issue105 gteryy来看看好吗，我觉得position的问题好像有点眉目

imongUID: 140258

105"The true strength of a country is best demonstrated by the willingness of its government to tolerate challenges from it's own citizens."

I can hardly agree with the claim that the true strength of a country is best demonstrated by the willingness of its government to tolerate challenges from it's own citizens. I must remind the advocators of the European history back in the 1940's. Even apolitical figures such as Albert Einstein had to set out for the US, not to mention those, if any, who had challenged the absolute power of Hitler. The strength of German in the World War Two is not demonstrated by Hitler's being challenged domestically but vice versa, if any one wants to abstract something out of the persecution against Jews and the rampant Nazi army throughout Europe. One may argue that racism should be excluded in order to make this evidence more convincing. It doesn't matter, as our doubt on this issue has arisen, and as we look back into all the tyrannies that ever existed in human society. Tyranny as they were, any questioning that may shake the authority would be severely punished. That is, the autocrats did not tolerate at all, all they had to do was to suppress. How convenient could they get rid of such disobedient citizens as long as they had control over armies or polices. Tolerate? What a waste of time. Ironically, government does demonstrate their power by threatening its citizens from time to time, although it is not always the case.

Actually, the government's willingness to tolerate challenge demonstrates how democratic but not how powerful it is. This claim is self-evident. Once citizens have the right to express their ideas freely, the country will no longer be under the control of some oligarchs. Government without support from the masses will automatically diminish, and a new one will be founded under the common will of people. America, known for its democratic politics, has such a sophisticated system for more than 200 years. It is a totally different story in those countries where people even have no right to vote. In North Korea for example, the Kim family has ruled this land for two generations and the third is coming very soon. Whether this is another contemporary tyranny is still under debate, yet annual refugee from this country points out that the Kim dynasty is unlikely to tolerate any challenge from its citizens. This in turn justifies the claim that the government's willingness to tolerate challenge is an indicator of democracy.

That too much challenge against the democratic government is detrimental should not be downplayed. Since we have chosen to tolerate, if by any chance we are challenged, there are only two solutions out of it. The first is to ignore. People are granted the rights to question, to object, yet get nothing from it. This is the case when officials sign their documents with no attention to the petition outside the window. The second is to reconcile. The masses are fulfilled out of the conflict at the government's loss. What a dilemma it is that to ignore is to lose support from citizens while to reconcile is to impair the power of the authority. Both option will gradually weaken the government and fragile body will inevitably collapse. Government can avoid such result as long as they are committed to their responsibility. After all, no one wants to challenge the government that he/she is content with. Therefore, willingness to tolerate challenge is far from enough for a democratic country. The ideal situation should be little challenge from citizens in that government has done its best to ensure the common interests of its people.

In conclusion, I believe that government’s willingness to tolerate challenges from its own citizens reflects its democracy but not strength, and the government should try its best to prevent being actually challenged. In this way should the government be of the people, by the people, and for the people.

尝试在第三段引申了一下，要不然真的不太好写，其实有些别的题目也是一样
这个是明明白白的反对
这几次都是不写开头，直接第一段就开始body
观点不管怎样都能立刻亮出来
不过和routine5段写法不太一样,therefor有点心虚啊...

happyman2000UID: 136936

105"The true strength of a country is best demonstrated by the willingness of its government to tolerate challenges from it's own citizens."

I can hardly agree with the claim that the true strength of a country is best demonstrated by the willingness of its government to tolerate challenges from it's own citizens. （重复原话不大好）I must remind the advocators of the European history back in（to） the 1940's. Even apolitical figures such as Albert Einstein had to set out for the US, not to mention those, if any, who had challenged the absolute power of Hitler. The strength of German in the World War Two is not demonstrated by Hitler's being challenged domestically but vice versa, if any one wants to abstract something out of the persecution against Jews and the rampant Nazi army throughout Europe. One may argue that racism should be excluded in order to make this evidence more convincing. It doesn't matter, as our doubt on this issue has arisen, and as we look back into all the tyrannies that ever existed in human society. Tyranny as they were, any questioning that may shake the authority would be severely punished. That is, the autocrats did not tolerate at all, all they had to do was to suppress. How convenient could they get rid of such disobedient citizens as long as they had control over armies or polices. Tolerate? What a waste of time. Ironically, government does demonstrate their power by threatening its citizens from time to time, although it is not always the case. 提干说的是true strength,你是否认同hitler等人的力量是true？另外，我觉得应该有一个总揽全局的开头。

