issue40 自认为不错，希望听到反对意见

hh_915UID: 185160

"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."


Leonardo da Vinci might never think about he could also be remembered for the contribution to the anatomy. He anatomised corpuses only for drawing people more vividly. And painting is only one of his mounts of loves. That is one example of the people who follow their individual interest, but walk on to the road of contribute to the society. However, it is very hard to say whether scholars and researchers should or not be concerned with contributing to the society, because it is a very complex question.

First, no one really knows what researches can exactly contribute to the society. Even if they say they know, they also only can say how it is now, but fail to say how in the future. We human beings' knowledge about the world is very limited, but the world is larger than our sight can touch. We even know only a small part of things about our body itself. We insist something is good to human beings, but soon find defect more than virtue. Once we said nuclear energy was good to human beings, then the citybusters killed millions of our kindreds. Once we said auto industry was good for traffic, yet the tail gas put out by cars is destroying our health. Can you say whether the nuclear scientists make contribution to the society or not? Or can you sure we will not regret the invention of the car after 100 years, as we do by inventing cocain?

The researchers who follow their individual interest only and regardless of the contribution to the society may think like this, "No one know what is really good, so everything can be good or bad. That's why I do my research now ---- it may be useful after 50 years or longer." It proves one can do any research by logic. And there are examples in real life. There are lots of researchers never thought about the applications of their researches in the society do make big contributions. Einstein had never visited a nuclear reactor just very near to his house, because he did not care about applications of his famous formula E=cm2 at all.

And if a scientist drop his own love but follow the need of the society, he or she may feel a little loss, may not as happy as studying what his or her love. Then he or she may not be able to try his or her best for the study, so the possibility of success may drop down. That is the real loss to human beings. The process of the development of science may slow down because of the abnegation of the study he or she loved. And the unsuccessful research does little contribution to the society.

However, the scientists must not do researches that do harm to the behalf of the whole human society when they know they can. They must guarantee their studies have no damage to the society if they do not know whether they can contribute. That is the underline of the criterion scientific study.

naiba369UID: 131655

呵呵，今天的板儿砖没了，呵呵，现在做砖ing

:D

hh_915UID: 185160

就这么石沉大海了，自己顶一下，大家帮帮忙，说两句

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

Leonardo da Vinci might never think about he could also be remembered for the contribution to the anatomy. He anatomised corpuses only for drawing people more vividly. And painting is only one of his mounts of loves. That is one example of the people who follow their individual interest, but walk on to the road of contributecontributing to the society. However, it is very hard to say whether scholars and researchers should or not be concerned with contributing to the society, because it is a very complex question.个人认为，开头还是应该把自己的立场说出来，上来只说是complex，让读者对后面的论述不容易把握

First, no one really knows what researches can exactly contribute to the society. Even if they say they know, they also only can say how it is now, but fail to say how in the future. We human beings' knowledge about the world is very limited, but the world is larger than our sight can touch. We even know only a small part of things about our body itself. We insist something is good to human beings, but soon find defect more than virtue. Once we said nuclear energy was good to human beings, then the citybusters killed millions of our kindreds. Once we said auto industry was good for traffic, yet the tail gas put out by cars is destroying our health. Can you say whether the nuclear scientists make contribution to the society or not? Or can you sure we will not regret the invention of the car after 100 years, as we do by inventing cocain? 这里用这样的句型是读起来不舒服，有被质问的感觉，can you?you在问谁？我认为陈述语气即可

The researchers who follow their individual interest only and regardless of only and regardless...没明白the contribution to the society may think like this, "No one know what is really good, so everything can be good or bad. That's why I do my research now ---- it may be useful after 50 years or longer." 为什么？不是说为了个人兴趣的人么？怎么又说反正谁也不知道好坏，研究着吧，这里不严谨也不清晰It proves one can do any research by logic. And there are examples in real life. There are lots of researchers never thoughtthere be句型用的有语病 about the applications of their researches in the society do make big contributions.还是这句，不通 Einstein had never visited a nuclear reactor just very near to his house, because he did not care about applications of his famous formula E=cm2 at all. 这个例子想说明什么？没有扣住这段论点，而且这段整体上不够清晰


