issue16 （revised by gteryy）

happyman2000UID: 136936

Issue 16 "Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life are entirely harmless, in fact, they actually prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."

I strongly disagree the argument that luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. Argument can be made for this thesis, but it is unduly built upon what I believe to be a poor definition about the independence.
There are at least two perspectives from which we can develop completely distinct understandings and definitions of the independence. The first is just what this poor argument adopts. It bases its definition upon the relationship between human and instruments. From this perspective, surely we can conclude that with advance of science and technology, people has developed a heavy dependence upon all kinds of instruments that brought us more conveniences and luxuries. The perspective, though useful under some special circumstances, will lead to serious misguidance and even fallacies for the most part. For example, in terms of it, we will draw an absurd conclusion that a primitive person armed with only a bough was more independent and stronger than a modern person armed with a fire gun, in that the former depended less on instruments. Obviously, to obtain full and true analysis, a new perspective is needed A possible and appropriate substitute, I believe, could be got from the analysis of the relationship between human and nature, from which some quite different but more cogent and powerful conclusions can be drawn   
First of all, with the modern instruments of producing, people today reduced sharply their dependence on food supply and many other survival conditions provided by nature. In the ancient times, when only wild fruits and preys were accessible to our ancestors and a sudden natural disaster such as inclement weather could seriously destroy their lives, one can hardly say that there was more independence for them, however physically strong they may be, and however less they relied on instruments. By contrast, with the advent of agriculture society, people could regularly get their food supply from cultivating and more or less break away from their over reliance on the nature. Today, thanks to modern industrial and agricultural technology, more and more new products, industrial or agricultural, were invented and manufactured efficiently, as a result that human’s dependence upon the nature reduced to the least.
Secondly, with the help of modern instruments, human is greatly breaking away from the control of natural power and can easily reach much far places away than before. Before the invention of modern transport instruments, people primarily depended on horses to travel and thus could reach only a very limited sphere. Nowadays, automobiles, trains and planes can transport people to anywhere on the earth they want to go, and more importantly, these instruments only consume them at most several days. By chemical rockets and space shuttles, human now can even break away from the gravity of earth and is expected to conquer the whole solar system in the future, eventually flying into the remote Galaxy. Surely, armed with modern science, people are getting stronger and obtaining ever-increasing independence rather than dependence.
Thirdly, owing to the convenience and efficiency of modern life, people can spare much more time to engage in what they are interested in, and therefore independent and healthy traits could be developed in them. Person without any modern instruments would found himself (herself) surrounded with numerous other trivial works all day, producing food, cooking, cleaning, and washing, etc. According to the undue perspective defining independence, this person must be independent because he (she) does all these things by self, not relying upon the help of modern instruments. Nevertheless, the person couldn’t spare any time to enjoying art, science, tourism or any other meaningful things, losing the real independent characteristic of individual.   
In sum, the much closer relation between human and instruments should not be regarded as the increasing dependence of modern people, but as a signal that humanity is getting much stronger and more independent in mastering its own fates and prospects.  (650 words)

gteryyUID: 114434

I strongly disagree the argument that luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. 哈，开头倒是很明快，不过最后不要重复题目，可以适当的改写或者简化。Argument can be made for this thesis, but it is unduly built upon what I believe to be a poor definition about the independence.

There are at least two perspectives from which we can develop completely distinct understandings and definitions为啥用复数啊？ of the independence. The first is just what this poor argumentpoor argument不合适吧，毕竟只是一个观点，感觉你象在写argument，呵呵 adopts. It bases its definition upon the relationship between human and instruments. From this perspective, surely we can conclude that with advance of science and technology, people has developed改成formed好点 a heavy我不知道heavy修饰dependence合适否。感觉strong也可以 dependence upon all kinds of instruments that brought us more conveniences and luxuries. The perspective, though useful under some specialcertain好点 circumstances, will lead to serious misguidance and even fallacies for the most part. 到这里我还没有看出第一个perspective是什么。For example, in terms of it, we will draw an absurd conclusion that a primitive person armed with only a bough was more independent and stronger than a modern person armed with a fire gun, in that the former depended less on instruments. 看到这里我大概明白你的意思了，不过你回头看看，你有没有明确地指出呢？Obviously, to obtain full and true analysis, a new perspective is needed A possible and appropriate substitute, I believe, could be got from the analysis of the relationship between human and nature, from which some quite different but more cogent and powerfulcogent和powerful是不是又重复啦？ conclusions can be drawn
这段算是对自己观点的让步吗？抱歉，没怎么看懂呵

