issue36

znenancyUID: 2178975

issue 36
by NINFAt
*****************************************************************
"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, bu
t not their contemporaries.”
*****************************************************************
It is not necessarily the case that the greatness of individuals could be decided solely by those who live after them. Individuals, with either greater contributions or greater drawbacks, all left behind them traces of existence. Bystanders are fully aware of the qualities of these individuals. Thus it is natural that the individuals could be evaluated either by their contemporaries or followers.

Celebrities such as Nobel Prize laureates, who are highly thought of by contemporaries, achieve their prizes when they are still contributing to the world. Take Madam Curie for example, she is laureated as the Nobel Prize winner twice in her life time.  Meanwhile, she is reputed by her sacrifice of wisdom and diligence to the development of science and technology and is invited to give speeches all over the world.  Besides Madam Curie, there are many other laureates who received fame and respect while they remain active and productive. It might be true that the followers' admiration toward these great scientists are the same as, if not more than, that of the contemporaries. It is still reasonable to conclude that the greatness of individuals could be decided by contemporaries.

The traits of the evaluation vary from different professions. This could be manifested by a comparison between artists and scientists. Vincent Van Gogh who is penniless and dies before his time receives little fame and recognition. But shortly after his death, when his style of painting became faddish, his once worthless works became masterpieces and could be auctioned to rocketing prices. There countless other artists who do not gain their fame until their death. This might simply due to the fact that arts are like fashions which keep changing with the trends among the audience. Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be appositely acknowledged in their life time as is illustrated in the paragraph above. This might due to the reason that science is more stable than arts and the standards are less flexible. Conclusively, individuals who run a career such as artists or other subjectively determined professions are likely to be acknowledged by their followers, while those who make a living in objectively determined areas are recognized by contemporaries.

Admittedly, the followers play an important role in recording and spreading the greatness of the individuals by means of bibliography and encyclopedia, which enable the followers to be more thorough and holistic on judging the greatness of the individuals. Historical figures, especially the kings, emperors, tend to be stainless in their reign. This phenomenon is intelligible for no one would criticize the powerful emperor. For instance, Napoleon is considered to be an almighty governor of France when he is at his thrown. But when he is described in bibliography or history textbooks, he became a man whose merits offset fault. No one is stainless. However, when an individual is still in power, the halo effect would prevent the contemporaries from examining the quality of this individual comprehensively. Thus it is up to the followers, when the halo has vanished, to depict and judge the individual from different perspectives.  

Individuals, be it an artist, a scientist, a historical figure, have all lived their life in front of their contemporaries or on the record presented to the followers. These traces would always enable observers to evaluate and decide the greatness of these individuals. For the reasons presented above, I would conclude that both the contemporaries and followers could decide the greatness of individuals.

[ 本帖最后由 znenancy 于 2006-2-18 10:56 编辑 ]

reffoUID: 2185625

1.结构清晰，每段论证还算充分。分论点不十分扣题
2.语言流畅，范文啊，我要是有这文笔，，，呵呵
3.例子很不错，我要借鉴下
It is not necessarily the case that the greatness of individuals could be decided solely by those who live after them. Individuals, with either greater contributions or greater drawbacks, all left behind them traces of existence.(看惯了模版作文，感觉这句好有新意！) Bystanders are fully aware of the qualities of these individuals. Thus it is natural that the individuals could be evaluated either by their contemporaries or followers.

Celebrities such as Nobel Prize laureates, who are highly thought of by contemporaries, achieve their prizes when they are still contributing to the world. （主题是伟大能被谁证明，说这些名人同时也做贡献不太扣题）Take Madam Curie for example, she is laureated as the Nobel Prize winner twice in her life time.  Meanwhile, she is reputed by her sacrifice of wisdom and diligence to the development of science and technology and is invited to give speeches all over the world.  Besides Madam Curie, there are many other laureates who received fame and respect while they remain active and productive. It might be true that the followers' admiration toward these great scientists are the same as, if not more than, that of the contemporaries. It is still reasonable to conclude that the greatness of individuals could be decided by contemporaries.

