1010G【fish】issue48

franceneUID: 2818958

练习完这篇文章逻辑能力真的会增长不少，谢谢creative的启发：）

Revision for Azure

The author asserts that the historical study devote into ( I am not sure about
the usage of ”devote into” here) famous few rather than groups of people, which is not appropriate. I can't deny that the groups of people were necessary in order to make things happened. But, famous few who function as a key role in a historical event or trend are much more representativeness<representative> and valuable for study. They are the creators of the history.<so they are really deserved to be emphasis in history study>

[in the first paragraph the author makes a clear point .But the last sentence easily make the reader confused about the main point which the author is aiming to. This issue talks about is there too much emphasis on individual in the study of history, so the reviewer think it is better to back to the main topic with the key word for the last sentence]

The famous few got power to take charge of the group of people. <Although>Their diesel<diesel?> was accomplished by the group of people.<,> Their words <still>weighted a lot. What they left for the world are valuable for history study and their influence remain until today. Alexander the Great, the most celebrated member of the Argead Dynasty, created one of the largest empires in ancient history. He was known to be undefeated in battle and is considered one of the most successful commanders of all time. He is one of the most famous figures of antiquity, and is remembered for his tactical ability, his conquests, and for spreading Greek culture into the East. His accomplishments and legacy have been preserved and depicted in many ways. While the soldier who help him to get all this were function as a group of assistants and can not be told the name by people today.

The famous few who got extraordinary insight and wonderful talent can enlighten the group of people. They were usually the core role in some historical trend. During the Renaissance, there came out numbers of famous few, Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and also Masaccio, Brunelleschi est. What they achieved at that time profoundly affect human intellecture< intellectual> life not only in early period of time, but today as well. It's their great minds that push the civilization to go forward. They are the source of Humanism; Study in them can help us understand the origin of the human culture. And the group of people in the world of all ages also be influenced by their intellective power.


[this paragraph makes a good sense that supports the viewpoint ,what s more, the author made all the materials focus on the point why we have to learn history from this elites. Coz they are the epitome of the history, they represent the most important part of history. This is much related to the issue topic, the reviewer is really impressive.]

The famous few who were earnest about reforming had chosen a different way from the group of people that they create a new branch of human civilization. Martin Luther, a German priest and professor of theology, initiated the Protestant Reformation which established Protestantism as a constituent branch of contemporary Christianity. When Martin Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, and concluded in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia that ended one hundred and thirty-one years of consecutive European religious wars. What he had done had impacted the world's religion pattern. Though the group of people had involved in the event in some ways, they can't <“wouldn’t” maybe better>
be written in history books, for they choosing a way that others had already gone through.


In conclusion, it was the famous few that reflect the whole historical delineation. They were the heroes of a certain event and trend. Studying in them can help us grab the essential part of the history. They are the few who represent the whole.


[this is a conving essay make a certain point clearly. The author believes emphasis on those elite individuals in the historical field is reasonable. The reviewer thinks the author need to focus all the main sentence of every paragraph back to this main topic. That will make the passage more convincing and make more sense. ]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Revision for Creative

The statement claims that the majority of historians' attention is paid on some individuals, which is not reasonable since the history is usually determined by groups of people rather than just few superstars. I would like to argue that individuals have not been overemphasized in the study of history, in particular the main branches of pure history, such as Sociology and Anthropology, although (there seems no logic transition between these two sentences) I totally agree that the development of the human society has never been completely determined by the famous few.



[In the first paragraph the author made a clear range of topic that is focus on the history study. That is an excellent orientation for the whole passage. Very related to the issue above.]

First of all, one should note that the study of history is different from some literatures on the topic of history, especially historical novels and bibliographies of “the famous few”, from which most of our normal people learn the history. One can see this by noting two aspects: First one is that if one really carefully read those rigorous works done by historians, even just history textbooks, would find that most part of them focuses nowhere on individuals. Most points given by this kind of books are supported by statistical data, which is not close related to few important persons. Second one is that people who feel that the past of our human society is full of stories about heroes can not be truly historians. Take myself for example, when I am reading history, I do not care too much about the fundamental structures of human society or the basic relationships among different social classes, which are actually important topics in real historical researches. I prefer to read the legends of  heroes and elites, not for that they are dominating the direction of history, but their attractive personalities and unusual shining experiences. This emphasis on individuals is not due to how historians study history, but simply what people like to know from history.

