1010G零散版友作文互改帖（Issue）

悦茗UID??2818584

112# sucre1990
格式？直接在LS的帖子上修改吗？那要怎么弄啊。。我不会。。指点指点。。不好意思啊

清水风铃_nonoUID??2809777

占位修改119楼的Issue 108
楼上的板油，看一下这个帖子前两三页的回复你就会明白了~
比如楼上的习作是第n楼
step 1 回帖占n+1楼
step 2 回帖 在n+2楼贴出自己的作文
step 3 回到n+1楼，编辑帖子，把第n楼的习作粘过来并批改
step 4 等待楼下回复你的习作

抱歉让119楼久等了~
Issue 108. "In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings-trials, debates, meetings, etcthat are televised, the more society will benefit."

The government operation is so obscurity(费解，好词) to public that the politicians are questioned by ordinary people. We may wonder that a law, which actually be enacted during a long-period, drastic debate(+d) between so-called questionable politicians, may be admitted easily for politicians are of same kind.(这句话没看懂…) This misunderstanding lies in the scare communication. We do not trust (that) the administrators can really take our hopes into their(省略their) consideration while those officers are reluctant or ashamed to explain themselves. Both sides of the controversy should back a step to reach an agreement.(背景说明，官民双方都有误解，应该各让一步，协商解决)
Fortunately, technology helps us get a progress in that dilemma. Just as radio means a lot public for the President Roosevelt used to get forgiveness to(from) government and picked American’s faith up （收音机意味着很多支持罗斯福的public得到政府的谅解？这句话可能个别词有问题，影响理解。如果再说明白一些的话应该是很好的例子 ）Television, in some countries, can more lively broadcast some attracted political events to public. We may so rapture(极度欢喜，好词！) to know the real scenario of politic and fulfill our supervised duty. In front of millions of eyes, all facts are clearly presented above broad(这个above broad 很地道) and any little illegal actions will be restricted. We may remember that several senators fight with each other for irreconcilable divergence, and the local officers are severely interrogated by people’s delegate without abusing his/her authority to refuse the ask. Moreover, in the process of watching those items, we (如果是指公众的话，可以具体用the public 或者citizens，比用we客观一些) may contemplate things in a more legal perspective and exchange our minds with each other that improve our cognitive of things such as law,(两个并列用and而不用逗号) criminal. There may be more willing for us to comprehend the politicians and officers and their suffering（their suffering冗余，可以省略）So many advantages of broadcasting the politic things impulse the ascending appeal that more transparency is needed for a justice government and a stable society. Thus, television（这段写了广播和电视，在段尾可以统称为technologies）stimulates the communication between the public and leaders.
Although People’s expectation is important that no leaders dare to ignore it, we can not be selfish to only concern our minds. Maybe we would （改为The public tend to 更好一些，避免过度的口语化）enjoy reading news about others,(+but) it is extremely doubtful whether we would equally enjoy reading about ourselves. We ought to stand in(on) the side of those who are broadcasted to scan the thing(- to scan the thing, stand on the side of 已经表达了这个意思). Most of us are nervous in front of the lens of TV, we are worried about whether our action is decent and our expression is articulated, nor our clothing are(is) tidy. So does the person in the TV. Their unnatural behaviors impede them to concentrate on thing itself while some natural things, sincerely feeling for example, are covered. They fear to express their angry, sadness, or agreement. What we see may just a group of affectation that hinder the very rightly justice. (这一段讲公众也应该自我反省，不要条那么多刺儿，例子不是很具体，有一点抽象，可以考虑加一点小例子帮助理解)
So, we public should have our own judge(-judge) criteria. We do need the government open their secret to sunshine; we also should realize that absolutely transparency may exert counterproductive effect to away from our expectation. Just as each coin has two sides, the perspective we standing to look at the question need to be more dialectic but not biased. The government also needs to explain the policy more actively and widely. Through the compromise methods, I think both sides can find their positions in the final solution.(收尾段概括全文，讲政府应该更加透明，但也没有绝对的公开。总体来说正文段1比2写的更清楚，从收尾段才看出来正文段2写的是“没有绝对的公开”，但正文段2实际上在谈公众的过度敏感，二者之间的关系稍稍有点欠清晰，最好能再梳理一下)

总体来说文章还是清晰自然的。用词也很丰富，向你学习！
个别地方有一点冗余，这也是我们大家经常犯的毛病，好不容易想好了的用法，不舍得丢掉。。。
一点建议：最后的点题，虽然说到应该透明，最好能够点回technology，说成依靠可及使政府更透明。 另外对“越透明越好”的反驳，讲清需要适度公开，但不能过度。这样能跟提干要求更契合~
同加油！

清水风铃_nonoUID??2809777

TOPIC: ISSUE208 - "The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much about a society's ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."
WORDS: 330 (改后537)        TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/23 16:33:29

People wearing long hair may not be women but musician. People having sunglasses may not to pretend cool; it may because he is infected with pinkeye. People smiling at you might not be friend; he might deliberate on cheating your money. We are occasionally cheated by our own eyes when judging individuals simply by the first glimpse. By observing people’s appearance and behavior, quite a few clues about a society’s ideas can be acquired, but is that enough?

