issue108 再接再厉，虽然上篇还没人改:) 这篇应该和大家的观点不太一样，来个好心

mack1983UID: 183345

Issue108:
In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings—trials, debates, meetings, etc—that are televised, the more society will benefit.

Does it do greater benefit than harm to society as well as government when officials are televised? The speaker believes so. However, so far to my concern, this method to help people understand issues happening around them and keep government's high effectiveness would actually harm the social benefits. And we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

At first glance, we might be inclined to agree with the speaker. After all, watching the work of officials provides us an effective approach to affairs influencing our daily life; besides, it would also impose an impetus to those being televised, and therefore make their work more effective and democratic, as expected by ordinary citizens. However, a point that should never be neglected is that people working in government is of much difference with those athletes in the playground, who are dreaming of audiences to give them energy and power. The cheerfulness and applause can definitely spur the athletes; nevertheless, cameras couldn’t serve the same function as live screams, ovations and shouts, but give officials only tension if not anything else. Meanwhile, being televised and watched all the time (from the beginning of one day to the end of work) would prevent officials enjoying privacy, the most precious fortune of individuals as I believe, which is quit against the purpose of democracy. We could even predict that this method would become a kind of entertainment show to satisfy someone's curiosity of people's privacy, as some TV stations do in the golden time.

Furthermore, even officers could perform normally in front of the camera, we could not predict that we could get any useful information from the ‘live show’. For one thing, modern technology has spurred our work into sophisticated ones that only well trained people could be competent. Is it possible for a person without necessary knowledge of economy comprehends the meeting concerning economy and pretends to be skilled as an expert to make indiscreet remarks about economic affairs? For another thing, the expected function that cameras could serve as an effective method to supervise would not be fulfilled as well. Indeed, debates and meetings could be watched, even trials could be sentenced under public eyes; however, deals behind the scene would not merge under the scrutiny of the public, especially in countries with deficient legal systems. The worse thing is: this superficial supervision could provide mirage to the public while truth remains under cover, which will definitely confuse the public and nourish (nurture/ breed) corruption and dereliction.

Finally, some works of government, especially those concerning national securities, must not be scrutinized by public. As well received, the more exposed, the less secure our country would be. Even in the most democratic country of the world, government wouldn't be so-called ‘open’ enough to allow people to watch debates and conferences of the top secret: neither KGB nor FBI welcomes this sort of supervision from people, though they belong to two groups with different ideologies. Besides, politics which contains despicable purpose and dirty affairs also forbids us from seeing what is happening behind the beautiful masks, no matter in democracy or autocracy.

In sum, as the reasons and examples listed above, I believe the government should not and could not been televised, especially with camera equipped anywhere. In fact, society would benefit from social structures with perfect legal system and democracy, rather than live images and sounds recording every behavior of officials.

kkytUID: 188814

上次看过你的文章感觉已经很不错了,以前你也给我提了一些意见,我一直很感激.我这些天上新东方,先顶上来抽空再和你交流.

花之颜色UID: 187195

mack,表急,我帮你瞅瞅~占座先呵呵

mack1983UID: 183345

花同学我不逼你，你的那十几篇文章也不要逼我哈，我也要上新东方了，郁闷中。。。。。。

花之颜色UID: 187195

Does it do greater benefit than harm to society as well as government when officials are televised? The speaker believes so. However, so far to my concern, this method to help people understand issues happening around them and keep government's high effectiveness would actually harm the social benefits. And we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

At first glance, we might be inclined to agree with the speaker. After all, watching the work of officials provides us an effective approach to affairs influencing our daily life; besides, it would also impose an impetus to those being televised, and therefore make their work more effective and democratic, as expected by ordinary citizens. However, a point that should never be neglected is that people working in government is of much difference with those athletes in the playground, who are dreaming of audiences to give them energy and power. The cheerfulness and applause can definitely spur the athletes; nevertheless, cameras couldn’t serve the same function as live screams, ovations and shouts, but give officials only tension if not anything else. Meanwhile, being televised and watched all the time (from the beginning of one day to the end of work) would prevent officials enjoying privacy, the most precious fortune of individuals as I believe, which is [U]quit [/U] quite? against the purpose of democracy. We could even predict that this method would become a kind of entertainment show to satisfy someone's curiosity of people's privacy, as some TV stations do in the golden time. 对比用的漂亮啊

