ISSUE45.必回改~!回改请留link哦

GlastiumUID: 2638821

TOPIC: ISSUE45 - "Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."
WORDS: 550          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-8-5 18:00:08

大意是：
第一段说民主很强悍。所以公仆要听人民的。
第二段是公仆有秘密信息，嗯所以完全听人民的会杯具。
第三段是即使人民也有小道信息啦，但是他们自己会因为自己利益吵起来，另外公仆即使请了顾问也没用，就更杯具。
第四段是公仆即使请了顾问也没用，更更更杯具。
第五段是即使那么杯具……民主还是有意义的嗯。
第六段：啊没第六段了..

thx~

这里是正文：

Undoubtedly, government officials take every step concerning the benefits and losses done to their electorate in democratic societies, where every individual is able to support or go against certain candidate on how well they think those candidates have done and what they promise. It'll leave smear if a government official fails the will of people he/she serves, and vice versa. So it's being a dillemma, if what a government official thinks best goes differently than his/her voters, which forces the government official to do what the majority agrees.
While this could be catastrophic in several conditions. Try to think what if this government official holds more information which cannot be revealed to the public. The public will make bad decisions according to their current information, which may completely differ from what the discrete information which can entirely overthrow the previous decision by giving credits to a potential danger or chance the public won't be able to notice. If the secret lies longer than the next reelection, the government official will not be able to let the electorate knows why he/she commits such odd action which is truly by his/her conscience sacrificing his/her reputation in the society, resulting failing next election, not even mentioning prolonging durable plan formulated from the nondeclared information.
Even assuming all information the govenment official can reach can equally be withdrawn by everyone, it's not always what public views are benefitial, no matter to anyone specific, or to the whole society of people. The most significant difficulty comes from the inconsitency of views of varied popular representatives, the background of each representative and what profit they stand for leads to the fundamental conflict of their ideas, between which it can merely be found any similarities, not mentioning coming to an agreement. Secondly, even an ambigious and vague view is concluded, due to the concession from every aspect, the agreement can be hard to apply, even self-conflict. And what's worse, the concession can be achieved by sharing worst of their ideas, which is not rarely seen.
Overall, it's a systematic defect for people to judge whether the government official does is right or not, since they'll never be able to take that position to evaluate the same work ever. What ordinary people can do is to prevent obvious fault or any which government officials can not recognize because of limited expertise on such event required professional work. The latter can be a little bit released by hiring a consultant in every specific field, while it can hardly work since it's a paradox itself when the consultant is in the same position as the government official when facing the public as the scientists and technocrats in related fields.
But we're not saying that this supervising mechanism harms the development of human societies. In the contrary, even if everyone may make mistakes in making decisions, but the chance of doing wrong decrements as more people joining the discussion of the decision. Also the significance of being able to decide fates of ourselves despite of what comes out eventually is exactly what democracy touches the ground. Extending this idea to being a qualified goverment official, it's far more important to follow people's will rather than his/her individual perspective, and only by obeying this rule can we have a more reliable future.

forkidUID: 2845790

非常感谢您的修改，获益匪浅，方才读了你的文章。
没怎么理解，请容我再多想想，先占楼了。

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

1# Glastium
TOPIC: ISSUE45 - "Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."
WORDS: 550          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-8-5 18:00:08

大意是：
第一段说民主很强悍。所以公仆要听人民的。
第二段是公仆有秘密信息，嗯所以完全听人民的会杯具。
第三段是即使人民也有小道信息啦，但是他们自己会因为自己利益吵起来，另外公仆即使请了顾问也没用，就更杯具。
第四段是公仆即使请了顾问也没用，更更更杯具。（这两段可以合一吧？）
第五段是即使那么杯具……民主还是有意义的嗯。
第六段：啊没第六段了..（想法挺好的，只是没有组织好你的观点，捋清你的顺序会好很多。）

thx~

这里是正文：（感觉给个开头会好些，这种开头给人感觉太直接了,而且要去找你的观点。）

Undoubtedly, government officials take every step concerning the benefits and losses done to their electorate in democratic societies, where every individual is able to support or go against certain candidate on how well they think those candidates have done and what they promise. It'll leave smear if a government official fails the will of people he/she serves, and vice versa. So it's being a dilemma, if what a government official thinks best goes differently than his/her voters（感觉改为好些：the government take policies which go against the people’s profits. ）, which forces the government official to do what the majority agrees.（感觉最后一句有点乱，“which”指代什么有点模糊。）（感觉你列举的来支撑你观点的例证有点太简单了）

