1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Issue）

beanie加油UID：2843548

Nowadays, it seems to be accepted generally that the public should try to focus more on scientists’ pursuit of their research rather than the results.  However, it is not that wise in my opinion. Admittedly, how these scholars accomplish their research is quite important, but what is the matter is whether their work contribute to our society actually since that is the true target of scientific research and the(the 去掉） all these researchers' responsibility.阐述立场，good!
     The result should not be the only criterion to the research, at first. The results（主语重复） appearing to be useless and unfeasible right now are uncertain to be useless forever. It is, in fact, totally possible that those theories will be applied to improve both the development of scientific fields and of the quality of people’s lives in the future.观点 Take Leonardo Da Vinci as an example, he is not only a prominent painter but also an outstanding scientist and(句间关系，but更好些吧） clearly not all of his work is useful in his era. However, the majority of his seemingly worthless work is proved to be great and can be applied in daily life now, from bicycle to helicopter. It is the limit of manufacturing technology that attributes to the uselessness of these works. So why should we belittle the research that cannot contribute to the larger society right now yet?（看上去有点别扭，语言的问题。建议可以这莫说：the reason for that is contributed to the blank understanding about the manufacturing technology. but technology is not short-life, which proven useless at one time does not mean being unrecognized for all the time. therefore, we can not underevaluate the greatness of each scientific fruition.And at the same time, the progress also shows scientists' diligence and eagerness which should be respected by the public no matter which field they choose and whether effect of their work to society at once. Madame Curie died of staying with radial materials too long and Stephen Hawking insists his work even though he cannot talk or walk like an average(normal) man. Through their research progress, not the(rather than) results, we still can(can still) find their eagerness and persistent(ce) to the truth. That's why it is my firm belief that even if excluding their research results, all the scientists dedicating to their research deserve our appreciation.
     However, the reasons mentioned above don't imply that I think research results should be concerned less with. Indeed, result is still the core of research and the foremost factor leading to my opinion that it is contributing to the society, not anything else like interest, that is the true target of scientific research. For instance, what so many physicists work for? Maybe you will think it's the interest or thirst for knowledge. But the essence of these is the willingness to explore and exploit our world. And that is the contribution of their work.这段感觉光说观点，例子少
     What's more, another contributor to my attitude is that the researchers are responsible to the society and thus their work should be used to support our society. Unlike other jobs, scientists cannot work on their own. Lacking materials, equipment or money destroys their painstaking effort easily. So sponsorship from institute or corporations is necessary and essential to them. In the applied mechanic institute where I study, the equipment decisive to the experiment are all donated by the government or those firms sponsoring our college and obviously each one of them is unaffordable to researchers themselves without sponsorship. Therefore, it is effortlessly to image the reactions of the public if they find that their money is just used to gratify researchers' interest and will bring nothing to themselves and the larger society. If results of them are not beneficial to the society, the research will be a waste of resource only.这段感觉你在反着说，应该是如果研究结果对社会无意，那么则是浪费钱。而你说的是花钱在先，研究结果在后。。
All in all, scientists should be responsible for their research and I hold the belief that it is the real motive power to their work that is to contribute to the larger society. So that's why I prefer that the results should be cared more.结果较短，且不切点。
总体来说，文章主要的不好之处是观点较模糊，不清楚。其次，语言太过朴实，并且有chienglish的嫌疑，建议作者平时多阅读写英语读物，对写作有较好帮助。
个人观点，仅供参考

beanie加油UID：2843548

11 All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems.  
   
     Do all nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems? The speaker claims so, for the reason that a global university can gather the elite students from different countries together so that they can put forward many constructive proposals for the development of the international society. I concede that it is quite a good idea for students to exchange their opinions with each other and the advices they come up are full of comprehend consideration. However, for my part, I can not help worrying about the feasibility of supporting a global university even if it looks very appealing, unique, and quite beneficial to each nation.
     In the first place, the way of enrolling students around the world and investing money in supporting the university is a big concern for each nation. On account of different educational systems in different part of the world, it is hard to build a universal standard on the enrollment of students, even an eclectic criterion. Thus, the unavoidable problem may lead to many rounds of negotiation, and finally the unsatisfactory solution. They are actually stunting the development of a global university rather than supporting on it. What really matters is how each nation financially supports its development. As we know that many international organizations, for instance, the IMF decides the voice and representation of nations partly based on the financial investment they infuse in. So there always exists an inclination that great powers can easily get how much of the proportion they want to take place in the international society. Therefore, no one can assure that if the global university will provides another stage for those big countries to compete on their voice and representation. If so, is it still necessary to build a global university focused on involving students from different nations to solve the international issues? Absolutely no; it is not only a waste of money for those poor countries, but a kind of humiliation for the intelligence from those parts of the world. For the university will not listen to them not because of who they are, but because of where they are from. Based on two indispensable factors mentioned above, I strongly disagree with the speaker’s claim.
     Aside from those discussed, another reason serving to strengthen my stand is the doubt raised towards the feasibility of supporting a global university. As the author asserts, the university is aimed at engaging students in the process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems. So let’s start from those most hot social issues. Take the environmental protection as an example. We know that the global environment is increasingly worsened in the recent years and each nation is making its efforts on protecting the environment. Suppose a student from USA and a student from Brazil talk about this issue and both of them sincerely hope to reach an agreement upon it. The Brazilian student first says that he wants the US to reduce its emission on carbon dioxide by 7.4 percentages in the next ten years. The American student nods at his head saying no problem, and then he says to the Brazilian student that he expects Brazil to stop cutting any rainforest trees. But do you think the Brazilian student will admit it since his fellow student has already conceded on his proposal? If we search for the information about the development of Brazil agriculture, it is not difficult for us to know that farmers in Brazil make a living by cutting down the rainforest trees and planting beans in the lands. Also, Brazil is one of the biggest countries on producing biofuels. If the Brazilian student compromises on the problem, which means that he is closing a door for his country to survive on the economic development. So do you think he will make such a compromise by sacrificing the future of his own nation? Thus, we can foresee the potential problems existing in the global university. Developed countries can put efforts in solving the persistent social problems, but not those developing countries. So the necessity and significance of building a global university are not strong any more.
     To sum up, the speaker fails to take into account the problems of supporting a global university it might have. It is actually a quite unique view for solving the world’s most persistent social issues. But meanwhile we also need to consider the negative factors of that, for they share the equivalent position with the positive influences. So based on the mentioned arguments, I strongly disagree with the speaker’s stand.
很想知道这篇文章的内部结构是否合理以及例子是否说明地恰当？望猛拍，谢谢撒！！！

