Issue48 看了二十多篇范文后的成果

galaxysongUID: 152834

Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

I concede that groups of people who made possible and realized the most significant events have pitifully been lost in the history while a few famous ones have remained remembered and honored. Nevertheless, I believe it unfair to criticize that the study of history puts too much weight on these individuals, for three reasons as follows:

The chief evidence to defend the reasonable emphasis on the outstanding minority is the fact that the fragments of records and functionally similar things having remained so far concern only a few people. The earlier a event took place, the fewer things marked by it can survive until now. And even those who made the records usually focused on the most eminent figures at that stage. Our knowledge about the history all comes from these pieces of records, so no wonder the others, namely the majority, have been buried out of our sights today.

It is also undeniable that such famous individuals played critical roles in the progress of history where their fame came from. As we look back along the river of history, the awareness of the power of common people grows gradually, while in contrast, the importance of top nobles and elites ascends upstream. In the ages when words of a monarch were tantamount to laws and when writing was a privilege for nobles, for example, the bottom people who worked and died, with their voices unheard. Although events always stood the ground built by the whole society, and usually the famous ones just did something according the trends demanded and propelled by the nameless majority, there are still many chances for these few to alter the trace of the history, making it whether straight or zigzag. We need no further than Hitler who was the chief director of the Second World War. Little reason can indicate that without him, Jews, although not able to escape persecution, could massacred like beef in factories all the same.

Another utilitarian standpoint agrees that the study of history does not overemphasize the few. People nowadays study our past not only to commemorate but also to learn lessons for bettering our today’s and future societies. To a person who wants to benefit from the knowledge about the history, it is undoubtedly much easier to remember what happened around one person than a large group, for actions of the form is concrete, vivid and heroic. Since a modern man has a long history to learn and a restless life to live, an easy and effective way is always welcome and valuable. In this sense, it is preferable just to leave most of our ancestors forgotten.

To sum up, the relative scarcity of available records about unfamous groups of people limits the portion of them in the study of history, and the knowledge itself tells that a few active and outstanding figures contributed critically and sometimes even crucially to the progress of history. From a realistic respect, focus on the latter

imongUID: 140258

I concede that groups of people who made possible and realized the most significant events have pitifully been lost in the history while a few famous ones have remained remembered and honored. Nevertheless, I believe it unfair to criticize that the study of history puts too much weight on these individuals, for three reasons as follows:
开头观点鲜明，短小精干，精彩。people who... have been lost in history感觉用词上有点问题？

The chief evidence to defend the reasonable emphasis（如果能用emphasizing也许更好？） on the outstanding minority is the fact that the fragments of records and functionally similar things having remained（？） so far concern only a few people. The earlier a event took place, the fewer things marked by it can survive until now.这句话别扭 And even those who made the records usually focused on the most eminent figures at that stage.这个好 Our knowledge about the history all comes from these pieces of records, so no wonder the others, namely the majority, have been buried out of our sights today. 这段话的叙述上如果能整理一下会比较好，按照一定的认知顺序：our knowledge comes from fragments, 留下来的fragment 如何如何，even when the fragment is made 如何如何..

It is also undeniable that such famous individuals （have/had）played critical roles in the progress of history where（这个where恐怕有点问题） their fame came from. As we look back along the river of history（好像不是这个表达，至少google没有匹配纪录）, the awareness of the power of common people grows gradually, while in contrast, the importance of top nobles and elites ascends upstream（what's this? I failed to make it out.）. In the ages when words of a monarch were tantamount to laws and when writing was a privilege for nobles, for example, the bottom people who（主句在哪里） worked and died, with their voices unheard. Although events always stood the ground built by the whole society, and usually the famous ones just did something according the trends demanded and propelled by the nameless majority, there are still many chances for these few to alter the trace of the history, making it whether straight or zigzag. We need no further than Hitler（缩水下来就是we need hitler??） who was the chief director of the Second World War. Little reason can indicate that without him, Jews, although not able to escape persecution, could massacred like beef in factories all the same.
前半部分我看得不是太明白，不过估计是在说越往古代，few的作用越重，后面则是直到现在few的作用也是显著。个人以为还是组织上调换顺序为佳。刚刚看到那个grow gradually的时候还在纳闷会不会削弱自己，如果是先说：目前一段时间few很强力，然后递进回去，这个线路感觉清晰多一些

Another utilitarian standpoint agrees that the study of history does not overemphasize the few. People nowadays study our past not only to commemorate but also to learn lessons for bettering our today’s and future societies. To a person who wants to benefit from the knowledge about the history, it is undoubtedly much easier to remember what happened around one person than a large group, for actions of the form is concrete, vivid and heroic. Since a modern man has a long history to learn and a restless life to live, an easy and effective way is always welcome and valuable. In this sense, it is preferable just to leave most of our ancestors forgotten. 这一段我觉得不是很好。如果说ease的话，至少也应该提到studying majority和studying few的效果差不多甚至后者更好，然后再比较ease，等等。

To sum up, the relative scarcity of available records about unfamous groups of people limits the portion of them in the study of history, and the knowledge itself tells that a few active and outstanding figures contributed critically and sometimes even crucially to the progress of history. From a realistic respect, focus on the latter 结尾写完了？

其实这个题目我觉得有很多可以讲的。首先The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten." 这后半句是不是同意，如果同意，是不是overemphasize（就像你的文章里着重讲的），我刚刚想到的还有，mass那边到底有没有emphasize的着眼点（也就是，会不会我们想去emphasize majority但是无从着力？），然后例如效果的比较，内在原因的分析，加上具体的例子，等等。

