点评某同学习作

tesolchinaUID：2191404

请发习作的同学单独发帖 然后将链接发到我的6分博客下面或者私信给我。我会尽快回复。还没有选定题目的同学请考虑写issue 45 和102  



之前对正反合写法在逻辑上的严密性一直存疑，看了老师的习作点评系列收获很大。附上本人第一次的习作，欢迎老师和各位G友指教~另有一问，对于“更支持哪种观点”的instruction，是否一定要正反观点都旗鼓相当？还是说可以一方为侧重，另一方简单提及？

【86 题】Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

我的基本思路是：
1立场：指出两种观点不必然冲突，但还是有保留地赞同第一种观点，即听从民意，即便需要运用个人判断也以民意为基础。
2论述听从民意的合法性以及运用个人判断的潜在危险
3回答听从民意的效率问题：但信息时代民意获取便捷，即便情况紧急也需要站在人民的角度思考
4论述听从民意的好处：政策更贴近人民的需要，且易于获得支持和拥护。例子：苏格兰公投
5让步：有时民众诉求多元，利益冲突，需要官员从大局着眼作出权衡判断
6总结：听从民意应该是基础的行事准则，运用个人判断应该基于民意。

When it comes to policy-making, people are divided over the role of public will and government officials' own judgment. It is important to point out that in a democratic society, these two aspects are not necessary mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, however, I agree that government officials should carry out the will of people. Only under the consideration of the interest of the people whom they represent are officials justified to exert their own judgment.

我觉得你这样写很容易出现无立场的情况。既然题目将两个观点对立起来，最好还是不要轻易否定两者对立的基本假设。而且题目也明确要求你指出倾向哪一边。

As it is formally known, "public servants" suggests that it is legitimate for officials delegated by the voters to delegate their people in the government, since the basic reason why people vote them is that their political views are recognized and that their capability to perform the public tasks are entrusted. Therefore, the moment officials are elected, they shoulder the will and interests of their voters. Since power is prone to corruption and arbitrariness, it is likely that officials may seek their own interests if this principle is surpassed by unchecked discretion.

第一句话的表达很有问题 The fact that officials are often called "public servants" suggests that ...
后半句的表达也很有问题  你自己再改改吧
然后这一段前半部分在说选举制度意味着权力来自人民 后面又扯到权力可能腐败 感觉这段的重点不够突出 再加上有没有合适的具体例证 总的来说这段是比较失败的  


One may argue about the inefficiency and impracticability of the principle if it were to be executed in daily public issues. How can the government run well when officials have to collect and analyze public opinions in every decision-making process? In fact, in a digital world where the public opinions are easily accessible through online polls, hearings and numerous surveys, listening to people’s voice is no longer a hard nut to crack. Even though the government encounters an urgent situation where adopting the public opinions is infeasible, officials are at least supposed to take the overall social well-being into consideration rather than make decisions out of their untenable preference.

关于数码技术使收集民意更容易我觉得是一个很好的point
但是你以某种rebuttal的形式提出 我觉得不妥 因为这道题的要求并没有说address the most compelling reasons that may challenge your position 即使你要额外这么做也应该放到倒数第二段 在充分展开你自己的论证之后  
其实你的这个point可以作为支持你同意应该听取民意的论点  

另外 我不太赞成你在没有具体issue的情况下空谈 这样很不利于你展开具体的论证 你可以讨论一些政府可能做出的决定  比如税收政策 医疗保险改革等


Another advantage of carrying out people’s will is that the policy can be better accepted and easier to implement if it meets people’s demand. Going against the tide of public option may otherwise lead to social upheaval and other undesirable consequences. Consider the 2014 Scottish referendum. Had the central government ignored the heating contentions and suppressed the splittism, dissatisfactions might have fomented more violently. Instead, Britain respected the desire of majority of Scots and thus saved the national session crisis in a fair and convincing manner.

