issue85.l艺术与政府，第一次写了750字，限时不成功，但觉得逻辑挺清晰！

will_foreverUID: 193568

ISSUE85 限时不成功，中间断断续续的写了这么久，仅修改了一些拼写错误，用词没变化，但觉得逻辑挺清晰的，请牛牛们朝这拍砖！



Issue85  第10篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：70分1秒     750 words
从2005年2月8日8时30分到2005年2月8日9时82分
------题目------
Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
------正文------
While it is generally taken for granted that the arts should get support from the government, in fact what the government do will bring many negative effects to the arts, even more to the development of society. In my opinion, the attitude of the government should remain the same neutrality  as to the religion and the press. There are some factors that can support my viewpoint.

In the first place, support of the government will threaten the integrity of the arts. We may agree that what the artists need most is the freedom of the self-expression, which will make the arts advancement and produce many good quality works. If supported by the government, the artists will be fettered by many regulations. Acquiring the support from the government will lead the arts politicized. Any government, whether communists or democratic, represents the dominating and coerce force. What they want is to build a favorable atmosphere to their rule, and then they will show their bias to the arts from their own viewpoint and choose to support the arts that cater to their needs. Thus, the arts sponsored by the government will lose the freedom of the self-expression, which is the basis of a real product of work. Take the Soviet nation as a supporting example. The Soviet leaders, imposing their will on the arts, were berated for their high-handed policy. Though the condition began to soften, the arts in the nation need a long time to recover, needless to say to thrive. Compared with the community, the American government does not impose their force on the arts directly, but they should report to the Congress all about the programs that they support, including the arts. Thus, those artists, supported by the government, need to be documented in detail and give some feedbacks every a short time. This control, though indirectly, fetters the freedom of the artist the same as the community countries. From here, once the artist are restricted by the regulations in detail, they will lose much than what they gain from the government.

Furthermore, after discussing the deficiency that engendered by the support of the government, we should consider the problem that whether the government should support the arts. Some people agree to the viewpoint that the arts need help from the government. They give many reasons that can support their view of point, Firstly, the arts culture can produce a better society and can get protection from the government. The second idea is that in the free-market, there exists no entrance for the high formers of the arts. The last idea is that some artists that cannot support themselves need the support of the government. However, we can adduce many factors against this standpoint. Improving the society? There is no clear and enough evidence that the arts have a connection with a better society. Lacking the outlets? The free-market today provides more chances and vocations to those talented people, making them can get better support from other jobs. Escaping the poverty? Even though they get rid of the poverty in the support of the government, they will get into a more complex trouble with those hierarch who administrate the supports to the artists. In this aspect, we can arrive to the agreement that the arts should not accept the support from the government.

The last thing I would like to advance and emphasize is that the solutions to the problems that who can give the help to those artists is obvious, that is the free-market. In other words, the free-market, as a leading force, can supply the artists lots of chances to support themselves. For one thing, the artists can get many well-paid employment in the society. Besides this, they can look for the wealth patrons, corporations and clients. The most important strength that they can get is from our public. We populace can buy some products with a better quality, take part in a concern, purse some books voluntarily in our peaceful means and processes. Therefore, the arts can better support themselves in such a free-market.

Taking into consideration all the factors that have been discussed above, it is not difficult to say what the arts need is a freedom space of self-expression far more than the support of the government which will restrict the development of the arts culture. Moreover, the problems of those artists, such as the personal matters that beleaguer Van Gogh and Mozart, for example, will be well solved in the free-market.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

我来占一个
写的真不少呢
JJ节日快乐啊:D

will_foreverUID: 193568

呵呵，小鬼真懂事！

so猫UID: 148633

写好多啊 来 占个位置
而且要好好谢谢你在我日记里的留言
:)

so猫UID: 148633

While it is generally recognized that the arts should get support from the government, in fact what the government do to the arts will bring many negative effects to the arts, even more to the society. The attitude of the government should be neutral the same as to the religion and the press. There are some factors that can support my viewpoint. 开头就有点问题 整个开头没有提到题目中说的funding 而把它替换成support 先不说这里面概念偷换引出的后续问题 你这里提出的nertral是个什么意思？ 没解释 没定义 这样不是特别好吧