Even though it is true that in certain areas of history, such as the history of literature, most attentions are paid on individuals, these attentions are usually serving as examples of groups of people because of their trenchant characteristics and outstanding achievements that should be known by readers, and therefore can not be thought as being overemphasized. One may ask himself/herself that without listing those great writers and poets how a book of the history of literature can be organized. (this point is strong!) The answer must be terrible. Furthermore, the individuals cited in this kind of study are not appearing by themselves but as icons of groups of people, which may have the similar style of writing or live in the same times. Writing these icons enables the reader to capture overviews of certain groups of people. That is how historians tell us what groups of people did in the past, which should not be and actually never have been overlooked.

[This part of the passage make another strong stand that why individuals always appears in the description of history, the reason is not for the intensively emphasis on individual but for the need of logic of expression. The reviewer think the only problem here is little example is presented after the conclusion.The reviewer may wonder how these icons can represent a certain kind of group people. A proper example here will make the point stronger and more perfect]


Last but not least, from logical point of view, it is unreasonable to ask historians to always emphasize identities of groups of people. What enables people distinguish individuals and groups of people in the history is that the former have their easy-to-tell identities but the later, when one is looking at every single element of it, have not. However, groups as a whole has been emphasized for a long time. A daily life example could be that it is easy for a person who loves history to tell others what are the main difference between people lived in 19 century(19th century)and nowadays. Where did he learn this? History books. Meanwhile, it is utterly possible for the same history fan to tell others what an old man called Bill lived in Livingston, a small town in Philadelphia, was doing in 1854, the year Abraham Lincoln made his Peoria Speech. Is it because historians placed too much emphasis on President Lincoln to overlook the lives of Bill from Philadelphia? The answer is absolutely no because that for almost every history book of the United States in 19 to 20(19th to 20th) centuries can tell readers what are the differences of people's lives, including Bill's, before and after the Civil War, and probably using more space than Lincoln's political live.

The assertion that the study of history focuses so much on individuals that the identities of groups of people, which are the real driving forces of the development of history as most people, including me, believe, is consequently unconvincingly biased, for the majority of rigorous pure history researches are focusing on common people and some minority areas focusing more on individuals are really aiming at tell readers about the groups. And logically, alternating the focus from individuals to groups as what the statement expect might be not desirably feasible.


***************************************************************


2nd revision for ITY


Revision of mistakes
Good expression to learn
Comments from the reviewer


Since a long time ago, there was always a pubic<public> controversy in regard to the issue of who should be put more emphasis on when we studied the history. And now, someone like the speaker of this topic argue that we should pay more attention to the groups of people who have played important roles in the history. Others on the other hand hold the opinion that it is right to value more on individuals in the study of history. As far as I am concerned, we should respect groups of people who had made many significant contributions, but at the same time, we have to put more emphasis on the famous in history.

Admittedly distinct groups of people who are the main force to make significant events and trends in history should never be forgot. Just in last year, Hussein Obama won the seat of the president of the United States, and becoming the first president with a black African descent because of the African American who have strove for their rights hundreds of years. Without these people, American people may still discriminate them, which will stagnate the development of American society. Moreover, without the diligent and brave Chinese people, the world may never go bake to peace after the fascist provoked the World-War-2, in which period China also had domestic affairs. However, facing the double problems, the group of Chinese people leaded by president Mao, overcame all the difficulties and established a new era of China.

Therefore, groups of people should not be forgot, but without famous leader, they may never gather to put efforts on altering the history. After Hegel, who insisted on the role of "great men" in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, "I saw the Spirit on his horse", and Thomas Carlyle argued that history was the biography of a few central individuals or heroes. For example, when we talk to the equal rights of African American in the USA, Martin Luther King always appears into our mind first. Without the impressive speeches released by him, African American may never get together to fight for their human rights and change the status where they were. Thus not only African American but also all of us regard Martin as a hero and we should place more emphasis on him without any doubts.

On the other hand groups with a losing leader are doomed to fail. Without an excellent leader, everyone including the leader himself in the group wants to obtain their own interest, and it is hard for them to tie their hearts or board on the same boat. Even if they gather to have the same goal, without disciplines or proper ways they can never achieve it.

