of people behind these leaders. In the study of history, the role of public is not important but also essential, it was just like a drama cannot success only by some actors and actresses on stage, other workforce behind the stage are more significant. The deny of each part of them is departure, both of them have their own duty on the trend of history.

To begin with, the phenomenon that the description of some events in textbooks, except some plots, there must reveal some leaders or outstanding people. However, the neglect describe of public in some specific time does not mean their function can be neglect. Everyone is a drop of water in the river of history and every drop of water has same goal that is flow into sea. As to the public, maybe every single one of them has faint power to change the trend of history, but when they combine together, the power of them is unimaginable. However, in the process of combination, there comes some leader who have talent or foresight in leadership who can guide the normal people the achieve goal more quickly.

Hence, can we imagine without any normal people in the development of history? It was absolutely impossible. Even if Alexander was an illustrious general in the world, but without the solider which fighting together with him, he cannot achieve the glorious success. These general such as Napoleon, Caesar, and Genghis Khan are all supernatural, but what lead to the success is more than the great effort of themselves. In addition, the public who endorse them are more important to bring up the dramatic change in history.

After the discussion about the role of public, we cannot deny the role of the famous few individuals although cannot exaggerate as well. First, these individuals are normal people before, and they must have some outstanding achievement in specific field. And as a Chinese old saying that a hero is nothing but the product of his time which means that their achievement is the result of the public and the society circumstance of their time. Is that possible for Sparta to get such high reputation because nowadays is advocate harmony instead of violence. Their outstanding role is important cause every individual has to combine together and then it need a leader who has foresight than normal people.

In fact, no matter the famous few or normal people both of them are irreplaceable, it has been a established theory in the development of society. In the theory of social labor distribution, different people have their own work and it was hard to distinguish which one is more important. So in the study of history ,we should pay the same attention to both the famous few and a large group of normal people.

xingfuhbjUID: 2769976

修改  Issue 48 by eleven

--------- eleven  2010-5-3 11：35

1确实，很多没有group，famous few无法做出成就。林肯，袁隆平，great wall，拿破仑。
2 但是，是famous few他们做的管理，决策和控制。是他们激励了groups而导致的历史事件的发生。虽然groups同样重要，但由于历史研究资源的有限性导致我们要高效的进行历史学习把重点放在famous few身上是best choise(choice)。
3还有些famous few完全自己直接作出的贡献。当然就应该研究他们了

When it comes to great general in eastern country, MAOZE DONG may show up in your mind.(感觉这句话有点怪怪的~改成the name of XX show up~~会好一点吧~不过这不是啥大问题~.) When referring on(to) philosopher, Bacon may come(s) to you. When discussion(discussing) about mathematician, such as Gauss, may present in your mind. (话说我们俩的开头差不多…) It is true that our history emphasis on key individuals rather than concern about a group of people that even(觉得这个词放在这并不恰当~) influences every citizenry’s philosophy. In my point of view, that way people think is the best-effect choice in terms of studying history under.(我米看懂最后一句…请指教..~因此我也无法判断作者是不是点明了中心~)
Admittedly, at times, the endeavor of masses buried in oblivion
in every scale of(这是固定搭配么?还是就是普通的~) our hi(s)tory such as political, scientific, art, even economy is undeniable. Without the exertion of Presidential campaign team of Lincoln, (加个which会更好?) increasing the possibility of public exposure and helping him reply unfriendly doubt, it is incredible(这词到底有没有”不可能”的意思啊?我都被搞糊涂了~) for him to address the onerous campaign events and bring to fruition. Even after he got the presidency, it is ridiculous that he conduct the supper country by himself.(这句话逻辑很奇怪~咱们可以讨论一下~) And such similar circumstances can also be found in scientific area. YUAN N(L)ONG(袁爷爷会哭的~) PING, the famous father of hybrid rice in the world, got the academicians at the American Academy of Sciences last year, was not single-handedly responsible for the outcomes of his discoveries(个人以为他的成果应该是invention~). Without the support of his research groups, YUAN would never have become(看着有点奇怪~不知道是哪不对~当然也可能是我弄错了~) the “famous few”. And more striking examples are towards the construction of architecture and war(把war放前面会不容易混淆一些不?). Peoples rarely remember a mason work or a worm soldier, while the key individuals’ name -----such as First Emperor of Qin who incited(这是native用法么?) the construction of great wall and Napoleon, is carved in our brains.

