issue48<彼岸小组第三次作业> by 7号

melody-quUID: 2970250

ISSUE48

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

The author statesthat our concentration on the famous individuals while doing history study isexceeding, which I am afraid I can not agree with. Furthermore, he(his)argumentthat the most vitalturn(turning) points arecreated by the wild(?) ordinary people rather than the distinguished minority,tough has some reasonable places,I (主语不同所以应该是两个单独的句子)would like to sayit is partial in some sense. My understanding of the importance in studying thehistory is both focused（focusing） on the famous fewand the nonentity.

Actually, ourhistory research is mostly based on the individuals. This existing fact hasdeep rooted background reasons. Firstly, the accounts of the past which isa kind of significant material for us to study history are limited because thepoor development in the past, at the same time what was rarely extant islargely concentrated on the description of the minority who are of suchimportance that is regarded worth to be taken down by people at that time.Therefore, we have no choice but(加to)depend on the accounts of the minority to learn our history. In the secondplace, the famous few sometimes truly created a new era and can be therepresentative of the time he belongs to. For example, when it comes to thehistory of the Second World War, a person immediatelycome into our mind, who is none other than Hitler(a person whoimmediately come into our mind is none other than Hitler). In some degree,he ignited the fire of this catastrophe, bringing millions of people intodeaths and lots of counties and cities destroyed.When talking about the history of China, one period of phase will be highlighted,at which time a great leader lead Chinese people get ride of the ruling of theinvaders , finally we Chinese really stand up and become the master of our owndestiny. This great leader who influences the whole history of modern Chinauntil now is Chairman Mao. In sum, the study of the famous few is necessary andis never too much to be exceeding. What is more, the study of the famous fewshould be more deep(deeper) and continuing.

On the other hand,as the writer states, the history can hardly be made by the few minority, nomatter how significant they are. The minority play an important part in thehistory. A great leader can do nothing without people observe his order andagree with his arrangement. One person, however strong he is, can hardly make bigchanges only on himself. Just like a successful concert need not only a famousconductor，but also the band.Even though, thatdoes not mean we should loan more emphasis on the large group of ordinarypeople. (这一句感觉和你整个文章两者都重要的基调有点矛盾)It is becausethere is the near-to-zero account of these people, as well as the time andenergy spent on it will largely exceeding its meaning, thathamper our desire to do so. As far as I am concerned, the both are equalingimportant in studying our history. We should balance the distribution of the energyand time on both. Only in this way can we truly take the advantage of thehistory to let we human beings move further on.（这一段论述的侧重感觉还是倾向个别杰出领袖而非大众）

In a word, thefact that our study of history is relatively focused on the famous few isnecessary and should continue to be more deep. At the sametime, historians are supposed to balance the study of the famous few and thelarge group of wide ordinary people.
文章遣词造句和思路都很流畅，赞一下，一些小的语法点望参考，另外文章的后半部分可以再充实一点。加油！

muzhihao1UID: 2959675

The author states that our concentration on the famous individuals while doing history study is exceeding, which I am afraid I can not agree with. Furthermore, he argument that the most vital turn points are created by the wild ordinary people rather than the distinguished minority, tough has some reasonable places, I would like to say it is partial in some sense. My understanding of the importance（重要性是关注两者？可以说两者同样重要） in studying the history is both focused on the famous few and the nonentity.

Actually, our history research is mostly based on the individuals. This existing fact has deep rooted background reason（有这种用法吗）. Firstly, the accounts of the past which is a kind of significant material for us to study history are limited because the poor development in the past, at the same time（加重一下，furthermore）（其实意思在这里已经转了，为什么不直接另起一句呢） what was rarely extant is largely concentrated on the description of（多余了） the minority who are of such importance that is regarded worth to be taken down by people at that time. （像看杨鹏长难句！）Therefore, we have no choice but depend on the accounts of the minority to learn our history. In the second place, the famous few sometimes truly created a new era and can be the representative of the time he belongs to. For example, when it comes to the history of the Second World War, a person immediately come into our mind, who is none other than Hitler. In some degree, he ignited the fire of this catastrophe, bringing millions of people into deaths and lots of counties and cities destroyed.（这个例子只说他多残暴，没论证他是他那个时代的代表）
When talking about the history of China, one period of phase will be highlighted, at which time（很怪） a great leader lead Chinese people （to）get ride of the ruling of the invaders , finally we Chinese really stand up and become the master of our own destiny. 老美看了会不会心虚，哈哈This great leader who influences the whole history of modern China until now is Chairman Mao.（感觉两个例子都没有很好为主题服务） In sum, the study of the famous few is necessary and is never too much to be exceeding（有这样表达吗）. What is more, the study of the famous few should be more deep and continuing.

On the other hand, as the writer states, the history can hardly be made by the few minority, no matter how significant they are. The minority play an important part in the history. A great leader can do nothing without people observe his order and agree with his arrangement. One person, however strong he is, can hardly make big changes only on（by） himself. Just like a successful concert need not only a famous conductor，but also the band. Even though, that does not mean we should loan more emphasis on the large group of ordinary people. It is because there is the near-to-zero account of these people, as well as the time and energy spent on it will largely exceeding it meaning, that hamper our desire to do so. As far as I am concerned, the both are equaling（equal） important in studying our history. We should balance the distribution of the energy and time on both. Only in this way can we truly take the advantage of the history to let we human beings move further on.
观点同楼上

In a word, the fact that our study of history is relatively focused on the famous few is necessary（两谓语） and should continue to be more deep. At the same time, historians are supposed to balance the study of the famous few and the large group of wide ordinary people.

总体感觉思路不是特别清晰，句子之间的连接有些突兀，有些话可以重新看看，是不是很绕口
批得比较严，讲得不对的就不要管了= =