First of all, with the modern instruments of producing改成for production, people today reduced这里为啥用过去式呀？ sharply their dependence on food supply and many other survival conditions provided by nature. In the ancient times, when only wild fruits and preys were accessible to our ancestors and a sudden natural disaster such as inclement weather could seriously destroy their lives, one can hardly say that there was more independence for them,这句不太明白，和前面好象不连贯哪？ however physically strong they may be, and however less they relied on instruments. By contrast, with the advent of agriculture society, people could regularly get their food supply from cultivating and more or less break away from their over reliance on the nature. Today, thanks to modern industrial and agricultural technology, more and more new products, industrial or agricultural, were invented and manufactured efficiently, as a result that human’s dependence upon the nature reduced to the least.
现代科技使人们对自然本身的依赖减少，观点好的。不过我还是。。。有点晕。。。

Secondly, with the help of modern instruments, human is greatly breaking away from the control of natural power and can easily reach much far places away than before. Before the invention of modern transport instruments, people primarily depended on horses to travel and thus could reach only a very limited sphere. Nowadays, automobiles, trains and planes can transport people to anywhere on the earth they want to go, and more importantly, these instruments only consumeconsume的用法请你注意一下。一般主体是人。改成cost them at most several days. By chemical rockets and space shuttles, human now can even break away from the gravity of earth and is expected to conquer the whole solar system in the future, eventually flying into the remote Galaxy. Surely, armed with modern science, people are getting stronger and obtaining ever-increasing independence rather than dependence.
这段是说现代科技使人减少被自然的约束.

Thirdly, owing to the convenience and efficiency of modern life, people can spare much more time to engage in what they are interested in, and therefore independent and healthy traits could be developed in them. Person without any modern instruments would found himself 加个/好了(herself) surrounded with numerous other trivial works all day, producing food, cooking, cleaning, and washing, etc. According to the undue perspective defining independence, this person must be independent because he (she) does all these things by self, not relying upon the help of modern instruments. Nevertheless, the person couldn’t spare any time to enjoying art, science, tourism or any other meaningful things, losing the real independent characteristic of individual.
科技带来的方便和效率使人们有更多的时间参与个人兴趣爱好。论证得有点牵强。

In sum, the much closer relation between human and instruments should not be regarded as the increasing dependence of modern people, but as a signal that humanity is getting much stronger and more independent in mastering its own fates and prospects. (650 words)
结尾还行

下次你换个马甲我一定还认得是你写的文章。风格我已经感受出来了，呵呵。首先不要把它当成argument来论证，毕竟还是issue，需要你自己的观点，平时积累的经验，而不是就事论事；其次，不要求繁，很多地方你还是喜欢复杂化，或者可能是考G造成的习惯了，不过试着把你想的复杂的句子用简单清爽的方式表达出来；第三，自己的观点最好明确点出，你可以先留点悬念，但一定要明确指出，ETS那帮家伙估计不会仔细去找你的观点的。是什么就是什么，不要拐弯抹角说是基于什么基础什么的。另外，论证的观点再深入一些。很有潜力，再加油。

happyman2000UID: 136936

下次我一定换个马甲！

说实话，在写作的过程中我就感觉到了对独立性的两种定义方法说得不清楚。我的意思是，独立本来是相对的东西，要看你从什么角度分析它。 对父母，亲友的依赖，是从人与人的关系角度分析的，对现代工具的依赖，是从人与物关系的角度来分析，对自然环境的依赖，是从人与自然关系的角度分析的。

这个issue题目，非常明显是从人与物关系的角度来断定人的独立性降低了，人变得更弱了。如果不指出它隐含的前提，我就无法推翻它的结论。我看到其他网友作文，举出了不少否定理由，但基本上是从人与自然，人与人关系的角度来证明的，这叫做各说各。所以，如果不先指出隐含前提，想否定该命题，只能偷换概念。

gteryy, 我实在想不出好办法在有限的字数内把那两个perspective说得清楚一点，您能不能帮我把那一段改一改？拜托！ 谢谢！