In the first place, support of the government will threaten the integrity of the arts. We may agree that what the artists need most is the freedom of the self-expression, which will make the arts advancement and produce many good quality works. If supported by the government, the artists will be fettered by many regulations.为什么？政府support它 但是没说就一定导致限制它 即使我们都有脑知道给你糖吃就肯定要利用你 但是这里还是差个过渡的 还是说清楚吧~ Acquiring the support from the government will lead the arts politicized.哈 原来解释在这里~ Any government, whether communists or democratic, represents the dominating and coerce force. What they want is to build a favorable atmosphere to their rule, and then they will show their bias to the arts from their own viewpoint and choose to support the arts that cater to their needs. Thus, the arts sponsored by the government will lose the freedom of the self-expression, which is the basis of a real product of work. Take the Soviet nation as a supporting example. The Soviet leaders, imposing their will on the arts, were berated for their high-handed policy. Though the condition began to soften, the arts in the nation need a long time to recover, needless to say to thrive.这虾米逻辑啊 thrive是recover的递进？ 没看明白 Compared with the community, the American government does not impose their force on the arts directly, but they should report to the Congress all about the programs that they support, including the arts. Thus, those artists, supported by the government, need to be documented in detail and give some feedbacks every a short time. This control, though indirectly, fetters the freedom of the artist the same as the community countries. From here, once the artist are restricted by the regulations in detail, they will lose much than what they gain from the government.

Furthermore, after discussing the deficiency that engendered by the support of the government, we should consider the problem that whether the government should support the arts. Some people agree to the viewpoint that the arts need help from the government. They give many reasons that can support their view of point, Firstly, the arts culture can produce a better society and can get protection from the government. The second idea is that in the free-market, there exists no entrance for the high formers of the arts. The last idea is that some artists that cannot support themselves need the support of the government. However, we can adduce many factors against this standpoint. Improving the society? There is no clear and enough evidence that the arts have a connection with a better society. Lacking the outlets? 怎么说呢 我个人是不推荐用这样的疑问句的 虽然很多国外的文章里有这样的用法 大家也能明白 但是考虑这是正式问题 还是尽量避免比较好The free-market today provides more chances and vocations to those talented people, making them can get better support from other jobs. Escaping the poverty? Even though they get rid of the poverty in the support of the government, they will get into a more complex trouble with those hierarch who administrate the supports to the artists. In this aspect, we can arrive to the agreement that the arts should not accept the support from the government.这一段 呵呵 感觉有点象argument的驳论 语气好强烈啊 跟你上面那个body的style不符合咧~想着怎么改一下吧 而且全段都是说理 都是你反驳别人 想过弄俩例子来没 要不人家觉得 你凭什么这么说呢 你就凭什么说我不对呢 又没证明~

The last thing I would like to advance and emphasize is that the solutions to the problems that who can give the help to those artists is obvious, that is the free-market. In other words, the free-market, as a leading force, can supply the artists lots of chances to support themselves. For one thing, the artists can get many well-paid employment in the society. Besides this, they can look for the wealth patrons, corporations and clients. The most important strength that they can get is from our public. We populace can buy some products with a better quality, take part in a concern, purse some books voluntarily in our peaceful means and processes. Therefore, the arts can better support themselves in such a free-market.恩那 最后说还有别的选择 政府不是唯一选择

Taking into consideration all the factors that have been discussed above, it is not difficult to say what the arts need is a freedom space of self-expression far more than the support of the government which will restrict the development of the arts culture. Moreover, the problems of those artists, such as the personal matters that beleaguer Van Gogh and Mozart, for example, will be well solved in the free-market.

呵呵 逻辑还成 就是例子太少了 整篇说说得我都快昏了
而且语气方面 可能是我自己敏感 我越看越象argument

段内的结构问题还存在 不是特别清晰我觉得
B1的整个论述觉得有点乱 可能是因为太长了 感觉东西太多了 逻辑有那么一点点乱
不够清晰

呵呵 就这些啦
写得不错 继续加油~

G猫UID: 192988

我也跟猫猫凑热闹, 帮shanshan看一下, hoho

will_foreverUID: 193568

谢谢猫猫，我再好好看看

will_foreverUID: 193568

呵呵，期待mumu的……

thinking in GTUID: 195028

又那么长，学习一下

山涧风笛UID: 196557

无论如何,能写这么长,值得学习!

will_foreverUID: 193568

to so猫：1.先说b2的例子问题，因为一时想不起有什么例子可以论证，所以就全篇在说理，我也知道例子的作用，可就是找不出来！sigh
2.recover是先恢复，thrive是繁荣，我的意思就是正在恢复，所以就畚想繁荣了，这样不通吗？
3.不过就第一段support和funding的问题，我倒是没注意到，因为我感觉上它们就是等同的
4.对neturality下个定义？这个我也没想过，应该就是等同于对宗教和媒体的吧，这算不算间接下了一个定义或范围呢？
：）谢谢修改
跟猫猫hug一下

G猫UID: 192988

While it is generally taken for granted that the arts should get support from the government, in fact what the government do will bring many negative effects to the arts, even more to the development of society. In my opinion, the attitude of the government should remain the same neutrality as to the religion and the press. [在艺术上保持中立??什么意思, 似乎很模糊, 而且觉得跟religion 和press有很大不同吧. 至少应该说说什么是所谓的neutrality, 感觉这样的词很难回应, 看看你怎么展开] There are some factors that can support my viewpoint.