tyarelUID：2756223

11 All nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world's most persistent social problems.  
   
     Do all nations should help support the development of a global university designed to engage students in the process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems? The speaker claims so, for the reason that a global university can gather the elite students from different countries together so that they can put forward many constructive proposals for the development of the international society. I concede that it is quite a good idea for students to exchange their opinions with each other and the advices they come up are full of comprehend consideration. However, for my part, I can not (cannot) help worrying about the feasibility of supporting a global university even if it looks very appealing, unique, and quite beneficial to each nation.
     In the first place, the way of enrolling students around the world and investing money in supporting the university is a big concern for each nation. On account of different educational systems in different part of the world, it is hard to build a universal standard on the enrollment of students, even an eclectic criterion. Thus, the unavoidable problem may lead to many rounds of negotiation, and finally the unsatisfactory solution. They are actually stunting the development of a global university rather than supporting on it. What really matters is how each nation financially supports its development. As we know that many international organizations, for instance, the IMF decides the voice and representation of nations partly based on the financial investment they infuse in. So there always exists an inclination that great powers can easily get how much of the proportion they want to take place in the international society. Therefore, no one can assure that if the global university will provides another stage for those big countries to compete on their voice and representation. If so, is it still necessary to build a global university focused on involving students from different nations to solve the international issues? Absolutely no; it is not only a waste of money for those poor countries, but a kind of humiliation for the intelligence from those parts of the world. For the university will not listen to them not because of who they are, but because of where they are from. Based on two indispensable factors mentioned above, I strongly disagree with the speaker’s claim.
     Aside from those discussed, another reason serving to strengthen my stand is the doubt raised towards the feasibility of supporting a global university. As the author asserts, the university is aimed at engaging students in the process of solving the world’s most persistent social problems. So let’s start from those most hot social issues. Take the environmental protection as an example. We know that the global environment is increasingly worsened in the recent years and each nation is making its efforts on protecting the environment. Suppose a student from USA and a student from Brazil talk about this issue and both of them sincerely hope to reach an agreement upon it. The Brazilian student first says that he wants the US to reduce its emission on carbon dioxide by 7.4 percentages in the next ten years. The American student nods at his head saying no problem, and then he says to the Brazilian student that he expects Brazil to stop cutting any rainforest trees. But do you think the Brazilian student will admit it since his fellow student has already conceded on his proposal? If we search for the information about the development of Brazil agriculture, it is not difficult for us to know that farmers in Brazil make a living by cutting down the rainforest trees and planting beans in the lands. Also, Brazil is one of the biggest countries on producing biofuels. If the Brazilian student compromises on the problem, which means that he is closing a door for his country to survive on the economic development. So do you think he will make such a compromise by sacrificing the future of his own nation? Thus, we can foresee the potential problems existing in the global university. Developed countries can put efforts in solving the persistent social problems, but not those developing countries. So the necessity and significance of building a global university are not strong any more.
     To sum up, the speaker fails to take into account the problems of supporting a global university it might have. It is actually a quite unique view for solving the world’s most persistent social issues. But meanwhile we also need to consider the negative factors of that, for they share the equivalent position with the positive influences. So based on the mentioned arguments, I strongly disagree with the speaker’s stand.


文章反驳条理很清晰，个人觉得例子使用上也没有什么问题，语言也很顺畅很舒服。大错我也着实挑不出来什么，提2个小小的微调建议。
1.第二段的反驳，看来有2个层次，甚至可以说是2个反驳点。招生标准难制定，还有就是global university可能只是某些大国的传话筒。既然是2个不怎么相干的问题，我觉得还是拆分开来单独成段比较好，也比较清晰。
2.后一段反驳应用了环境问题的例子，个人觉得还是蛮适合的。就是用这种类似讲故事的方式显得很拖沓，建议可以再精简一下。特别是一开始关于2个学生你一句我一句这个，我觉得没什么必要。和文章整体的风格也不大搭调
总体觉得文章很不错的，2个小建议，无伤文章大体，细节之处小小打磨一下，希望有用。

tyarelUID：2756223

40. "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
我们不应该仅仅关注学者和研究者的著作能否对社会做出贡献。更重要的是关注他们如何追求实现自己的兴趣，无论那些兴趣显得是多么的非同寻常。

不赞同。
1).必须承认，科研成果并不是研究的一切。即使没有成果，科学家也是值得人们敬佩的。
2).科学研究的本质目的就在于研究出来的结果为社会做出贡献。
3).科学研究本身要占用很多社会的资源，对社会不做出贡献的研究其实就是一种对于社会资源的浪费。

Nowadays, it seems to be accepted generally that the public should try to focus more on scientists’ pursuit of their research rather than the results.  However, it is not that wise in my opinion. Admittedly, how these scholars accomplish their research is quite important, but what is the matter is whether their work contribute to our society actually since that is the true target of scientific research and the all these researchers' responsibility.
The result should not be the only criterion to the research, at first. The results appearing to be useless and unfeasible right now are uncertain to be useless forever. It is, in fact, totally possible that those theories will be applied to improve both the development of scientific fields and of the quality of people’s lives in the future. Take Leonardo Da Vinci as an example, he is not only a prominent painter but also an outstanding scientist and clearly not all of his work is useful in his era. However, the majority of his seemingly worthless work is proved to be great and can be applied in daily life now, from bicycle to helicopter. It is the limit of manufacturing technology that attributes to the uselessness of these works. So why should we belittle the research that cannot contribute to the larger society right now yet? And at the same time, the progress also shows scientists' diligence and eagerness which should be respected by the public no matter which field they choose and whether effect of their work to society at once. Madame Curie died of staying with radial materials too long and Stephen Hawking insists his work even though he cannot talk or walk like an average man. Through their research progress, not the results, we still can find their eagerness and persistent to the truth. That's why it is my firm belief that even if excluding their research results, all the scientists dedicating to their research deserve our appreciation.
However, the reasons mentioned above don't imply that I think research results should be concerned less with. Indeed, result is still the core of research and the foremost factor leading to my opinion that it is contributing to the society, not anything else like interest, that is the true target of scientific research. For instance, what so many physicists work for? Maybe you will think it's the interest or thirst for knowledge. But the essence of these is the willingness to explore and exploit our world. And that is the contribution of their work.
What's more, another contributor to my attitude is that the researchers are responsible to the society and thus their work should be used to support our society. Unlike other jobs, scientists cannot work on their own. Lacking materials, equipment or money destroys their painstaking effort easily. So sponsorship from institute or corporations is necessary and essential to them. In the applied mechanic institute where I study, the equipment decisive to the experiment are all donated by the government or those firms sponsoring our college and obviously each one of them is unaffordable to researchers themselves without sponsorship. Therefore, it is effortlessly to image the reactions of the public if they find that their money is just used to gratify researchers' interest and will bring nothing to themselves and the larger society. If results of them are not beneficial to the society, the research will be a waste of resource only.
All in all, scientists should be responsible for their research and I hold the belief that it is the real motive power to their work that is to contribute to the larger society. So that's why I prefer that the results should be cared more.


