issue142机警高频,我写的好象是典型的走题作文,大家帮我评评,谢谢[周年祝福]

kkytUID: 188814

142 "The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
142．当许多公民质疑权威的时候，社会才能更富强。
提纲：观点社会是否能得到繁荣取决于政府对待质疑的态度。
1、        当政府能够接纳群众的质疑并改正问题的话，社会会向前发展。如美国。
2、        当政府对群众的声音压制时，就会引起社会恶化，甚至灭亡。如前苏联。
3、        确实，一些偾世疾俗者，会煽动不明群众进行攻击政府，政府不应该被动完全接受群众的意见。


Respecting President Franklin Roosevelt's famous address to congress, the four freedoms that we still cherished now, every one of us has the freedom of speech. Is the well-being of a society enhanced when may of its people question authorities as the speakers' claim? In my opinion, it all depends on how the authority responses on people's question.

Questions and critics may promote the progress of society, if they are accepted and corrected by the government accurately. Critics serve as the negative feedback to conciliate the problems and resentments existing in society. Take the prosperity of American education as example. Thanks to the comments of the teachers and students on the problems in education, the government had realized the consequence of the educational issues and enacted the project of “America 2000: an educational strategy” that aims at increasing the educational appropriation and improving the quality of the education. Obviously, the education of US went into boom soon. It is no denying that the US government known that critics meant improvement and progress. In fact, America has always been nourished by men and women who are not afraid to go against the grain.

However, the society may make for worse even collapse if the government took measures to suppress the voice of people rather than solve these problems. Suppose that if the America government refused to adopt the suggestions and questions of the teachers and students, if the problems of education could not be solved properly, how would the education of US like today? History is laded with this kind of examples that support my assertion. The collapse of Soviet Union is a good illustration. As we know, in 1980’s, the former Soviet Union government executed autocracy which the power is mastered by the single party and the authorities made efforts to eliminate the grouse and murmur among the people. In the end, the conflict and problems accumulated into acme and thus the revolution broke out and overthrown the government. Similarly, the restriction of speech and the literacy inquisition led the Qing Dynasty (1644-1901) to wrack and ruin. Thus, under the high pressure of government, critics and questions would bring more about the turbulence and turmoil of society not let alone prosperity.      

Admittedly, government should not accept people’s question and critics passively without any scrutiny. For one hand, since some laws or economic polices are too professional to be understood by common people, certain comments and question may be evoked accordingly. For the other hand, it is no denying that under certain circumstances, most of people’s critics were provoked by few cynical persons. Moreover, these exaggerations may evoke a panic in demos. For this account, government must resort to the strict censorship to prevent such irrational critics disseminated by the mass media.

In sum, whether the critics can serve as the “lube” which promotes the advance of well-being or the “obstacle” which impedes social stability was determined by the attitudes and methods the government adopt. Only the authorities take proper measures to settle these problems, can the society tend toward prosperity.

天晴了UID: 201592

not only 没跑题 but also original

扎一看，觉得是跑了
常规写法：
agree：公民置疑－》社会富强   
或者
disagree：公民置疑－》不会影响社会富强   或者  公民置疑－》社会动乱 反而不能well－being     


群众置疑，社会会向前发展，
因为：
1，从政府角度来说：得到群众的质疑，是政府发现问题改正问题的前提；
2，从民众角度来说：体现了民众对政府的重视 对国家的关注。充分调动起了群众的积极性
Admittedly，让步
当然有时候，群众置疑，引起社会恶化，甚至灭亡。当政府对群众的声音压制时。

但是后来一想 觉得楼主思路很新颖 而我就有点“套中人”了

Respecting President Franklin Roosevelt's famous address to congress, the four freedoms that we still cherished now, every one of us has the freedom of speech. Is the well-being of a society enhanced when may of its people question authorities as the speakers' claim? 【【和freedom关系连不上 改下So is the well-being of a society enhanced when may of its people utilize their freedom mentioned above to question authorities as the speakers' claim? 】】In my opinion, it all depends on how the authority responses on to people's question. 【【清楚明白】】

Questions and critics may promote the progress of society, if they are accepted and corrected by the government accurately. 【【TS到位了】】Critics serve as the negative feedback to conciliate the problems and resentments existing in society. 【【第一个原因分析】】Take the prosperity of American education as example. Thanks to the comments of the teachers and students on the problems in education, the government had realized the consequence of the educational issues and enacted the project of “America 2000: an educational strategy” that aims at increasing the educational appropriation and improving the quality of the education. Obviously, the education of US went into boom soon. It is no denying that the US government known that critics meant improvement and progress. In fact, America has always been nourished by men and women who are not afraid to go against the grain.【能不能再来一些理论的分析，要不觉的有点单薄  1，从政府角度来说：得到群众的质疑，是政府发现问题改正问题的前提；2，从民众角度来说：体现了民众对政府的重视 对国家的关注。充分调动起了群众的积极性】