Judging people, normally individuals, by appearance and behavior is usually helpful to perform better communication and to avoid embarrassment. A young man speaking a certain language is likely to be raised in the compatible country, or at least has rich life experience there. Greetings about this country might give a casual and adorable opening of a conversation. A slim girl clamming that she does not eat meat can be defined vegetarian, and the plane should serve her special food. An old lady who prays before eating has her own religion, so one should not speak something insulting her. We do not know through everybody in the world; there are always strangers and new friends. Having knowledge of how to judge a person at the first look will help us to perform appropriate manners.

Estimating individuals only by the first glance, however, is not recommended. Even though it is a common believe that the appearance reflects the heart, the inner beauty of individuals may not shows at the surface. Somebody that cooked his watch instead of dinner might be judged silly, but he is Sir Isaac Newton, one of the smartest geniuses in the world. It was believed that black people are not as clean as the whites, which is a big fault. The complexion inherited and determined does not color the heart. The colored people are, just like us, generous and peace-loving.

Similarly it is of studying a group of human. Observing the appearance and behavior are necessary however not sufficient approach. Many artists, for example, do not care about their outlook as white-collars do. Vincent Van Gogh looks no different from a regular aged farmer, according to his self portrait. Only by observing his masterpieces would the world astonished by his talent of using paintbrush as a symbol of expression.

A society, containing much more individuals and being in more complex environment, accordingly, requires deeper research to better understand. By observing eating habits of China, we can probably “tell” the phenomenon that people of the north like noodles and steam breads while south people prefer rice, but that is not “much”. Not until we refer to related books for detailed information and found that the north is more of dry climate than the south therefore appropriate for wheat other than for rice shell we put a satisfying end mark to our study. The phenomenon, instead of a end mark of observation, is the clue for us to continue our research and find the cause.

To summarize, the best way to judge people is not only by the appearance, but also by the heart; the right way to study a society, accordingly, is not to be satisfied by phenomenon at the surface, but to dig up the reason beyond.

先谢谢楼下~希望能早点收到回复^-^

anniehalUID??2716032

TOPIC: ISSUE208 - "The way people look, dress, and act reveals their attitudes and interests. You can tell much about a society's ideas and values by observing the appearance and behavior of its people."
WORDS: 330 (改后537)        TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/23 16:33:29

People wearing long hair may not be women but musician. People having sunglasses may not to pretend cool; it may because he is infected with pinkeye. People smiling at you might not be friend; he might deliberate on cheating your money. We are occasionally cheated by our own eyes when judging individuals simply by the first glimpse. By observing people’s appearance and behavior, quite a few clues about a society’s ideas can be acquired, but is that enough?

Judging people, normally（general） individuals, by appearance and behavior is usually helpful to perform(start) better communication and to avoid embarrassment. A young man speaking a certain language is likely to be raised in the compatible country, or at least has rich life experience there. (so? What’s your point of saying this??you’d better develop it) Greetings about this country might give a casual and adorable opening of a conversation. A slim girl clamming that she does not eat meat can be defined vegetarian, and the plane should serve her special food. An old lady who prays before eating has her own religion, so one should not speak something insulting her. We do not know through everybody in the world(??); there are always strangers and new friends. Having knowledge of how to judge a person at the first look will help us to perform appropriate manners.
“;”是把两个并列的观点，联系在一起，不适用来连接两个短剧的，否则用得很awkward。

Estimating individuals only by the first glance, however, is not recommended. Even though it is a common believe that the appearance reflects the heart, the inner beauty of individuals may not shows（be showed） at the surface. Somebody that cooked his watch instead of dinner might be judged silly, but he is Sir Isaac Newton, one of the smartest geniuses in the world. It was believed that black people are not as clean as the whites, which is a big fault. The complexion inherited and determined does not color the heart. The colored people are, just like us, generous and peace-loving. (题目没有讨论人种阿。。不适应该围绕behavior和dress嘛。。)

Similarly it is of studying a group of human.（这个我不确定，从来没看到过，如果你看到过的话，那忽略我） Observing the appearance and behavior are necessary however not sufficient approach. Many artists, for example, do not care about their outlook as white-collars do（为什么这个会出现在这里做比较？？）. Vincent Van Gogh（这不是group of people阿，例子说服力不够） looks no different from a regular aged farmer, according to his self portrait. Only by observing his masterpieces would the world astonished by his talent of using paintbrush as a symbol of expression.

A society, containing much more individuals and being in more complex environment, accordingly, requires deeper research to better understand(be better understood). By observing eating habits of China, we can probably “tell”(tell) the phenomenon that people of the north like noodles and steam breads while south people prefer rice, but that is not “much”. Not until we refer to related books for detailed information and found that the north is more of dry climate(the climate in north is more dry) than the south. Therefore, it is more appropriate for wheat other than for rice shell we put a satisfying end mark to our study.(有问题,但我不清楚你要表达什么，所以改不了) The phenomenon, instead of a（an） end mark of observation, is the clue for us to continue our research and find the cause. (例子不好，气候不适society 的特征阿)

To summarize, the best way to judge people is not only by the appearance, but also by the heart; the right way to study a society, accordingly, is not to be satisfied by phenomenon at the surface, but to dig up the reason beyond.

B1观察一个人的外貌，行为很重要。
B2 按第一印象评判人不正确。
B3 不可以用第一印象观察一群人。
B4 社会范围更大，更不能从人的行为来观察社会。
作者思路的主要发展方向是可以的，但在例子的使用上不适很贴切，导致BODY不能很好的服务主旨。

anniehalUID??2716032

TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 418-662          TIME: 00:39:42          DATE: 2010-7-23 23:41:40

It is true that the general welfare of a nation's people is a major criterion to determine whether it is a good nation or not. However, in order to be a great nation, the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists is still of vital importance.