And if a scientist drop his own love but follow the need of the society, he or she may feel a little loss,feel a little loss?不顺，suffer吧，may notmay not和前面句子一起的么？病句as happy as studying what his or her lovestudying what his or her love不顺. Then he or she may not be able to try his or her best for the study, so the possibility of success may drop down.这里不严谨，为什么为了社会就不能尽力去做研究？爱因斯坦在居里夫人的追悼会上赞扬居里夫人说道，她对社会做出的贡献，在道德方面远远超过了在科学成果上面的贡献，高度评价了她为社会服务的精神 That is the real loss to human beings. The process of the development of science may slow down because of the abnegation of the study he or she loved. And the unsuccessful research does little contribution to the society.你的意思大概是要说为了社会做研究就会觉得失去了很多，从而不能尽力去做甚至放弃，因此给社会带来了更多的损失。我觉得这样不严谨

However, the scientists must not do researches that do harm to the behalf of the whole human society when they know they can. They must guarantee their studies have no damage to the society if they do not know whether they can contribute. 这个科学家们并不能控制，和你前面说做研究的时候不知道后果到底利大还是弊大矛盾That is the underline底线？好像不是这么用吧 of the criterion scientific study.

总的来说，我觉得没有表现出你的思想，难道就是为了说明complex?
然后段落之间不够连贯，每段说一个思想，而且论证的有些浅，问题刚说出来就跳下一个观点去了。我觉得和你开始没有一个position有关系。
B5忽地就完了，好像缺少结尾，有些突然。
而且语句有一些表达不好的地方，是限时的么？还是需要修改的
个人意见，唐突了。我也刚开始，一起进步哈！

hh_915UID: 185160

首先表示感谢，但我只同意你关于几处语法错误的改正，其它我仍坚持。
1 开头没必要千篇一律的表明一边倒的立场，可以有中立的立场
2 质问又怎么了？怎么就不可以？

4 例子很清晰，爱因斯坦不关心他理论的社会应用价值
5 居里夫人的成功是因为她的个人兴趣就是社会需要，她是幸运的那一个
6 没什么不严谨的，我用的是may
7 本来这个问题就很复杂，所以论述就是说明中立的观点，也就是你口中的矛盾
8 不过你关于论证不深入的说法，能再具体一点吗，或者举例说明，我没觉得哪不深入啊

victoriazhizhiUID: 163135

呵呵，你说希望听到反对意见，所以我就批的比较猛，唐突了，见凉。也是个人意见。
1。开头的确可以不要一个一边倒的立场，但是我个人认为你还是没有把你要表达的position说明白，没说你要你要中立要两方面都结合，只说了这是个complex的问题。 让人有些模不到头脑，吃不准你下面要说什么。
2。质问会给读者心里不舒服的感觉，can you?you在问批卷人么？起码我是这么认为，所以建议陈述语气。
3。“例子很清晰，爱因斯坦不关心社会价值” 据我所知爱因斯坦对他学生的要求是要把为社会服务作为研究的第一目的。当然这个我们没有必要争。只是我觉得这样不能很好的证明你的观点。再说你说他没去看核试验等等，也不代表他做研究就是毫不考虑社会吧。
4。5。6。无语。
不深入我觉得就是刚把这个问题说出来，让读者开始思考，然后很快的又跳到下一个观点去了，如果能展开点具体点就好。