谢谢lx的G友了，辛苦了

奔跑的阿甘UID：2635861

TOPIC: ISSUE142 - "The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
WORDS: 444
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/16 20:45:40
        The statement asserts that the well-being of a society can be enhanced when many of its people question authority. The assertion has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar as the progress of society is accompanied by question which is the strength that can promote the advancement of society. However, the statement is indefensible as it ignores those unreasonable question.
        It is widely acknowledged that power is a nice thing which allots societal wealth, resources and opportunities as well as serves to control general populace. Anyone who in the authority position will possess mystical power. Authority under public scrutiny can allocate social resources reasonably and ensure the society run organized; otherwise, those who in power are most likely to be a devil who will stop at nothing in doing evil. Consider, for example, the Cambodia that under the inhuman region of Khmer Rouge. When Pol Pot took the position of minister, Khmer Rouge executed terror region. Those who dared to question the behavior of government were slaughtered. Finally more than a million innocent people were killed.
      The reason why the savage society can eventually advance into developed one is that people dare to question authority during every stage of its progress. Question is a key determinant of social development. One apt illustration of this point involves the change of Chinese government's attitudes toward the southwest drought. Initially, people assume that the drought is the natural calamity as the earthquake. Whenever the media reported it in graphic detail, more and more people participated in the discussion of reasons causing this disaster. Increasing number of people began to believe that human behavior plays a crucial role in it. The water pollution as well as the unreasonable growing plants that undermine groundwater structure might be the authentic reasons for this drought. As a consequence, Government organized specialists to seek for the true reasons and address the potential problems. In short, reasonable question can help solve social problems.
        Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because sometimes question cannot help enhance the well-being of a society, even those unreasonable question will be counterproductive to achieving that objective. Consider, for example, the Chinese Cultural Revolution. During that time, general populace become irrational, they questioned authority without any firm evidences. The worst thing is that a multitude of specialists and informed people were persecuted and even killed. Unreasonable question brought about nothing to us just impeded the development of society.
        In sum, I concede that reasonable question can contribute to a society’s well-being, as well as constrain the behavior of those in power. Yet, the speaker ignores the unreasonable question which might lead to detrimental influence.

figuechenUID：2850619

TOPIC: ISSUE142 - "The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
WORDS: 444
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/16 20:45:40

The statement asserts that the well-being of a society can be enhanced when many of its people question authority. The assertion has merit from a normative standpoint, and I agree insofar as the progress of society is accompanied by question which is the strength that can promote the advancement of society. However, the statement is indefensible as it ignores those unreasonable question.[questions]
[第一段很平稳，辩证看待问题]


It is widely acknowledged that power is a nice [换了如此口语的词吧]thing which allots societal wealth, resources and opportunities as well as serves to control general populace. Anyone who in the authority position [who are in the authority position]will possess mystical power. Authority under public scrutiny can allocate social resources reasonably and ensure the society run organized; otherwise, those who in power [who are in power]are most likely to be a devil who will stop at nothing in doing evil. Consider, for example, the Cambodia that under the inhuman region of Khmer Rouge. [你这句话有谓语动词么]When Pol Pot took the position of minister, Khmer Rouge executed terror region. Those who dared to question the behavior of government were slaughtered. [slaughter是指大屠杀吧，感觉在这里不是太合适]Finally more than a million innocent people were killed.
[这一段是说权力带来的灾难？不明白和下文有什么关系]


The reason why the savage society can eventually advance into developed one is that people dare to question authority during every stage of its progress. Question is a key determinant of social development. One apt illustration of this point involves the change of Chinese government's attitudes toward the southwest drought. Initially, people assume that the drought is the natural calamity as the earthquake. Whenever the media reported it in graphic detail, more and more people participated in the discussion of reasons causing this disaster. Increasing number of people began to believe that human behavior plays a crucial role in it. The water pollution as well as the unreasonable growing plants that undermine groundwater structure might be the authentic reasons for this drought. As a consequence, Government organized specialists to seek for the true reasons and address the potential problems. In short, reasonable question can help solve social problems.
[这一段写问题才能带来进步，用了中国大旱的例子。例子很新颖，写得不错]


Beyond this concession, however, I disagree with the statement because sometimes question cannot help enhance the well-being of a society, even those unreasonable question will be counterproductive to achieving that objective. Consider, for example, the Chinese Cultural Revolution. During that time, general populace become irrational, they questioned authority without any firm evidences. The worst thing is that a multitude of specialists and informed people [见多识广的人？]were persecuted and even killed. Unreasonable question brought about nothing to us just impeded the development of society.
[这段写问题带来的危害，用了中国文化大革命的例子。道理上还是讲得通的，只不过不知道rater知不知道文化大革命]


In sum, I concede that reasonable question can contribute to a society’s well-being, as well as constrain the behavior of those in power. Yet, the speaker ignores the unreasonable question which might lead to detrimental influence.
[结尾有点平淡，只是重复了刚才的观点]

综述：
作者在谋篇布局上详略不是太得当，第一部分说权力带来灾难，但是在后面的文章中没有看到后续的内容。第二部分和第三部分才应该是文章的主体。后两部分写得不错，用了中国的两个例子，从道理上也都讲得过去，比较有说服力。

在语言上，感觉作者生搬硬套了很多词组和新词，许多在用法上都有些问题，最好能改进一下。

祝共同进步~

figuechenUID：2850619

Issue70——"In any profession—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership."  