People are the indispensable and basic part of any country, therefore their general welfare is also the most fundamental standard for defining a good nation. For United States as an example, most people see it as a good nation.  And the general welfare there is quite satisfying that most people with jobs have no problem to cover their own livings expenses, and they enjoy a high quality of lives that almost each family owns a car and has enough money to travel every year. Whilst, in other countries, such as Cambodia and Afghanistan, where citizens are living under poverty and starvation. I believe no one would consider them as good nations due to the awful and terrible general welfare there. In sum up, to be regarded as a good nation, the living condition of the general people there counts a huge part.

However, I should say that citizens' high quality of lives is not enough for a country to be a great one. The important considered aspects are the achievements of their rulers, artists and scientists.

Rulers are the decision makers of one country, their ideas and policies play an important role in the country's future development and achievements. As is known to all, it is the New Deal of F.D Roosevelt helped American economy recover from the huge depression and second world war. This wise policy made the foundation for American's international position of today, without which there could be no success for United States. In addition, due to wrong decision of advocating the Culture Revolution (The rulers at that time believed that studying is useless, and all the scholars and teachers were sent to rural places to work as famers, which was called re-educated.) made by the Chinese government, the development of China was lagged long behind after the second world war when the economy in the whole world was booming. Therefore, ruler's decision and work is way more significant for one nation's future development. When they conduct a proper policy, the country would get closer to be a great one, and vise versa.

Artifacts are the spiritual achievements of one country. What the artists accomplish is also of paramount importance for defining a great nation, since arts influence people's mind and spirit, which somehow have an impact on forming people's characteristic and quality. And the position of one country will be lifted when the art pieces of their nation influences the whole world. Considering France in 18th century, at that time, it was commonly viewed as a great nation. Not only because its people’s high living quality, but also due to its artists’ profound influences on the world. Especially, the fashion designers at that era, who almost leaded the entire fashion trend of that time. To sum up, the work of artists should be another necessary indicator when judging a nation is a great one or not.

Scientific achievement and improvement should be another essential feature of a great nation, which represents the contribution of one nation to the entire mankind. And the more contribution one country made, the more possibility of people regarding it as a great one. Just like nowadays the majority think United States as a great country, which largely due to their scientists’ strongly influential inventions and achievements. The best example is the computer that has totally changed the way we communicate with our friends, improved the effectiveness of our work and narrowed the gap between all the countries around the world. Hence, the breakthrough of scientists of one nation determines a lot when people defining great countries.

According to the discussion above, we can safely find the conclusion that to be a good country, achieving the general welfare is the first step. And in order to upgrading in to a great one, the achievements of rulers, artists, and scientists are also of paramount importance.

tyarelUID??2756223

TOPIC: ISSUE170 - "The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people."
WORDS: 418-662          TIME: 00:39:42          DATE: 2010-7-23 23:41:40

It is true that the general welfare of a nation's people is a major criterion to determine whether it is a good nation or not. However, in order to be a great nation, the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists is still of vital importance.

People are the indispensable and basic part of any country, therefore (拆成2句，therefore是adv，不是连词) their general welfare is also the most fundamental standard for defining a good nation. For United States as an example(有这种用法嘛？只知道take…as an example), most people see it as a good nation.  And the general welfare there is quite satisfying that most people with jobs have no problem to cover their own livings expenses, and they enjoy a high quality of lives that almost each family owns a car and has enough money to travel every year. Whilst, in other countries, such as Cambodia and Afghanistan, where citizens are living under poverty and starvation. I believe no one would consider them as good nations due to the awful and terrible general welfare there. In sum up, to be regarded as a good nation, the living condition of the general people there counts a huge part.

However, I should say that citizens' high quality of lives is not enough for a country to be a great one. The important considered aspects are the achievements of their rulers, artists and scientists.

Rulers are the decision makers of one country, their ideas and policies play an important role in the country's future development and achievements. As is known to all, it is the New Deal of F.D Roosevelt helped American economy recover from the huge depression and second world war. This wise policy made the foundation for American's international position of today, without which there could be no success for United States. In addition, due to wrong decision of advocating the Culture Revolution (The rulers at that time believed that studying is useless, and all the scholars and teachers were sent to rural places to work as famers, which was called re-educated.) made by the Chinese government, the development of China was lagged long behind after the second world war when the economy in the whole world was booming. Therefore, ruler's decision and work is way more (没看懂) significant for one nation's future development. When they conduct a proper policy, the country would get closer to be a great one, and vise(vice) versa.

Artifacts are the spiritual achievements of one country. What the artists accomplish is also of paramount importance for defining a great nation, since arts influence people's mind and spirit, which somehow have an impact on forming people's characteristic and quality. And the position of one country will be lifted when the art pieces of their nation influences the whole world. Considering France in 18th century, at that time, it was commonly viewed as a great nation. Not only because its people’s high living quality, but also due to its artists’ profound influences on the world. Especially, the fashion designers at that era, who almost leaded the entire fashion trend of that time. To sum up, the work of artists should be another necessary indicator when judging a nation is a great one or not.(多余了，可省)

Scientific achievement and improvement should be another essential feature of a great nation, which represents the contribution of one nation to the entire mankind. And the more contribution one country made, the more possibility of people regarding it as a great one. Just like nowadays the majority think United States as a great country, which largely due to their scientists’ strongly influential inventions and achievements. The best example is the computer that has totally changed the way we communicate with our friends, improved the effectiveness of our work and narrowed the gap between all the countries around the world. Hence, the breakthrough of scientists of one nation determines a lot when people defining great countries.