While this could be (lead to)
catastrophic in several conditions. Try to think what if（the situation that） this government official holds more information which cannot be revealed to the public. The public will make bad decisions according to their current information, which may completely differ from what the discrete information which can entirely overthrow the previous decision by giving credits to a potential danger or chance the public won't be able to notice(这一句好像和本段主题无关，而且表达有点混乱). If the secret lies longer than the next reelection, the government official will not be able to let the electorate knows why he/she commits such odd action which is truly by his/her conscience sacrificing his/her reputation in the society, resulting failing next election, not even mentioning prolonging durable plan formulated from the no declared information.（感觉你这一段写跑题了，应该围绕有些涉密方面的东西不能透露给民众，而且这些方面不能随便听从民众的意见。）

Even assuming all information the government official can reach（obtained）can equally be withdrawn(receive) by everyone, it's(it is ) not always what public views are beneficial (available), no matter to anyone specific, or to the whole society of people(可以删除). The most significant difficulty comes from the inconsistency of views of varied popular representatives, the background of each representative and what profit they stand for leads to the fundamental conflict of their ideas, between which it can merely be found any similarities, not mentioning coming to an agreement. Secondly, even an ambiguous and vague view is concluded, due to the concession from every aspect, the agreement can be hard to apply, （or）even self-conflict. And what's worse, the concession can be achieved by sharing worst of their ideas, which is not rarely seen(没看明白).


(感觉这一段没表达出你的想法，应该将民众的不一致和其对政策的不良影响联系起来)

Overall, it's a systematic defect for people to judge whether the government official does is（删除）
right or not, since they'll never be able to take that position to evaluate the same work ever（不太明白你的意思）. What ordinary people can do is to prevent obvious fault or any which government officials can not recognize because of limited expertise on such event required professional work（删除）. The latter can be a little bit released by hiring a consultant in every specific field, while it can hardly work since it's a paradox itself when the consultant is in the same position as the government official when facing the public as the scientists and technocrats in related fields.（感觉最后一句和段意无关，而且每对你的观点展开，缺乏说服力。）

But we're（we are） not saying that this supervising mechanism harms the development of human societies. In the contrary, even if everyone may make mistakes in making decisions, but the chance of doing wrong decrements(will decreasing) as more people joining the discussion of the decision. Also the significance of being able to decide fates of ourselves despite of what comes out eventually is exactly what democracy touches the ground(没看明白). Extending this idea to being a qualified government official, it's(it is) far more important to follow people's will rather than his/her individual perspective, and only by obeying this rule can we have a more reliable(better) future.

（感觉你没表达清楚你的想法，而且说得时候缺乏例证不能很好的证明你的观点。写的有点乱。建议你多列一些提纲，或者多参考一下别人的提纲和范文。网上有优秀范文集。有时喜欢用长句，不过表达的不太清晰，建议多看看别人的用法。刚开始写都是这样的，会有很多问题的，加油！！）

GlastiumUID: 2638821

1# Glastium  
TOPIC: ISSUE45 - "Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."
WORDS: 550          TIME: 00 ...
wdx19861106 发表于 2010-8-5 22:04

谢谢～
我觉得会不会是有些长句的which啊什么的离被修饰的词太远了呢
the concession can be achieved by sharing worst of their ideas, which is not rarely seen(没看明白).
比如这句我想表达的意思是：这种让步通常是因为拥有的相同的意见是他们的最差的意见，而这种情况并不是很罕见。（中文有点绕口囧）
Overall, it's a systematic defect for people to judge whether the government official does is（删除）
right or not, since they'll never be able to take that position to evaluate the same work ever（不太明白你的意思）.
其实这个is应该没错吧..它的主语是the government official does，表语是right or not，whether...等是从句呃……
这句话的意思应该是：总而言之，这是一个系统性的缺陷：人们很难去决断政府官员所做的正确与否，因为他们不可能在（政府官员的）同等位置来衡量（他们）相同的工作。
Also the significance of being able to decide fates of ourselves despite of what comes out eventually is exactly what democracy touches the ground(没看明白).
这意思是：而且这种有权决定自己命运的能力，而不论结果如何（是好是坏），最终才是民主脚踏实地的地方（囧这个中文我也翻不出来……）
呃改成这样会不会好一点?Also it's being able to decide fates of ourselves despite of what comes out eventually lying the significance where democracy hits the ground.