However, if we subject the examples given above into(这是native用法么?) careful scrutiny, we will easily find that though such distinct groups of people make tremendous contribution to the happen of historical event, undue attention only to the efforts and strives of groups tends to obscure the casual relationships with which the study of history chiefly concerned.(看不懂~请指教~) Since Mr. Lincoln is who(放到后面去) the most respectful president in America’s history who was voted by citizenry; academician YUAN ‘s research doubled the production of the hybrid rice; First Emperor of Qin, even Napoleon, those illuminati(我觉得这个词应该换下~不太合适貌似~) provide the initial impetus of the pivot historical event.(这句话的逻辑仍旧有待讨论~) Those people play the essential role in deciding, management, and control by their inner convictions and intellect, which render the tendency of the historical events. In other words, anonymous people are absolutely important, while famous few are crucial.(这句话的逻辑依然不太对~强调的重点不明显) What’s more, we should also recognize that the recourse(这是native表达么?) of study of history is limited that(一句话里两个that~不建议哟~而且从逻辑来说,这里应该是个表结果的词吧) efficiently arranging the recourse is important. Although some forgettable groups do contribute a lot, since famous few are the representatives and elites of the “anonymous people”, through learning of famous few, we can reach our goal of studying history using for reference in conducting people act right today.
(很不好意思的说~我觉得我终于体会到了什么叫做连接词滥用… 而且我又没看懂最后一句….我们好好讨论一下吧~TAT)That’s(建议不要缩写) to say(加个逗号,) pay attention to the individuals are(is a)
sagacious choice.
(由于有几句没看懂~不知道我理解对了没~ 如果没理解错作者句子的话,我觉得这段有一点犯了“语言背叛逻辑”的问题.
貌似作者想说是说个人值得研究,但中间有出现“研究个人也能代表全体”的意思,不知道是不是我理解句子意思理解错了~)
关于连词过多,这个帖子有提到,但是说的不是很具体,也不知道我是不是理解错了~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-783960-1-1.html
More impressively(这词放这儿啥意思啊?), when we recall the most profound events and trends in history, we discovered that Revolutionary advances occurred even(不知道是我自己的问题还是怎么~我觉得作者对于even的使用貌似有些问题~这已经是第三个了~我们讨论一下哈~) when forgettable groups’ supporting for certain key individuals was minimal or even negligibl . Darwin's research on evolution, Michael Faraday's work on electromagnetism and electro-chemistry, Newton's discoveries of calculus and the laws of motion were all done without others’ grants.(感觉这几个例子不好~尤其是牛顿~很多科学研究都是建立在前人的基础上的~) In 1905 Albert Einstein produced four path-breaking papers all by himself—on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity and the equivalence of matter and energy—while employed as an examiner at the Swiss patent office.


个人觉得这段的论据并不能很好的支撑论点.反而这就表现了历史对于他们的研究过重,导致作者只看到了他们的成就而忽视了他们也有借助于很多东西的帮助.

To sum up, comparing with the nameless, faceless massive groups, the key individuals play pivotal role in shaping the history. At times, some of the key individuals may not make the historical event possible without the help of their supporters, nevertheless, those are people who provided visions of the future that practiced by groups.(我又米看懂….) Moreover, many incidences can be find in history that famous few accomplish their fruition all by themselves. (这里可以考虑再加个连接词,in addition,)Under limited recourse, researching those famous few deeply is the sensible approach to reach the best-effort of studying history.(感觉缺少了一个主要的观点?)