According to the discussion above, we can safely find the conclusion that to be a good country, achieving the general welfare is the first step. And in order to upgrading in to a great one, the achievements of rulers, artists, and scientists are also of paramount importance.


好文，文章结构清楚，语句顺畅，没有挑出太大的错误。
有个改进的意见，文章首末段观点有递进的意味，即，welfare只能证明good，great要靠great rulers，scientists, artists来判明，不知道我有没有理解错。那么welfare的让步最好能体现一个国家没有以上三者只能是good，还有rulers的论证也是同样的道理，怎么论证对于一个good的国家，rulers怎么让它成为great？现在感觉体现不出从good到great的这个递进。如果这样的话，不如修改下观点，认为2者对于评判是否great同样重要
个人观点欢迎讨论～

tyarelUID??2756223

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 461 -- 613         TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/22 20:18:34

Which may supply lasting value to society, art, critic or both of them? In my opinion, the function of art and the feature of critic result in that it is the artists who give society something of lasting value.

Foremost, bringing beauty to people is the major function of art. Despite the form of it, the fundamental target of the work is to create and record beauty. Landscape paintings record the superb scenery. Through paintings more people can enjoy that. Meanwhile, structures create beauty. With the Forbidden City, Beijing shows its magnificence to the world. Every year, numerous visitors go to Egypt and are stunned by the splendid views because of pyramids. Similarly, abundant tourists appreciate Mona Lisa in Louvre Museum. It has been thousands years since they were created. But, nowadays people still immersed in beauty they provide and long history didn’t and will not reduce their value since it is people's nature to pursue beauty. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people's pursuit to beauty is the expression to realize their self-actualization. With the development of technology, it will be increasingly effortless to fulfill human's physiological and safety needs and thus more attention will be placed on the pursuit of self-actualization, which will be shown through art. That's why beauty, the value created by artists, will last forever.

In addition, artists also try to present their views of value and life to the public through their works. That’s another thing artists leave to society. At once, Hemingway finished his famous Farewell to Arms during Spanish civil war and the book is fraught with his anti-war attitude. Hemingway tried to depict how a person who was eager and curious to wars became scared to wars and in the end turn to be numb to wars. Through that, he wanted to show the ugliness of wars, the damage it brought to people and his hope for peace. It’s common that people can understand the views of artists from their masterpiece and the majority accord with the moral and ethical standard. As long as our views of value don’t change, the expressions of art will be valuable to us.

What's more, the feature of critic is another contributor to the conclusion that critics cannot provide those lasting. Critique will illustrate people's understanding to art. However, sometimes it will be influenced by many factors which will break the impartiality. Still take Hemingway and his Farewell to Arms as an example. After it was released, because of the political reasons, the book was banned in Italy and America as well. Especially in America, many critics wrote articles to belittle Hemingway and his works. It was viewed as a totally worthless novel at that time. But it is generally acknowledged that this book full of Henmingway's all energy is a true masterpiece. Comments are always influenced by many factors which should not be involved in art. Maybe they will change if the influence of these factors fades away, but how can we make sure that they are objective this time? On the other hand, limited by cognitions and aesthetics, critic also may commit mistakes. It also will reduce the value of comments. Van Gogh may be a typical victim of that. If people could recognize the great attainment he reached at his era, he might have had a far better life.

All in all, compared with art, comments always cannot last for a long time. Meantime, no one can ensure that the opinions on art right now are correct and will not be changed forever. But, beauty and views art bring to society can last forever and that's why it is the artists that offer lasting value.

谢谢lx狠拍

figuechenUID??2850619

改127L

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 461 -- 613         TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/22 20:18:34

Which may supply lasting value to society, art, critic or both of them? In my opinion, the function of art and the feature of critic result in that it is the artists who give society something of lasting value.
[P1表明了观点：同意该说法，是artists的功劳。]

Foremost, bringing beauty to people is the major function of art. Despite the form of it, the fundamental target of the work is to create and record beauty. Landscape paintings record the superb scenery. Through paintings more people can enjoy that. Meanwhile, structures create beauty. With the Forbidden City, Beijing shows its magnificence to the world. Every year, numerous visitors go to Egypt and are stunned by the splendid views because of pyramids. [1] Similarly, abundant tourists appreciate Mona Lisa in Louvre Museum. It has been thousands years since they were created. But, nowadays people still immersed in beauty they provide and long history didn’t and will not reduce their value since it is people's nature to pursue beauty. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people's pursuit to beauty is the expression to realize their self-actualization. With the development of technology, it will be increasingly effortless to fulfill human's physiological and safety needs and thus more attention will be placed on the pursuit of self-actualization, which will be shown through art. That's why beauty, the value created by artists, will last forever.[2]
[1]说紫禁城和金字塔是艺术品我觉得是不是勉强了一些？固然他们的结构展现了美，但他们的建造者未必都是艺术家。比如金字塔是由奴隶堆砌而成的。
[2]这段的TS可能不够切题，因为只写到了艺术展现美，但没有提艺术家的事。结尾突然又跑出来了个艺术家？这段只说明了艺术能够带来美，但是没说艺术和艺术家的关系，就不能推出艺术家能够带来美。虽然只是common sense，但还是要说一下的好。更何况刚才我说艺术未必是由艺术家创造的，比如金字塔。这个可能有点太苛刻了，还请作者自行斟酌。

