issue24 拜托大家多提意见

sniper613UID: 147372

Topic: "People in position of power are most effective when they are exercise caution and restraint in the use of that power."







The arguer of this topic concludes that when they exercise caution and restraint in the use of power, people who are powerful in position are most effective. Some people agree with this point, while other people do not think they should exercise caution and restraint in the use of power. In my opinion, I do agree with the speaker and many examples can substantiate my point of view. In the following discussion, I would like to present evidences to support my standpoint.


In human society, some persons in position of power, such as Chairman, President, Chancellor, Professor and so on, have the ability  and power to decide important things which are relevant to people's lives. There are so many instances which are not so far to seek. For example, President in a country has the power to declare a war and determine the policy of tax. A professor in a university usually can decide the number of his students and the one who can receive an offer. There are so many other examples to illustrate the strength of my conclusion. Therefore people's lives usually are connected to the decision of people in power.If the people in power declare a policy which increase the gas tax. it is believed that many people who commute by car or bus have to pay more money for their fuel. So many important things are decided by the people in position of power.


In addition, there are a large number of people in history who had unlimited power committed serious mistakes, even killed a lot of people. For instance, Adolf Hitler, the Premier of Germany in the second World War, is noxious for his cruel policy to Jews and press Germans. From 1933 to 1944,Hitler was the most powerful man in Germany and he could do anything as he liked without any caution and restraint in the use of power. He ordered to kill millions of Jews and people from other countries, such as Russia, France etc.. In order to understand the truth of my view ,it is necessary to see another example. Stalin, the polician of Soviet Union, who also had unrestrained power, led a purge of government and military. The purge had killed thousands of people and made millions of people homeless. Thereby unrestrained power usually makes people in position of power ineffective, even commit crimes and harm the people.


In the modern times, people in position of power usually are elected by majority. They are superintended by media and restrained in the use of power. Their each act and word is watched by people and they must be responsible for their decision. For example, if the President of USA wants to pass a tax act, he must receive the agreement of Senate. Majority people also know that people in position of power must represent the view of the majority and that their power is no longer unlimited. So people in power must work more effective that before. If the people in position of power used the power for one's own purpose, the law would deprive the power of him. Thus people in position of power are most effective when the power are restrained.


Consequently, due to the analysis mentioned above, which sometimes correlate with one another to generate whole and thus become more pervasive than any one of them. We can conclude that people in position of power are most effective when they exercise caution and restraint in the use of power and that people who have unlimited power are least effective even to make mistakes.

木耳UID: 123036

Topic: "People in position of power are most effective when they are exercise caution and restraint in the use of that power."

The arguer(新东方孙远曾说过在issue中一般用speaker较好.他老人家的很多提纲我不敢苟同,不过毕竟在语言上人家是权威,比你我不是牛了一点.) of this topic concludes that when they(指代不清.不要第一次就用代词) exercise caution and restraint in the use of power, people who are powerful in position are most effective. Some people agree with this point, while other people do not think they should exercise caution and restraint in the use of power. In my opinion, I do agree with the speaker and many examples can substantiate my point of view. In the following discussion, I would like to present evidences to support my standpoint.

说实话,我不太喜欢这样的开头.
首先这种新东方模式的东西太多人在用.
其次这样的东西写得久了是会限制思路的.

In human society, some persons in position of power, such as Chairman, President, Chancellor, Professor and so on, have the ability and power to decide important things which are relevant to people's lives. There are so many instances which are not so far to seek. For example, President in a country has the power to declare a war and determine the policy of tax.(这种话不能乱讲.向他国宣战或者是调节税收政策可不是简单的事情,更不是president一人说了算的.小布收拾老萨那可是要立法,要通过国会同意的.民主政治最明显的特征之一就是不同权力之间的相互制衡和对国家首脑权力的限制.) A professor in a university usually can decide the number of his students and the one who can receive an offer. There are so many other examples to illustrate the strength of my conclusion. Therefore people's lives usually are connected to the decision of people in power.If the people in power declare a policy which increase the gas tax. (注意标点)it is believed that many people who commute by car or bus have to pay more money for their fuel. So many important things are decided by the people in position of power.(一个意思表达一次就可以了.像这段的最后一句话你在文中已经表达了几次.可能的话最好在没段末尾总结或者是递进)

In addition, there are a large number of people in history who had unlimited power committed serious mistakes, even killed a lot of people. For instance, Adolf Hitler, the Premier of Germany in the second World War, is noxious for his cruel policy to Jews and press Germans. From 1933 to 1944,Hitler was the most powerful man in Germany and he could do anything as he liked without any caution and restraint in the use of power. He ordered to kill millions of Jews and people from other countries, such as Russia, France etc.. In order to understand the truth of my view ,it is necessary to see another example. Stalin, the polician of Soviet Union, who also had unrestrained power, led a purge of government and military. The purge had killed thousands of people and made millions of people homeless.(对于斯大林的评价在学术界至今还有争议.它的大清洗和肃反运动无疑是无人道的.不过你的millions of people homeless好像无从说起.) Thereby unrestrained power usually makes people in position of power ineffective, even commit crimes and harm the people.

In the modern times, people in position of power usually are elected by majority. They are superintended by media(媒体的监督其实还是其次.主要是良好透明的政治制度在起作用 and restrained in the use of power. Their each act and word is watched by people and they must be responsible for their decision. For example, if the President of USA wants to pass a tax act, he must receive the agreement of Senate. Majority people also know that people in position of power must represent the view of the majority and that their power is no longer unlimited. So people in power must work more effective that before. If the people in position of power used the power for one's own purpose, the law would deprive the power of him. Thus people in position of power are most effective when the power are restrained.

感觉写的有些乱,而且和第一段有些矛盾.
对于当今政治领袖权力受限的实质表述的有些散.
有个急事,晚上再给你该吧.呵呵不好意思.

Consequently, due to the analysis mentioned above, which(指代不清) sometimes correlate with one another to generate whole and thus become more pervasive than any one of them. We can conclude that people in position of power are most effective when they exercise caution and restraint in the use of power and that people who have unlimited power are least effective even to make mistakes.

总的说写的还可以.注意几点:
1 最好有个性一点的开头.而且个人不建议在issue中使用模板.要根据题目的特点写不同的开头.

2 注意语言的严谨

3 最好用一些公认的例子,起码不要让人容易找出破绽

4 第三段些的有些乱,逻辑差了些.

如果是第一篇的话已经很不错了,加油啊!
由于时间的原因,没有细看语言.不过一边看下来问题不大.

sniper613UID: 147372

非常感谢!