In the first place, support of the government will threaten the integrity of the arts. We may agree that what the artists need most is the freedom of the self-expression, which will make the arts advancement [advance] and produce many good quality works [good很模糊, 自由的创作最好对应 creative, unique之类的, 用词更贴切一点]. If supported by the government, the artists will be fettered by many regulations [我觉得这个因果关系有问题, 你的意思是被政府资助后, 艺术家会被束缚, 似乎不是这么回事] . Acquiring the support from the government will lead the arts politicized. Any government, whether communists or democratic, represents the dominating and coerce force [这是什么意思? 政府代表统治阶级的力量??]. What they want is to build a favorable atmosphere to their rule [搭配有点奇怪, build to??], and then they will show their bias to the arts from their own viewpoint and choose to support the arts that cater to their needs [这是事实, 但只是一部分的事实, 未免有点以偏概全, 所以最好使用语气有点余地的词语]. Thus, the arts sponsored by the government will lose the freedom of the self-expression [这个关系也不好, 你也说了是cater to, 所以应该是牺牲了创作自由才能获得资助, 而非被政府资助, 就失去了创作自由], which is the basis of a real product of work . Take the Soviet nation as a supporting example. The Soviet leaders, imposing their will on the arts, were berated for their high-handed policy[这个例子说得太简单了, 被严厉批评不是重点, 重点是强加意愿影响创作,把它放在插入语中,没有显示出它的地位来, 并且也说的太简单了, 重点应该强调是如何的will, 造成怎样的严重后果, 后面的什么需要长时间恢复之类的都没有说到重点上, 是没有贡献的话]. Though the condition began to soften, the arts in the nation need a long time to recover, needless to say to thrive. Compared with the community [这里的community是什么意思, community 意思很多, 我觉得最好把它限定一下吧], the American government does not impose their force on the arts directly, but they should report to the Congress all about the programs that they support, including the arts. Thus, those artists, supported by the government, need to be documented in detail and give some feedbacks every a short time. This control [我没有看出来上面的举动怎么control了, 无理假设, 呵呵], though indirectly, fetters the freedom of the artist the same as the community countries. From here, once the artist are restricted by the regulations in detail, they will lose much than what they gain from the government. [你的ts是危害艺术integrity, 不是艺术家的得失, 还少一句, 这样的结果就是怎么怎么了之类的]
[这段的说理比较多, 但是逻辑不是很清晰. 最关键的一点, ts说破坏integrity, 从头到尾都没有提到. self-expression是integrity的一方面, 应该先说一下这个吧. ]

Furthermore, after discussing the deficiency that engendered [这个词似乎也用的不太合适] by the support of the government, we should consider the problem that whether the government should support the arts. Some people agree to the viewpoint that the arts need help from the government. They give many reasons that can support their view of point,[:有点罗嗦,上面一句] Firstly, the arts culture [有这样的搭配??] can produce a better society [produce a society?? 如果你列反方的观点是要准备作为靶子的, better society 并不是个好靶子, 因为没有清晰的目标, 且看你下面怎么反驳] and can get protection from the government [因为艺术可以得到政府的保护所以艺术需要政府的帮助??? 这个逻辑有问题吧]. The second idea is that in the free-market, there exists [there exists, 可以这样用??] no entrance for the high formers of the arts [什么意思, high formers?]. The last idea is that some artists that cannot support themselves need the support of the government. However, we can adduce many factors against this standpoint. Improving the society? There is no clear and enough evidence that the arts have a connection with a better society [没有?? 你的证据?? 只是说不能让人信服] . Lacking the outlets [如果你想表达的是”出路” 的意思的话, outlet的意思我不知道是不是恰当]? The free-market today provides more chances and vocations to those talented people, making them can get better support from other jobs [艺术家都去做别的了, 我们的艺术怎么办?]. Escaping the poverty [贫困??和需要支持还是有差距吧?] Even though they get rid of the poverty in the support of the government, they will get into a more complex trouble with those hierarch who administrate the supports to the artists [什么more complex, 没有说明白, 还是不能让人信服]. In this aspect, we can arrive to the agreement [agreement??跟谁agree, we? 不是说我吧, 不要揣测读者的意见] that the arts should not accept the support from the government.
[树立靶子攻击这是一种可利用的论证形式, 但是前提是你要有充分的理由和事实去支持. 而你的反驳没有力度. 问题的根本在于你的靶子不清晰, 不具体,(谁会知道你的better指的是什么)你自然也做不出有力和有实质的反驳. 再者, 你列的那三点反方意见不是各自孤立的, 而是互相联系的, 甚至互为因果的, 比如说有些艺术家没有市场所以需要政府的支持, 如果没有把握这些内在联系的话就更难以反驳了]