鬼谷子UID: 159645

Leonardo da Vinci might never think about 【这个用的感觉不好 ，或许用imagine 能好一些】he could also be remembered for the contribution to the【可以删掉的，the不要滥用，可以不用的地方就尽量不用】 anatomy. He anatomised corpuses only for drawing people more vividly. 【感觉不该用only的，太绝对了，而且把你前面一句的力量削弱了不少。】 And painting is only one of his mounts of 【没见过的用法，请教一下】 loves. That is one example of the people who follow their individual interest, but walk on to the road of contribute 【contribution？】to the society. 【从你开头的表达里面看不出来这样的观点。也许你是认为：Vinci对于解剖作出了贡献，当时这个不过纯是他的兴趣，所以把兴趣和贡献对立了起来。当时你没有表述出来社会贡献在于哪里，兴趣很多为什么就能得出follow their individual interest的判断。所以这里的论述不是很成功的 】However, it is very hard to say whether scholars and researchers should or not be concerned with contributing to the society, because it is a very complex question. 【最后的这句结论你只提到了society和individual两方面中的一个society方面，是否应该用contribution to society评判科学家是complex的，那题目提到的个人兴趣的问题呢？怎么没有提到啊？】

【看了开头，只看出你说complex，没有说到具体的观点。其实你开头的想法是挺新颖的，直接就说达芬奇没有想到。。。。，当时后续的论述没有说到重点，反而使你的开头不成功了。要注意，开头最重要的工作是把自己的观点简要的表述出来，实现了这个任务才能谈到其他。我觉得第一句那种开头方法可以保留，其他的再好好组织一下吧。】

First, no one really knows what researches can exactly contribute to the society. 【B1的TS，想要论述为什么complex。Even if they say they know, 你指的是谁？不能想当然的用的，代词的使用上面，除非你上下文已经有多次的解释，否则一定要说清楚指代的对象的，你不可能让判卷人去猜的。这也属于表达不清晰。一定要注意的。】they also only can say【中文的痕迹啊！】 how it【这个代词又是不知道说谁了】 is now, but fail to say how【it will be能够省略吗？】in the future. 【提醒楼主一个问题，其实你这段的开头挺不错的观点的，接着的两句模模糊糊的一说，就把开头的优势弄没了，注意，解释你的论点的时候一定要清楚明白，要不然就像很好的桌面没有腿来支撑一样的。】 We human beings' knowledge about the world is very limited, but the world is larger than our sight can touch【reach？】. We even know only 【even only know】a small part of things about our body itself. We insist something is good to human beings, but soon find defect more than virtue【find more defects than virtue in it】. 【说我们知识有限所以不能判断what researches can exactly contribute to the society 吗？首先我不觉得这样的关系成立的，然后你也没有建立起来这样的关系，你列举了现象，之间的联系却没有提到，让人怎么同意你的论断啊。】Once we said nuclear energy was good to human beings, then the citybusters killed millions of our kindreds. Once we said auto industry was good for traffic, yet the tail gas put out by cars is destroying our health. 【事物的两面性而已，不符合你的观点的，你应该举出我们过高或者过低或者否认或者忽略某种科学工作，而事实证明我们的判断错误，你的例子里面两方面全部成立，显而易见的用错例子了。】 Can you say whether the nuclear scientists make contribution to the society or not? 【当然是有贡献了啊，进一步说，现在也就使用过那么一次核武器，为的还不是世界和平，对社会当然也是贡献的。不要喊口号，要讲证据。另外，can you 这样的话判卷人是不会喜欢看到的】Or can you sure we will not regret the invention of the car after 100 years, as we do by inventing cocain? 【如果你前面提到某某人认为car是绝对没有缺点的发明的话，这里的观点也许会成立的。正想我刚才说的，你的例子两方面都能成立，而且都已经被人们所承认和接受了，不符合你的观点的。】

