issue35 1月31号考，贴最后一篇，请大家帮忙看看

tingting adamanUID: 192892

Issue 35 No matter what the situation, it is more harmful to compromise one's beliefs than to adhere to them.

The speaker argues that it is detrimental to compromise one's beliefs under any circumstances. I concede that unwavering adherence to one's beliefs plays a vital role in an individual's self-realization. Nevertheless, whether the ultimate outcome of such "adherence" is harmful or beneficial largely depends on what kind of "beliefs" the individual holds.

To begin with, I wholeheartedly advocate that as to achieving personal goals, firmly adhering to one's beliefs is both essential and beneficial. At times, beliefs cherished in one's heart act as inexhaustible sources from where stem the impetus for forging ahead, the courage for facing adversity and the confidence for bringing one's dreams to fruition. Thereby, when one of the 2004 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, Linda Buck, told the young females in the world to "Follow your dreams", she conveyed the similar idea: Clinging tenaciously to one's ideas, beliefs, convictions and goals is part-and-parcel for the person to achieve his/her goals and realize himself/herself.

Nevertheless, when it comes to evaluate the results of "adhering to one's beliefs and never compromising them in any instances", it primarily relies on the kind of "beliefs" that the individual cherishes. On one hand, if these beliefs are well reasoned, and would serve to benefit the society to certain degree, undoubtedly adhering to them will generate desirable outcomes for both the individual and the society as a whole. For instance, Marie Curie's belief-there must be some new matter with the feature of radioactive concealing in the industrial wastes-had enabled her to work arduously and tenaciously, and eventually given birth to the discovery of Radium, which wan Marie Curie the Nobel Prize and meanwhile contributed significantly to the progress of medical science.

Admittedly, under certain circumstance, adhering to one's beliefs, though might benefit the whole society, would incur misfortunes and even disasters to the individual. History is replete with individuals, epitomized in Bruno and Martin Luther King, who were scorned or even persecuted by some of their contemporaries due to their unsettling beliefs. However, under this circumstance, to judge whether adhering to one's belief will benefit the individual should involve these people’s personal definition of "benefit" and "harm". In my institution, for those people the value of their beliefs might outweigh any other mundane interests and even their lives. Otherwise, Bruno would submit to the Roman Church and compromise his beliefs rather than choose to be condemned to the stake, and King would give up his careers as well as convictions since he had fully realized the enormous dangers they could bring to him.

On another hand, nonetheless, if the individual beliefs are ill-conceived and even running contrary to the moral and ethic standards, adhering to them would irrefutably be deleterious to both the individual and the society. The most egregious example to illustrate this point involves Hitler, whose belief that the Jews presented potential harm to him and his countrymen was completely ridiculous and fantastic, which ultimately resulted in the tragic mass persecution and even genocide. A less egregious instance involves a famous CEO in China, who bigotedly insisted on his own obsolete market strategies and refused to consider any alternatives from his subordinates. Understandably, such a blind adherence and persistence eventually culminated in the fiasco of this CEO and more miserably, the bankrupt of the company.

In sum, while I concede that adhering firmly to one’s beliefs would be beneficial and necessary to individual self-realization, I take strong exception with the speaker who alleges under any situation it is harmful to compromise one’ s beliefs rather than adhere to them. In the final analysis, whether refusing to sacrifice one’s beliefs is beneficial or detrimental is a complex problem, and the answer to it depends both on the nature of the “beliefs” and the individual definition of “benefit” and “harm”.

haiyaUID: 187989

Issue 35 No matter what the situation, it is more harmful to compromise one's beliefs than to adhere to them.

The speaker argues that it is detrimental to compromise one's beliefs under any circumstances. I concede that unwavering adherence to one's beliefs plays a vital role in an individual's self-realization. Nevertheless, whether the ultimate outcome of such "adherence" is harmful or beneficial largely depends on what kind of "beliefs" the individual holds.

To begin with, I wholeheartedly advocate that as to achieving personal goals, firmly adhering to one's beliefs is both essential and beneficial. At times, beliefs cherished in one's heart act as inexhaustible sources from where stem the impetus for forging ahead, the courage for facing adversity and the confidence for bringing one's dreams to fruition. Thereby, when one of the 2004 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, Linda Buck, told the young females in the world to "Follow your dreams", she conveyed the similar idea: Clinging tenaciously ？to one's ideas, beliefs, convictions and goals is part-and-parcel for the person to achieve his/her goals and realize himself/herself.

Nevertheless, when it comes to evaluate the results of "adhering to one's beliefs and never compromising them in any instances", it primarily relies on the kind of "beliefs" that the individual cherishes. On one hand, if these beliefs are well reasoned, and would serve to benefit the society to certain degree, undoubtedly adhering to them will generate desirable outcomes for both the individual and the society as a whole. For instance, Marie Curie's belief-there must be some new matter with the feature of radioactive concealing in the industrial wastes-had enabled her to work arduously and tenaciously, and eventually given birth to the discovery of Radium, which wan won Marie Curie the Nobel Prize and meanwhile contributed significantly to the progress of medical science.

Admittedly, under certain circumstance, adhering to one's beliefs, though might benefit the whole society, would incur misfortunes and even disasters to the individual. History is replete with individuals, epitomized in Bruno and Martin Luther King, who were scorned or even persecuted by some of their contemporaries due to their unsettling beliefs. However, under this circumstance, to judge whether adhering to one's belief will benefit the individual should involve these people’s personal definition of "benefit" and "harm". In my institution, for those people the value of their beliefs might outweigh any other mundane interests and even their lives. Otherwise, Bruno would submit to the Roman Church and compromise his beliefs rather than choose to be condemned to the stake, and King would give up his careers as well as convictions since he had fully realized the enormous dangers they could bring to him.

On another hand, On the other hand,nonetheless, if the individual beliefs are ill-conceived and even running contrary to the moral and ethic standards, adhering to them would irrefutably be deleterious to both the individual and the society. The most egregious example to illustrate this point involves Hitler, whose belief that the Jews presented potential harm to him and his countrymen was completely ridiculous and fantastic, which ultimately resulted in the tragic mass persecution and even genocide. A less egregious instance involves a famous CEO in China, who bigotedly insisted on his own obsolete market strategies and refused to consider any alternatives from his subordinates. Understandably, such a blind adherence and persistence eventually culminated in the fiasco of this CEO and more miserably, the bankrupt of the company.

In sum, while I concede that adhering firmly to one’s beliefs would be beneficial and necessary to individual self-realization, I take strong exception with the speaker who alleges under any situation it is harmful to compromise one’ s beliefs rather than adhere to them. In the final analysis, whether refusing to sacrifice one’s beliefs is beneficial or detrimental is a complex problem, and the answer to it depends both on the nature of the “beliefs” and the individual definition of “benefit” and “harm”.
看得很舒服：）分析的不错，词汇量也不错。保持好状态~~！！

tingting adamanUID: 192892

谢谢楼上^_^
tenaciously是tenacious的adv形式，从老外280上学的一个词 ^_^
其他两个错也太可怕了，居然自己检查时没看出来，呵呵
考完了一定来拍你^_^