In addition, artists also try to present their views of value and life to the public through their works. That’s another thing artists leave to society. At once, Hemingway finished his famous Farewell to Arms during Spanish civil war and the book is fraught with his anti-war attitude. Hemingway tried to depict how a person who was eager and curious to wars became scared to wars and in the end turn to be numb to wars. Through that, he wanted to show the ugliness of wars, the damage it brought to people and his hope for peace. It’s common that people can understand the views of artists from their masterpiece and the majority accord with the moral and ethical standard. As long as our views of value don’t change, the expressions of art will be valuable to us.
[artists的观点固然表现在了作品中，但这个观点为何一定是恒久流传的？一些垃圾的观点就未必会流传下来。]

What's more, the feature of critic is another contributor to the conclusion that critics cannot provide those lasting. Critique will illustrate people's understanding to art. However, sometimes it will be influenced by many factors which will break the impartiality. Still take Hemingway and his Farewell to Arms as an example. After it was released, because of the political reasons, the book was banned in Italy and America as well. Especially in America, many critics wrote articles to belittle Hemingway and his works. It was viewed as a totally worthless novel at that time. But it is generally acknowledged that this book full of Henmingway's [拼错了] all [这个表达有点问题full of one’s all energy？full of one’s energy不就行了么] energy is a true masterpiece. Comments are always influenced by many factors which should not be involved in art. Maybe they will change if the influence of these factors fades away, but how can we make sure that they are objective this time? On the other hand, limited by cognitions and aesthetics, critic also may commit mistakes. It also will reduce the value of comments. Van Gogh may be a typical victim of that. If people could recognize the great attainment he reached at his era, he might have had a far better life.
[这段说了批评家的作用决定了他们不能使作品流传。但我觉得作者忽略了一个很重要的东西，就是“批评家”的作用不只是批评。所谓批评家，其实也就是评论家，他们批评作品的同时，也赞扬作品啊。所以论述过程中不应该把critique作为critics的功能来表述。虽然从上下文中可以看出作者是知道这个内容的，但是表述上感觉就缺乏了这个common sense.再比如说梵高的作品在他在世的时候无人问津，那最后又是谁发掘除了他的作品呢？应该是另一个批评家吧！]

All in all, compared with art, comments always cannot last for a long time. Meantime, no one can ensure that the opinions on art right now are correct and will not be changed forever. But, beauty and views art bring to society can last forever and that's why it is the artists that offer lasting value.

全文语言流畅，例子比较多，用得大多也比较恰当，还是一篇很不错的文章。就感觉在段落之间的逻辑上有些小问题，比如作者似乎忽略了lasting value，一直在论述艺术的valuable，但是这两者未必等同。

一点小意见，仅供参考，欢迎探讨~

figuechenUID??2850619

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 593          TIME: 00:55:00          DATE: 2010-7-25 9:52:19

TS：自由的环境对科学研究有利，但一些限制也是必要的。关键是掌握好平衡。

提纲：
1. 自由的环境对科学研究有利。
  1.1 自由的环境有利于激发创意
  1.2 政府的一些功利的限制会束缚思想。
2. 一些限制也是必要的。
  2.1 限制一些可能会导致未知结果的研究。
  2.2 限制一些使用不正当方法的研究。
3. 要掌握好平衡。
    This is nowhere more presumptuous than the assertion that governments should place as few restrictions as possible on scientific research and development. Although restrictions may fetter the scientists, necessary measures should be taken to avoid negative effects on scientific activities to society.
    On one hand, the free environment does indeed possess the virtues of motivating the scientists and promoting the research. Firstly, it is easier for scientists to have creative ideas under the unfettered environment. In such circumstances, scientists can jettison thoughts that have nothing to do with his work and place free room for brainstorming. If we cast a look back at scientific history, it is not hard to identify that many outstanding works derive from the free thinking. Newton accomplished the rudimentary structures of his theory during his 21-month vacancy in London, when he had full time to organize his idea. The hard work in the rest of his life is no more than decorations and ornamentations of this architecture. In addition, the restrictions government put on research and development are sometimes utilitarian, which impede the advancements in science. These restrictions may make a demand that certain achievements should be accomplished in a limited period of time. In this way, scientists receive funds at the cost of freedom in academic fields. They will turn out to be short-sighted and ignore possible discoveries which might be of significant importance merely because they are not the results that sponsors require. After all, those restrictions may act as barriers in the path towards scientific achievement.
    On the other hand, however, restrictions against methods and results of scientific research are indispensable in regulating academic fields. Initially, regulations against the purpose of the research can avoid researches aiming at goals that are immoral or against ethics. For instance, measures have been taken by authorities to forbid the further development of nuclear weapon, for the sake of all human beings. The research itself is against humanity and should be banned. Another example is human cloning. Nowadays, most countries hold an opposite view towards this controversial technology because of its potential threat towards moral and ethical codes. Moreover, laws should be enacted to regulate the methods that scientists adopt in the experiments. Some of those methods are cruel, such as animal testing. In order to limit the mass use of animal testing, 3R limitations (refinement, replacement, reduction) have been approved of in countries like Britain. Under this restriction, animal testing has been under control and less animals will suffered from inhumane methods in the laboratory.
    After all, what is important is that government should call for a balance between restriction and freedom. In disciplines that may lead to uncertain results and bring disaster to human beings, such as biology, restrictions are required to regulate the aim as well as the methods. On the contrary, in other disciplines whose achievements will not harm society, there should be as few restrictions as possible to guarantee the sparks of creative ideas. Difficult it is to distinguish these two, but necessary it is for the government.
    There is an analogy with the government's attitude towards scientific research: it is like cultivating plants. The government has the duty to provide a free environment for the scientists just like fertile soil for the plants. Also, the government should place certain regulations over them just like trimming the branches to get rid of sprawling. This subtle balance should be well kept by the government: neither doting on the plants nor ignoring them. Only through this way can scientific research serve positive influence on human society.