大体的逻辑貌似没啥问题~拍文一向很重~请原谅~

cynthia313UID: 2765794

issue48 by xingfuhbj 修改 by Cynthia
When making mention of the steam engine, it seems that we can just remind James Watt; when giving a reference to the Civil Rights Movement, it seems that we just think of Martin Luther king（大写）; when referring to China's up growth, it seems that we can just remember Chairman Mao. It is a fact, that among the deluge of historical references, few focus on the effect of populace. Considering that some most significant events and trends in the history were made possible(possibly) by the noteless masses actually, the study of history do laid too much emphasis on the individuals.【举例说明历史确实把重点放在研究个人上面了，排比加例子开头很好很强大】

As I mentioned before, some of the historical materials seems(seem) have nothing to do with the populace. Such a fact may lies in the three respects.
First and foremost, it is human nature that made us being inclined to worship leaders that with powers, thus we are always willing to make some individuals as the symbol(symbols) of some certain things, and historians are no exception. So it is natural for us to pay the most attention to those famous one. Such a trend does not just happen in History. Many writers, no matter in the past or current, are fond in writing biographies for those famous people in history, some of them even devoted their life to study all of the reference(all the references) about one historical hero just to figure out why he or she could reach such a great achievement as they managed to. Secondly, the masses that put spurs to the significant historical events are always willing to being led by a leader that they are in favor of, and they also willing to give the most honor to the very leader. To them, giving the leader honor is just same as giving themselves the honor. What’s more, they prefer to attribute the most success to their leader. Such a mentality seems no reasoning,（确实很不合理啊，所以这点上论证不是很有力，最好要有个例子就好了，虽然比较头痛……） but it does exist in most masses’(不确定mass能不能加复数，如果确定的话可以用，如果不确定的话最好换换哦~majority’s) mind. Accordingly, the most references reserved are mainly talked about the great achievement of those leaders, and the following historians will continue focusing on the individuals as a result. The last but not the least reason is that those individuals do play a great role in the important history events and such a contribution(contributions) made them outstanding.  All of these reasons lead to the overstating of individuals.【历史忽略人民大众的原因】
However, the comparison of the achievements made by individuals and masses will reveal the core of the history events, which is what a research merely based on the individuals can’t matched. (句式太复杂了，实在没弄清楚，如果确定是对的话可以用哈。which can not match the researches merely based on the individuals) If we take a look at the history facts, we can find out that without the simple steam engine invented by Denis Papin and the Newcomen steam engine made by Thomas Newcomen, James Watt may never be able to invent the well-known steam engine. And without the fearless and courageous Red Army, no matter how wise and farsighted Chairman Mao was, the People’s Republic of China will never exist, nor to say the famous Long March.(nor to say 有个递进的感觉，强调的是它后面的那个东西，可以把长征放在前面，中国成立放后面比较符合逻辑)According to those history facts, we should not forget that populace also play an important role in the history events and this is what （这个是个强调句还是个什么句呢，结构上有点搞不清楚，但是偶不知道怎么改……）historians must be borne in mind（这个不用被动吧？bear in mind应该就可以了，这个词组好，收掉） when doing the research of history. 【提出观点： 人民群众也重要，在研究历史的时候也应该关注】
There is every indication that the current historians do pay too much attention to the individuals. Since no one can fail to recognise the importance of the history progress that made by the populace, the historians can considered(consider) taking an interest to（我查的牛津高阶，这个词组是take an interest in…没发现to） the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.【总结，建议历史学家在研究时应该也关注populace】

这篇文章真的写的没有偶上次改你的写的好哦~~心情不好不适合写issue~不过还是有很多好词句，都勾出来了，开头也很值得借鉴~
偶觉得这篇文章对自己的观点阐述和解释太少了，而花了大量笔墨说明为什么会有历史学家只研究个人贡献的情况，有偏题的嫌疑。Issue本来属于立论文嘛，个人观点应该要清楚，而且应该整个文章都主要为证明自己的观点服务呀。

elevenkarUID: 2791267

修改小珂的文章 再次掉色。修改稿见附件。

lxklysUID: 2738043

123# weili0612
issue48    修改bylxklys

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."