Word：641
未限时
观点：分情况而言，政治界应当如此；商界可有可无；科技界不应该如此。
分论点：政治界、商界和科技界各一

    Whether the leader should leave his leading position after five years in power? I think that depends on the field he is working on. For politics and government, the answer is yes, for most of the time; for business, the answer varies; but for science, the answer is definitely no.
    Let us move on to the government and politics first. Government officials and party leaders should step down after they have taken charge of the power for five years. The revitalization is a must in politics to evoke passion and avoid autocracy. Take George Washington for an example, he rejected the suggestion that he should be the divine King of the America and quitted the presidency after being the president for eight years. He has set up a perfect exemplary for the modern democratic country, leading to the limited tenure of presidency in most civilized society. The claim that the change of leaders will evoke passion is best illustrated by the booming economy in China since 1976, the year that Chairman Mao had ended his rule for twenty-seven years. Deng, the new Chairman in China, completely altered the economic policies and revitalized the will of people to work for a better life. Another example is that Roosevelt gave hopes to Americans when he was elected the president and overcame the Great Depression. We can conclude from these examples that the change of the leader can no doubt offer passion to the enterprise in politics.
    In the business affairs, the situation might be a little perplexing. There are both examples supporting the both sides. Nowadays, there exist several successful and passionate family firms whose president remains unchanged for decades while most companies adopt the institution of limited years for presidency. Thus, whether the leader should be replaced every five years remain doubting. NBA, one of the most successful sporting leagues, has been taken in charge by David Stern ever since it was established in 1946. Even if the leadership has not been replaced often, the league remains its vigor and continues to expand its influence worldwide. The same situation occurs on Standard Oil Company, the firm that has been inaugurated by J.Rockefeller. Rockfeller has been the tenure of presidency of the firm, and therefore his presidency has remained for decades. However, the staff in the firm was in great passion and the firm has even monopolized the oil selling in America in the 19th century. The two examples above illustrate the point that the number of years of presidency is not so important in business field.
    In science, it is better not to set up a rule to compel the leader to step down every five years, since five years may be too short for a scientific project which might last ten years, or more. The frequent shift of leaders will influence the long-term goal for the scientific organization. For instance, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, one of the most famous scientific institutions that focus on curing cancer, has been under the leadership of J.D.Watson, the Nobel laureate, for thirty-five years. Scientific research requires a long time to achieve satisfactory results, and if each president aims to make some achievements to acquire a better reputation for him, the institution will achieve nothing in a longer period. In order to regulate the institution, we can set up rules to replace the leader every two or three projects, instead of the certain number of years that a president serves.
    In sum, we can conclude from the reasoning and examples above that the revitalization through new leadership is not always the surest way towards success for any enterprise in any field. It might be correct in some fields, such as politics; and it might not be the most influential factor in fields like business; and it might have a negative effect on fields such as science.

恳请楼下狠拍~先谢谢了

zhangHankUID：2850119

我的来了，
120"So much is new and complex today that looking back for an understanding of the past provides little guidance for living in the present."

top15 /social
outline:
1. 在古代研究历史很有借鉴意义，中国有句古话“前事不忘后事之师”（the past, if not forgotten, can serve as a guide for the future），那些政治精英无一不是通晓历史，知道兴替的人。举例：唐太宗李世民

2.但是自从工业革命以来，人类的生产生活方式经历了巨大的而深刻的改变，并且这些改变还在进行。人类面临了许多新的问题，这是古人们前所未有过的，我们确实能很少从那里得到具体的指导，比如全球化问题，ford汽车的例子。这些问题同样引起了人心灵的思考；网络的例子极大地丰富了人们的业余生活但有给人们的注意力分散和精神薄弱

3.但是很多社会发展所遵循的基本规律没有改变，平等正义自由，民主战争这些核心问题都是历史的延续。再比如一个人想要做生意的本领，两千年前《国语》中论述的做生意的道理“贾人夏则资皮，冬则资絺，旱则资舟，水则资车，以待乏也”（The merchant stores leathers in summer, collects silk in winter, hoards boats in the drought, purchases vehicles in the deluge, to expected the time of scarcity of these things.) 到现在也是适用相通的。 再者，人类面临的心理困惑也没有比古希腊高明多少。

总之，我们应本着取其精华去其糟粕(accepting the good and rejecting the obsolete) 的态度来对待历史对待过往，既能利用前人的经验又不会被这些经验所困，面对新问题时敢于提出新的方法去处理和解决，这是进步的本质，同样可以设想我们今天解决问题的经验又会给后人一些参考。
Common, or even instinct, is that we look back for guidance or solutions when we encounter problems.  As of the distinct difference between the temporary and the past, does it make sense of studying of history to look for instructions? It will be discussed case-by-case.

In the ancient time, it was meaningful to study history.  There is a Chinese old saying" The past, if not forgotten, can serve as a guide for the future."  That is because there are so many similarities between the time and the before, especially in China.  Every dynasty is almost the same except the family name of empire. So they can know the regulation of politics and economics from the study of history.  All of those political elites do understand history well. For example, the Li II of Tang dynasty is a well-known empire in the history. He learned the lesson from the perishing of Sui dynasty and adjusted the economic policies, such as sparing the expenditure of government and decreasing the taxes of peasants. So people have opportunity to thrive. After several decades the Tang owns great national strength and the people are abundant.  From this example, we can conclude that the ancient dynasty can learn a lot of knowledge, no matter politics or economy, and the reason is the basis of the dynasty is unchanged, the basis that is farmer's production.

However, since the Industrial Revolution, our society has undergone great changes, in both productivity and life style. We are and will be confronted with plenty of problems unprecedented, such as the globalization and the Internet. In the globalization the capital searches for optimal configuration of production to reduce the costs.  For instance, Ford autos, in the early nineteenth century, Ford established the autos realm in Detroit. He invented the assembly-line working style and promoted the efficiency greatly. He gave workers high wages so that they can afford cars. The workers benefits a lot from this strategy, simultaneously, Ford also gain fortunes from the increasing market. All of these are harmonious. But after several decades, with the development of transportation and communication, the capital could gain more if they made cars in undeveloped area and sold back to the US. Under the pressure of the competitors, Ford transferred his manufactory to Brazil, leaving the Detroit factory dilapidated.  And now the Brazil factory closed too. Apparently this is not the optimal developmental style from the angle of universal human. Can these procedures be improved? The great company transfers their factories from developed area which means high labor cost and strict environmental limit to the undeveloped area where they can defray little money and can pour the pollution anywhere.  The capital is unreasonable; its only pursuit is profit. How can we assure that the globalization impelled by capital is reasonable and conducive to human beings ultimately? To deal with these problems that we have never encountered in the history, we could learn little from the understanding of the past.

On the other hand, there are some core regulations of development unchanged. Equality, justice, liberty, democracy and war are continual from the history. Not only the great concepts but also some little experiences are unchanged. For example, a law of merchant recorded in the "National Word", which is a history book two thousand years ago, is that(I paraphrase) "the merchant stores leathers in summer, collects silk in winter, hoards boats in the drought time and purchases vehicles in the flood, to expected the time of scarcity of these things". I think it is still the core law in commerce. In additional, we cannot say that we are meditating deeper than Socrates. We have a lot to learn from these ancient great thinkers.