Every historic events or trends were made by few famous and groups of people together. However when we study history, we need to choose one part as key point.<good point!> Historic events need a name which is easy to remember, and the few famous name fit perfectly. But if groups were these key points, it is hard for us and our descendants to remember because there is no name, or even if they have, groups are mostly named after their leaders.

For the reasons presented above, I strongly commit to the notion that we should put more emphasis on individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. It is the famous few that determine the orientation of the history



<This essay brings a very clear structure and persuade examples which is quite cogent. However, back to the thesis of the given issue, the conclusion is that is there “too much” emphasis put on the individual. The reviewer thinks the very last problem for this essay is that much of the proofs given in the passage just testify those famous few worth to emphasis in historical study without mentioned whether is it “too much”. Thus the reviewer thinks the author should provide more proofs focus on “too much”. The author can take a reference to the essay which CREATIVE wrote. He catches the real keystone on that point. >

lty900301UID: 2715509

Since a long time ago, there was always a pubic controversy in regard to the issue of who should be put more emphasis on when we studied the history. And now, someone like the speaker of this topic argue that we should pay more attention to the groups of people who have played important roles in the history. Others on the other hand hold the opinion that it is right to value more on individuals in the study of history. As far as I am concerned, we should respect groups of people who had made many significant contributions, but at the same time, we have to put more emphasis on the famous in history.

Admittedly distinct groups of people who are the main force to make significant events and trends in history should never be forgot. Just in last year, Hussein Obama won the seat of the president of the United States, and becoming the first president with a black African descent because of the African American who have strove for their rights hundreds of years. Without these people, American people may still discriminate them, which will stagnate the development of American society. Furthermore, without the dilligent and brave Chinese people, the world may never go bake to peace after the fascist provoked the World-War-2, in which period China also had domestic affairs. However, facing the double problems, the group of Chinese people leaded by president Mao, overcame all the difficulties and established a new era of China.

Therefore, groups of people should not be forgot, but without leaders, they may never gather to put efforts on altering the history. After Hegel, who insisted on the role of "great men" in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, "I saw the Spirit on his horse", and Thomas Carlyle argued that history was the biography of a few central individuals or heroes. For example, when we talk to the equal rights of African American in the USA, Martin Luther King always appears into our mind first. Without the impressive speech released by him, African American may never get together to fight for their human rights and change the status where they were. Thus not only African American but also all of us regard Martin as a hero and we should place more emphasis on him without any doubts.

On the other hand acephalous groups will have no disciplines, no rules and no targets, and this kind of groups are doomed to fail. Without an excellent leader, everyone in the group wants to obtain their own interest, and it is hard for them to tie their hearts or board on the same boat. Even if they gather to have the same goal, without disciplines or proper ways, they can never achieve it. For instance, in some school, their are lots of research groups, whose members have a same goal, but most of them cannot finish the research because they do not have an excellent group leader who can tie the members together and guide them to the right way.

For the reasons presented above, I strongly commit to the notion that we should put more emphasis on individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. It is the famous few that determine the orientation of the history.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
自改第一次

Since a long time ago, there was always a pubic controversy in regard to the issue of who should be put more emphasis on when we studied the history. And now, someone like the speaker of this topic argue that we should pay more attention to the groups of people who have played important roles in the history. Others on the other hand hold the opinion that it is right to value more on individuals in the study of history. As far as I am concerned, we should respect groups of people who had made many significant contributions, but at the same time, we have to put more emphasis on the famous in history.

Admittedly distinct groups of people who are the main force to make significant events and trends in history should never be forgot. Just in last year, Hussein Obama won the seat of the president of the United States, and becoming the first president with a black African descent because of the African American who have strove for their rights hundreds of years. Without these people, American people may still discriminate them, which will stagnate the development of American society. Moreover, without the diligent and brave Chinese people, the world may never go bake to peace after the fascist provoked the World-War-2, in which period China also had domestic affairs. However, facing the double problems, the group of Chinese people leaded by president Mao, overcame all the difficulties and established a new era of China.

Therefore, groups of people should not be forgot, but without famous leader, they may never gather to put efforts on altering the history. After Hegel, who insisted on the role of "great men" in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, "I saw the Spirit on his horse", and Thomas Carlyle argued that history was the biography of a few central individuals or heroes. For example, when we talk to the equal rights of African American in the USA, Martin Luther King always appears into our mind first. Without the impressive speeches released by him, African American may never get together to fight for their human rights and change the status where they were. Thus not only African American but also all of us regard Martin as a hero and we should place more emphasis on him without any doubts.

