issue48 (限时历史类) 回改原则不变，下周四考。

chenxgUID: 183868

Issue48: 501 words 45 minutes
The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.

We learn much from history, and the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. Historians place too much emphasis on famous few. However the most significant events and trends in history were made not only by the famous few, but also by groups of people. I do not agree with the author's opinion for the following reasons.

In natural science field, the most significant events and trends in history were made by the famous few, and groups of people play little role. Now great changes have taken place in every field because of development of natural science. Nobel invented dynamite, which make possible to save many labors to build many projects. Edison invented light bulbs, which make our lives more comfortable than before. All of these improvements in natural science field, scientists have contributed to society dependent on their efforts. Because most of scientific researches need effort of the famous few, even sometimes research teams include several scientists, and it is not necessary that research teams are made of groups of people. Thus it is obvious that the study of history should focus on individuals in natural science field.

However, during social revolution groups of people play a vital role to push society develop further. In every revolution and reform of history, groups of people are crucial to decide the destiny of society. After all, groups of people are important components of society. Lincoln was a leader in South-North war of United States, and succeeded in conquering slaves’ owners in south USA. It is an important event in history of USA, because this event completely gave slaves real freedom. It is undoubted that Lincoln, as a leader, is important during getting success in war. However, we cannot ignore the vital role of groups of people, who joined this war. Without them, it was impossible to win the war dependent on Lincoln. On the other hand, groups of people can affect result of reform in economical field. We can easily draw the same conclusion from the 1978's reform in China. Consequently, it is obvious that in social revolution groups of people are important roles to push society develop.  

Furthermore, although in some fields groups of people have contributed to the significant events, their names are seldom seen in historic textbooks. From the study point of history, historian can record some famous people in deciding the destiny of society whatever in natural science field and in social reforms. So the leaders in social reform become the emphasis of the study of history. It is impossible to do all record to write down names of groups of people. Consequently the result generate that some names of famous people were appeared in textbook of history, such as Lincoln, Chairman Mao. However importance of groups of people should not be ignored by us.

In sum, although the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, it needs discussing in different fields. In natural scientific field these exist the famous few contribute to the most significant events.

milanandbarcaUID: 157330

我语言不行,我就不对楼主的语言发表任何观点了.我只想就你的文章逻辑谈谈我自己的一点看法
首先,题目是由两句话组成的,第一句话是一个事实,不带有作者的任何倾向.而第二句话就是作者的一个倾向了.他认为历史的进程中最重要的进步是由大众完成的,而不是由名人完成的.
但你在正文的第一段说在science方面，名人所作的贡献比大众更加重要．但正文的第二段却说在social方面，大众比名人重要．这样的话，你说了两段并没有说出你自己的观点（即哪一方更重要），这样的话你可能认为你的文章是一个调和派，但我却认为你的文章是骑墙派了．至于第三段，你是回应了题目的第一句话，我认为不是很有必要．因为那已经是一个既定事实了．
我认为可以这样改一下你的文章：在文章首段，你要说明不能一味的说哪个更重要，要分不同的condition来看待．即science方面，个人比大众重要;social方面，大众比个人重要．然后在正文第三段就两种condition进行分析，即为什么在不同的方面两种角色的重要性不同．把两者的不同进行比较透彻的比较．我认为这样这篇文章才算成功
以上只是我的一点看法，不知道是否有道理，请大家带着批判的眼光来看待

milanandbarcaUID: 157330

偏激一点的说,在英文中写中庸的文章,我认为,往往意味着失败.
因为一般情况下,你的语言会betray你的思想的.除非你能很好的驾辕语言的话