In sum, we might face the past in the view of accepting the good and rejecting the obsolete.  So we can make use of experience of ancestors and at the same time avoid being swamped in the past. When facing new problems, we need the courage to develop new method to dispose it, which is the essence of progress. We can imagine when coming up with new solution, we are also providing reference to our descendants.
期待指教

追梦小木耳UID：2781857

楼上没改52楼的
我改52楼的吧
Whether the leader should leave his leading position after five years in power? I think that depends on the field he is working on. For politics and government, the answer is yes, for most of the time; for business, the answer varies; but for science, the answer is definitely no.
    Let us move on to the government and politics first. Government officials and party leaders should step down after they have taken charge of the power for five years. The revitalization is a must in politics to evoke passion and avoid autocracy. Take George Washington for an example, he rejected the suggestion that he should be the divine King of the America and quitted the presidency after being the president for eight years. He has set up a perfect exemplary for the modern democratic country, leading to the limited tenure of presidency in most civilized society. The claim that the change of leaders will evoke passion is best illustrated by the booming economy in China since 1976, the year that Chairman Mao had ended his rule for twenty-seven years. Deng, the new Chairman in China, completely altered the economic policies and revitalized the will of people to work for a better life. Another example is that Roosevelt gave hopes to Americans when he was elected the president and overcame the Great Depression. We can conclude from these examples that the change of the leader can no doubt offer passion to the enterprise in politics.
罗斯福代替了谁呢？他不是当选了3届，死在了第4任吗？应该是反例吧
    In the business affairs, the situation might be a little perplexing. There are both examples supporting the both sides. Nowadays, there exist several successful and passionate family firms whose president remains unchanged for decades while most companies adopt the institution of limited years for presidency. Thus, whether the leader should be replaced every five years remain doubting. NBA, one of the most successful sporting leagues, has been taken in charge by David Stern ever since it was established in 1946. Even if the leadership has not been replaced often, the league remains its vigor and continues to expand its influence worldwide. The same situation occurs on Standard Oil Company, the firm that has been inaugurated by J.Rockefeller. Rockfeller has been the tenure of presidency of the firm, and therefore his presidency has remained for decades. However, the staff in the firm was in great passion and the firm has even monopolized the oil selling in America in the 19th century. The two examples above illustrate the point that the number of years of presidency is not so important in business field.
这一段陈述了两个事实，但是没有分析背后的原因。为什么有的时候应该换，有的时候不该换呢？是领导自身的能力问题，还是行业的特点？如果犯错误了，或者公司效益不好了，是不是应该换领导呢？
    In science, it is better not to set up a rule to compel the leader to step down every five years, since five years may be too short for a scientific project which might last ten years, or more. The frequent shift of leaders will influence the long-term goal for the scientific organization. For instance, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, one of the most famous scientific institutions that focus on curing cancer, has been under the leadership of J.D.Watson, the Nobel laureate, for thirty-five years. Scientific research requires a long time to achieve satisfactory results, and if each president aims to make some achievements to acquire a better reputation for him, the institution will achieve nothing in a longer period. In order to regulate the institution, we can set up rules to replace the leader every two or three projects, instead of the certain number of years that a president serves.
我觉得science包含的面太广了，不如说做研究research.但是不是所有项目都是长期的啊，如果项目失败了，要不要更换领导呢？
    In sum, we can conclude from the reasoning and examples above that the revitalization through new leadership is not always the surest way towards success for any enterprise in any field. It might be correct in some fields, such as politics; and it might not be the most influential factor in fields like business; and it might have a negative effect on fields such as science.

我认为你这篇文章只是用例子反映了一些客观事实，并没有分析内部原因，没有分析为什么要换领导，是为了注入活力，还是其他原因？总体来说是缺少insightful的见解，就算你把所有领域都讨论了一遍，还是不能归纳出结论哪
我的那一篇虽然讨论的领域不多，但是分出的是竞争激烈的和竞争不激烈的领域。虽然我觉得这样分可能有点粗略，但是我认为关键是说出其中的原因，而不是罗列事实。你说呢？

追梦小木耳UID：2781857

Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little."

Words:690

As time flows with our memory gradually fading, lots of facts we have learned or even have happened to our lives are escaping from our minds. What remained are the lessons and ideas we learned from the experience. Hence, the crucial meaning of study is not the facts one memorized, but the concepts and ideals one absorbed. However, as people’s opinion on the same fact may vary deeply from each other, claiming that ideas, trends and concepts should be studied before facts is presumptuous.

In the general process of study, facts are utilized to prove certain theories and ideas, which are not the purpose of study. When we recall history, hardly can we find two exactly same situations on the ground that the facts one memorized could never be applied to reality. A cruel but profound story is told by all teachers in my major in order to remind the students the fault of only studying facts. Considering the roaring modernization of cities consisted of countless skyscrapers nowadays which would remind people of the landscape of New York City, famous for the skyscraper sky line. The same scene in Beijing, the capital of China, stands out. During 1950s, after new government was founded and the capital was decided to settle in Beijing, large proportion of traditional buildings who had existed for hundreds of years and represented the character of Chinese culture were destroyed, in order to make space for the new, modern-look constructions. The architects then only saw the thriving scene formed by splendid buildings, however, ignore the reasons behind that it was the history of modern architecture in western cities and the prosper of economy that has contributed to the form of those gigantic buildings. Whereas, similar skyscrapers were constructed in Beijing, neither could they represent the tradition nor can they present the reality, leading to the lack of personality of the city, which could hardly be restored now. Therefore, studying only facts could easily lead to blind imitation and ignorance of other realistic elements.

Even though, we still need to learn facts from which, we gain ideas and concepts. However, facts must be analyzed first before theories are taught, as students should be trained to master the skill of analysis and conclude rather than simply memorize what was written in text books or told by teachers. When faced with the same matter, students would come up with varies ideas. When studying the African-American Civil Rights Movement between 1954 to 1968, some students may focus on the protest against unjust laws that made the racial discrimination and segregation legitimated, some may learn the cruel consequence of racial discrimination that the black had suffered unfair treatments, the others may conclude the importance of feminism movement since not until then did the black women participate in the movement calling for equal rights. When studying in the area of arts, one can hardly define certain conceptions before learning the backgrounds and feature of art works, on the ground that the artists would not follow an uniform idea. The students should analyze works of each era and draw the similar feathers, which could be controversial, but unique to them and could be applied to their own works.

Even those theories that have been recognized as truth should not be given to students before several facts are presented. As far as I am concerned, in addition to ability of analysis and conclude, students are also required the quality of questioning. Those scientific laws and regularities could have flaws and not be able to apply to some conditions. Newton’s laws of motion were once believed to be truth universally. However, when scientific researches explore the micro world, it fails to explain the motion of atoms. Such possibilities exist in every realm and students should learn from facts, analyzing and questioning, rather than prove certain given theory from limited facts offered by the prestigious.

