issue61----欢迎大家指正

panda2727UID: 138271

61. "High-profile awards such as the Nobel Prize are actually damaging to society because they suggest that only a few people deserve such recognition."

What is called "high-profile awards"? Those are the awards that give the people who have got the greatest achievement in the field they work on. According to the definition, high-profile awards can be only given to a very small group of people, and most of them cannot receive the awards. Then some people argue that are such awards damaging to society because most people cannot get them? This question depends on people how to explain the signification of the words "damaging to society".

With which premise when only a few people receive high-profile awards, they are damaging to the society? In fact, the view is true only when the following effects happen: One is people who have not receive high-profile awards lose the impetus to do the further work. The other is that people who have not received the awards lose heart and do not feel confidence again. Luckily, such side effects of high-profile awards, to most of people, do not happen. (Of course, we have to admit that there are a few people who do not receive the awards suffer from the side effect, and give up their work. But this small group of people only takes very small percentage, and do not damage the society.)

Earning awards is not the purpose for people to do their work. That means awards are not their impetus. Well, what is the real impetus of these people? To earn money? To make fun? Both of them are not. Individual interests and contribution to the society is the real one. For example, there are about one hundred athletes to participate in the 100 meters race in each Olympic Games, and each of them know that there is only one golden medal. It is their interests in the game, and the honor of as a deputy of their country to take part in such Games that is their impetus to stand on the playground; even they know 99 percentages of them will be kicked out. Not only in sports, in other work fields it is the same. Since the awards are not the purpose for people to do their work, of course, they will not lose impetus when they are not given high-profile awards.

People who do not receive high-profile awards will not lose heart and their confidence. Awards are not the only judgment to evaluate whether people have done good work. People will be recognized when their work is better than they did before; People will be praised when their work make contribution to the society. Since awards are not the only judgment, people can gain recoganization through forms, except awards, and they will get confidence to go on further work. So they are not damaging to society, although high-profile awards are only given a few people.

high-profile awards are not only not damaging the society, but they also benefit it. In one side, people who have got the high-profile awards will keep on their work because of the confidence, the awards and the honor given by high-profile awards. With confidence, they can go on with more complex work; with awards, they can use more advanced equipment to help they go further; with honor, they fell responsibility to make greater contribution. In other side, people who do not receive high-profile awards will study from the people who have received awards, and with the winners' experience those people will develop quickly. In addition, such defeated experience will simulate them to spend more to catch up with the winners.

In addition, the fact illustrates that high-profile awards have not damaged the society. Take the science field for example, since 1901 in which the first people who got the Nobel Prize, there were only less than 600 hundred scientists have received it in one century, While there were thousands of scientists in that century who were not given Nobel Prize. During that century, the society was damaged? Of course not. Not only the society was not damaged, but it also developed with a fantastic speed.

This anxiety that high-profile awards are damaging to society is needless, in stead high-profile awards not only have not damaged the society, but they also benefit it, and they would be insisted.

mikechen326UID: 168171

In addition, such defeated experience will simulate them to spend more to catch up with the winners.

In addition, the fact illustrates that high-profile awards have not damaged the society. Take the science field for example, since 1901 in which the first people who got the Nobel Prize, there were only less than 600 hundred scientists have received it in one century, While there were thousands of scientists in that century who were not given Nobel Prize. During that century, the society was damaged? Of course not. Not only the society was not damaged, but it also developed with a fantastic speed.

这连续两个in addition不太好吧，还有我觉得simulate 用promote代替好了
（新手第一次发帖，水平 也有有限，别见怪：）

panda2727UID: 138271

楼上不要谦虚。：）谢谢你。
我也觉得连续两个IN ADDITION是不好。用furthermore怎么样？
我又查了下词典，stimulate主要是物理上的作用。用promote是要好点。
谢谢。

mikechen326UID: 168171

Except the preceding lengthy discussion, the fact illustrates.........................
刚刚看到一本英文原著上用的：）

coolblazeverestUID: 189260

What is called "high-profile awards"? Those are the awards that give the people who have got the greatest achievement in the field they work on. According to the definition, high-profile awards can be only given to a very small group of people, and most of them cannot receive the awards. Then some people argue that are such awards damaging to society because most people cannot get them? This question depends on people how to explain the signification of the words "damaging to society