With the study of history deeply and people who get higher education paying more attention on it, we have different opinions on the study.（前后主语不一致，对应people的人称代词通常为they） Some（some of them） think it places too much emphasis on individuals. However, others still insist on heroes who can do others can’t(这句我能明白你的意思，但是不是不native了,换种表达吧) determine and change history and should be the leading role of the study. In my own opinion, we should focus on individuals who were so influential at that time, because the famous few are the deputies of many people in the past.
The study of history is now mostly focused on the study on famous people, which is appropriate and reasonable. In truth（根据草木版主的帖子，这种短语最好换做一个词代替，显得更规范化，可以改为actually）, the famous and important individuals can’t affect history by their own power.(我不太明白你这句话和上一句话的逻辑在哪里，你上句话明明赞同，下句话怎么又说仅凭个人的力量无法影响历史，感觉它们是一个转折关系，所以那个副词也应该变为表示转折关系的词) All what they did are under the support of their adherents, who had the same ideology. They fought together to reach their goals and the leaders who are well-known now are just members of those groups. So the individuals are the deputies and their means are not isolated but represent plenty of people during that time. For instance, Martin Luther King was a leader in American history for black people’s human rights, but it was not only he wanted to be equal with palefaces but also many Negroes who were under whites’ discrimination. The study on Martin Luther King can help us know the black’s thinking and wish well at that time. It is also not only Lincoln but also innumerable his supporters want the unification of America（这句话怎么突然就插进来了，有点不知所云哈）. So I accept that the study history place（places） much emphasis on individuals, which can help us know and understand most of the citizens’ ideology and wishes at the time.
The study of history should focus on individuals, but the researchers should know that the individuals are deputies of most groups of people who make the history and the most significant events were made by many normal guys rather than famous few. A leader’s born is for the need of representing and guiding others. Whether who he was, his duty is just to be a symbol to those adherents and he can also be replaced by some in the team. In history, Lincoln’s death doesn’t mean the end of America’s unification and eager for peace, his supporters still fought and made America a unified and civilized country in the world. And even leaders at that serious time couldn’t make decision by him own but discuss with his supporters and achieve their destinations together. Without many staff and soldiers, a general can’t win a war. The People’s Republic of China is not only built by chairman Mao but many soldiers, farmers and scholars who believe in chairman Mao and want to see a strong and unified country. So it is definitely true that the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten have a deep influence in history rather than the famous few.
I believe that the study should place mush attention on individuals to know the most （mostly）people’s ideology in the past. And the progress of history is not decided by individuals but most people who had same opinions. Even Caesar, the famous king of Ancient Roma who wanted to rule the country by himself, was murdered by groups who opposed his autarchy.（最后这个例子不能说明历史的进步需要志同道合的人啊，凯撒被反对他的人杀死只能证明维持政权必须争取民心，所以这个例子可以不要）
总结：
楼主的一些观点比较新颖独到，很好
要说不足呢，主要又下面几点：
1.语言的表述上面不是很流畅和native；
2.有些论据的出现没有对论点起到很好的说明，要不就再阐释一下，要不就删去论据，这个得好好斟酌；
3.还有就是一些粗心的小错误，平时多多注意就好啦
但总的来说，我觉得楼主还是有进步的，继续加油

weili0612UID: 2767606

The study of history places too much emphasis 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

Begin
to state my stand:
1 群众的作用，在历史进程中没有群众或normal people 是不行的。并非说历史是由individuals 早就的，只能说历史是有 all individuals 早就的，只是someone is outstanding however.
2 imagine in the development of history without any normal people .it was absolutely impossible. A general without any soldier, a revolution has no people to support.
And the function of famous few is to lead the followed people .without these followed people ,leader will not use any more
3 as to the so called famous few are just杰出人物的出现是历史发展的必然，是一定的社会历史条件的产物，即所谓时势造英雄，时势召唤英雄，锻炼英雄，筛选英雄。


What comes to our mind when we talk about some events in history? To be honest, some people’s names emerge to my mind. But that do(does) not means(mean) I only focus no these outstanding people, what really need attention is(拗口) the huge group of people behind these leaders. In the study of history, the role of public is not important but also essential, it was（is） just like a drama cannot success only by some actors and actresses on stage, other workforces behind the stage are more significant. The deny of each part of them(拗口就The deny of them) is departure（这里被WORD加绿了，但是我不知道为什么）, both of them have their own duty on the trend (trends) of history.