The researchers who follow their individual interest only and regardless of the contribution to the society may think like this, "No one know【knows】 what is really good, so everything can be good or bad. That's why I do my research now【 这句跟前一句有联系吗？因为没人知道什么是好的，所以我要做个50年以后有用的发明？？】---- it may be useful after 50 years or longer." 【是接着上一段进一步说明科学家为什么要follow their individual interest ，不过你的猜想并不是他们真正会说出的话，你最好找到真正的例子来说事，现在这样的说服力不是很强的。】It proves one can do any research by logic. 【 不明白你这个结论是怎么得出的，还有就是你这个结论跟题目跟你的观点有什么联系。】And there are examples in real life. There are 【这个能省就省了吧，连着两个there are显得语言不够丰富。】lots of researchers never thought about the applications of their researches in the society do make big contributions. Einstein had never visited a nuclear reactor just very near to his house, because he did not care about applications of his famous formula E=cm2 at all. 【第一，Einstein是care about他的理论的应用的，否则为何就原子弹问题打电话给总统。第二，我觉得你的论述不完整，你说出来了一个现象，就是很多科学家不是很关注他们的理论对于社会的贡献，然后呢？然后就不应该用对社会的贡献来评判他们，应该认为兴趣最重要？你没说出来啊！而且，你前面的逻辑已经有问题了，首先你的例子没证明科学家不在意社会贡献，即使你证明了，那么不在意社会的贡献不等于就一定要follow兴趣甚至古怪的兴趣，即使这点成立，也不等于说追求这些兴趣比社会贡献重要，即使你证明兴趣更重要，也不等于任何兴趣，包括unusual or idiosyncratic的兴趣都重要的。另外要说一点，这段的观点不明确的。】

And if a scientist drop his own love【这个词太简单，可以换成interest，fondness，devotion，enthusiasm，passion等等。】 but follow the need of the society, he or she may feel a little loss【loss是可以feel到的吗？不觉得。说feel depressed吧，也好跟你后面的happy对比】, may not as happy as studying what his or her love 【重复的使用是不好的，换一个同义词吧】. Then he or she may not be able to try his or her best for the study, so the possibility of success may drop down【decreases】. 【思路是可以的，没有兴趣影响工作。当时纯是论述，而且，又是到处用may，力量不够，建议这里举个例子，自己的例子也可以，说明一下兴趣和工作的关系】That is the real loss to【of】 human beings. The process of the development of science may slow【slows？】 down because of the abnegation 【这个词讲的是否定，尤其自我否定。MW：denial，self-denial。所以不适用于这里】of the study he or she loved【一段中出现三次了，可以考虑换一下的】. And the unsuccessful research does little contribution to the society. 【你谈的是单数的人，那么会造成整理科学发展的停滞吗？不见得。要说也应该由点到面，扩展到整个科学的发展才对的。然后，你最后一句的论断太武断了。】
【这一段的问题在于，只有说理，没有例证，而且说理还是不够清楚透彻，力度不够】


However, the scientists must not 【这样的词不要用，太绝对了，很容易出现逻辑漏洞的】do researches that do harm to the behalf of the whole human society when they know they can 【删掉】. They must guarantee their studies have no damage to the society if they do not know whether they can contribute. 【突然蹦出来一个不要做对社会有害的事的观点，这是从何说起啊？？彻底跑题了】That is the underline of the criterion scientific study. 【病句！这就是评判标准科学研究的下划线？？？】

【首先要说，判的很严，不过相信对你一定有帮助的。

语言上面的问题，大的没有，小的不断，你犯的是常见的问题，用词单一，而且词的用法掌握的不好，建议用词之前查清楚。一些语法的问题就不说了，自己应该可以发现的。

文章的思路有些偏差，具体的问题已经在文章中指出了。可以看出一个明显的问题就是论述的时候不够清晰不够深入彻底。你的论述比较模糊，可能是写的文章还不是太多，对于AW的逻辑要求还不是很适应。

再一个，就是要注意细节和例子，AW是靠细节和例子来打动判卷人的。有很多东西你需要in detail才可以达到效果。不能像中文一样泛泛的说一下就完了。

最后，最重要的就是你对题目的理解方面，最大的错误就是，题目最后一个分句however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem没有读吧？这是题目对你的要求，你一字不提。而且，我觉得你在society和individual两方面一直没有正面的做个比较，那么如何能够体现出来题目中的more呢？？？还有就是is和should的问题。More和is should的问题建议看imong相关的专题帖子。

