issue48 <彼岸小组第一次作业> by choupghead

choupgheadUID: 2969431

仓促写就，求狠拍
Undoubtedly, without the support and active participation of groups of people involved, some famous individuals would not have been capable to gain success in the most significant events in history. However, in my opinion, individuals who lead history deserve to be placed more emphasis on, which wouldn't be considered as too much.

It is no denying that the most significant events in history were made probably by groups of people instead of by the famous few. The efforts of a few people are not sufficient to cause an enormous change in society. It is the accumulated efforts of all of the people that have leaded revolutions. Consider the construction of process of the pyramids or the Great Wall as an example, thousands of hundreds of people devote themselves into the construction day and night, during which lots of drudges died of exhaustion. It is the people who spend all their energy and efforts on work built the astonishing wonder of the world. Or consider the July Revolution, French people were under the brutal oppression of the ruler and couldn't see their hope of life, then they launch a revolution which is called July Revolution and announced that government has lost legitimacy. We may conclude that, from the information above, without the large amount of people, a few people didn't have the ability and influence to achieve those revolutionary events.

Nevertheless, that history immortalize the story of a few individuals, on whom more emphasis are often placed in the study of history, in my point of view, is totally reasonable and meaningful. As people exist everywhere and in every period of history, they almost have common mind and conditions, and lack the value of study in history. On the other side, the famous few people who led the events or trends could provide some shinning points that are just what historians need. The reason of studying history is to make people nowadays reflect themselves, and it's the behavior, character and psychological conflicts of the leaders in events that fit the need. Also take the pyramids as an example, by studying the pharaohs could we get the details of the reason why pyramids are built, the meaning of the architecture and even the structure of the pyramids. Could we get the relative information from the large amount of people who were just doing labor work? I'm afraid not. At the same time, we focus on the July Revolution again, from the study of Charles X, we get to know why his action enraged people and that despotism cannot be accepted and lasted long. As we all see, in the field of study of history, the famous few people are much more valuable than the large member of people supporting the event.

We couldn't deny the significance of the group of people who contribute in the events, but focus more on the famous few leaders can tell us more in the study of history for sure, which is not contradictory and we should view it with dialectical perspective.

melody-quUID: 2970250

Undoubtedly, without the support and active participationof groups of people involved, some famous individuals would not have beencapable to gain success in the most significant events in history. However, inmy opinion, individuals who lead history deserve to be placed more emphasis on,which wouldn't be considered as too much.

It is no denying (There is no denying)
that the most significant events in history were madeprobably by groups of people instead of by the famous few. The efforts of a fewpeople are not sufficient to cause an enormous change in society. It is theaccumulated efforts of
all ofthe (all people)people thathave leaded revolutions. Consider(Take) the construction of process of the pyramids or the GreatWall as an example, thousands of hundreds of people devote (devoted)
themselves into the construction day and night, duringwhich lots of drudges died of exhaustion. It is the people who spend all theirenergy and efforts on work ( +andfinally )built the astonishing wonder of theworld. Or consider the July Revolution, French people were under the brutal oppression of theruler and couldn't see their hope of life, then they launched arevolution which is called July Revolution and announced that government haslost legitimacy. We may conclude that, from the information above, without thelarge amount of people, a few people didn't have the ability and influence toachieve those revolutionary events.

Nevertheless, that history immortalize the story of a few individuals, on whommore emphasis are often placed in the study of history, in my point of view, istotally reasonable and meaningful. As people exist everywhere and in everyperiod of history, they almost have common mind and conditions, and lack thevalue of study in history. On the other side, the famous few people who led theevents or trends could provide some shinning points that are just whathistorians need. The reason of studying history is to make people nowadaysreflect themselves, and it's the behavior, character and psychologicalconflicts of the leaders in events that fit the need. Also take the pyramids as an example, （逗号问题）bystudying the pharaohs could we get the details of the reason why pyramids arebuilt, the meaning of the architecture and even the structure of the pyramids.Could we get the relative information from the large amount of people who were just doing (just did)
labor work? I'm afraid not. At the same time, we focuson the July Revolution again, (两个独立的句子中间不用逗号，问题同上)from thestudy of Charles X, we get to know why his action enraged people and thatdespotism cannot be accepted and lasted long. As we all see, in the field of （去掉是不是简练一点？）study of history, the famous few people are much morevaluable than the large member of people supporting the event.

We couldn't deny the significance of the group of people who contribute in theevents, but focus more on the famous few leaders can tell us more in the studyof history for sure, which is not contradictory and we should view it withdialectical perspective.
行文挺流畅的，例子也很充分~

fish_snowUID: 2822442

Undoubtedly, without the support and active participation of groups of people involved, some famous individuals would not have been capable to gain success in the most significant events in history. However, in my opinion, individuals who lead history deserve to be placed more emphasis on, which wouldn't be considered as too much.

It(there) is no denying that the most significant events in history were made probably by groups of people instead of by the famous few. The efforts of a few people are not sufficient to cause an enormous change in society(history). It is the accumulated efforts of all of(建议去掉) the people that have leaded revolutions. Consider（这个词的用法你确定么，一个祈使句和另一个句子中间只用逗号隔开？） the construction of process of the pyramids or the Great Wall as an example, thousands of hundreds of（成百上千？有这么说的么） people devoted themselves into the construction day and night, during which lots of drudges died of exhaustion(这句话跟论证有关系么？废话
除此之外主没有时间词，还可以用during which么 ). It is the people who spend all their energy and efforts on work built the astonishing wonder of the world. Or consider（逗号后面可以用which引导一个从句） the July Revolution, French people were under the brutal oppression of the ruler and couldn't see their hope of life, then they launch a revolution which is called July Revolution and announced that government has lost legitimacy. We may conclude that, from the information above, without the large amount of people, a few people didn't have the ability and influence to achieve those revolutionary events.
Nevertheless, that history immortalize the story of a few individuals, on whom more emphasis are often placed in the study of history, in my point of view, is totally reasonable and meaningful. As people exist everywhere and in every period of history, they almost have common mind and conditions, and lack the value of study in history.(怎么能得出这样的结论呢，下半句应该说：故，famous few可以作为同时代同地区的人民的代表被研究) On the other side, the famous few people who led the events or trends could provide some shinning points that are just what historians need. The reason of studying history is to make people nowadays reflect themselves, and it's the behavior, character and psychological conflicts of the leaders in events that fit the need. Also take the pyramids as an example, by studying the pharaohs could we get the details of the reason why pyramids are built, （as well as）the meaning of the architecture and even the structure of the pyramids. Could we get the relative information from the large amount of people who were just doing labor work? I'm afraid not. At the same time, we focus on the July Revolution again, from the study of Charles X, we get to know why his action enraged people and that despotism cannot be accepted and lasted long. As we all see, in the field of study of history, the famous few people are much more valuable than the large member(number) of people supporting the event.

We couldn't deny the significance of the group of people who contribute in the events, but focus more on the famous few leaders can tell us more in the study of history for sure, which is not contradictory and we should view it with dialectical perspective.