Actually, the government's willingness to tolerate challenge demonstrates how democratic but not how powerful it is. This claim is self-evident. Once citizens have the right to express their ideas freely, the country will no longer be under the control of some oligarchs. Government without support from the masses will automatically diminish, and a new one will be founded under the common will of people. America, known for its democratic politics, has such a sophisticated system for more than 200 years. （however,）It is a totally different story in those countries where people even have no right to vote. In North Korea for example, the Kim family has ruled this land for two generations and the third is coming very soon. Whether this is another contemporary tyranny is still under debate, yet annual refugee from this country points out(point out 的主语一般是人，indicate好像更合适) that the Kim dynasty is unlikely to tolerate any challenge from its citizens. This in turn justifies the claim that the government's willingness to tolerate challenge is an indicator of democracy. 这段我觉得和你的主题观点关系不大，没必要花这么大篇幅！

That too much challenge against the democratic government is detrimental should not be downplayed. Since we have chosen to tolerate, if by any chance we are challenged, there are only two solutions out of it. The first is to ignore. People are granted the rights to question, to object, yet get nothing from it. This is the case when officials sign their documents with no attention to the petition outside the window. The second is to reconcile. The masses are fulfilled out of the conflict at the government's loss. What a dilemma it is that to ignore is to lose support from citizens while to reconcile is to impair the power of the authority. Both option will gradually weaken the government and fragile body will inevitably collapse. Government can avoid such result as long as they are committed to their responsibility. After all, no one wants to challenge the government that he/she is content with. Therefore, willingness to tolerate challenge is far from enough for a democratic country. The ideal situation should be little challenge from citizens in that government has done its best to ensure the common interests of its people. 这一段从正面论证政府一味忍让并不是一个理想局面！
In conclusion, I believe that government’s willingness to tolerate challenges from its own citizens reflects its democracy but not strength, and the government should try its best to prevent being actually challenged. In this way should the government be of the people, by the people, and for the people.


语言非常好了，用词很活，我已经记住了apolitical, downplay两个词了，多谢！
但是，文章结构逻辑性不太好，说理也不够cogent 。 我觉得如何理解是true strength是破解本题的关键,而你几乎忽视了该问题？！

angeikimUID: 4857

。。奇怪了。我的帖子没了HAPPYMAN 的怎么搞出来了？

well, actually, i totally agree w/ happyman, i cannot quite understand your first para, either. where is your thesis ? you have to give it in the very first para to lead your whole article.

feier521UID: 109747

咦？？？
怎么回事？？
下午看的一些恢复，都消失了。
我不是在虚拟的世界里吧，会不去了吧？有点像《黑客帝国》

imongUID: 140258

谢谢happyman, angeikim
我的中心思路的确不在TRUE strength上，
I believe that government’s willingness to tolerate challenges from its own citizens reflects its democracy but not strength
应该是属于另起炉灶了吧
看来没有能够把你们顺顺利利的引导下来，说明功力还是不够啊 :D
开头的问题我还得在考虑考虑，目前我情愿牺牲一段开头也不愿意让入手变得更困难
没有办法的办法

happyman2000UID: 136936

我重新贴的!

angeikimUID: 4857

晕。。好象是数据库的问题。

我建议IMOOG写了作文之后，看自己文章至少三次，慢慢修改开头问题。这样肯定不行的说。
要有习惯，否则，以后也难改的说

imongUID: 140258

知道了
今天下午就写一个，要是过得去就贴上来