Issue170,希望这次没把is写成should~大家拍啊~多谢嗮

花之颜色UID: 187195

------题目------
The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.
提纲：
1 科学艺术等成就可以代表一个国家的福利水平，而反之不然，所以是更可靠的指示
2 科学艺术成就比福利容易衡量
3 国家伟大与否还跟国际影响有关，只有科学艺术政治成就才能反映这种影响。
昨天刚研究了追星特训，汗~一开始没注意这个好东东，终于明白啥是is/should问题。试着写了一篇，不知道分清楚了么，大家给看看，谢谢啦~

------正文------
What kind of nations can be entitled "great nation"? Though many people may believe that if all people live a happy life, the nation is great, in my eyes, the development in politics, art and science is a more reliable sign of a great nation.

On the one hand, the achievements of rulers, artists or scientists are on behalf of general welfare of a nation. The reason is quite simple that without a stable environment or a comfortable life, the scientists or artists have to struggle for survival rather than success in their favorite fields, so the country powerful in science or art is often a country with highly developed welfare of its people. In addition, scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation's general welfare. Accordingly, the more developed a nation’s science and technology, the better its general welfare. As we all know, America, usually considered a great nation, gains outstanding attainments in science and technology and meanwhile, the welfare is also developed well. On the contrary, some North European countries like Finland, known for their good welfare, are not so famous in their science or art. That is, the general welfare of a nation cannot reflect the level of its science or art. Furthermore, a successful leader of a nation is usually a leader who can largely improve the people's living conditions. For example, Deng Xiaoping, the designer of China’s transformation, is highly praised due to his tremendous contribution to bettering Chinese welfare. Thus, since the achievements of political leaders and artists or scientists reflect a nation's welfare to some degree and thereby more representative, they are the surest indicator of a nation's greatness.

On the other hand, the achievements in politics, science or art are more obvious and easier to measure than the welfare so that they are more suitable to take on the responsibility of an indicator. Whether an artist is successful or not could be measured through the number of his/her masterworks and the artistic values of the works, while a nation's achievement in art could be measured though the number of outstanding artists and general level of the development of art. But how can we assess general welfare of all people of a nation? Welfare is the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity. Even in the most developed country, not all of its people are living a happy life. Different people have different definitions on happiness. Even if the nation can guarantee that all of people are rich and healthy, which is impossible in fact, it could not ensure every one of them is happy. In this way, the immeasurability of people's welfare determines that welfare is not the surest indication of a great nation.

Furthermore, whether a nation is great also depend on its effect on the world in various aspects, which functions through its strength in politics, science, economics etc rather than its general welfare. Russia’s general welfare is lower than its European peers like Sweden though, its scientific and artistic impact is far more extensive than those countries. In this way, the welfare of a nation has only nationwide influence, while the impact of achievements in science or art is beyond boundaries of nations so that the achievements are the most reliable sign of a nation’s greatness.

To sum up, admittedly, the general welfare of a nation is an important indicator, as a complementary standard of a great nation, the achievements, however, is trustworthier than welfare when used as the indicator, because they are more representative and easier to meas

mack1983UID: 183345

呵呵，又是花同学的呀，改定了，占座。麻烦把你的大作传给我撒:)

花之颜色UID: 187195

多谢啦~发到你信箱了! ^_^

ZHGsunnyUID: 185312

佩服，这么抽象的题目能写出这么多东东来。 思路，语言都很好。只不过正文第一段中“On the contrary, some North European countries like Finland, known for their good welfare, are not so famous in their science or art. “ 这个例子看得有点晕，不知道你到底想表达什么意思。

mack1983UID: 183345

------题目------
The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.
提纲：
1 科学艺术等成就可以代表一个国家的福利水平，而反之不然，所以是更可靠的指示
2 科学艺术成就比福利容易衡量
3 国家伟大与否还跟国际影响有关，只有科学艺术政治成就才能反映这种影响。
昨天刚研究了追星特训，汗~一开始没注意这个好东??沼诿靼咨妒莍s/should问题。试着写了一篇，不知道分清楚了么，大家给看看，谢谢啦~

------正文------
What kind of nations can be entitled "great nation"? Though many people may believe that if all people live a happy life, the nation is great, in my eyes, the development in politics, art and science is a more reliable sign of a great nation.

