Issue48，谁来指点下思路啊！！最好语言也帮我看看^.^

shadow1987UID: 2605840

I48. "The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

思路：

第一段：摆观点，同意第一句话，insofar第二句话，说广大人民群众的力量固然强大，固然是make them possible的必要条件，as well as those famous persons。

第二段：不按aspects分了，按statement的顺序，说第一句话正确，we to some extent seriously ignore the collective effort. 本来想写修长城，结果写偏了，神游到不知道哪里去了= =！

第三段：继续说群众的力量也是很强大的，说美国独立战争（The American Revolution）what brought things to the boil was波士顿倾茶事件（Boston tea party)。是一帮群众搞的，很强大！

第四段：说第二句话问题主要出在not but结构，fails to consider 名人的决定性作用，比如说Gandhi，the greatest leader in Indian history, advocated nonviolent protest，Indian independence没他不行！

第五段：结论。

I strongly agree with the speaker's first claim that we do place too much emphasis on individuals in our historical study. Nevertheless, I find the speaker's second statement is to some extent unilateral. Overdone is worse than undone, while admitting collective effects, we should still be aware of the decisive role played by those famous persons. Consequently, my firmly held view is that the effect of individuals and groups of people's strength, with respect to those most significant events and trends in history, are both indispensable.

Take a look at our historical textbooks; most of them record our history by mere historical events and famous persons. However, who do you think are the true strength that defeated colonists in the Civil War? Who are the real power that fought against Japanese in the World War Two? Who, for all human beings' peace and happiness, faced up to terrorists' rains of bullets and sacrificed their health, blood and even lives. Are them the names you have learned in your historical textbooks? The answer is negative. As far as I see it, the honors can never belong to some individuals, and it is our people, selfless and brave people who made the history what it is. Hence, I agree with speaker's claim that we to some extent seriously ignore the collective effort in our historical study.

Therefore, I also agree with the latter sentence insofar that groups of people indeed did some meaningful events successfully. In some particular cases, there is scarcely a great leader and they don't even need a leader anyway. The perfect example is the flashpoint of The American Revolution. What brought things to the boil was the Boston tea party which was organized by colonial people and practiced by colonial people. In a way, we don't need to memorize any particular individuals, it is collective will and effort made it happened. So, in accordance with the speaker, I think the influence brought by groups of people in history is tremendous.

However, I find the speaker's second claim that the most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people is merely an unilateral statement. Overdone is worse than undone, this assertion pay attention to groups of people excessively. In some cases, a good leader may decide what an event is going and becomes the key between failure and success. For instance, Gandhi, the greatest leader in Indian history, advocated nonviolent protest and brought India out of the colonial rule of British government. Knowing Gandhi, an indispensable figure of the Indian independence, how can we say that only groups of people who can make those significant events and trends possible?

To sum up, I disagree with the phenomenon that we place too much emphasis on individuals in our historical study. Likewise, I also oppose the assertion that only groups of people made those significant events and trends possible. In conclusion, I believe that individuals and groups of people are both important to our history.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

占位~

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

你语言已经很不错了。我发现突然发现这几天看到的语言很不错的同学，论证都比较发散。。

I strongly agree with the speaker's first claim that we do place too much emphasis on individuals in our historical study. Nevertheless, I find the speaker's second statement is to some extent unilateral. Overdone is worse than undone, while admitting collective effects, we should still be aware of the decisive role played by those famous persons. Consequently, my firmly held view is that the effect of individuals and groups of people's strength, with respect to those most significant events and trends in history, are both indispensable. [这个开头非常好，是我目前改过的issue里面，开头让我觉得最符合我的要求的，qualify了题目，然后清晰明确得说了自己的观点]

Take a look at our historical textbooks; most of them record our history by mere historical events and famous persons. However, who do you think are the true strength that defeated colonists in the Civil War? Who are the real power that fought against Japanese in the World War Two? Who, for all human beings' peace and happiness, faced up to terrorists' rains of bullets and sacrificed their health, blood and even lives. Are them the names you have learned in your historical textbooks? [The answer is negative.][这个句子有点奇怪。] As far as I see it, the honors can never belong to some individuals, and it is our people, selfless and brave people who made the history what it is. Hence, I agree with speaker's claim that we to some extent seriously ignore the collective effort in our historical study.[怎么说呢。虽然排比句很有气势。但是对我来说，你的气势更像speech，但是不是议论文。因为你反问的这些内容，并不能直接把famous few跟group区别开来。你不能说，那些有名字的就没做过你反问的那些事情。这一段写的不太像议论文。]