To begin with, the phenomenon that the description of some events in textbooks, except some plots, there must reveal some leaders or outstanding people. However, the neglect describe(neglected description) of public in some specific time does not mean their function can be neglect(neglected). Everyone is a drop of water in the river of history and every drop of water has same goal that is (to) flow into sea. As to the public, maybe every single one of them has faint power to change the trend of history, but when they combine together, the power of them is unimaginable. However, in the process of combination, there comes some leader who have talent or foresight in leadership who(and ) can guide the normal people the(to) achieve (their) goal more quickly.

Hence, can we imagine without any normal people in the development of history? It was absolutely impossible. Even if Alexander was an illustrious general in the world, but without the solider which fighting(fought) together with him, he cannot achieve the glorious success. These general such as Napoleon, Caesar, and Genghis Khan are all supernatural, but what lead to the success is more than the great effort of themselves. In addition, the public who endorse them are more important to bring up the dramatic change in history.

After the discussion about the role of public, we cannot deny the role of the famous few individuals although cannot exaggerate as well. First, these individuals are normal people before, and they must have some outstanding achievement in specific field. And as a Chinese old saying that a hero is nothing but the product of his time which means that their achievement is the result of the public and the society circumstance of their time. Is that possible for Sparta to get such high reputation because nowadays is advocate(advocating) harmony instead of violence. Their outstanding role is an important cause every individual has to combine together and then it need(needs) a leader who has foresight than normal people.

In fact, no matter the famous few or normal people both of them are irreplaceable, it has been a(an) established theory in the development of society. In the theory of social labor distribution, different people have their own work and it was hard to distinguish which one is more important. So in the study of history, we should pay the same attention to both the famous few and a large group of normal people.
字数太多，论点是：1、群众很重要（2段）2、写个人的产生，个人顺应时代而生，促使人们团结。
总的感觉，文章内容有点少，但是字很多。建议看下网上指导ISSUE的资料。其实500字就可以了，字多不见得好。另外长句好多，有些我似懂非懂得看懂了，但是看得很累，能简单的句子稍微简化下好了，毕竟老美看了也累的。

cynthia313UID: 2765794

argue161 by Cynthia
逻辑链：
1.        study1显示L城的人们喜欢看 classics
2.        后来的study2发现人们从图书管借的书中，悬疑小说最多
3.        得出结论study1的responders错误的描述了他们的阅读习惯。
攻击点：
1.        study1 responder是不是representative
2.        图书管借书量能不能代表人们实际的阅读爱好
3.        两个study间隔时间是否过长，人们阅读习惯是否已经发生了改
In this argument, the arguer introduces us two contradictory results of two studies on the reading habits of Leeville citizens. The first study indicated that literary classics were popular among residents of Leeville, while a follow-up study found mystery novel had the most frequency of checking out of the public libraries. According to these studies, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. This analysis, which seems logical at first glance, suffers from several fallacies.

In the first place, can the respondents in the first study represent all the citizens in Leeville?  There is no information about how many people were engaged in this study. And no evidence provided to justify the representability of respondents in this study. It is possible that the study was limited to a few individuals, which can not reach a scientific conclusion. It is equally possible that the study was conducted in a certain area, such as the University of Leeville, thus the majority of respondents were university students or professors, whose reading habits are not representative to all the citizens in Leeville. One can not easily accept the result of the study with out further information.