这段终于有具体的事例了 但是苏格兰公投的例子如何体现政府carry out people's will 你可能觉得是不言自明的 但作为论述 还是应该在提出例子之后讨论例子如何支持论点

Admittedly, it is true that the interests of people are not unified as a whole and people may often take issue over a certain policy. Also people sometimes are inclined to think from their own perspective and overlook the holistic social impact. Under such circumstances, officials should grasp the overall situation and balance diverse interests with well-informed judgment.
这种只有3句话的让步段落 还是会导致和其他中间段产生矛盾的情况
同时你也没有具体的事例作为证据展开

In conclusion, if we were to choose a fundamental indicator for policy makers, the will of people should always be a priority, because it is both legitimate and beneficial to do so, especially when the government is faced with a significant turning relevant to the populace. The exertion of officials’ judgment should be limited and conditioned based on concerns over the public opinions.

有什么问题可以提出讨论 希望你能根据我的意见修改文章 而不是急于写下一篇

妄誩UID：3566367

非常感谢老师的点评！我做了如下修改，请老师看看还有哪些不足。
另外，老师能否具体回答下之前提出的问题，即对待“挑一边”的指引，是不是要注意两方论述的比重均衡，还是侧重一边，另一边提一下就可以？

【86 题】Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

修改说明：
1首段明确了立场：应听从民意
2合法性例子不太好找，所以提了下人民主权说
3信息时代收集民意的可行性增加了中国法定节假日改革草案的例子
4调整了苏格兰公投的例子：英国政府允许民众自决，扩大苏格兰自治权从而避免国家破裂
5让步部分增加了美国法定饮酒年龄的例子，再强调即便是官员判断也基于社会整体意见。
-----------------------------正文----------------------------

When it comes to policy-making, people are divided over the role of public will and government officials' own judgment. It is important to point out that in a democratic society, these two aspects are not necessary mutually exclusive. Generally speaking, however, I agree that government officials should carry out the will of people. Only under the consideration of the interest of the people whom they represent are officials justified to exert their own judgment.


我觉得你这样写很容易出现无立场的情况。既然题目将两个观点对立起来，最好还是不要轻易否定两者对立的基本假设。而且题目也明确要求你指出倾向哪一边。

When it comes to policy-making, people are divided over the role of public will and government officials' own judgment. I generally agree that government officials should carry out the will of people. Only under the consideration of the interest of the people whom they represent are officials justified to exert their own judgment.

所以你的观点是？ 最后这个倒装句用得有点弄巧成拙
能写个正常的句子么

---

As it is formally known, "public servants" suggests that it is legitimate for officials delegated by the voters to delegate their people in the government, since the basic reason why people vote them is that their political views are recognized and that their capability to perform the public tasks are entrusted. Therefore, the moment officials are elected, they shoulder the will and interests of their voters. Since power is prone to corruption and arbitrariness, it is likely that officials may seek their own interests if this principle is surpassed by unchecked discretion.

第一句话的表达很有问题 The fact that officials are often called "public servants" suggests that ...
后半句的表达也很有问题  你自己再改改吧
然后这一段前半部分在说选举制度意味着权力来自人民 后面又扯到权力可能腐败 感觉这段的重点不够突出 再加上有没有合适的具体例证 总的来说这段是比较失败的  


According to the widely recognized idea of popular sovereignty, government should hold up to the principle of “of the people, for the people, by the people”. Thus it is legitimate for officials delegated by the voters to represent their people in the government, since the basic reason why people vote them is that their political views are recognized and that their capability to perform the public tasks are entrusted. Therefore, the moment officials are elected, it is their duty to shoulder the will and interests of the voters.

这段的表达有所改进 但是像vote them还是有问题
另外 整段没有具体的例子 纯说理 显得很空洞

---

One may argue about the inefficiency and impracticability of the principle if it were to be executed in daily public issues. How can the government run well when officials have to collect and analyze public opinions in every decision-making process? In fact, in a digital world where the public opinions are easily accessible through online polls, hearings and numerous surveys, listening to people’s voice is no longer a hard nut to crack. Even though the government encounters an urgent situation where adopting the public opinions is infeasible, officials are at least supposed to take the overall social well-being into consideration rather than make decisions out of their untenable preference.