Although facts are the basis of studying, it is thinking, analyzing, summarizing and questioning make the studying of facts meaningful. Therefore, students should be encouraged to focus on the idea and concepts concluded from the studying of facts rather the facts alone.

tyarelUID：2756223

占位改55L



Students should memorize facts only after they have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Students who have learned only facts have learned very little."

Words:690

As time flows with our memory gradually fading, lots of facts we have learned or even have happened to our lives are escaping from our minds. What remained are the lessons and ideas we learned from the experience. Hence, the crucial meaning of study is not the facts one memorized, but the concepts and ideals one absorbed. However, as people’s opinion on the same fact may vary deeply from each other, claiming that ideas, trends and concepts should be studied before facts is presumptuous.

In the general process of study, facts are utilized to prove certain theories and ideas, which are not the purpose of study. When we recall history, hardly can we find two exactly same situations on the ground that the facts one memorized could never be applied to reality. A cruel but profound story is told by all teachers in my major in order to remind the students the fault of only studying facts. [Considering the roaring modernization of cities consisted of countless skyscrapers nowadays which would remind people of the landscape（可以省掉） of New York City, famous for the skyscraper sky line. The same scene in Beijing, the capital of China, stands out.]（老实讲，括号里的这2句个人觉得太啰嗦了，甚至都没有必要去交代，直接开始后面的例子就可以了） During 1950s, after new government was founded and the capital was decided to settle in Beijing, large proportion of traditional buildings who had existed for hundreds of years and represented the character of Chinese culture were destroyed, in order to make space for the new, modern-look constructions. The architects then only saw the thriving scene formed by splendid buildings, however, ignore the reasons behind that it was the history of modern architecture in western cities and the prosper of economy that has contributed to the form of those gigantic buildings. (强调是不错，不过觉得这里看着实在太复杂太啰嗦，理解上容易有歧义。改成ignore that the history……did contribute to…会不会感觉好点？) Whereas, similar skyscrapers were constructed in Beijing, neither could they represent the tradition nor can they present the reality, leading to the lack of personality of the city, which could hardly be restored now. Therefore, studying only facts could easily lead to blind imitation and ignorance of other realistic elements.

Even though, we still need to learn facts from which, we gain ideas and concepts. However, facts must be analyzed first before theories are taught, as students should be trained to master the skill of analysis and conclude rather than simply memorize what was written in text books or told by teachers. When faced with the same matter, students would come up with varies ideas. When studying the African-American Civil Rights Movement between 1954 to 1968, some students may focus on the protest against unjust laws that made the racial discrimination and segregation legitimated, some may learn the cruel consequence of racial discrimination that the black had suffered unfair treatments, the others may conclude the importance of feminism movement since not until then did the black women participate in the movement calling for equal rights. When studying in the area of arts, one can hardly define certain conceptions before learning the backgrounds and feature of art works, on the ground that the artists would not follow an(a) uniform idea. The students should analyze works of each era and draw the similar feathers, which could be controversial, but unique to them and could be applied to their own works.

Even those theories that have been recognized as truth should not be given to students before several facts are presented. As far as I am concerned, in addition to ability of analysis and conclude, students are also required the quality of questioning.
Those scientific laws and regularities could have flaws and not be able to apply to some conditions. Newton’s laws of motion were once believed to be truth universally. However, when scientific researches explore the micro world, it fails to explain the motion of atoms. Such possibilities exist in every realm and students should learn from facts, analyzing and questioning, rather than prove certain given theory from limited facts offered by the prestigious.

Although facts are the basis of studying, it is thinking, analyzing, summarizing and questioning make the studying of facts meaningful. Therefore, students should be encouraged to focus on the idea (ideas) and concepts concluded from the studying of facts rather the facts alone.


文章语言运用流利，句式也很多样。论证手段也很清楚。
看完文章以后感觉有点怪怪的，不是很说得清楚这种感觉，所以我试着分析分析看看你的结构和思路，不知道对不对。
划了下首段全文主旨和各段TS
Claiming that ideas, trends and concepts should be studied before facts is presumptuous.
1.
Therefore, studying only facts could easily lead to blind imitation and ignorance of other realistic elements.
2.
Facts must be analyzed first before theories are taught
3.
Even those theories that have been recognized as truth should not be given to students before several facts are presented.
2,3两段在反驳上其实本质差不多，认为要在给idea之前先给fact。原因一是学生应掌握分析的能力。原因二学生应该学会质疑。然后在这里我觉得追梦的论述就有点偏了，比如最后一段的反驳，更多笔墨在于“学生要掌握质疑的能力”。那么，这对于最后学习的效果是什么？我觉得还没有讲到点子。题目实际是在fact和idea中套路怎么样让学生learn more。但是没有点到题目的关键。所以感觉文章后面的论述有点偏。
另外，从首尾段来说，我认为你的观点是从fact着手去学习ideas。那么我觉得文章结构的重点也应该在这里。那么，第二段的让步在文中比重就显得有点过大了。或许可以把让步例子的语句再提炼下，同时后两段内容再丰富充实下，使文章结构和你的观点侧重保持一致。还有就是我觉得让步不能让了就可以了，它应该是要为全文中心服务的，就是说应该在后文中可以利用让步来为观点服务的。这个意思我可能讲的不是非常清楚，推荐这个帖子https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=694709&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Ddigest
不知道我的想法有没有问题，一点建议，希望有用～^_^

tyarelUID：2756223

17 "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
17．有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。



Citing the sentence, the speaker tried to categorize laws into just and unjust ones and thus recommended people resist unjust laws while obeying just ones. However, I hold the different opinion not only because, in my opinion, it's too reckless to regard some acts as unjust but also since we may have better choice to render these laws more proper.

Undoubtedly, even the speaker cannot deny the majority of laws are considerable, or maybe are so-called just. They are enact to maintain the stability, preserve private wealthy and assure people's security. It is well acknowledged that obeying these laws benefits both the larger society and people themselves. For instance, car-parking on the street is always prohibited especially when the street is crowded with vehicles. It is understandable that if people break the acts and casually park on the street, it will bring great trouble to the transportation system since a line will be occupied. And at the same time, it is always an unwise decision to the law-breaker as the chance of accident has been increased. What if drivers are careless and did not recognize in time that a car is parked on the street which is not a legal parking? Therefore, submitting these laws is definately sensible to everyone.