In the second place, granted that the first study is acceptable, the arguer's conclusion that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is unconvincing. The follow-up study's conclusion that Leeville citizens borrow mystery novel most frequently from public libraries dose not means they prefer mystery novel rather than literary classics. Perhaps, the public libraries have much less literary classics than mystery novels, thus the citizens borrow more mystery novels for there is no better choice. Also, the residents who like literary classics might buy the books instead of borrowing from public libraries. The arguer unreasonably assumes that the result of libraries checking out frequency can represent reading habits of Leeville residents without any direct evidence to justify.

Last but not the least, the arguer does not inform us how long is the interim period between the two studies. It is possible that residents of Leeville changed their reading habits during that period. It is also possible that two studies were conducted in two generations, which would obviously reach contradictory results.
To sum up, this argument is unconvincing for some logical flaws. The arguer should provide more details about the first study to justify its reliability. Moreover, the arguer should give us direct evidence to support the assumption that the checking out frequency of public libraries can represent people's reading habits in Leeville. To better evaluate, we have to know how long the interim period between two studies is. Only through these, can the arguer's conclusion be acceptable.

yuanlinqinggreUID: 2755904

今天刷考位，很不爽，写文章时心情波动很大，估计是废了


1。第一个研究的样本不一定具有代表性
2。即使具有代表性，从图书馆得到的数据并不能良好衡量人们对于所有阅读材料的使用频率
3。对于literary classics 和 mystery novel 的界限没有很好的划清，有可能有些人把mystery novel 归到literary classics 里去了


TOPIC: ARGUMENT161 - In a study of readinghabits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville,most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material.However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that thetype of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries inLeeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that therespondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
WORDS: 506
TIME: 00:39:14
DATE: 2010-5-5 20:28:48

Grounding on the difference shown in theresults between two study, the author reaches his conclusion that respondentsin the firstly study failed to express their reading habits by synthesizingdata from the public library. However, further reflection of the deduction willreveal that the argument is based on several unjustified assumptions.

Firstly, lacking more information of the firststudy, the author cannot confidently infer that respondents of the study areboth sufficient and representative to get an general conclusion which canapplied to most citizens in Leeville. Thus, it is just as likely thatrespondents of the study consist of lots of students, who are likely to preferliterature work. For that matter, the conclusion of first study is notconvincing at all. Without ensuring me that respondents of the first study aresufficient and typical, I remain doubtful about the basis of the conclusionthat people in Leeville prefer literature work, let alone about the differencebetween two studies.

Secondly, even granting that respondents ofthe first study are both representative, the author still assumes that publiclibrary is the only origin where people can get reading material. Yet, both mycommon sense and my knowledge inform me that the assumption is fallacious, evenI concede that data from the libraries are representative of a long period.Since we can buy books from book stores or from e-bay, it is presumptuous toassume that data about how frequently the book is rent in public libraries issufficient to make any conclusion. For that matter, people may regardedmysterious books as leisure books which are not worthy of spending money on it,which may lead to the fact that mysterious books are frequently checked outwhile people prefer reading literary classics in most of their time. Thus,until the author provides data from other origins of reading material, hecannot persuade me of the effectiveness of the result of the second study.

Thirdly, even assuming that data concernedabout books' frequency of checking out is valid to conclude that people prefermystery novel, the author fails to distinguish definitions of these two typesof reading material. Since different people may have different definition aboutliterary classics, lots of respondents in the first study may include mysterynovel into literary classics. For that matter, different definitions aboutliterary classics according to different people is responsible for thedifference in the results of these two study. Until the author cites prominentevidence that a majority of people share the opinion that literary classics andmystery novel are absolutely different types of reading material, theratiocination of the argument is fallacious as it stands.

In sum, failing to corroborate of theeffectiveness of the results of these two studies, the author presents his idealucidly but unpersuasively. Thus, the author, in order to strengthen thededuction of his article, must distinguish the definition of literary classicsagainst that of mystery novel. Moreover, more data from other origins ofreading material is also indispensable to justify his conclusion.

elevenkarUID: 2791267

argumen 161  by eleven
才写了425 word...