关于数码技术使收集民意更容易我觉得是一个很好的point
但是你以某种rebuttal的形式提出 我觉得不妥 因为这道题的要求并没有说address the most compelling reasons that may challenge your position 即使你要额外这么做也应该放到倒数第二段 在充分展开你自己的论证之后  
其实你的这个point可以作为支持你同意应该听取民意的论点  

另外 我不太赞成你在没有具体issue的情况下空谈 这样很不利于你展开具体的论证 你可以讨论一些政府可能做出的决定  比如税收政策 医疗保险改革等




Secondly, referring to public opinions has been proven practicable and even efficient in the information era. In a digital world where the public opinions are easily accessible through online polls, hearings and numerous surveys, listening to people’s voice is no longer a hard nut to crack. For instance, in 2007, Chinese government launched an online survey regarding the draft of national holiday reform, which attracted 650,000 anonymous participants within a short time period. The survey reflected a wide range of views from all sides and contributed to the amendment of the draft.

referring to public opinions这个表达还是有问题
Making decisions based on public opinions has become feasible with the advent of digital technologies.  
这个例子不错 但是你开头的论点是数码技术可以使收集信息更便捷 但是举例的时候并没有强调这个点
举例的目的是为了支持论点 你说了例子却不支持论点 这个例子就等于白写的

---

Another advantage of carrying out people’s will is that the policy can be better accepted and easier to implement if it meets people’s demand. Going against the tide of public option may otherwise lead to social upheaval and other undesirable consequences. Consider the 2014 Scottish referendum. Had the central government ignored the heating contentions and suppressed the splittism, dissatisfactions might have fomented more violently. Instead, Britain respected the desire of majority of Scots and thus saved the national session crisis in a fair and convincing manner.

这段终于有具体的事例了 但是苏格兰公投的例子如何体现政府carry out people's will 你可能觉得是不言自明的 但作为论述 还是应该在提出例子之后讨论例子如何支持论点



Another advantage of carrying out people’s will is that the policy can be better accepted and easier to implement if it meets people’s demand. Going against the tide of public opinions may otherwise lead to social upheaval and other undesirable consequences. Consider the 2014 Scottish referendum, Britain allowed the Scots to vote on their independency, and respected the desire of majority to widen their autonomy. As a result, the Briitish governvent saved the national session crisis in a fair and proper manner. Had the central government ignored the heating contentions and suppressed the splittism, dissatisfactions might have fomented more violently.

比之前的版本要好些 但是你开头的point和结尾一句话之间并没有很好的呼应

前面说的是政策更容易被接受和执行 后面变成会有不满  
另外vote on their independency saved the national session crisis 这些表达都有问题
像这种时事做例子的话 你至少应该将相关的wiki词条仔细读一遍 借用里面的词语和表达 而不是凭感觉写
或者也可以用一些更简单的例子

---

Admittedly, it is true that the interests of people are not unified as a whole and people may often take issue over a certain policy. Also people sometimes are inclined to think from their own perspective and overlook the holistic social impact. Under such circumstances, officials should grasp the overall situation and balance diverse interests with well-informed judgment.
这种只有3句话的让步段落 还是会导致和其他中间段产生矛盾的情况
同时你也没有具体的事例作为证据展开

---

Admittedly, it is true that the interests of people are not unified as a whole and people may often take issue over a certain policy. Also people sometimes are inclined to think from their own perspective and overlook the overall social well-being. Under such circumstances, officials should grasp the holistic situation and balance diverse interests with well-informed judgment. Take the 2011 amethyst movement for example, 100 American college principals called for the government to lower the drinking age, while many parents, physicians and public sectors objected to the proposals. After weighing the pros and cons of modifying the law, the government kept the legal age for consuming alcohol unchanged. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the judgment made by the government was still based on the overall interests and opinions of the populace rather than bureaucrats’ untenable preference.

这个例子不是说明了民众意见不一致 无法carry out么
那么你这段到底想说什么


回应你的问题 如何处理这种问倾向哪边的题目要求 我的建议是要选定一个立场 然后反对另一个立场 这样就address both了


In conclusion, if we were to choose a fundamental indicator for policy makers, the will of people should always be a priority, because it is legitimate, feasible and beneficial to do so. The exertion of officials’ judgment should be limited and conditioned based on concerns over the public opinions.