The last thing I would like to advance and emphasize is that the solutions to the problems that who [problems?? who??] can give the help to those artists is obvious, that is the free-market [这句话有问题, 重新组织一下吧]. In other words, the free-market, as a leading force, can supply [force?? Supply? 如果是force, 后面应该是drive之类的词吧] the artists lots of chances to support themselves. For one thing, the artists can get many well-paid employment in the society [what employment??? 没说清楚呀]. Besides this, they can look for the wealth [wealthy] patrons, corporations and clients [不知道私人赞助之类的能不能也看成市场范畴的, 似乎不太妥当]. The most important strength that they can get is from our public [不知道这个公众行为是不是归在你说的市场手段里的. It should be, 最好有结构性的标志]. We populace can buy some products [用词要精确, 什么product] with a better quality, take part in a concern [you mean concert?], purse some books voluntarily in our peaceful means and processes [什么叫our peaceful means and processes]. Therefore, the arts can better support themselves in such a free-market.

Taking into consideration all the factors that have been discussed above, it is not difficult to say what the arts need is a freedom space of self-expression far more than the support of the government which will restrict the development of the arts culture. Moreover, the problems of those artists, such as the personal matters [怎么又冒出personal matters] that beleaguer Van Gogh and Mozart, for example, will be well solved in the free-market. [你的总结应该指向你的结论, 就是government 要neutrality, 但是似乎没有.]
[整体看来, b1比较好, 但是因为说理很多, 所以挺难把握, 稍微有点不清晰. 再就是例子是本应该是persuasive的, 你只做到了relevant. 应该想想怎样突出一下例子对自己的观点有贡献的部分. B2, b3不太好, 似乎有分析, 但是流于表面. 泛泛而谈, 所以没有说服力. 感觉似乎对艺术, 艺术家, 市场, 政府的关系理解不是很充分, 再好好想想吧 , 再就是语言上, 觉得有些搭配, 用词都有点怪怪的. 加油加油!!]

so猫UID: 148633

最初由 will_forever 发布
[B]1.先说b2的例子问题，因为一时想不起有什么例子可以论证，所以就全篇在说理，我也知道例子的作用，可就是找不出来！sigh
2.recover是先恢复，thrive是繁荣，我的意思就是正在恢复，所以就畚想繁荣了，这样不通吗？
3.不过就第一段support和funding的问题，我倒是没注意到，因为我感觉上它们就是等同的
4.对neturality下个定义？这个我也没想过，应该就是等同于对宗教和媒体的吧，这算不算间接下了一个定义或范围呢？
[/B]

最后一贴
贴完就去上课

1. 例子问题我也是这样puzzle的 巨恶心 最后十来天 就努力想吧 想多少是多少 而且这个东西我觉得要靠灵感的 一想起来赶快记录下来
还有一个办法就是万用例子 这个我不喜欢 显得我没眼水 一般不用 懒惰的时候就用了

2. 这样看来些许就通了~~呵呵~~~刚刚我好象想叉了~

3. support是有精神上和物质上的 funding一般是指经济上吧 我觉得 在这里 两者的延伸意义不同吧~~~
你想 中国support民众去钓鱼岛 和中国fund民众去钓鱼岛 这个感觉好象就完全不一样了吧~

4. 间接下定义要小心咧 除非所有人都知道两点之间直线最短 否则这种neutrality不同人肯定有不同的尺度 是听之任之 还是保持中立态度但不放弃管理的权利 还是别的怎么怎么样 这个里面玩意多着呢
而且不同国家对宗教态度是不同D
还是给个限定比较好吧~~~~

呵呵 个人看法~
偶闪~~~
又快迟到了 sigh~~

G猫UID: 192988

猫猫加油, 快跑~

我睡会~困哪.
shanshan, 我改了一中午咧,
怎么谢我, 是不是要带好吃的给我呀, 哈哈.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