逻辑链：
1.        study1中调查的l城的人显示自己喜欢看 classics
2.        Study显示人们从图书管借出的悬疑小说最多
3.        得出结论study1的responders故意错误的描述他们的阅读倾向。
攻击点：
1.  没有界定mystery novel和classic。像百年孤独，德古拉传奇这样的书既是mystery novel 又是famous classic  
2.       调查样本存在漏洞。 没说两个调查中的respondents的关系。可能参加第一个调查的压根就没去过图书馆。比如更富裕的人他们就倾向于自己买书而非到图书馆借书。
3.       用图书馆的借出书数量作为衡量人们阅读习惯的指标不具有说服性。有可能是人们倾向于收藏名著，而mystery novel却到图书馆借。没有给出图书馆的相关信息，有可能是图书馆的classic不让外借，或classic存书量太少。


This argument is underpinned by two separated surveys that conducted by the university of Leeville. The first one surveys a group of people that they responded they prefer literary classics as reading material. Another study showed that the hottest checked out books from the public library in leeville is mystery novel. Then the author concluded that those respondents in the first survey untruthfully depicted their reading habbits. In my point of view, there are three obvious ambiguities in the portrait of both studies that the conclusion was wrong.

To begin with, the author does not analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. For example, the famous mystery novel such as One Hundred Years of Solitude and the Legend of Dracula occupy significant positions in the literary arena. If respondents prefer this kind of books and regard them as classics while the conductor merely attributed those books into mystery novel, the result of both surveys are meaningless.

Secondly, in spite of the definition of book, the arguments does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. The author failed to give us any indication about how many and what kind of citizens responded to the surveys, and what relationship between the respondents of two separated surveys. We can’t exclude the possibility that those people who answered the first survey didn’t in favor of borrowing books from library. For example, richer people primary buy their preferable literary classics as reading material instead of borrowing them from public library. Thus the representativeness of the results is open to doubt.

Thirdly, the frequency of certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. The differences in the survey results could merely because people tend to collect classics and borrow mystery books in library. Another possibility is that the leeville public library has insufficient resource of literary classics while the availability of mystery novels is abundant. And, maybe because classic are valuable that library regulate no checking out service of classics, readers are only allowed to appreciate classics inside the library. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.

In conclusion, the arguer jumping to a conclusion in a rush without depicting detailed and rational supporting surveys as empirical evidence. To strengthen the argument, the author has to research more in order to eliminate the other possibilities that I mentioned before.

toywangUID: 2700880

采访者
说古典文学

借阅记录
神秘小说  何以推出后者正确？

argu 161

Given to these two surveys, the arguer concludes that respondents who preferred literary classical reading material are misrepresented their reading habits only contract with the type of book which most frequently checked out.Despite of the chosen which one is correct, as to the two surveys only, there are exit many flaws. If one need to draw a fixed result by comparison, only have same researchers are not enough, there still many data do not have comparability.

To begin with, the first survey conducted by the university of Leeville seems reliable owing to the respondents have no motivation to hide their preference. And the second survey is the process of collect the data from public libraries that what kind of book is most frequently checked out. The arguer negative the former one and regard the later do not has any reason. The amount of respondents is limited, and it must be in some specific fields which lead to the limitation of the survey. Even if they cannot represent the preference of all the citizen in Leeville, they can represent themselves at least. What’s more, the relationship between classic literary and mystery novel cannot classification clearly, these two kind of literary may have something in common. According to this degree, the conclusion is more confused.

What logical flaw come next is that the arguer regard that the record of checked out book can exactly reflect citizens’ preference. However, does that really make sense? Firstly, if people are fond of classic literary they can buy these book even if they could borrow from public libraries, yet, this sort of reading channel was not taking into consideration. Hence, the data come from libraries reflect the habit of citizens who live near these libraries, so it also cannot represent the citizens’ reading habit in Leeville which is a place need a extensive survey including different sorts of data.