嗯 也许你看完了我的点评还是很困惑甚至有些沮丧  有什么想法请写下来 对我的科研很重要

接下来我基于你的文章列一个新的提纲你再写一下


首先你要有观点

I believe that the government officials should by all means carry out the people's will when the majority of the members of the public support a particular policy or move. On the other hand, when the people are deeply divided over an issue, the government officials may have to rely on their own decisions after taking into account opinions of different stakeholders. Some people may argue that officials should rely on their own judgment because it is difficult to collect public opinions. This is no longer the case in the age of Internet.

有了这个主旨句
你就可以分别写三段

P2 或许可以用苏格兰的例子 大多数人选择不独立 因此苏格兰政府就不应独立 但是大多数人也希望更多的自治 因此英国政府应该给更多自由

P3 对于意见分歧很大的 比如饮酒年龄的问题 应该最终由政府官员来决策

P4 最后可以回应反对的立场 指出数码技术的优势等等

妄誩UID：3566367

妄誩 发表于 2015-2-28 17:12
非常感谢老师的点评！我做了如下修改，请老师看看还有哪些不足。
另外，老师能否具体回答下之前提出的问题 ...

根据王老师的意见和提纲对习作进行了二改，作文真的是改无止境。。。

主要体会
1 王老师给出的首段在立场鲜明的同时，囊括了分论点的要点，确实更加清晰。

2 论述例子得围绕分论点展开，否则就显得不够妥帖。比如苏格兰公投的例子，我调整分论点为“听从民意有助于社会稳定进步反之后果严重”，例子的落脚点也是听从苏格兰民众的意见有助于和平解决这场独立危机。当然可能还是有改进空间。

3 解释下之前让步那段目的就是对论点的补充，意思是说各方对于饮酒年龄意见不一时政府要自行权衡，可能因为该段末句又回到“即便自行权衡也要以民意为基础”，所以显得不太明确。

4 想用不太烂俗有点特色的例子确实还是应该提前做些功课，查查维基百科的正确表达，否则确实影响理解。

5 有个小困惑：扣题要做到什么程度才可以呢？是不是无法充分论述的要点都不能出现？（例如：我把首段没提但下文有出现的points删了，像“紧急情况下官员应运用个人判断”之类）但是考虑到评分标准里也提到了“考虑事物复杂性”，这又该怎样权衡？

烦请老师方便时指教~
————————————————————————————————————————
I believe that the government officials should by all means carry out the people's will when the majority of the members of the public support a particular policy or move. On the other hand, when the people are deeply divided over an issue, the government officials may have to rely on their own decisions after taking into account opinions of different stakeholders. Some people may argue that officials should rely on their own judgment because it is difficult to collect public opinions. This is no longer the case in the age of Internet.

An obvious advantage of carrying out people’s will is that meeting people’s demand contributes to a stable and progressive society while going against the tide of public opinions may otherwise lead to undesirable social upheaval. Consider the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The Scottish government respected the majority’s choice to stay with Britain. In the meantime, the UK government promised to widen Scotland‘s autonomy at scots’ request. As a result, Britain saved the union from falling apart in a legitimate and peaceful manner. Had the Scottish government insisted on independence or the central government ignored the autonomous demand of the scots, widespread dissatisfactions might have led to social tumult and other severe consequences.

Admittedly, it is true that the interests of people are not unified as a whole and people may often take issue over a certain policy. Also people sometimes are inclined to think from their own perspective and overlook the overall social well-being. Under such circumstances, officials should grasp the holistic situation and balance diverse interests with well-informed judgment. Take the 2011 amethyst movement for example, 100 American college principals called for the government to lower the drinking age, while many parents, physicians and public sectors objected to the proposals. After weighing the pros and cons of modifying the law, the government kept the legal age for consuming alcohol unchanged.

One may doubt the efficiency and practicability of listening to people’s voice when dealing with public affairs. In fact, in a digital world where the public opinions are easily accessible through online polls, hearings and numerous surveys, collecting and analyzing public opinions is no longer a hard nut to crack. For instance, in 2007, Chinese government launched an online survey regarding the draft of national holiday reform, which attracted 650,000 anonymous participants within a week. The survey provided the government with a quick and comprehensive reference which contributed to the amendment of the draft.

In conclusion, if we were to choose a fundamental indicator for policy makers, the will of people should always be a priority, because it is both beneficial and feasible to do so. The exertion of officials’ judgment should be limited and conditioned after weighing and balance the views of all parties concerned.