大家最近都是一窝蜂写一个题目（不知道是不是不约而同），先是88，然后是161还是160，现在是48。这个也不错的说，一段时间集中火力打歼灭战。wallis也写了个48，呆会儿去看看。

看了20多篇范文的话，成果还是不错的。文中是不是有不少的大胆尝试？好几个地方我都拿不准，不过没有标出来就是。

methylUID: 139015

Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

I concede that groups of people who made possible and realized the most significant events have pitifully been lost in the history while a few famous ones have remained remembered and honored. Nevertheless, I believe it unfair to criticize that the study of history puts too much weight on these individuals, for three reasons as follows:
开头简洁，我喜欢这样的风格
The chief evidence to defend the reasonable emphasis on the outstanding minority is the fact that the fragments of records and functionally similar things having remained so far concern only a few people. The earlier a（an） event took place, the fewer things marked by it can survive until now. And even those who made the records usually focused on the most eminent figures at that stage. Our knowledge about the history all comes from these pieces of records, so no wonder the others, namely the majority, have been buried out of our sights today.
说历史纪录只提极少数人，最好把几句话的顺序调一下，而且既然是chief, 篇幅该长些吧，呵呵，可以在说得细一些
It is also undeniable that such famous individuals played critical roles in the progress of history where their fame came from. As we look back along the river of history, the awareness of the power of common people grows gradually, while in contrast, the importance of top nobles and elites ascends upstream. In the ages when words of a monarch were tantamount to laws and when writing was a privilege for nobles, for example, the bottom people who worked and died, with their voices unheard.这句话没读懂。。。和上下句的关系？ Although events always stood 缺个介词？the ground built by the whole society, and usually the famous ones just did something according the trends demanded and propelled by the nameless majority, there are still many chances for these few to alter the trace of the history, making it whether straight or zigzag. We need no further than Hitler who was the chief director of the Second World War. Little reason can indicate that without him, Jews, although not able to escape persecution, could massacred like beef in factories all the same.
说名人在历史上有重要作用，但你好像是承认大众决定了历史趋势？
Another utilitarian standpoint agrees that the study of history does not overemphasize the few. People nowadays study our past not only to commemorate but also to learn lessons for bettering our today’s and future societies. To a person who wants to benefit from the knowledge about the history, it is undoubtedly much easier to remember what happened around one person than a large group, for actions of the form is concrete, vivid and heroic. Since a modern man has a long history to learn and a restless life to live, an easy and effective way is always welcome and valuable. In this sense, it is preferable just to leave most of our ancestors forgotten.
后面的论证和前面ts好像不能完全匹配。。。最后又落到我们完全可以忘掉大众?
To sum up, the relative scarcity of available records about unfamous groups of people limits the portion of them in the study of history, and the knowledge itself tells that a few active and outstanding figures contributed critically and sometimes even crucially to the progress of history. From a realistic respect, focus on the latter？？

kobe niuUID: 153797

I believe it (is)unfair to criticize that the study of history puts too much weight on these individuals, for three reasons as follows:
The earlier a (n)event took place, the fewer things marked by it can survive until now

kobe niuUID: 153797

全文写的还不错，个人认为应多从为什么少数人被记住说

galaxysongUID: 152834

先谢过各位。
我再改改。
By the way, 我只是恰好选了这个题目而已，另一篇issue88才是凑热闹的（其实也考虑很久了）。

galaxysongUID: 152834

开头简洁是向范文学习的结果。范文的开篇基本上都是两句（如果assertion时single claim）或三四句（如果assertion时dual claim）。可以说，范文比较“八股”，但优点是明显的。
imong老师改得很细，我尽量一一回答。抱歉，忘了标出“大胆尝试”之处。
“people who... have been lost in history”是由于我本来写的是the names of the people ... have been lost in history，后来把前半句改了，却忘了后半句。
有什么理由要用“emphasizing”吗？这里好像不必突出动作吧。
“and functionally similar things”干脆去掉好了。
“The earlier a event took place, the fewer things marked by it can survive until now.”有个低级错误，但Word却辜负了我的信任。这句改成“The earlier an event took place, the less information it can leave to now.”会好些吗？
body 1的思路是：①records少[摆事实]→②时间越早，records越少[加深事实]→[连贯性差了些]③records本身就强调少数人[背后的事实]→④历史知识来自records[大前提]→⑤我们很难知道records之外的多数人的情况。写出来的文字却不太听我的话，有些走样。不过我以为大前提并不总要放在前头。
“such famous individuals（have/had）played critical roles”为什么要用完成时态？是针对后半句“their fame came from”吗？我大概可以排除have。
“where”改成from which...came。
“As we look back along the river of history”是尝试，但问题应当不大吧。
“the awareness of the power of common people grows gradually, while in contrast, the importance of top nobles and elites ascends upstream”是紧接着上一个比喻句。
“the bottom people who”错了，who用得太多，有了惯性。
“We need no further than Hitler ...”汗汗汗……恐怖的笔误，下次不敢了。
最后一句是“From a realistic respect, focus on the latter ones worth remembering is an adoptable option and even adopted choice.”
下次我再发帖子之前会仔细检查的。

答methyl：
body 1的“chief”不对，改成first。
body 2页的不好，但我早承认大众决定了历史趋势，只是强调少数有其合理性。

imongUID: 140258

包括emphasis/emphasizing和have had 我都是凭感觉，怎么说呢，这种表达上选择的差异对语意是有着细微的影响的，有点不太容易说清楚~~个人参考吧。