In the end, after the discussions of flaws exist in the two survey, the conclusion is not serious for the reason that it was not through a careful and preciseness way to check which is right on earth. When there raise two different result after survey, the first thing one need to consider is not to choose but to think over is some specific parameter were wrong or totally changed. In these two have the problem that people who take as respondents are not the same and have regional diversity. So the conclusion does not have any practical effectiveness based on an arbitrary decision.

To sum up, if the arguer want to find out the real reading preference of Leeville, the sample of people should be reliable and the data should not only take public libraries but also from bookstores and even from internet with a wide process to the materials they want to get. And after a reliable the selection of the result still need to be careful.

toywangUID: 2700880

argumen 161  by eleven
才写了425 word...
逻辑链：
1.        study1中调查的l城的人显示自己喜欢看 classics
2.        Study显示人们从图书管借出的悬疑小说最多
3.        得出结论study1的responders故意错误的描述他们的阅读倾向。
攻击点：
1.  没有界定mystery novel和classic。像百年孤独，德古拉传奇这样的书既是mystery novel 又是famous classic  
2.       调查样本存在漏洞。
没说两个调查中的respondents的关系。可能参加第一个调查的压根就没去过图书馆。比如更富裕的人他们就倾向于自己买书而非到图书馆借书。
3.       用图书馆的借出书数量作为衡量人们阅读习惯的指标不具有说服性。有可能是人们倾向于收藏名著，而mystery novel却到图书馆借。没有给出图书馆的相关信息，有可能是图书馆的classic不让外借，或classic存书量太少。


This argument is underpinned by two separated surveys that conducted by the university of Leeville. The first one surveys a group of people that they responded they prefer literary classics as reading material. Another study showed that the hottest checked out books from the public library in leeville is mystery novel. Then the author concluded that those respondents in the first survey untruthfully depicted their reading habbits. In my point of view, there are three obvious ambiguities[好词] in the portrait of both studies that the conclusion was wrong.

To begin with, the author does not analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. For example, the famous mystery novel such as One Hundred Years of Solitude and the Legend of Dracula occupy significant positions in the literary arena. If respondents prefer this kind of books and regard them as classics while the conductor merely attributed those books into mystery novel, the result of both surveys are meaningless.
攻击点1: 概念划分模糊
Secondly, in spite of the definition of book,【这里不是对book的划分吧，是对文学的划分吧？是否用classification好点？】 the arguments does not account for the possibility that the survey samples themselves were flawed. The author failed to give us any indication about how many and what kind of citizens responded to the surveys, and what relationship between the respondents of two separated surveys. We can’t exclude the possibility that those people who answered the first survey didn’t in favor of borrowing books from library. For example, richer people primary buy their preferable literary classics as reading material instead of borrowing them from public library. Thus the representativeness of the results is open to doubt.
攻击点2：样本问题
Thirdly, the frequency of certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. The differences in the survey results could merely because people tend to collect classics and borrow mystery books in library.【这个假设本身就会被攻击吧，classic是古典，不是经典，在这里】 Another possibility is that the leeville public library has insufficient resource of literary classics while the availability of mystery novels is abundant. And, maybe because classic are valuable that library regulate no checking out service of classics, readers are only allowed to appreciate classics inside the library. These possibilities further weaken the argument that the first respondents misrepresented their reading habits.
攻击点3：通过对图书馆藏书来攻击，我感觉是否把classic理解错了，而且这个点我觉得不好。但是前两点攻击的还是蛮有条理的，例子也到位
In conclusion, the arguer jumping to a conclusion in a rush without depicting detailed and rational supporting surveys as empirical evidence.
【相反，我觉得这点可以攻击，就是说即使两次调查时可取（让步），那这样的下结论的方法是不可取的。】To strengthen the argument, the author has to research more in order to eliminate the other possibilities that I mentioned before.

最后还有一个问题，就是我们现在都在body和ending部分都有固定的模式来连接，这样对于以后的写作好吗？我也在考虑这个问题，因为我写到argu就不自然的想到那写词。感觉还是需要突破的~~