总的来说还是有待提高的。
加油！】

ybinjiaUID: 191217

厉害啊，俺还没有开始写呢，4月初就要考了。。。。。。

hh_915UID: 185160

看到鬼谷子老前辈如此细致的修改，真的很惊喜，提出的毛病的确是我写作中存在的毛病，而且可以感觉到老前辈深厚的英文功底，真是让我这个后辈自叹弗入啊。能顺便问一下前辈在哪读书吗？
好，我决定重写这篇文章，大家等我的好消息！！

hh_915UID: 185160

Leonardo da Vinci might never imagine he could also be remembered for the contribution to anatomy. Everyone then thought it was unusual or idiosyncratic. He anatomised corpuses for drawing people more vividly, but influenced descendants beginning to research more about human body. That is one example of the people who follow their individual interest, but walk on to the road of contribute to the society. However, it is very hard to say whether scholars and researchers should or not be concerned with contributing to the society, because it is a very complex question. In my opinion, nobody could ask scientists to follow their interest or the need of society.

First, no one really knows what researches can exactly contribute to the society. Even if some people say they know, they also only can say how it is now, but fail to say how it is in the future. We human beings' knowledge about the world is very limited, but the world is larger than our sight can reach. We even only know a small part of things about our body itself. We insist something is good to human beings, but soon find more defect than virtue. Once we said a kind of pesticide called 666 can completely kill the pests, and used it broadly. A few years later, we found the pests and the groundwater under the place that 666 spread were both destroyed by the 666. People around there have no water to drink from then on. The groundwater needed many years to clear again. When we were happy with the effect of killing pests, did we imagine the result? Should we recede the Nobel Price which had been awarded to the scientist who invent the pesticide? Should Robert Oppenheimer regret his invention ---- citybuster?

A researcher who lives near my house once said that he thought like this, "No one know what is really good, so everything can be good or bad. That's why I do my research now ---- it may be useful after 50 years or longer." There are lots of researchers never thought about the applications of their researches in the society do make big contributions. Einstein had never visited a nuclear reactor just very near to his house, because he did not care about applications of his famous formula E=cm2 at all. (爱因斯坦打电话给总统是因为他的理论导致的原子弹的发明危害到了社会，他想利用他的名望稍稍挽救)

And if a scientist drop his own passion but follow the need of the society, he or she may feel him/herself is gracious but suffer a little loss for own interest, and may not as happy as studying what his or her love. Then he or she may not be able to try his or her best for the study, so the possibility of success may descend. For instance, a Chinese scientist (I can not remember his name) liked to study psychology and made some success in this field before the found of People’s Republic of China. But after the foundation, government recommended psychology as a fake science and stopped all the research. The scientist was sent to another department of institution to study philosophy that the government recognized useful. He felt distress for a long time and died after a few years with no achievement in philosophy. How tragic it is!

However, the scientists must not do researches that do harm to the behalf of the whole human society when they know their researches can. They must guarantee their studies have no damage to the society if they do not know whether they can contribute. That is the underline of the criterion scientific study.(我想这里用MUST并不过分)

阿莱UID: 190806

"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
破题
1。应不应该由对large society的贡献进行concern

2。这里面是否存在一个"more"的关系。也就是说：是不是pursue their individual interests更重要。既然有了more，也就存在比较，比较的双方是their work makes a contribution to the larger society 和 pursue their individual interests 。当然 看到这里如果能感觉到比较的双方并不完全对立 甚至互相融合了会比较好；或者我们理解他们为互相对立 那么追求个人interests就成了广泛地为社会做出贡献的反面，也就是不广泛的贡献以及没有贡献和危害社会