On the one hand, the achievements of rulers, artists or scientists are on behalf of general welfare of a nation. The reason is quite simple that without a stable environment or a comfortable life, the scientists or artists have to struggle for survival rather than successsuccess 貌似是个名词，是不是换个跟struggle相同词性的词，如succeed in their favorite fields, so the country powerful in science or art is often a country 用 the one就挺好的，要不会觉得罗嗦with highly developed welfare of its people. In addition, scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation's general welfare. Accordingly, the more developed a nation’s science and technology, the better its general welfare. 我觉得，这样写的话很容易找到反例的，例如前苏联，在任何邻域，恐怕谁都不敢说他不领先，但一我们的评判标准，它并不是一个great country，所以，这句话会显得有点没有根据As we all know, America, usually considered a great nation, gains outstanding attainments in science and technology and meanwhile, the welfare is also developed well. On the contrary, some North European countries like Finland, known for their good welfare, are not so famous in their science or art. That is, the general welfare of a nation cannot reflect the level of its science or art. finland有NOKIA滴，占到芬兰国名生产总值的百分之50还多哦，所以，我觉得这个对比是比较失败的Furthermore, a successful leader of a nation is usually a leader who can largely improve the people's living conditions. For example, Deng Xiaoping, the designer of China’s transformation, is highly praised due to his tremendous contribution to bettering ［bettering？没见过这种用法］Chinese welfare. Thus, since the achievements of political leaders and artists or scientists reflect a nation's welfare to some degree and thereby more representative, they are the surest indicator of a nation's greatness.
觉得说理不透
On the other hand, the achievements in politics, science or art are more obvious and easier to measure than the welfare so that they are more suitable to take on the responsibility of an indicator. Whether an artist is successful or not could be measured through the number of his/her masterworks and the artistic values of the works, while a nation's achievement in art could be measured though the number of outstanding artists and general level of the development of art. But how can we assess general welfare of all people of a nation? Welfare is the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity. Even in the most developed country, not all of its people are living a happy life. Different people have different definitions on happiness. Even if the nation can guarantee that all of people are rich and healthy, which is impossible in fact, it could not ensure every one of them is happy. In this way, the immeasurability of people's welfare determines that welfare is not the surest indication of a great nation.
这段论述很有特点，学习中。。。。。。
想说一点，就是仅仅通过happy来定义welfare并不完全，我觉得，如果通过民主角度，然后再举个反例，例如希特勒，苏联什么的，就更好了
Furthermore, whether a nation is great also depend on its effect on the world in various aspects, which functions through its strength in politics, science, economics etc rather than its general welfare. Russia’s general welfare is lower than its European peers like Sweden though, its scientific and artistic impact is far more extensive than those countries. In this way, the welfare of a nation has only nationwide influence, while the impact of achievements in science or art is beyond boundaries of nations so that the achievements are the most reliable sign of a nation’s greatness.
按照你的理解，应该是Russia是个更加greater的国家吧，但文章中并没有说明。同时，我估计，作文阅卷者来说，由于长久以来Russia都是作为反面教材出现的，所以，再考虑到阅读者不会轻易接受你的观点时，可以用一些委婉的词语
To sum up, admittedly, the general welfare of a nation is an important indicator, as a complementary standard of a great nation, the achievements, however, is trustworthier more trustworthythan welfare when used as the indicator, because they are more representative and easier to measure.

plus: 我说的是你的所有文章哦，是不是太贪心了点？不过要是不行，能不能把你在gter发过的给我，bowing

naiba369UID: 131655

看到mack兄，才知道清华风范呀

花之颜色UID: 187195

先多谢mack啦～success偶对应的不是struggle而是survival啦，还有那个trustworthy偶本来是用more，结果贴到word它非给偶加er，偶还以为它比较对，汗～人斗不过电脑！至于其他，为啥russia不牛啊，人家一直觉得它挺牛的，又无知丢人了，唉唉！芬兰有Nokia偶倒是知道，那就能说明它科技牛了么？想不通的说!^_^反正不管怎么说，多谢你的指点，给俺这个无知的人上了一课，以后慎用Russia.还有B2偶会把你的意见纳入修改中，嘿嘿～
前期文章偶写的很烂的说，今天无意中复习两篇，发现都把is写出should，粉郁闷啊，最近的还有点长进，不过论证还是经常被一通狂拍，狂汗～待俺找找，你是要都给偶看么？好人啊，感动ing……估计俺又该丢人了，感觉自己好像逻辑方面确实问题很多，难怪当年考机考的时候逻辑才720，唉唉，直接导致作文漏洞一堆。是不是看点推理小说的说训练一下？