[所以？从哪里所以出来的。]Therefore, I also agree with the latter sentence insofar that groups of people indeed did some meaningful events successfully. In some particular cases, there is scarcely a great leader and they don't even need a leader anyway. The perfect example is the flashpoint of The American Revolution. What brought things to the boil was the Boston tea party which was organized by colonial people and practiced by colonial people. In a way, we don't need to memorize any particular individuals, it is collective will and effort made it happened. So, in accordance with the speaker, I think the influence brought by groups of people in history is tremendous. [这段说理比前一段好很多。但是那个事件的重要性你没有说，你不能assume大家都知道这个事件。另外你说这个活动没有leader，难说没有。。开个班会还要一个班长呢，不然大家怎么同时出现在一个地点？。。你应该说这个运动没有名人参与。。没有leader这句话太绝对了。]

However, I find the speaker's second claim that the most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people is merely an unilateral statement. Overdone is worse than undone [这个句子不需要重复出现了。而且这句话在逻辑上不对，比如我们过分study了名人，就比我们从来没研究过更差么？中文的过犹不及，也是过了跟不够差不多，不是比没做还烂吧] , this assertion pay attention to groups of people excessively. In some cases, a good leader may decide what an event is going and becomes the key between failure and success. For instance, Gandhi, the greatest leader in Indian history, advocated nonviolent protest and brought India out of the colonial rule of British government. Knowing Gandhi, an indispensable figure of the Indian independence, how can we say that only groups of people who can make those significant events and trends possible? [这句话有点长了。而且一段的结尾用个反问句，这种方式我持保留态度。]

To sum up, I disagree with the phenomenon[现象这个词用在这里有点诡异] that we place too much emphasis on individuals in our historical study. [你怎么又不同意too much了？那你第二段是在说啥]Likewise, I also oppose the assertion that only groups of people made those significant events and trends possible. In conclusion, I believe that individuals and groups of people are both important to our history. [结尾无过，也就是reinstate了一遍开头，感觉还是开头写的更好一点。]

shadow1987UID: 2605840

如下帖子是小哀前辈答复我的问题，为了回头看着方便，贴在这里：

1：开头段以前还想过要标新立异一下，听了老版主的教诲后，直接否决，还按原来的思路走。
真的不用标新了。你这样得开头5分都够了。。当然你要6分再标把（个人意见）

2：排比句其实一开始没想写的，我还是想举例论证，结果写跑偏了自己把持不住了，看来按既定思路走很重要。
3：讲Boston倾茶事件的时候有个疑问，我认为用一句话点一下它的历史意义的就行了吧~所以我说这是美国革命的导火索~老版主的意思是还要再强调一下它的重要性吗？
（也不是。。。哪个flashpoint是有点短了＝ ＝ 。。。搞得我都没怎么注意到那句，那句话长点，我估计就不会有这个评语了。。比如再加个半句话强调下的话）
4：关于leader和famous person的关系确实思考不周，老版主说得相当在理。
5：关于overdone is worse than undone这句话我以前是见过有paper是这样写的，老版主鉴定一下这家伙是不是也用得不好：过犹未及:保护被害人诉讼权利之反思Overdone is Worse than Undone:A Reflection on the Protection of Victim's Right to Sue（万方数据库就有）
【
这个嘛。。。我google了一下这句话，发现这句话出现得所有地点，后面都跟着中文。。OTZ 要不然就是韩文。。。就没看到那篇英文文章用这句话得。。个人认为，这句话不是过犹不及得意思（当然我不是英语专业的。）【这篇文章也在其中，不要告诉我这个翻译就是他发明得】
baidu一下 一些我可以接受得翻译方式

going too far is as bad as not going far enough; beyond is as wrong as falling short; too much is as bad as too little; excess is just as bad as deficiency。
这些算是翻译得写实得。。。当然to be or not to be...你自己选择拉。。

6：段尾的写法我准备紧跟老版主走，用疑问句确实显得不正式，太随意了。
7：结尾段我一直写不好，看过一篇native speaker写结尾段的论述，说最好有新东西，退而求其次是paraphrasing，最差是restatement，我觉得我一直是处于由最差那个档次向第二档爬的那个过程，对不起观众了= =!
其实你已经写得很好了。。。。＝ ＝ 我对不起你。。
回复这么认真，赞。。。好好努力～高分记得回来分享经验～