呃通篇说理是因为实在没例子，不知道这样行不行？再次感谢～

哦还有这句话：The latter can be a little bit released by hiring a consultant in every specific field, while it can hardly work since it's a paradox itself when the consultant is in the same position as the government official when facing the public as the scientists and technocrats in related fields.
其实我的意思是想说明一个比喻：就像政府官员不能服众一样，雇佣一个顾问也是徒劳，因为顾问与圈子里的人的关系和政府官员和群众的关系一样。不过好像第一句话多了一个a= =我其实想说不可能的意思啦
会不会改成这样比较好：The latter can be little released by hiring a consultant in every specific field, when government officials cannot convince the public, so as the consultant cannot represent all the scientists and technocrats in this field.

shadow1987UID: 2605840

大意是：
第一段说民主很强悍。所以公仆要听人民的。
第二段是公仆有秘密信息，嗯所以完全听人民的会杯具。
第三段是即使人民也有小道信息啦，但是他们自己会因为自己利益吵起来，另外公仆即使请了顾问也没用，就更杯具。
第四段是公仆即使请了顾问也没用，更更更杯具。
第五段是即使那么杯具……民主还是有意义的嗯。
第六段：啊没第六段了..

看完你的outline，第一个直观的感觉就是你已经把题目完全抛掉了，你qualify题目了吗？你对题目是什么态度？这直接导致你后文中的观点是飘忽的，分析一下：第一段说要听人民的，第二、三段说不要听，第四段目前不知道要说什么，第五回头又说要听人民的，那几段是让步？那几段是立论？结构有问题= =！

Undoubtedly, government officials take every step concerning（用分词句子结构就不完整了，用to concern） the benefits and losses done to their electorate in democratic societies（意思太绕了，我语言也不够好，不知道怎么改，提些建议，损害公众的利益：infringe on the interests of the masses；为公众谋福利：bring benefit to the people）, where every individual is able to support or go against certain candidate on how well they think those candidates have done and what they promise. It'll leave smear if a government official fails the will of people he/she serves, and vice versa. So it's being a dillemma（你这个being是表语吗?不是的话你句子是不是有两个谓语了？从没见过这种用法）, if what a government official thinks best goes differently than his/her voters, which forces the government official to do what the majority agrees.

While this could be catastrophic in several conditions. Try to think what if this government official holds more （many） information which cannot be revealed to the public. The public will make bad decisions according to their current information, which may completely differ from what the discrete information（doesn't make sense） which can entirely overthrow the previous decision by giving credits to a potential danger or chance the public won't be able to notice. If the secret lies（秘密不能自己撒谎） longer than the next reelection, the government official will not be able to let the electorate knows why he/she commits such odd action which is truly by his/her conscience sacrificing his/her reputation in the society, resulting failing next election（result in the failing in next eletion）, not even mentioning prolonging durable plan formulated from the nondeclared information.

Even assuming all information the govenment official can reach can equally be withdrawn by everyone, it's not always what public views are benefitial, no matter to anyone specific, or to the whole society of people. The most significant difficulty comes from the inconsitency (inconsistency)of views of varied popular representatives, the background of each representative and what profit they stand for leads to the fundamental conflict of their ideas, between which it can merely be found any similarities, not mentioning coming to an agreement. Secondly, even an ambigious and vague view is concluded, due to the concession from every aspect, the agreement can be hard to apply, even self-conflict. And what's worse, the concession can be achieved by sharing worst of their ideas(看不懂= =！共享他们意见中最坏的部分来达成协议？), which is not rarely seen.

Overall, it's a systematic defect for people to judge whether the government official does is right or not, since they'll never be able to take that position to evaluate the same work ever. What ordinary people can do is to prevent obvious fault or any which government officials can not recognize because of limited expertise on such event required professional work. The latter can be a little bit released by hiring a consultant in every specific field, while it can hardly work since it's a paradox itself when the consultant is in the same position as the government official when facing the public as the scientists and technocrats in related fields.

But we're not saying that this supervising mechanism harms the development of human societies. In the contrary（一般都说on the contrary吧）, even if everyone may make mistakes in making decisions, but the chance of doing wrong decrements as more （你很喜欢用more，但是很少真的有比较的对象，我认为不大好）people joining the discussion of the decision. Also the significance of being able to decide fates of ourselves despite of what comes out eventually is exactly what democracy touches the ground. Extending this idea to being a qualified goverment official, it's far more important to follow people's will rather than his/her individual perspective, and only by obeying this rule can we have a more reliable future.

思路上我觉得还是观点不够到位，TS！！首段把TS摆出来！每段话把这段话的TS摆在第一句！
语言上长句太多了，可能是我水平不够吧，实在看得比较痛苦，能帮你的有限，呵呵

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

关于分析，狗王同志分析的挺好的，关于例子，你可以用伊拉克战争（正反两方面都可以来说。）来举例，或者前段时间的全球气候会议做例子。 4# Glastium