【NINE小组】【作业集】---by lovetian

lovetianUID：2899734

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

I don't agree with the author's claim, and in my view, the goal of politics should be the pursuit of either an ideal or the common ground and reasonable consensus. Ideal, as well as common ground and reasonable consensus, is important to the politicians and society, and ideal can contribute to the common welfare of whole human race; common ground and reasonable consensus is the best way to solve recent social problems.

In the short term, searching for common ground and reasonable consensus in politics will solve current social troubles effectively and make the well-being of society and people better. Since common ground reasonable consensus is the prerequisite of any stable society, without which talking about any ideal makes no senses. Chairman Deng, for instance, instead of gripping the idealism of communism, enacted the marvelous and far-reaching policies of "one country, two systems", which earned not only national support but also international acknowledgement. This is a policy, which lead to the result of compromise, alleviate the opposite difference between capitalism and socialism, and successfully make the unite of Hong Kong to its motherland, China.

However, in the long term, it is important and necessary for politicians to pursue an ideal, which aim at gaining the common welfare of all the civilians. Only pursuing the common ground and reasonable consensus and ignoring the essential ideal will make the country lose its profit constantly and disappear from the Earth eventually. Gandhi, an Indian spiritual leader who leaded the nonviolent resistance movement and finally won the independence of India from the Great British, is such a politician who only pursues the ideal in his mind and neglects the common consensus. Without the pursuit of the ideal for many decades and with the common ground and reasonable consensus, India may be still a colony of British.

In sum up, it is true that politicians can pander and compromise to build a consensus so as to overcome some short-term problems, but when it comes to a long-term one, insisting the ideal in their mind is what they should do. Politicians should not only pursue the common consensus in order to gain his/her political power, but also keep the pursuit of an ideal in their mind, even which is elusive.

政治类的真难写啊！！！

wywcgsUID：2565269

I don't agree with the author's claim,and in my view, the goal of politics should be the pursuit of either an idealor the common ground and reasonable consensus. Ideal, as well as common groundand reasonable consensus, is important to the politicians and society, andideal can contribute to the common welfare of whole human race; common groundand reasonable consensus is the best way to solve recent social problems.

In the short term, searching for common ground and reasonableconsensus in politics will solve current social troubles effectively and makethe well-being of society and people better. Since common ground reasonableconsensus is the prerequisite of any stable society（这个观点有点问题吧，不那么显然。民主国家议会经常吵翻天，社会也不见得不稳定啊。实际上我觉得你这个statement本身都可以作为一个issue的题目了-_-）, without which talking about any ideal makes no senses.Chairman Deng, for instance, instead of gripping the idealism of communism,enacted the marvelous and far-reaching policies of "one country, twosystems", which earned not only national support but also internationalacknowledgement. This is a policy, which lead to the result of compromise,alleviate the opposite difference between capitalism and socialism, andsuccessfully make the unite of Hong Kong to its motherland, China.
（你这一段的论点是CG & RC可以用来解决社会问题且使人民生活变好，所以你的example应该着重强调邓小平的compromise到底解决了什么社会问题，人民的生活到底产生了什么变化，而不是说这种做法得到了national support & international acknowledgement。按你这种写法的话，和主题句联系不上。另外顺便说一句，邓小平貌似没有做过Chairman -_-）
However, in the long term, it is important and necessary forpoliticians to pursue an ideal, which aim at gaining the common welfare of allthe civilians. Only pursuing the common ground and reasonable consensus andignoring the essential ideal will make the country lose its profit constantlyand disappear from the Earth eventually. Gandhi, an Indian spiritual leader wholeaded the nonviolent resistance movement and finally won the independence ofIndia from the Great British, is such a politician who only pursues the idealin his mind and neglects the common consensus. Without the pursuit of the idealfor many decades and with the common ground and reasonable consensus, India maybe still a colony of British.
（还是例子的问题。没说清楚甘地的非暴力不合作到底是如何gaining the common welfare of all the civilians了，他的理想到底怎么影响了他的行动之类的。我觉得这一块应该多写点，阐述下例子和观点的联系。）
In sum up, it is true that politicians can pander andcompromise to build a consensus so as to overcome some short-term problems, butwhen it comes to a long-term one, insisting the ideal in their mind is whatthey should do. Politicians should not only pursue the common consensus inorder to gain his/her political power, but also keep the pursuit of an ideal intheir mind, even which is elusive.



嗯。总体来说，我觉得的内容和主题不太搭。
你的主题应该是第一句“政治或者应该追求理想，或者应该追求一致”。这个either … or … 给人的感觉有一种两个只能选一个的意思，所以看起来你的意思就像是理想和达成一致有冲突的样子。可是你后文却又没有说这二者是不能共存的，那你这个“either … or …”的观点是怎么证明出来的呢。
我觉得你可能是想说这两者都是很重要的？这样的话，倒数第二段开头However的转折语气太强烈了，会让人以为你是想着重强调这一段的内容。换成On the other hand一类的更适合一些。
总体感觉对例子的解释不太好，或者说你可以改一下论点。最起码我觉得你应该再想想……
用词什么的就不说了，总觉得你这篇写的偏少……