As to another kind of laws, it's not proper to define them as unjust laws, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the laws seem inconsiderable may be just also in different aspects and merely because of one point to judge them as unjust ones is unfair. Take the laws of remotion in China as an example, the act allow the officials to force the resident remove for sake of public interests. Yet, since it is enacted, the act has been causing debate. Those against the laws point out that the rude execution always leads to violence. It seems unjust, doesn't it？ But if we ponder the problem from the point of the government, sometimes residents' proposed rejection in order to ask for more compensation really delay the agenda of construction which is always built for the interests of the public. The more time wasted on endless negotiation, the more cost has to be paid. Thus, maybe the laws are not that unjust. Another typical example is the laws about holding guns, frankly speaking, the laws make it possible that people can protect themselves and their families when facing dangers. On the other hand, it is also unfortunately that the acts promote the great number of high violent attacks in schools, which turns to be one of the most serious social problems in America. With these examples, it's clearly that many acts solve problems and causes others at the same time and judging whether they are just or not is not a effortless job. Thus, if it's uncertain which group an act belongs to, how can people decide whether they should obey it?

Besides that mentioned above, my disagreement to the assertion of speaker also results from that I believe there is some better methods to better those improper laws rather than merely resisting them. Maybe the public can appeal to the administration of justice to adjust the laws. In China, an institution is implemented that National People's Congress will be held every 4 years and on the congress, representatives from different classes will discuss the unreasonable facet of laws. In addition, consider homosexual marriage, which is forbidden in in almost all over the world 10 years ago. But, with more and more appeal, many European countries begin to legislate to allow that. In Belgian and France, homosexual companies even owns the heirship and can adopt kids. Thus, isn't that a better way to handle the unjust laws? With efforts and suggestions from the public, laws can really be amended and compared with disobedience, it will cause few conflictions, as well as be effecitve.

Nowadays, with more concerns for their own rights, people dare to doubt the validity of acts gradually. But I still hold the firm belief that it is too rushed to classify the laws into two kinds and even if the laws is not correct, appeal will be better to the system than disobedience.


麻烦lx了

费话先生UID：2788924

zhanlou, 呀，这道题！！！嘴角抽搐。。。。口吐白沫。。。两眼一翻。。。改文去。。。
17 "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
17．有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。

Citing the sentence, the speaker tried to categorize laws into just and unjust ones and thus recommended people resist unjust laws while obeying just ones. However, I hold the different opinion not only because, in my opinion, it's too reckless to regard some acts as unjust but also since we may have better choice to render these laws more proper.

Undoubtedly, even the speaker cannot deny the majority of laws are considerable, or maybe are so-called just(后面有点多余，主题句). They are enact（enacted to maintain the stability, preserve private wealthy（protect private property） and assure people's security. It is well acknowledged that obeying these laws benefits both the larger society（为啥有larger？society就好啦） and people themselves. For instance, car-parking on the street is always（always去掉，语法是可以，不过感觉上去掉会更有在陈述的feel, 不过这个可以斟酌，每人语感不一） prohibited especially when the street is crowded with vehicles. It is understandable that if people break the acts and casually park on the street,(其实我觉得and 前后只要一个就行啦，意思都是一样的嘛，要么if people casually break the act or if people casually park on the street) it will bring great trouble to the transportation system since a line will be occupied. And at the same time, it is always an unwise decision to the law-breaker as the chance of accident has been increased. (这句？是想说对违背法律的人来说也不明智么，因为可能会出车祸，这句有问题呀，若我，it is also unwise of the law breakers to put themselves at a higher risk of car accidents.)What if drivers are(这句话要虚拟语气，were) careless and did not (had not)recognize in time that a car is parked on the street which is not a legal parking?(这句话的句子结构不太妥啊，我大概能猜出来是啥意思，不过需要改) Therefore, submitting these laws is definitely sensible to everyone.

As to another kind of laws, it's not proper to define them as unjust laws, as far as I'm concerned. (这句话注水成分太多，为啥不直接it is improper to define some laws as unjust ones)In fact, the laws seem inconsiderable may be just also in different aspects and merely because of one point to judge them as unjust ones is unfair.(呃，我大概也能意会，不过这个句子千万不能这么写啊。。。the variety of criteria make people difficult to judge whether the law is unjust or not, 然后最后总结来一句，thus from different angles, people will reach different conclusions on this issue) Take the laws of remotion(专有名词要大写吧) in China as an example, the act allow the officials to force the resident remove for sake of public interests. Yet, since it is enacted, the act has been causing debate. Those against the laws point out that the rude execution always leads to violence. It seems unjust, doesn't it？ But if we ponder the problem from the point of the government, sometimes residents' proposed rejection in order to ask for more compensation really delay the agenda of construction which is always built for the interests of the public. The more time wasted on endless negotiation, the more cost has to be paid. Thus, maybe the laws are not that unjust.（这个句子。。。are not so unjust as the opponents say）
Another typical example is the laws about holding guns, frankly speaking(其实我觉得这个也可以不用了), the laws make it possible that people can protect themselves and their families when facing dangers. On the other hand（前面没有one hand）, it is also unfortunately that the acts promote the great number of high violent attacks in schools(去掉that the acts), which turns to be one of the most serious social problems in America. With these examples, it's clearly that many acts solve problems and causes others at the same time and judging whether they are just or not is not a effortless job. Thus, if it's uncertain which group an act belongs to, how can people decide whether they should obey it?

Besides that mentioned above, my disagreement to the assertion of speaker also results from that I believe(能不要i believe么） there is some better methods to better（我也知道意思，但换个词吧，押韵啥的也不是这么来的） those improper laws rather than merely resisting them. Maybe the public can appeal to the administration of justice to adjust the laws. In China, an institution is implemented that National People's Congress will be held every 4 years and on the congress, representatives from different classes will discuss the unreasonable facet of laws. In addition, consider homosexual marriage, which is forbidden in in almost all over the world 10 years ago. But, with more and more appeal, many European countries begin to legislate to allow that. In Belgian and France, homosexual companies even owns the heirship and can adopt kids. Thus, isn't that a better way to handle the unjust laws? With efforts and suggestions from the public, laws can really be amended and compared with disobedience, it will cause few conflictions, as well as be effecitve.

Nowadays, with more concerns for their own rights, people dare to doubt the validity of acts gradually. But I still hold the firm belief that it is too rushed to classify the laws into two kinds and even if the laws is not correct, appeal will be better to the system than disobedience.
    总结:版友，你的思路还是挺清晰的。论证手段啥的也齐全了，不过呢，我觉得最大的问题就是注水的句子太多了。就是很多无意义的词把整个句子给spoil了，不仅绕，而且还不美观，还容易出错，考场还浪费时间。嗯，如果直白点儿说，这篇我觉得可以缩到500字以内。我的愚见是，字数不是最重要的，关键是指哪儿打哪儿。例子啥的都不错，得好好弄弄，别浪费了。尤其是i believe, 之类的句子不能总在文章里频繁出现，破坏整体性啊。

费话先生UID：2788924

麻烦楼下的版友，多提意见，尤其是跑题啊，逻辑啥，结构啊，当然还有语言啥的。。。完了，我好像说全了。。。望天。。。。。
TOPIC: ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
WORDS: 497 revised 537
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-7-17 16:23:36


An effective public official, broadly defined, is someone who can use the least resources to provide public service as well as possible. I agree that if an effective leader wants to gain the credit of publics and have the capacity to shoulder the whole nations' responsibility, he certainly should reach some certain moral standards. Yet that is not to say, the only time that we can claim one is an effective leader is that he maintains the highest moral standards.