Furthermore, even officers could perform normally in front of the camera, we could not predict that we could get any useful information from the ‘live show’. For one thing, [U]modern technology [/U] 貌似应该是技术的发展促进的,而不是技术本身 has spurred our work into sophisticated ones that only well trained people could be competent. Is it possible for a person without necessary knowledge of economy comprehends the meeting concerning economy and pretends to be skilled as an expert to make indiscreet remarks about economic affairs? For another thing, the expected function that cameras could serve as an effective method to supervise would not be fulfilled as well. Indeed, debates and meetings could be watched, even trials could be sentenced under public eyes; however, deals behind the scene would not merge under the scrutiny of the public, especially in countries with deficient legal systems. The worse thing is: this superficial supervision could provide mirage to the public while truth remains under cover, which will definitely confuse the public and nourish (nurture/ breed) corruption and dereliction.写的超级赞啊~偶挑不出毛病的说,论证有力,用词准确生动,佩服的五体投地!!

Finally, some works of government, especially those concerning national securities, must not be scrutinized by public. As well received, the more exposed, the less secure our country would be. Even in the most democratic country of the world, government wouldn't be so-called ‘open’ enough to allow people to watch debates and conferences of the top secret: neither KGB nor FBI welcomes this sort of supervision from people, though they belong to two groups with different ideologies. Besides, politics which contains despicable purpose and dirty affairs also forbids us from seeing what is happening behind the beautiful masks, no matter in democracy or autocracy. 这段也漂亮啊,就是最后一个besides貌似和B2最后一点有少许重复

In sum, as the reasons and examples listed above, I believe the government should not and could not[U] been[/U]  televised, especially with camera equipped anywhere. In fact, society would benefit from social structures with perfect legal system and democracy, rather than live images and sounds recording every behavior of officials.

mack写的太好了，偶要down下来好好学习～偶要是评分的，给你5.5分

花之颜色UID: 187195

上新东方好啊,学到啥好料要及时跟大家分享的说~偶就在宿舍好好学习了~不逼你,呵呵~我们巨蟹座的最善解人意了哈哈!对了,问问你这个地头蛇,鼎钧到底在啥地方,偶这个路痴怕迷路到不了考场,那就郁闷了:(

zhl_halleyUID: 140173

Issue108:[ 我是第一个给你批作文得人, 还砖!:) ]
In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings—trials, debates, meetings, etc—that are televised, the more society will benefit.

Does it do greater benefit than harm to society as well as government when officials are televised? The speaker believes so. However, so far to my concern, this method [,which seems用从句更好吧] to help people understand issues happening around them and keep government's high effectiveness would actually harm the social benefits. And we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

At first glance, we might be inclined to agree with the speaker. After all, watching the work of officials provides us an effective approach to affairs influencing our daily life;[不明白, 是不是想表书 an effective way to have access to how governmental affairs influence our daily life] besides, it would also impose an impetus [supervision?]to those being televised, and therefore make their work more effective and democratic, as expected by ordinary citizens. However, a point that should never be neglected is that people working in government is of much difference with those athletes in the playground, who are dreaming of[be dreamed of固定搭配] audiences to give them energy and power. The cheerfulness and applause can definitely spur the athletes; nevertheless, cameras couldn’t serve the same function as live screams, ovations and shouts, but give officials only tension if not anything else. Meanwhile, being televised and watched all the time (from the beginning of one day to the end of work) would prevent officials enjoying privacy, the most precious fortune of individuals as I believe, which is quit against the purpose of democracy. We could even predict that this method would become a kind of entertainment show to satisfy someone's curiosity of people's privacy, as some TV stations do in the golden time.
[The example is ok but the discussion of the example is inappropriate and not completely expanded. First, athletes and officials are all feel nervous in front of collective eyes. Second, the athletes also feel bored about and at the risk of the revelation of their privacy. After all, a metal laureate in Olympic Games deserve the focus of the masses. In my point of view, you should emphasize on the contrast that the short-time focus on the display of athletes versus the long-time watch-out on the routine working time of the officials, and the latter exposed more personal information]