On the other hand groups with a losing leader are doomed to fail. Without an excellent leader, everyone including the leader himself in the group wants to obtain their own interest, and it is hard for them to tie their hearts or board on the same boat. Even if they gather to have the same goal, without disciplines or proper ways they can never achieve it.

Every historic events or trends were made by few famous and groups of people together. However when we study history, we need to choose one part as key point. Historic events need a name which is easy to remember, and the few famous name fit perfectly. But if groups were these key points, it is hard for us and our descendants to remember because there is no name, or even if they have, groups are mostly named after their leaders.

For the reasons presented above, I strongly commit to the notion that we should put more emphasis on individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. It is the famous few that determine the orientation of the history

lty900301UID: 2715509

第一次互改——Francene
Issue 48

It is no exaggeration to say(上来就得开始学习啦。。) that in everybody’s heart, there is a hero. This can be attributing to be one part of human nature. We can see many super heroes in move scenes, We have Superman, ,Spiderman, and the only savior to world “Neo” in the very famous movie “Matrix”. There are so many heroes in the fantasy world, then what about the real world?

As somebody says, movie scene is the other side of mirror to our normal life.（很好的讲读者引向现实中的heroes） The fact is just like this. There are many super heroes in the long history of human development too. These heroes use their fabulous ability and imagination to change our world with their own power. In the physical field, without Thomas Edison, we may still live in darkness. In biology, Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin claim that humankind finally have their own weapon to the battle with the bacteria. In the art field, Picasso change the traditional art to a more abstract way which thus open the screen of the modern art. In politics, without Nelson Mandera, we cannot imagine the South African black people can own such a racial equality as today. These extraordinary people are the milestones of the history, they use their individual influence(influences) to make the world become better and better.
//这一段讲了很多的例子，而且，我感觉用的都很好（好好学习了一把）。在全文首段提出第一个分论点，举出很多电影中的英雄人物，接着又从
电影中过渡到实际，很好很好~~

Meanwhile, There are still a group(我个人认为，这里用groups好一点，因为一个hero对应一个group，所以后面的heroes 前面就应该是groups) of people which（who） behind these historical heroes cannot be overlooked. In the letter to a scientist friend, English famous physicist Isaac Newton says:” If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”  The word “giants” here was referring to the scientific predecessors which（who， which可以引导人吗？我真不知道啊，如果可以的话，麻烦告诉一声撒~~） studied in Newton’s realm. Before discovering his famous three laws, Newton was very interested in describing the various motion and force in a mathematical way. At that time, another physicist Kepler noticed that the planet went around in an elliptical path, but not circularly, but Kepler was not able to find a mathematical method to explain it. By reading many books of Kepler, Newton began to think deeply about this problem. Finally he discovered first law of motion which is one part of the basic discipline to explain the planetary motion. Actually, Newton was not only referring to the giants in physical field, but also in some other realms which is related to. He used to read some books of Aristotle which He could get some small inspiration from（我觉得这个from可以放到那个which全面吧。） . So, Can（大小写问题，笔误而已） we just say that Newton himself finds the physical law? The answer can be yes, yet also can be no（个人建议，这里只写一个no，因为你本段论证的就是不能忽略groups of people。这里又yes又no的，感觉论证就不那么舒服了）,（.） we say that those key person is important for(to) history, but, do not look down upon the power of the group(groups) behind those glamorous and successful heroes. Can you imagine Newton would be one of this foremost scientific intellects without those achievement that those old generation did?

In a word, in today’s information age, collaboration(这里，信息时代需要合作，这个我觉得你至少得说明是为什么吧？为什么说信息时代，合作就更加重要呢？以前合作就不重要了吗？) is more and more important for individual. One hero is not enough, we need more utilization of other’s profits to create new things. The power of individual is limited, but the force of groups is infinity. Some extraordinary person may trigger very important revolutions ,whereas without the efforts done by a group of people in or before their age, they cannot achieve such a success.

最后一句话引出了全文的主题句。
漂亮的一篇文章。。。让我自卑啊。。。

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第二次——POLO
As the statement of（删掉） the author indicates, individuals who are important to specific events and trends in history have been overstressed ,while the groups of people's identities have been neglected during the study of history.（加个转折词吧） In my view, the few famous have not been overemphasized and they deserve the emphasis（这句话感觉有点重复）;（and用在这里就好很多了后面这句话才应该是和前面的few famous并列的。） groups of people's identities have not been omitted as well.