Leonardo da Vinci might never imagine he could also be remembered for the contribution to anatomy. Everyone then thought it was unusual or idiosyncratic. He anatomised corpuses for drawing people more vividly, but influenced descendants beginning to research more about human body. That is one example of the people who follow their individual interest, but walk on to the road of contribute to the society.前面写了这么一大堆 你说明了什么？仅仅说明：有人追求个人interests 同时为large society做出了贡献。得出的这个结论有意义吗？ However, it is very hard to say whether scholars and researchers should or not be concerned with contributing to the society, because it is a very complex question这个转折转的什么？看看你这句话 “这个问题很难说，因为很复杂” GRE作文字数时间有限 这种空话写在开头要做什么？. In my opinion, nobody could ask scientists to follow their interest or the need of society.莫名其妙。看看题目请先，谁有这样无理的要求了？人家只是问你：应不应该那样评价区分 两者哪个更重要 谁说科学家要怎么怎么着了吗？如果你的观点是这个 而且你下面严格按照你的观点写的话  我的结论是：你跑题了

First, no one really knows what researches can exactly contribute to the society.看完开头我已经不打算仔细研究你的body了 只看TS还有浏览body。这段是写：因为没人知道一项研究能为社会所作的贡献（这只能是在初期 而且这样说本身很不严格 每项研究都不是无根无据漫无目的的 相反 一个研究有固定领域 也有固定的方向 而且有固定的预期 随着科学的进步发展 旧时候那种歪打正着的研究越来越少） 所以 不应该以贡献大小来做区分评价。 Even if some people say they know, they also only can say how it is now, but fail to say how it is in the future. We human beings' knowledge about the world is very limited, but the world is larger than our sight can reach. We even only know a small part of things about our body itself. We insist something is good to human beings, but soon find more defect than virtue. Once we said a kind of pesticide called 666 can completely kill the pests, and used it broadly. A few years later, we found the pests and the groundwater under the place that 666 spread were both destroyed by the 666. People around there have no water to drink from then on. The groundwater needed many years to clear again. When we were happy with the effect of killing pests, did we imagine the result? Should we recede the Nobel Price which had been awarded to the scientist who invent the pesticide? Should Robert Oppenheimer regret his invention ---- citybuster?

A researcher who lives near my house once said that he thought like this, "No one know what is really good, so everything can be good or bad. That's why I do my research now ---- it may be useful after 50 years or longer." There are lots of researchers never thought about the applications of their researches in the society do make big contributions. Einstein had never visited a nuclear reactor just very near to his house, because he did not care about applications of his famous formula E=cm2 at all. 仍然在继续是福是祸不能预言的body

And if a scientist drop his own passion but follow the need of the society, he or she may feel him/herself is gracious but suffer a little loss for own interest, and may not as happy as studying what his or her love.如果科学家没有了热情 云云 Then he or she may not be able to try his or her best for the study, so the possibility of success may descend. For instance, a Chinese scientist (I can not remember his name) liked to study psychology and made some success in this field before the found of People’s Republic of China. But after the foundation, government recommended psychology as a fake science and stopped all the research. The scientist was sent to another department of institution to study philosophy that the government recognized useful. He felt distress for a long time and died after a few years with no achievement in philosophy. How tragic it is!

However, the scientists must not do researches that do harm to the behalf of the whole human society when they know their researches can.科学家在知道是祸的时候不应该做 They must guarantee their studies have no damage to the society if they do not know whether they can contribute. That is the underline of the criterion scientific study.

好了
自己看看吧 我觉得我已经不用再说什么了。逻辑比较混乱。那么你是顾及到了应不应该的那个点 这个点抓得比较乱 写得很多 例子很多 但是实在没有攻击力 你可以假想自己是你文章针对的读者 能说服你自己吗？很不严谨，深度不够，力度不足。倒数第二段又在顾及第二个点 那么究竟是more还是不more你说了吗？完全忽略了吧？结尾段不像个结尾段，而且用了however开头 看来你对联结词的理解存在偏差，对让步段的写法也不尽理解 总的来说 思路比较混乱 题目没理解好 语言也生涩 而且感觉作者比较自满 这个水平的文章可以说不太合格 继续努力吧

hh_915UID: 185160

对于阿莱的评价，我只想说一点，想说服一个人是很难的，就比如我吧，如果看到和我观点不一致的文章，我根本看不下去， 即使必须看下去，哪怕那是诺贝尔获奖者写的我也嗤之以鼻。