请楼下狠拍~先谢过~

anniehalUID??2716032

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 593          TIME: 00:55:00          DATE: 2010-7-25 9:52:19

TS：自由的环境对科学研究有利，但一些限制也是必要的。关键是掌握好平衡。
提纲：
1. 自由的环境对科学研究有利。
  1.1 自由的环境有利于激发创意
  1.2 政府的一些功利的限制会束缚思想。
2. 一些限制也是必要的。
  2.1 限制一些可能会导致未知结果的研究。
  2.2 限制一些使用不正当方法的研究。
3. 要掌握好平衡。
    This is nowhere more presumptuous than the assertion that governments should place as few restrictions as possible on scientific research and development. Although restrictions may fetter the scientists’ thoughts, necessary measures should be taken to avoid negative effects on scientific activities to society.
    On one hand, the free environment does indeed possess the virtues(advantage?) of motivating the scientists and promoting the research. Firstly, it is easier for scientists to have creative ideas under the unfettered environment. In such circumstances, scientists can jettison thoughts that have nothing to do with his work and place free room for brainstorming. If we cast a look back at scientific history, it is not hard to identify that many outstanding works derive from the free thinking. Newton accomplished the rudimentary structures of his theory during his 21-month vacancy in London, when he had full time to organize his idea. The hard work in the rest of his life is no more than decorations and ornamentations of this architecture.(体现不出与free thinking的关系) In addition, the restrictions government put on research and development are sometimes utilitarian, which impede the advancements in science. These restrictions may make a demand that certain achievements should be accomplished in a limited period of time. In this way, scientists receive funds at the cost of freedom（如果你从限制时间角度说的话，他们放弃的不是freedom，而是研究质量） in academic fields. They will turn out to be short-sighted and ignore possible discoveries which might be of significant importance merely because they are not the results that sponsors require. After all, those restrictions may act as barriers in the path towards scientific achievement.
    On the other hand, however, restrictions against methods and results of scientific research are indispensable in regulating academic fields. Initially, regulations against the purpose of the research can avoid researches aiming at goals that are immoral or against ethics. For instance, measures have been taken by authorities to forbid the further development of nuclear weapon, for the sake of all human beings. The research itself is against humanity and should be banned. Another example is human cloning. Nowadays, most countries hold an opposite view towards this controversial technology because of its potential threat towards moral and ethical codes. Moreover, laws should be enacted to regulate the methods that scientists adopt in the experiments. （这个角度很好！）Some of those methods are cruel, such as animal testing. In order to limit the mass use of animal testing, 3R limitations (refinement, replacement, reduction) have been approved of in countries like Britain. Under this restriction, animal testing has been under control and less animals will suffered from inhumane methods in the laboratory.
    After all, what is important is that government should call for a balance between restriction and freedom. In disciplines that may lead to uncertain results and bring disaster to human beings, such as biology, restrictions are required to regulate the aim as well as the methods. On the contrary, in other disciplines whose achievements will not harm society, there should be as few restrictions as possible to guarantee the sparks of creative ideas. Difficult it is to distinguish these two, but necessary it is for the government.（这句加的非常有必要，把漏洞丢给考官！）
    There is an analogy with the government's attitude towards scientific research: it is like cultivating plants. The government has the duty to provide a free environment for the scientists just like fertile soil for the plants. Also, the government should place certain regulations over them just like trimming the branches to get rid of sprawling. This subtle balance should be well kept by the government: neither doting on the plants nor ignoring them. Only through this way can scientific research serve positive influence on human society.
太喜欢这个结尾了！！
逻辑非常好！！就几个例子在用的时候再严密写久perfect了~~
改到好文章真是种享受啊~~~

anniehalUID??2716032

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 518          TIME: 00:43:38          DATE: 2010-7-25 11:02:52

Artifacts are one of the most important parts of our lives, which broaden our views, enrich our knowledge, and lift up our tastes. However, I cannot agree with the statement above that it is merely the artist who gives society something of lasting value. In my point of view, the lasting value of artifacts should be the combination of brilliant work of artists and the insightful analyses of critics.

The initial value of art pieces is generated by the artists, without which it is somehow ridiculous to talk about the lasting value, since there would be no artifacts at all. The impressive and beautiful Sunrise was painted by Monet.  Lacking his incredible sense of beauty or devoting work to painting, it would be fairly impossible for us to see and appreciate the wonderful masterpiece. Artifacts are the products of artists’ authentic passion, a manifestation of the artist’s unique creative impulse, and the creation of artist’s spirit. Without artists, there could be no world famous paintings, music, or architectures, let alone something of lasting value. Therefore, it is artists who create the valuable and priceless masterpieces, which is the basic foundation of lasting value.