What do highest ethical and moral standards mean?
In different areas or periods of time, people may never reach a unity conclusion. In my opinion, a man who maintains highest ethical and moral standards means he behaves as what Bible says in all his life. For example, a man should not have sex before marriage; and addiction to alcohol is also prohibited. Also, he cannot accept abortion or cheating. The most important is that he should love everyone and try his best to help them, especially the poor people.

Here comes the question, is it really possible for a public official to obey every standards as said above in his life? The answer, which most people would agree, is impossible. A man no matter powerful or not, a leader or an ordinary people, has his own defects. However, these defects do not hinder him to give full play to his advantages to provide us good service. Washington, the first president of United Stated, rally the ancestors of America to fight against literary and protect publics from the exploration of England. Nearly everyone could not deny he is an effective leader. However, he is also not a perfect leader. He had love affairs with at least two women during his marriage. But have these defects something to do with his great contributions to the nation? No, absolutely no. So from the example of Washington, we can clearly find the conformation to highest standards is not always needed to become an effective leader.

Admittedly, a public official should reach some certain moral standards. Those certain moral standards include the loyalty to his nation and publics, kind, honest and so on. People always vote to a candidate to whom can give credit. If a leader is likely to cheat them, people will have no confidence in his ability to realize his compromises. In addition, a leader without loyalty or awe to laws may easily abuse power for his private benefits, which will do harm to the public benefits. If a leader has the merits such as kind, loyalty and so on, he will organize the public system with less communication costs, which also improve his efficiency. In short, people can accept a leader with some shortcomings but would not allow a man without enough loyalty or honest to be their leader.

Overall, it is not necessary and to some extent impossible for an effective leader to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. But it is necessary to maintain some certain moral standards. An effective leader is not a man of god. What we should care about is the benefits he brings to the public and the whole nation rather than how perfect he is. Effective leaders are just people.

figuechenUID：2850619

改59L的





观点：领导需要道德，但不一定需要最高的道德。

An effective public official, broadly defined, is someone who can use the least resources to provide public service as well as possible. I agree that if an effective leader wants to gain the credit of publics and have the capacity to shoulder the whole nations' responsibility, he certainly should reach some certain moral standards. Yet that is not to say, the only time that we can claim one is an effective leader is that he maintains the highest moral standards.
首先感觉定义不是太好，这里的effective不应该定义成“有效的”，而应该是“杰出的”，详见韦氏字典。由于作者之后用的几个例子中对effective的定义其实也是“优秀的”之类，并没有详谈如何用最少的资源来完成最大的用处，所以建议还是改一下effective的定义，会比较好地配合下面的论述。

What do highest ethical and moral standards mean?
In different areas or periods of time, people may never reach a unity conclusion. In my opinion, a man who maintains highest ethical and moral standards means he behaves as what Bible says in all his life. For example, a man should not have sex before marriage; and addiction to alcohol is also prohibited. Also, he cannot accept abortion or cheating. The most important is that he should love everyone and try his best to help them, especially the poor people.
这段定义了ethical and moral standard，定义说必须做Bible说的一切？我觉得这个定义有些问题吧，为什么是Bible呢？而且举的那些例子有点争议，比如婚前性行为和堕胎。这个可以斟酌一下，有没有更好的定义。

Here comes the question, is it really possible for a public official to obey every standards as said above in his life? The answer, which most people would agree, is impossible. A man no matter powerful or not, a leader or an ordinary people, has his own defects. However, these defects do not hinder him to give full play to his advantages to provide us good service. Washington, the first president of United Stated, rally the ancestors of America to fight against literary and protect publics from the exploration of England. Nearly everyone could not deny he is an effective leader. However, he is also not a perfect leader. He had love affairs with at least two women during his marriage. But have these defects something to do with his great contributions to the nation? No, absolutely no. So from the example of Washington, we can clearly find the conformation to highest standards is not always needed to become an effective leader.
这段说明leader并不一定需要最高的道德标准，因为一些缺点不妨碍他在其它方面的表现。用了华盛顿的例子。这段写得非常不错，恰到好处。

Admittedly, a public official should reach some certain moral standards. Those certain moral standards include the loyalty to his nation and publics, kind, honest and so on. People always vote to
[vote for？]a candidate to whom can give credit. If a leader is likely to cheat them, people will have no confidence in his ability to realize his compromises. In addition, a leader without loyalty or awe to laws may easily abuse power for his private benefits, which will do harm to the public benefits. If a leader has the merits such as kind, loyalty and so on, he will organize the public system with less communication costs, which also improve his efficiency. In short, people can accept a leader with some shortcomings but would not allow a man without enough loyalty or honest to be their leader.
这段列举了领导应该具有的道德标准。但是我觉得其实对领导的道德要求不一定就到此为止了，可以说明一个领导具有越高的道德标准，就越容易得到他人的尊敬，在团结群众处理工作等问题上也就更加如鱼得水。这段没有用例子，不过也无妨。因为能用的例子类似Clinton、Nixon之类的也早就用烂了。

另外honesty也算一个领导的道德准则是存疑的，我记得Issue里有一个题就是说领导不能总是对人民说实话。更何况领导对外的时候总不会总是诚实的。所以我认为这个honest要相对来看。

Overall, it is not necessary and to some extent impossible for an effective leader to maintain the highest ethical and moral standards. But it is necessary to maintain some certain moral standards. An effective leader is not a man of god. What we should care about is the benefits he brings to the public and the whole nation rather than how perfect he is. Effective leaders are just people.

总的来说，文章写得很流畅，很不错。段落之间的逻辑相当清晰，遣词用句也很顺畅。第一部分写道德的定义，第二部分写为什么不需要最高的道德，第三部分写领导仍需要一部分的道德。

缺点是段落的顺序不是太合理，可以考虑把第三部分和第二部分换一下，先写领导需要一定的道德底线，然后再所领导不需要最高的道德。这样是不是更好一些，还要请作者自己斟酌了。就先提这些意见吧~

不好意思改晚了，非常对不起啊