With which premise when only a few people receive high-profile awards, they are damaging to the society? In fact, the view is true only when the following effects happen: One is people who have not receive high-profile awards lose the impetus to do the further work. The other is that people who have not received the awards lose heart and do not feel confidence again. Luckily, such side effects of high-profile awards, to most of people, do not happen. (Of course, we have to admit that there are a few people who do not receive the awards suffer from the side effect, and give up their work. But this small group of people only takes very small percentage, and do not damage the society.)对于这种绝对化的语言，且没有事实根据，是不是不太好啊？个人愚见

Earning awards is not the purpose for people to do their work. That means awards are not their impetus. Well, what is the real impetus of these people? To earn money? To make fun? Both of them are not. Individual interests and contribution to the society isare the real one. For example, there are about one hundred athletes to participate in the 100 meters race in each Olympic Games, and each of them know that there is only one golden medal. It is their interests in the game, and the honor of as a deputy of their country to take part in such Games that isare their impetus to stand on the playground这句的句首it is 可以去掉吧？还有中间的that; even they know 99 percentages of them will be kicked out. Not only in sports, in other work fields it is the same. Since the awards are not the purpose for people to do their work, of course, they will not lose impetus when they are not given high-profile awards.总感觉作者的语言有些绝对化

People who do not receive high-profile awards will not lose heart and their confidence. Awards are not the only judgment to evaluate whether people have done good work. People will be recognized when their work is better than they did before; People will be praised when their work make contribution to the society. Since awards are not the only judgment, people can gain recoganization through forms没懂？, except awards, and they will get confidence to go on further work. So they are not damaging to society, although high-profile awards are only given a few people.

high-profile大写 awards are not only not damaging the society, but they also benefit it. In one side, people who have got the high-profile awards will keep on their work because of the confidence, the awards and the honor given by high-profile awards. With confidence, they can go on with more complex work; with awards, they can use more advanced equipment to help theythem go further; with honor, they fell responsibility to make greater contribution. In other side, people who do not receive high-profile awards will study from the people who have received awards, and with the winners' experience those people will developpromote quickly. In addition, such defeated experience will simulate them to spend more to catch up with the winners.

In addition, the fact illustrates that high-profile awards have not damagedno damage to the society. Take the science field for example, since 1901 in which the first people who got the Nobel Prize, there were only less than 600 hundred scientists have received it in one century, While there were thousands of scientists in that century who were not given Nobel Prize. During that century, the society was damaged? Of course not. Not only the society was not damaged, but it also developed with a fantastic speed.这几段论证充分，向你学习！！

This anxiety that high-profile awards are damaging to society is needless, in stead high-profile awards not only have not damaged the society, but they also benefit it, and they would be insisted.
文章通顺，有说服力，论证也充分，向你看齐！

panda2727UID: 138271

最初由 mikechen326 发布
[B]Except the preceding lengthy discussion, the fact illustrates.........................
刚刚看到一本英文原著上用的：） [/B]

谢谢。是个很好的替换。

不过，个人认为用词还是越简单还能清楚地表达意思最好。不记得是哪个人曾写过的回忆他父亲（一个文学牛人）文章里，说他把他父亲的文章只改了一个词（suddenly改成in the sudden of the light（好象是：P））然后拿给他父亲看，他父亲就说这个词用得不好。

能写简单还是要写简单。我是就事论事哈，mikechen326 见谅。

panda2727UID: 138271

To coolblazeverest：
谢谢你细致地指点。包括语法小错误。谢谢。

“对于这种绝对化的语言，且没有事实根据，是不是不太好啊？个人愚见”，oolblazeverest表谦虚。指正的是。这个地方应该一句话点明。比如：事实就是这样。
“这句的句首it is 可以去掉吧？还有中间的that”：寒，的确是语法错误。这个地方是个强调句。应该用are，不过不应该去掉it is。
“没懂？ ”：我是想说还可以通过其他的形式获得认可。没有写清楚。
“文章通顺，有说服力，论证也充分，向你看齐！”说实话，我看到这句很兴奋。谢谢你对我地鼓励。一起进步！

我认为我这篇文章最大的问题在与分析 high-profile awards会带来的side effect的时候，两个方面基本上说的是一个意思。一个是说没有动力，另一个是说失去信心。

zzfalconUID: 175235

（用词上就不说了，只是感觉有些散，你应该是说人不是为了拿奖而去研究，再用事实说明并没有应为这些奖而损害社会，把文章重组 一下应该更好。一点愚见，笑纳）