However, I should also say that devoid of critics insightful and updating analyses, judgments and interpretations, no artifacts could embrace the renewed meaning keeping pace with the change of each century or remain the attention from the general public continuously. Sometimes, artists would have a different or even absurd idea about the society or their own lives, and they put this kind of idea into their works. For the general, it would be tough to understand the inside meaning of these kinds of artifacts. In that case, the critic mostly does an excellent job in interpreting and explaining the art work, without which perhaps just rare individuals would understand and be interested in art piece. Moreover, many art works were created long time ago, and it is critics who help them to have an updating meaning, which meet the taste of people today. For instance, the Pigeon of Picasso, which was painted centuries ago, are still in flavored by the contemporary people. And its warm meaning of peace and love is definitely passed on by critics of each century. Without their devotion, the painting could have already lost its value. Besides, the critics also serve to keep and remain public's attention to these art works. As is known to all, each era has uncountable artists with numerous artifacts. Lacking critics’ refreshing ideas of those artifacts, it would be impossible for the public to keep paying attention to those masterpieces; then, there would be no lasting value to talk about.

In sum up, from the discussion above, we can safely find the conclusion that it is artists who create those masterpieces, without which we can never see the valuable art works. While, when it comes to the lasting value, it should be the critics job to interpret and make the artifacts understandable to the general public, give new ideas about those works made long time ago, and helped them under the spot light in each century.

悦茗UID??2818584

:这么有缘。。又改你的了哦:loveliness:

TOPIC: ISSUE144 - "It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value."

*a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.
WORDS: 518          TIME: 00:43:38          DATE: 2010-7-25 11:02:52

Artifacts are one of the most important parts of our lives, which broaden our views, enrich our knowledge, and lift up our tastes. However, I cannot agree with the statement above that it is merely the artist who gives society something of lasting value. In my point of view, the lasting value of artifacts should be the combination of brilliant work of artists and the insightful analyses of critics. 很简单明了的开头，不错

The initial value of art pieces is generated by the artists, without which it is somehow ridiculous to talk about the lasting value, since there would be no artifacts at all. The impressive and beautiful Sunrise was painted by Monet.  Lacking his incredible sense of beauty or devoting work to painting, it would be fairly impossible for us to see and appreciate the wonderful masterpiece. Artifacts are the products of artists’ authentic passion, a manifestation of the artist’s unique creative impulse, and the creation of artist’s spirit. Without artists, there could be no world famous paintings, music, or architectures, let alone something of lasting value. Therefore, it is artists who create the valuable and priceless masterpieces, which is the basic foundation of lasting value.

However, I should also say that devoid of critics (critics’) insightful and updating analyses, judgments and interpretations, no artifacts could embrace the renewed meaning keeping pace with the change of each century or remain (draw) the attention from (of) the general public continuously. Sometimes, artists would have a different or even absurd idea about the society or their own lives, and they put this kind of idea into their works. For the general, it would be tough to understand the inside meaning of these kinds of artifacts. In that case, the critic mostly does an excellent job in interpreting and explaining the art work, without which perhaps just rare individuals would understand and be interested in art piece. Moreover, many art works were created long time ago, and it is critics who help them to have an updating meaning, which meets the taste of people today. For instance, the Pigeon of Picasso, which was painted centuries ago, are still in flavored by (favored by) the contemporary people. And its warm meaning(什么意思？温暖的意思？) of peace and love is definitely passed on by critics of each century. Without their devotion, the painting could have already lost its value. Besides, the critics also serve to keep and remain public's attention to (感觉这个搭配怪怪的，Google了一下没看到有类似的用法，)these art works. As is known to all, each era has uncountable artists with numerous artifacts. Lacking critics’ refreshing ideas of those artifacts, it would be impossible for the public to keep paying attention to those masterpieces; then, there would be no lasting value to talk about.

In(To) sum up, from the discussion above, we can safely find (reach) the conclusion that it is artists who create those masterpieces, without which we can never see the valuable art works. While, when it comes to the lasting value, it should be the critics’ job to interpret and make the artifacts understandable to the general public, give new ideas about those works made long time ago, and helped (help) them under the spot light in each century.
其实这个题目我觉得还挺难的。所以对于论证的东西也没有什么想法。。只能在语言上有所修改。。
还有，我觉得第二段和第三段的字数差得有点多，两段最好是平衡一点。以前外教教写作时说的。。
个人愚见，仅供参考。。加油

悦茗UID??2818584

题目：ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
字数：614          用时：1:07:43          日期：2010/7/25

Before I argue whether how children are socialized today determines the destiny of society, the definition of socialization should be made clear first. According to sociologists and developmental psychologists, socialization refers to the process in which a child learns and internalizes norms, customs, traditions, social roles, values, and languages that are valued by his or her society.  On the basis of such a definition, I agree that children's socialization, to some extent, determines the destiny of society. However, the speaker's second claim that we have not yet learn how to raise children who can help bring about a better society obviously underestimates what we have achieved, both as parents and social members.

To begin with, how children are socialized today is of great significance to the development of society. From the definition mentioned above, it is clear that how a child is socialized largely determines how he or she behaves in a certain society. Psychological empirical researches also have proved that experience in childhood and adolescence greatly shapes people's character and behaves in adulthood. Children today are the future builders of society. How well children learn skills and knowledge required for future development? Are them learning and internalizing the shared values of society? Do they value the traditions passed down from older generations? Do they know their social responsibilities when playing different social roles? All these will not only determines what kind of persons children will become, but also the destiny of society, since society is made up of individuals. For example, if the value of loving our family and helping each other is not well delivered to our children by parents, schools and mass media, our children may grow up to be aloof persons, and the society will become one where members don't care about each other and cooperation and help are lacked. Therefore, it is necessary and imperative to recognize the importance of children's socialization.