Admittedly, groups of people play a relatively important（这里推荐一个词vital，很棒的词汇。而且，我始终搞不清relatively怎么去解释） role in making the most significant events and trends in history. Without struggle and efforts of the masses, China cannot conquer the foreign invaders, survive from the cruel wars and develop into a new stage. Without endeavours and great efforts of the masses, the French Revolution cannot obtain the final success, the autocratic monarchy cannot be demolished and the ancien regime would not come to the end（and后面的ancien regime不就是前面的autocratic monarchy么？come to the end不就是前面的be demolished么？又是有点重复的感觉。）. The Great Wall agglomerates the perspiration and inspiration of Chinese people; the Pyramid opens out the endless creativity and imagination of Egyptian. Despite that we are unable to know the names of the creators who have made a significant influence on human's history, we also look up to them and give the highest admiration to them（look up to 和admire表达的意思都一样吧？我觉得你的文中很多的and，都是重复的感觉。有些东西要强调不是通过复述，而是通过强调句型或者一些词汇可以完成的。）. So we have never forgotten the groups of ordinary people.

Moreover, much attention have been given to the individuals who are key to momentous events and movements（个人被太多的关注了。感觉这句话说出来，就好像你反对个人被关注。尤其是那个much使用后，并且用了被动语态。你再斟酌一下。）. As we know, a great leader can lead a great era and there are plenty of examples we can enumerate to embody it. As the above paragraph has referred to, the establishment of new China cannot brought to fruition without efforts of diligent and brave Chinese,but leadership of the great leader chair Mao contributed much more to it. He designated the onward direction for China and guided Chinese to advance for new life. So when it comes to the the founding（foundation） of New China, there is no occasion not to refer to chair Mao and to give the enough emphasis to him(比如说这里的and give enough emphasis to 就胜于refet to 前面的refer to就可以不要了). Another example is Alexander the Great, the king of Macedon, the leader of the Corinthian League, and the conqueror of Persia, succeeded in forging（vt. 伪造；锻造？不合适吧。建立有很多啊，building,establishing等等） the largest Western empire of the ancient world. He has genius as a military leader when he was young; in spite of the fact that his army was smaller than that of the Persians, Alexander's superior tactics won the field, Mesopotamia. His braveness and talent in leadership are worthy of our focuses.

On the other hand, a cruel leader can lead a gloomy era. For instance, Hitler Adolf, who is Dictator and leader of the German Nazi movement, is regarded as the most pivotal prime mover of the World War II. Hitler led his people to a shameful defeat without precedent; his political and strategic ambitions have created a dividing line in the history of this turbulent and tormented century. In the study of history, we should give enough emphasis to this kind of individual and learn lessons from him or her to avoid the same tragedy and get together to build a harmonious world.
//这一段就论证的比较好。。强调我们同时也应该重视这类人，并且从中吸取教训。学习到了

In sum, we have never neglected groups of people who make a great difference on history. Although their names have not been written in history, their Great historical achievements sink deep into the hearts of people. What is more, it is necessary to focus much attention to the few famous who also play a key role in making history and some prominent figures can be emulated as role models and we can promote ourselves by learning their advantages.

creativeUID: 2193617

Issue 48

The statement claims that the majority of historians' attention is paid on some individuals, which is not reasonable since the history is usually determined by groups of people rather than just few superstars. I would like to argue that individuals have not been overemphasized in the study of history, in particular the main branches of pure history, such as Sociology and Anthropology, although I totally agree that the development of the human society has never been completely determined by the famous few.

First of all, one should note that the study of history is different from some literatures on the topic of history, especially historical novels and bibliographies of “the famous few”, from which most of our normal people learn the history. One can see this by noting two aspects: First one is that if one really carefully read those rigorous works done by historians, even just history textbooks, would find that most part of them focuses nowhere on individuals. Most points given by this kind of books are supported by statistical data, which is not close related to few important persons. Second one is that people who feel that the past of our human society is full of stories about heroes can not be truly historians. Take myself for example, when I am reading history, I do not care too much about the fundamental structures of human society or the basic relationships among different social classes, which are actually important topics in real historical researches. I prefer to read the legends of  heroes and elites, not for that they are dominating the direction of history, but their attractive personalities and unusual shining experiences. This emphasis on individuals is not due to how historians study history, but simply what people like to know from history.