The traits of the evaluation vary from different professions. This could be manifested by a comparison between artists and scientists. Vincent Van Gogh who is penniless and dies before his time receives little fame and recognition. But shortly after his death, when his style of painting became faddish, his once worthless works became masterpieces and could be auctioned to rocketing prices. There countless other artists who do not gain their fame until their death. This might simply due to the fact that arts are like fashions which keep changing with the trends among the audience. Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be appositely acknowledged in their life time as is illustrated in the paragraph above. This might due to the reason that science is more stable than arts and the standards are less flexible. Conclusively, individuals who run a career such as artists （艺术家不能算职业名称）or other subjectively determined professions are likely to be acknowledged by their followers, while those who make a living in objectively determined areas are recognized by contemporaries.

Admittedly, the followers play an important role in recording and spreading the greatness of the individuals by means of bibliography and encyclopedia, which enable the followers to be more thorough and holistic on judging the greatness of the individuals. Historical figures, especially the kings, emperors, tend to be stainless in their reign. This phenomenon is intelligible for no one would criticize the powerful emperor. For instance, Napoleon is considered to be an almighty governor of France when he is at his thrown. But when he is described in bibliography or history textbooks, he became a man whose merits offset fault. No one is stainless. However, when an individual is still in power, the halo effect would prevent the contemporaries to examine the quality of this individual comprehensively. Thus it is up to the followers, when the halo has vanished, to depict and judge the individual from different perspectives.  

Individuals, be it an artist, a scientist, a historical figure, have all lived their life in front of their contemporaries or on the record presented to the followers. （漂亮的句子啊，明我也学）These traces would always enable observers to evaluate and decide the greatness of these individuals. For the reasons presented above, I would conclude that both the contemporaries and followers could decide the greatness of individuals.第三个分论点是admittedly，让步的话应该是支持一种的观点。结尾不光总结全文，我感觉最好可以develop下

[ 本帖最后由 reffo 于 2006-2-16 23:05 编辑 ]

tiankongzlUID: 199874

It is not necessarily the case that the greatness of individuals could be decided solely by those who live after them. Individuals, with either greater contributions or greater drawbacks, all left behind them traces of existence. Bystanders are fully aware of the qualities of these individuals. Thus it is natural that the individuals could be evaluated either by their contemporaries or followers.

Celebrities such as Nobel Prize laureates, who are highly thought of by contemporaries, achieve their prizes when they are still contributing to the world. Take Madam Jurie for example, she is laureated as the Nobel Prize winner twice in her life time.  Meanwhile, she is reputed by her sacrifice of wisdom and diligence to the development of science and technology and is invited to give speeches all over the world.  Besides Madam Jurie, there are many other laureates who received fame and respect while they remain active and productive（这个。。）. It might be true that the followers' admiration toward these great scientists are the same as, if not more than, that of the contemporaries. It is still （多余吧）reasonable to conclude that the greatness of individuals could be decided by contemporaries.

The traits of the evaluation vary from different professions. This could be manifested by a comparison between artists and scientists. Van Cough who is penniless and dies before his time receives little fame and recognition. But shortly after his death, when his style of painting became faddish, his once worthless works became masterpieces and could be auctioned to rocketing prices. There （are）countless other artists who do not gain their fame until their death. This might simply due to the fact that arts are like fashions which keep changing with the trends among the audience. Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be appositely acknowledged in their life time as is illustrated in the paragraph above. This might due to the reason that science is more stable than arts and the standards are less flexible. Conclusively, individuals who run a career such as artists or other subjectively determined professions are likely to be acknowledged by their followers, while those who make a living in objectively determined areas are recognized by contemporaries. （好！）
Admittedly, the followers play an important role in recording and spreading the greatness of the individuals by means of bibliography and encyclopedia, which enable the followers to be more thorough and holistic on judging the greatness of the individuals. Historical figures, especially the kings, emperors, tend to be stainless in their reign. This phenomenon is intelligible for no one would criticize the powerful emperor. For instance, Napoleon is considered to be an almighty governor of France when he is at his thrown. But when he is described in bibliography or history textbooks, he became a man whose merits offset fault. No one is stainless. However, when an individual is still in power, the halo effect would prevent the contemporaries to examine the quality of this individual comprehensively. Thus it is up to the followers, when the halo has vanished, to depict and judge the individual from different perspectives.  