blur13_0UID: 150275

No.1 Issue170,希望这次没把is写成should~大家拍啊~多谢嗮
------题目------
The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but the general welfare of all its people.
提纲：
1 科学艺术等成就可以代表一个国家的福利水平，而反之不然，所以是更可靠的指示
2 科学艺术成就比福利容易衡量
3 国家伟大与否还跟国际影响有关，只有科学艺术政治成就才能反映这种影响。
昨天刚研究了追星特训，汗~一开始没注意这个好东东，终于明白啥是is/should问题。试着写了一篇，不知道分清楚了么，大家给看看，谢谢啦~
关键词：welfare----well-being, upbeat, eudemonia, eudemonia -- (a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous; "the town was finally on the upbeat after our recent troubles")
surest ------infallible or unfailing; "a sure (or true) sign of one's commitment
------正文------
What kind of nations can be entitled "great nations"? Though many people may believe that if all people live a happy life, the nation iswill be great, in my eyes, the development in politics, art and science is a more reliable sign of a great nation.简洁开头，好，但 the level of development是否更能替换achievements呢

On the one hand, the achievements of rulers, artists or scientists are on behalf of general welfare of a nation. The reason is quite simple that without a stable environment or a comfortable life, the scientists or artists have to struggle for survival rather than success in their favorite fields, so the country powerful in science or art is often a country with highly developed welfare of its people. In addition, scientific achievements serve to enhance a nation's general welfare. Accordingly, the more developed a nation’s science and technology, the better its general welfare. As we all know, America, usually considered a great nation, gains outstanding attainments in science and technology and meanwhile, the welfare is also developed well. On the contrary, some North European countries like Finland, known for their good welfare, are not so famous in their science or art. That is, the general welfare of a nation cannot reflect the level of its science or art. welfare不能反映level of its science or art没关系啊，只要能体现国家是great就行了啊，嗯，同时你也没说明就因为科学艺术不出名，芬兰就不是个great国家啊Furthermore, a successful leader of a nation is usually a leader who can largely improve the people's living conditions. For example, Deng Xiaoping, the designer of China’s transformation, is highly praised due to his tremendous contribution to bettering Chinese welfare. Thus, since the achievements of political leaders and artists or scientists reflect a nation's welfare to some degree and thereby more representative, they are the surest indicator of a nation's greatness.恩有点问题，对于surest indicator of a great nation 来说achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists和general welfare of all its people式平行关系，题目就是想让你证明那个是可靠的标准，可我感觉你好像先默认了前者的地位，然后说后者没证明前者所以就不能成为surest indicato，逻辑。。。。个人感觉有点问题

On the other hand, the achievements in politics小心偷换概念阿ruler is not equal to politics, science or art are more obvious and easier to measure than the welfare so that they are more suitable to take on the responsibility of an indicator. Whether an artist is successful or not could be measured through the number of his/her masterworks and the artistic values of the works, while a nation's achievement in art could be measured though the number of outstanding artists and general level of the development of art.下面写得真好，学习 But how can we assess general welfare of all people of a nation? Welfare is the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity. Even in the most developed country, not all of its people are living a happy life. Different people have different definitions on happiness. Even if the nation can guarantee that all of people are rich and healthy, which is impossible in fact, it could not ensure every one of them is happy. In this way, the immeasurability of people's welfare determines that welfare is not the surest indication of a great nation.

Furthermore, whether a nation is great also depend on its effect on the world in various aspects, which functions through its strength in politics, science, economics etc rather than its general welfare. Russia’s general welfare is lower than its European peers？ like Sweden though, its scientific and artistic impact is far more extensive than those countries.加一句 how could we…Russia is not a great nation? In this way, the welfare of a nation has only nationwide influence, whilebut the impact of achievements in science or art is beyond boundaries of nations so that the achievements are the most reliable sign of a nation’s greatness.so that合适吗？

To sum up, admittedly, the general welfare of a nation is an important indicator, as a complementary standard of a great nation, the achievements后面忘了吧？？, however, is trustworthy than welfare when used as the indicator, because they are more representative and easier to meas结尾立意好，是把limitation和surest对比啊
总评：行文流畅，限时写的吧，想你学习啊 ;) ，但例子在具体点怎么样？

花之颜色UID: 187195

我B1的想法是既然成就可以代表福利水平,而福利水平却不能反映成就,那自然成就作为衡量标准更为可靠啦~很有问题么?经过mack提醒,决定 用Brunei 换掉Finland,呵呵 ,民主角度还没想好怎么入手.