Furthermore, even officers could perform normally in front of the camera, we could not predict that we could get any useful information from the ‘live show’. For one thing, modern technology has spurred our work into sophisticated ones that only well trained people could be competent. Is it possible for a person without necessary knowledge of economy comprehends the meeting concerning economy and pretends to be skilled as an expert to make indiscreet remarks about economic affairs? For another thing[For another], the expected function that cameras could serve as an effective method to supervise would not be fulfilled as well. Indeed, debates and meetings could be watched, even trials could be sentenced under public eyes; however, deals behind the scene would not merge under the scrutiny of the public, especially in countries with deficient legal systems. The worse thing is: this superficial supervision could provide mirage to the public while truth remains under cover, which will definitely confuse the public and nourish (nurture/ breed) corruption and dereliction.
有思想!
Finally, some works of government, especially those concerning national securities, must not be scrutinized by public. As well received, the more exposed, the less secure our country would be. Even in the most democratic country of the world, government wouldn't be so-called ‘open’ enough to allow people to watch debates and conferences of the top secret: neither KGB nor FBI[CIA?] welcomes this sort of supervision from people, though they belong to two groups with different ideologies. Besides, politics which contains despicable purpose and dirty affairs also forbids us from seeing what is happening behind the beautiful masks, no matter in democracy or autocracy[democratic or autocratic societies其实都可以].

In sum, as the reasons and examples listed above, I believe the government should not and could not been televised, especially with camera equipped anywhere. In fact, society would benefit from social structures with perfect legal system and democracy, rather than live images and sounds recording every behavior of officials.

mack1983UID: 183345

记我邮箱mack1983@163。com
麻烦zhl_halley把你的文章直接扔我油箱里，免得我忘了:)

fengboallanUID: 157405

很棒的文章，真的，有些词汇的用法和搭配
呵呵，我觉得太棒了。唯一一个小缺点
第一段作文开头不够打人。真个很重要的。但是第二段，明显上层次了
建议第一段用一些比较有力度的句子。

naiba369UID: 131655

呵呵，原来占过mack兄的一个座，呵呵，老是没有添，嘿嘿，心里老想着呢

呵呵，这次不会了

:D

naiba369UID: 131655

Issue108:
In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work. Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The more kinds of government proceedings—trials, debates, meetings, etc—that are televised, the more society will benefit.
×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××
Does it do greater benefit than harm to society as well as government when officials are televised? The speaker believes so. However, so far to my concern, this method to help people understand issues happening around them and keep government's high effectiveness would actually harm the social benefits.以简洁的提问句的形式开头，然后对原题目进行回答，认为作者给出的观点是不能接受的。在小小转折后，提出自己的真是观点。 And we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