Individuals, be it an artist, a scientist, a historical figure, have all lived their life in front of their contemporaries or on the record presented to the followers. These traces would always enable observers to evaluate and decide the greatness of these individuals. For the reasons presented above, I would conclude that both the contemporaries and followers could decide the greatness of individuals.
语言句子没的说
结构上二，三段是不是互换一下Sample Text

donglinjieshiUID: 2164764

It is not necessarily the case that the greatness of individuals could be decided solely by those who live after them. Individuals, with either greater contributions or greater drawbacks, all left behind them traces of existence. Bystanders are fully aware of the qualities of these individuals. Thus it is natural that the individuals could be evaluated either by their contemporaries or followers.

Celebrities such as Nobel Prize laureates, who are highly thought of by contemporaries, achieve their prizes when they are still contributing to the world. Take Madam Jurie for example, she (is laureated as the Nobel Prize winner 感觉本段好多laureate) win Nobel Prize twice in her life time.  Meanwhile, she is reputed by her (sacrifice) contribution (of wisdom and diligence是否可以提到句首改成the wise and diligent female scientist) to the development of science and technology and is invited to give speeches all over the world.  Besides Madam Jurie, there are many other laureates who received fame and respect while they remain active and productive. It might be true that the followers' admiration toward these great scientists are the same as, if not more than, that of the contemporaries. It is still reasonable to conclude that the greatness of individuals could be decided by contemporaries. (后半段衔接可以更好一些)

The traits of the evaluation vary (from)among different professions. This could be manifested by a comparison between artists and scientists. Van Cough who is penniless and dies before his time receives little fame and recognition. But shortly after his death, when his style of painting became faddish, his once worthless works became masterpieces and could be auctioned to rocketing prices. (There countless other artists who do not gain their fame until their death.这句话可放在van cough例之前,van cough　可作为一个for example) This might simply due to the fact that arts are like fashions which keep changing (or which are constantly changing) with the trends among the audience. Scientists, on the other hand, are more likely to be appositely acknowledged in their life time as is illustrated in the paragraph above. This might due to the reason that science is more stable than arts and the standards are less flexible. Conclusively, individuals who run a career such as artists or other subjectively determined professions (subjectively determined professions　受主观影响的职业，不清楚是否有这样的表达) are likely to be acknowledged by their followers, while those who make a living in objectively determined areas (are inclined to be)/(tend to be)/(are possibly to be) recognized by contemporaries.

Admittedly, the followers play an important role in recording and spreading the greatness of the individuals by means of bibliography and encyclopedia, which enable the followers (to be more thorough and holistic on judging the greatness of the individuals)好像thorough后常跟个名词所以改成to make a more thorough and holistic judgement of the greatness of the individuals. Although we know that nobody is perfect, historical figures such as those emperors, monarchs were always described by flatterers or cringers as stainless/faultless/flawless persons in their reign/in the periods during which they ruled. ( Historical figures, especially the kings, emperors, tend to be stainless in their reign. This phenomenon is intelligible for no one would criticize the powerful emperor. )For instance, Napoleon is considered to be an almighty governor of France when he is at his thrown(crown?)(不清楚有没有这种说法at one’s crown). But when he is described in bibliography or history textbooks, he became a man whose merits offset fault.( No one is stainless提到前面说了). However, when an individual is still in power, the halo effect would prevent the contemporaries (to examine) from examining the quality of this individual comprehensively (觉得however这句跟上文不太match,仅供参考). Thus it is up to the followers, when the halo has vanished, to depict and judge the individual from different perspectives.  

Individuals, be it an artist, a scientist, a historical figure, have all lived their life in front of their contemporaries or on the record presented to the followers. These traces would always enable observers to evaluate and decide the greatness of these individuals. For the reasons presented above, I would conclude that both the contemporaries and followers could decide the greatness of individuals.
       
因而改的多是谢细节，仅供参考
建议句与句之间，段与段之间可多用些关联词
呵呵