Even though it is true that in certain areas of history, such as the history of literature, most attentions are paid on individuals, these attentions are usually serving as examples of groups of people because of their trenchant characteristics and outstanding achievements that should be known by readers, and therefore can not be thought as being overemphasized. One may ask himself/herself that without listing those great writers and poets how a book of the history of literature can be organized. The answer must be terrible. Furthermore, the individuals cited in this kind of study are not appearing by themselves but as icons of groups of people, which may have the similar style of writing or live in the same times. Writing these icons enables the reader to capture overviews of certain groups of people. That is how historians tell us what groups of people did in the past, which should not be and actually never have been overlooked.

Last but not least, from logical point of view, it is unreasonable to ask historians to always emphasize identities of groups of people. What enables people distinguish individuals and groups of people in the history is that the former have their easy-to-tell identities but the later, when one is looking at every single element of it, have not. However, groups as a whole has been emphasized for a long time. A daily life example could be that it is easy for a person who loves history to tell others what are the main difference between people lived in 19 century and nowadays. Where did he learn this? History books. Meanwhile, it is utterly possible for the same history fan to tell others what an old man called Bill lived in Livingston, a small town in Philadelphia, was doing in 1854, the year Abraham Lincoln made his Peoria Speech. Is it because historians placed too much emphasis on President Lincoln to overlook the lives of Bill from Philadelphia? The answer is absolutely no because that for almost every history book of the United States in 19 to 20 centuries can tell readers what are the differences of people's lives, including Bill's, before and after the Civil War, and probably using more space than Lincoln's political live.

The assertion that the study of history focuses so much on individuals that the identities of groups of people, which are the real driving forces of the development of history as most people, including me, believe, is consequently unconvincingly biased, for the majority of rigorous pure history researches are focusing on common people and some minority areas focusing more on individuals are really aiming at tell readers about the groups. And logically, alternating the focus from individuals to groups as what the statement expect might be not desirably feasible.

creativeUID: 2193617

Red means mistakes;
Green means suggestions;
Blue means comments on paragraphs;
Magenta means comments on the whole essay.

========================================================

Revision of #6, by 小谦

When it comes to the issue of the study of history, some people think it places too much emphasis on individuals, considering the prevalence{good to learn this word} of the Great man theory which explains history by great men. However, accumulating evidence [evidences]suggest that the study of history that[delete it] concerns about economy,cultures, politics and laws in general. In my point of view, the most significant events and trends in history could both be made by the famous few and groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten [you may not need this clause].

The author gives a clear opinion in the beginning paragraph. However, the reviewer thinks that the last sentence can be reorganized a little bit, since the original statement is actually talking about the emphases on individuals in the study of history, not who dominates history. So something like “both the famous few and groups of people have been reasonably emphasized.” would be better. If the author can taste the word “probably” in the given statement,he/she can feel what the reviewer states here.

First of all, the study of history does not put too much emphasis on individuals. To make this clear, an analysis of the study of history is necessary. History is the study of human past, who narrate {good to know}[which narrates]the event [events]happen in the past and analysis[analyzes] the cause[causes] and effect[effects] of events[them]. History studies the culture,science, people, economy and new [omit it] policies of[in] the past. Individuals are involved in the events and each individual does[did do] something that make[makes] history move a step [steps].

There viewer likes the way this paragraph is formed. It is clear and of logic.

However,some individuals do need to pay [be paid] attention to. [or“there does exists some individuals to whom historians need pay attention”] For one thing, they do[did] have great impact[impacts] on society. Like, Martin Luther King[,]who leaded the movement to liberate the blacks, and Mahatma Gandhi,the pre-eminent leader of India during the Indian Independence Movement. For another, we could always learn something from historic individuals. History [as history] tends to repeat. We could learn from success and [therefore]predict failure. We could learn how Edison and Newton become[became] great inventors and the mistakes made by Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Hence, some historic individuals deserve us to study. {excellent point!}

This paragraph itself is well-organized and convincing. However, in this issue, the author should share his/her opinion on whether individuals are paid attention to and whether it is too much, rather than whether they need to be paid attention. The reviewer does not mean that it is wrong, instead, not that good. It is perfectly correct, because if they are “deserved” to be study, then it is hard to say they are overemphasized.