At first glance, we might be inclined to agree with the speaker. ts句 After all, watching the work of officials provides us an effective approach to affairs 感觉怪怪的，请问对吗？influencing our daily life; besides, it would also impose an impetus to those being televised, and therefore make their work more effective and democratic电视转播会使他们的工作更民主吗？感觉还是稍有“跳跃”，建议换成just/fair等词 , as expected by ordinary citizens.||从逻辑思考的顺序，先小方面的承认原题目中的“正确性”However, a point that should never be neglected is that people working in government is of much difference with those athletes in the playground, who are dreaming of audiences to give them energy and power. The cheerfulness and applause can definitely 这里用definitely问题不大，是一种强调与对比。但是我个人感觉话说的太“绝对”了，会显得你的思辨性不强，逻辑不够严密。当然还有那种因为观众太热烈而怯场的运动员吧。建议删掉吧spur the athletes; nevertheless, cameras couldn’t serve the same function as live screams, ovations and shouts, scream，尖叫：由于痛苦或恐惧而发出长的、宏亮的、刺耳的叫声。shout, 大叫着说：高声说或发出喊叫声 感觉同你所要表达的那种“积极的”感情色彩不是很协调but give officials only tension if not anything else. || Meanwhile, being televised and watched all the time (from the beginning of one day to the end of work) would prevent officials enjoying privacy,对吗? the most precious fortune right更好吧of individuals as I believe, which is quit against the purpose of democracy. We could even predict that this method would become a kind of entertainment show to satisfy someone's curiosity of people's privacy, as some TV stations do in the golden time. 后面的那种比喻式论证很精彩，我想我是学不会的。但是给人的感觉便是，你只有例证，没有理论分分析。However后，说是different了，然后2各很长的句子就整体结束，当时我看的时候也很大快朵颐，但是看了好多遍后感觉，还是缺那么一点纯理论的叙述，最起码，这样使得结构很清楚。当然，依你的英文应用水平似乎已经达到那种“化”的境界了，我只是提一下个人的感觉

Furthermore, even officers could perform normally in front of the camera, we could not predict that we could get any useful information from the ‘live show’. For one thing ts句, modern technology has spurred 麻烦问一下，这里用合适吗？而且整篇用到的spur比较多，虽然我感觉用的都很恰如其分，但是能换一下，是最好不过了our work into sophisticated ones that only well trained people could be competent. Is it possible for a person without necessary knowledge of economy comprehends the meeting concerning economy and pretends to be skilled as an expert to make indiscreet remarks about economic affairs? 就是现在，我也很难一口气读完，建议：长短句结合，就有一种文字间的“节奏性“，如音符一般，总是”长音“也不悦耳吧:)For another thing, the expected function that cameras could serve as an effective method to supervise would not be fulfilled as well. Indeed, debates and meetings could be watched, even trials could be sentenced under public eyes; however,是不是有点”大“了，however用在意群之间的转折似乎较好，而在句子中，用but，while如何？ deals behind the scene would not merge under the scrutiny of the public, especially in countries with deficient legal systems. The worse thing is: this superficial supervision could provide mirage to the public while truth remains under cover, which will definitely confuse the public and nourish (nurture/ breed) corruption and dereliction.

Finally, some works of government, especially those concerning national securities, must not be scrutinized by public. As well received, the more exposed, the less secure our country would be. Even in the most democratic country of the world, government wouldn't be so-called ‘open’ enough to allow people to watch debates and conferences of the top secret: neither KGB nor FBI welcomes this sort of supervision from people, though they belong to two groups with different ideologies. Besides, politics which contains despicable purpose and dirty affairs also forbids us from seeing what is happening behind the beautiful masks, no matter in democracy or autocracy.

In sum, as the reasons and examples listed above, I believe the government should not and could not been televised, especially with camera equipped anywhere. In fact, society would benefit from social structures with perfect legal system and democracy, rather than live images and sounds recording every behavior of officials.
小结：
1．        其实，实在没什么好评的了，主要是占了座了，好坏总得说点，所以才“挑刺“般的找了几个毛病，而且自己有些还很拿不准呢，呵呵。很牛的一片文章，语言没说的了，我基本是以看范文的心态研读了2个多小时；用词，也很考究；特别感觉你将例证已经用的非常灵活了，信手拈来，随意插去，妙趣横生，呵呵。但我有个感觉就是：每段的理论分析与举例论证的比例不是很均匀。某些段落，几乎全部都是理论说理(b2,b3)；而有些段落全部是举例论证（b1，however后）。不知mack兄是否有意”逐段展示“自己的论证方法呢？不过，很自然，当然也很漂亮了。
2．嘿嘿，实在什么可说的了。自我感觉就是5。5～6分的样子。:D