However, socialization is not the only factor that shapes people's character and behaviors. Scientific experiments have showed that human behavior is both shaped by social influence and biological factors. Genetic studies indicate that social factors interact with genotype to determine a person's behavior. The biological factors will influence society through imparts on its members--every individual. Darwin's Theory of Evolution also can tell us that human society evolutes not only socially but biologically as well.

Since the socialization of children today is so important, we have to ask ourselves whether we can raise children properly in order to bring about a better society in the future. The answer is yes. Psychological and sociological studies have yielded fruitful results about how to socialize children better. These results are applied in both home education and schooling. And the reality proves that we are creating and will continue to create a better society if “a better society" is defined as a society where its members are intelligent, open-minded, cooperative, and tolerant to different people and ideas. Recent decades have witnessed advances in technology, people becoming open-minded to various cultures, cooperation between individuals, institutions and nations.  With the advanced knowledge and environment we all have today, we have reasons to believe that we are capable of raising children who will continue to bring about a better society. Thus, the speaker's second claim in his or her statement is absolutely unwarranted.

To sum up, how children are socialized today, to a large extent, influences and even determines the destiny of society. Nevertheless, the role of biological factors in shaping our future builders' character and behavior cannot be neglected. Finally, we should be confident that we are capable of raising children who will bring about a better society and we are doing so.
写得很郁闷的一篇。。恳请楼下狠狠拍啊。。。

ellenoooo.yUID??2861795

题目：ISSUE130 - "How children are socialized today determines the destiny of society. Unfortunately, we have not yet learned how to raise children who can help bring about a better society."
字数：614          用时：1:07:43          日期：2010/7/25

Before I argue whether how children are socialized today determines the destiny of society, the definition of socialization should be made clear first. According to sociologists and developmental psychologists, socialization refers to the process in which a child learns and internalizes norms, customs, traditions, social roles, values, and languages that are valued by his or her society. [也许这里这个解释有点多余：]我觉得在考场上也用不了这个~可能只简单说一下就好，eg, as is common sense ,socializing involves blahblah..] On the basis of such a definition, I agree that children's socialization, to some extent, determines the destiny of society. However, the speaker's second claim that we have not yet learn[ed] how to raise children who can help bring about a better society obviously underestimates what we have achieved, [“either as or as” might be better.] both as parents and social members.

To begin with, how children are socialized today is of great significance to the development of society. From the definition mentioned above, it is clear that how a child is socialized largely determines how he or she behaves in a certain society. Psychological empirical researches also have proved that experience in childhood and adolescence greatly shapes people's character and behaves [behaviors?] in adulthood. Children today are the future builders of society. How well [do] children learn [acquire可能好一点，很少说learn knowledge] skills and knowledge required for future development? Are them [they] learning and internalizing the shared values of society? Do they value the traditions passed down from older generations? Do they know their social responsibilities when playing different social roles? All these will not only determines what kind of persons children will become, but also the destiny of society, since society [which] is made up of individuals. For example, if the value [virtue might be better] of loving our family and helping each others is not well delivered to our children by parents, schools and mass media, our children may grow up to be aloof [indifferent might be better] persons [our children may end up indifferent], and the society will become one where members don't care about each other and cooperation and help are lacked. [and the society ends up lacking of care and affection.] Therefore, it is necessary and imperative [according to your description, it is not as urgent] to recognize the importance of children's socialization.

However, socialization is not the only factor that shapes [rarely we put factor with the action shape.] people's character and behaviors. Scientific experiments have showed [shown] that human behavior is both shaped by social influence and biological factors. Genetic studies indicate that social factors interact with genotype to determine a person's behavior. The biological factors will influence society through imparts on its members--every individual. Darwin's Theory of Evolution also can tell us that human society evolutes not only socially but biologically as well. [I cannot follow you here, why do you put some biological studies here?]

Since the socialization of children today is so important, we have to ask ourselves whether we can raise children properly in order to bring about a better society in the future. The answer is yes. Psychological and sociological studies have yielded fruitful results about how to socialize children better. These results are applied in to both home education and schooling school education[it sounds better if you put two balanced elements before and behind an “and”]. And the reality proves that we are creating and will continue to create a better society if “a better society" is defined as a society where its members are intelligent, open-minded, cooperative, and tolerant to different people and ideas. Recent decades have witnessed advances in technology, people becoming open-minded to various cultures, cooperation between individuals, institutions and nations.  With the advanced knowledge and environment we all have today, we have reasons to believe that we are capable of raising children who will continue to bring about a better society. Thus, the speaker's second claim in his or her statement is absolutely unwarranted.
[Broad depiction of the whole society helps little to elaborate your idea that we are doing the right thing]
To sum up, how children are socialized today, to a large extent, influences and even determines the destiny of society. Nevertheless, the role of biological factors in shaping our future builders' character and behavior cannot be neglected. Finally, we should be confident that we are capable of raising children who will bring about a better society and we are doing so.

Maybe you will need more examples And the biological part seems to be weird~
I believe that if you add more examples and delete some general descriptions, it will be better gl!

ellenoooo.yUID??2861795

132# 悦茗

我刚刚改好了。。但是粘上来发现格式都没有了。。如果要完整版可以发一封邮件给我ellenoooo.y@gmail.com我把word版发给你：）