Issue85 第10篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间：70分1秒 750 words
从2005年2月8日8时30分到2005年2月8日9时82分
------题目------
Government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
------正文------
While it is generally recognized that the arts should get support from the government, in fact what the government do to the arts will bring many negative effects to the arts, even more to the society. 【这半句感觉多余，或者你是想引申到社会的问题，不会偏离题目吗？】 The attitude of the government should be neutral the same as to the religion and the press. There are some factors that can support my viewpoint. 【观点模糊啊，neutral attitude指的是什么啊，不资助艺术？还是资助而不干涉？观点一定要明确的，注意】

In the first place, support of the government will threaten the integrity of the arts. 【咦？题目整个说的都是这个啊，你把它做为分论点了？那你下面说什么啊？】 We may agree that what the artists need most is the freedom of the self-expression, which will make the arts advancement and produce many good quality works. If supported by the government, the artists will be fettered by many regulations. Acquiring the support from the government will lead the arts politicized. Any government, whether communists or democratic, represents the dominating and coerce force. What they want is to build a favorable atmosphere to their rule, and then they will show their bias to the arts from their own viewpoint and choose to support the arts that cater to their needs. Thus, the arts sponsored by the government will lose the freedom of the self-expression, which is the basis of a real product of work. 【觉得你的论述太绝对了，其实题目用threaten 指的就是可能有危险，但是不是说已经造成危害，所以，你这里应该用较为缓和的语气来说，多用一些“可能”，少用一些“一定”】Take the Soviet nation as a supporting example. The Soviet leaders, imposing their will on the arts, were berated for their high-handed policy. Though the condition began to soften, the arts in the nation need a long time to recover, needless to say to thrive. 【觉得你的例子太泛泛，不具体，到底艺术怎么被损害了，损害到了什么样的程度都不清楚】Compared with the community【？】, the American government does not impose their force on the arts directly, but they should report to the Congress all about the programs that they support, including the arts. Thus, those artists, supported by the government, need to be documented in detail and give some feedbacks every a short time. This control, though indirectly, fetters the freedom of the artist the same as the community【？communistic】  countries. From here, once the artist are【is】 restricted by the regulations in detail, they will lose much than what they gain from the government. 【论述的部分感觉你说的是独裁的国家，例证的部分感觉苏联的不够具体，而美国的不知道是否是真实的情况，感觉也像是独裁的国家一般。觉得你需要修改一下语气和例子。】

Furthermore, after discussing the deficiency that engendered by the support of the government, we should consider the problem that whether the government should support the arts. 【我觉得这个论点应该在上一个之前】 Some people agree to the viewpoint that the arts need help from the government. They give many reasons that can support their view of point, Firstly, the arts culture can produce a better society and can get protection from the government. The second idea is that in the free-market, there exists no entrance for the high formers of the arts. The last idea is that some artists that cannot support themselves need the support of the government. However, we can adduce many factors against this standpoint. Improving the society? There is no clear and enough evidence that the arts have a connection with a better society. Lacking the outlets? The free-market today provides more chances and vocations to those talented people, making them can get better support from other jobs. Escaping the poverty? Even though they get rid of the poverty in the support of the government, they will get into a more complex trouble with those hierarch【？】 who administrate the supports to the artists. In this aspect, we can arrive to the agreement that the arts should not accept the support from the government. 【感觉你论证的很巧妙，首先自己把反对的意见缩小到三个可能，然后又用了新颖的排比自问自答来反驳，不过，觉得你说政府不应该资助艺术这个论点有点绝对，而且，感觉这个段落应该放在上段的前面】

The last thing I would like to advance and emphasize is that the solutions to the problems that who can give the help to those artists is obvious, that is the free-market. In other words, the free-market, as a leading force, can supply the artists lots of chances to support themselves. For one thing, the artists can get many well-paid employment in the society. Besides this, they can look for the wealth patrons, corporations and clients. The most important strength that they can get is from our public. We populace can buy some products with a better quality, take part in a concern, purse some books voluntarily in our peaceful means and processes. Therefore, the arts can better support themselves in such a free-market. 【论述的不错】

Taking into consideration all the factors that have been discussed above, it is not difficult to say what the arts need is a freedom space of self-expression far more than the support of the government which will restrict the development of the arts culture. Moreover, the problems of those artists, such as the personal matters that beleaguer Van Gogh and Mozart, for example, will be well solved in the free-market.

【首先，论点不清楚，后面也一直没有解释neutral的问题，而且，你开头的论点没能概括后面的内容。然后B1需要修改一下。最重要的问题是，我觉得你应该用更大的篇幅来论述你B1的论点，也就是题目的问题，B2B3的内容可以简略一点，要围绕着重点问题来论述的。加油！争取下次限时成功！】