However, the society may make for worse even collapse if the government took measures to suppress the voice of people rather than solve these problems. Suppose that if the America government refused to adopt the suggestions and questions of the teachers and students, if the problems of education could not be solved properly, how would the education of US【【 thrive/ prosper/flourish 】】like today? History is laded with this kind of examples that support my assertion. The collapse of Soviet Union is a good illustration. As we know, in 1980’s, the former Soviet Union government executed autocracy which the power is mastered by the single party and the authorities made efforts to eliminate the grouse and murmur among the people. In the end, the conflict and problems accumulated into acme and thus the revolution broke out and overthrown the government. Similarly, the restriction of speech and the literacy inquisition led the Qing Dynasty (1644-1901) to wrack and ruin. Thus, under the high pressure of government, critics and questions would bring more about the turbulence and turmoil of society not let alone prosperity. 【【 最大有点 论证方法多 正反都有 不错 】】

Admittedly, government should not accept people’s question and critics passively without any scrutiny. For one hand, since some laws or economic polices are too professional to be understood by common people, certain comments and question may be evoked accordingly. For the other hand, it is no denying that under certain circumstances, most of people’s critics were provoked by few cynical persons. Moreover, these exaggerations may evoke a panic in demos. For this account, government must resort to the strict censorship to prevent such irrational critics disseminated by the mass media.
【【Admittedly, government should not accept people’s question and critics passively without any scrutiny.  跑了 这个是真跑了 case by case 已经不用再admittedly了 】】

In sum, whether the critics can serve as the “lube” which promotes the advance of well-being or the “obstacle” which impedes social stability was determined by the attitudes and methods the government adopt. Only the authorities take proper measures to settle these problems, can the society tend toward prosperity.
【【 结尾没提admittedly的事情 好 ！！！ 看来你也意识到B3没什么positive意义了啦  结尾不错 清楚明白 】】

Mars3000UID: 198477

142 "The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
142．当许多公民质疑权威的时候，社会才能更富强。
提纲：观点社会是否能得到繁荣取决于政府对待质疑的态度。
1、 当政府能够接纳群众的质疑并改正问题的话，社会会向前发展。如美国。
2、 当政府对群众的声音压制时，就会引起社会恶化，甚至灭亡。如前苏联。
3、 确实，一些偾世疾俗者，会煽动不明群众进行攻击政府，政府不应该被动完全接受群众的意见。


Respecting President Franklin Roosevelt's famous address to congress, the four freedoms that we still cherished now, every one of us has the freedom of speech. Is the well-being of a society enhanced when may of its people question authorities as the speakers' claim?【回应原题了，但似乎力度不够，如果改成it is hard to give a clear conclusion as it al---也许会减轻写兄台跑题的嫌疑】 In my opinion, it all depends on how the authority responses on people's question.

Questions and critics may promote the progress of society, if they are accepted and corrected by the government accurately. Critics serve as the negative feedback to conciliate the problems and resentments existing in society. Take the prosperity of American education as example. Thanks to the comments of the teachers and students on the problems in education, the government had realized the consequence of the educational issues and enacted the project of “America 2000: an educational strategy” that aims at increasing the educational appropriation and improving the quality of the education. Obviously, the education of US went into boom soon. It is no denying that the US government known that critics meant improvement and progress. In fact, America has always been nourished by men and women who are not afraid to go against the grain.

However, the society may make for worse even collapse if the government took measures to suppress the voice of people rather than solve these problems. Suppose that if the America government refused to adopt the suggestions and questions of the teachers and students, if the problems of education could not be solved properly, how would the education of US like today?【这么写不行啊，是变好还是不好？不能让读者猜啊。这是个典型的中式写法，也许国人还能明白，估计老美肯定晕了 】History is laded with this kind of examples that support my assertion. The collapse of Soviet Union is a good illustration. As we know, in 1980’s, the former Soviet Union government executed autocracy which the power is mastered by the single party and the authorities made efforts to eliminate the grouse and murmur among the people. In the end, the conflict and problems accumulated into acme and thus the revolution broke out and overthrown the government. Similarly, the restriction of speech and the literacy inquisition led the Qing Dynasty (1644-1901) to wrack and ruin【清这个例子没有展开，词语用的也不够准确，对分论点的支持十分有限】. Thus, under the high pressure of government, critics and questions would bring more about the turbulence and turmoil of society not let alone prosperity.

Admittedly, government should not accept people’s question and critics passively without any scrutiny. For one hand, since some laws or economic polices are too professional to be understood by common people, certain comments and question may be evoked accordingly. For the other hand, it is no denying that under certain circumstances, most of people’s critics were provoked by few cynical persons. Moreover, these exaggerations may evoke a panic in demos. For this account, government must resort to the strict censorship to prevent such irrational critics disseminated by the mass media.【这段似乎扯的远了。个人感觉这里应该紧扣主题谈鉴于以上论证为了促进社会进步，政府应该采取何种态度；而不是继续纠缠于政府该听什么，不该听什么。要知道本文的主题是谈挑战政府权威与社会进步，你基于政府的态度展开已经是剑走偏锋，让人看了战战兢兢，可千万不能走的过远】

In sum, whether the critics can serve as the “lube” which promotes the advance of well-being or the “obstacle” which impedes social stability was determined by the attitudes and methods the government adopt. Only the authorities take proper measures to settle these problems, can the society tend toward prosperity.

首先是对没有发现兄台多日前的回文表示强烈的歉意，小弟这里赔罪了。
感觉兄台的行文比较流畅，不过基于所选择的立意，论证是一定要多加小心。
小弟水平很凹，这里胡言乱语，不当之出还望兄台多加担待。