Moreover,the [omit]people who make great contribution[contributions] to society but have been forgotten are memorized as a group. Whether they are common or do not have great leaders to be remembered, the study of history do[does] include their contribution[contributions]. For example, we do not know the names of the people who built the Great Wall in China, but we do know there was a group of workers who completed a gorgeous project and helped Chinese people defense invaders. Many art works left without the name of the makers, but we do memorize the ones who have such deft hands. {beautiful examples. I enjoyed to read them}

The reviewer feels that this paragraph is directly related to this issue.It states that groups of people have not been forgotten, which is striking in this discussion.

In conclusion, individuals are just one part of history. Some individuals deserve to be study for their great impact[impacts]. We learn from history [history from them]. Besides, we learn from those groups of people [who also] left great impact [impacts] but no names as well.

Again,in this conclusion, the author spend most words on who impacts history, in stead of who has been emphasized in the study of history.Otherwise, it is a good paragraph.

This a good essay overall. The reviewer learned a lot of vocabulary and sentences from it. In the opinion of the reviewer, the author is confused on the main conflict of this issue, which should be to whom the study of history places attention but be thought as who made history from time to time. There are two sentences in the given argument, the first one asserts the overemphasizing on individuals, and the second one complains that groups of people have not gotten enough attentions. Neither of them is arguing who is the history maker. Even though there is a little point about the contribution to history due to groups of people, the word "probably" tells the reader that it is not the key issue here. However, this won't affect the reviewer to say this is a convincing essay with a well organized logical structure. Every point is explained in a pretty clear way.

azure9UID: 2789030

交作业...

梦想在路上UID: 2812986

来晚了，总补上了……

According to the statement, the author claims that the study of history pays too much attention to individuals because those most important events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few but by groups of people. It has some merit from a normal standpoint, however, I cannot totally agree with the speaker’s extreme position because it overlooks the significance of the famous few.

To begin with, the speaker’s assertion that majorities of people play an important role in those significant events and trends in history is quite compelling, as they constitute the body of society and without their supports the famous few cannot propel the development of history at all, on two respects. For one thing, many major discoveries and great miracles in history are the collective efforts of masses, such as the Great wall in China, the Pyramid of Egypt, the Taj Mahal of India and so forth, which are totally built by hundreds of thousand labors and wrights rather than few famous people. For another, any social revolutionary transformations in history would not achieve little success just depending on a few of great leaders but not the masses. Considering that the Sino-Japanese War in China, the independence of China is obtained relying on numerous common people，unnamed heroes, who surely be remembered in history.

However, I cannot totally agree with the speaker’s allegation because it seems to overlook the indispensable contributions of the great elites. Undoubtedly, the roles of the famous few are vital in being catalysis to motivate and accelerate the progress of society. In the realm of economics, for example, without New deal enacted by F.D.Roosevelt, how can American economics recovery from the depression and World War II so quickly? In the realm of politics, without bright decisions made by Lincoln, how can America lead Union during the Civil War and emancipate slaves in the South so successfully? In the realm of technology, without the improvement of stream engine researched by James Watt, How can the Industrial Revolution occur in Britain during the late in 18th century and early in 19th century so developmentally?

Finally, perhaps most importantly, empirical experience indicates that the study of history should emphasize on vital famous figures, while researching the contributions of the masses in history, for two reasons. On one hand, those pronounced figures have more representative and valuable of historical researching, as they are usually important milestones during certain periods in history. For instance, by researching Napoleon, people can easily and clearly acquaint the social situation and significant events in France as well as the whole Europe during that era. On the other hand, it is more easily for posterities to researching famous person than groups of people, since the recordation about them are more abundant than anyone else. It is understandably that historians are by encouraged amounts of materials to place much emphasize on the famous.

In sum, I concede that general masses play an irreplaceable role in the most significant events and trends in history. Nonetheless the speaker overlooks the importance and criticality of the notables in history. In my view, if the human society is like a boat in the river of history, then the masses are staff and the famous few is the captain. The boat cannot navigate to anywhere without staff，however, without the captain the boat will lose the orientation. Obviously, the caption is the key role in the navigating process, which should be paid more attention to.


不能参加二改了，很可惜……:L