Issue70 Liquidshile--Hamming组 冲刺作业第一次 总第八篇 留链互拍感激不尽！

liquidshileUID: 2254332

Issue70
“In any professions—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years. The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
outline：
1. 在政治领域任期很重要，防止腐败... 独裁，带来新的更明智的政策.....
2. 不应该限制在5年内，太死板
3. 再教育领域，很多学术权威和大学的领导者都回在位很长时间
4. 在经济领域，经理人的在位时间和时否需要替换要靠市场规律的决定
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WORDS: 627  

Modern nations found democratic mechanism for replacement of power. Although I agree that changing leader in fixed term is valuable for holding justice and efficiency of government, the statement overstates the available range and the term is too extreme to be limited in 5 years. In my perspective, whether leaders need to be changed depend on the actual situation of the enterprise.

It is true that changing leadership within fixed terms would make the government more effective and keep it away from corruption, bureaucracy as well as autarchy and the like. New leader would be able to bring innovative spirit, new views as well as courage, which the old one may have lost. Anyone who stays in the most powerful position of a country in along time would lead to disaster of economy, politics even humanism. The great tragedy happened in Iraq, Saddam, authoritarian president of Iraq, who led Iraq into two devastating wars, made hundreds of thousands people died. He controled Iraq more than two decades, under his brutal control anyone who was thought to threaten his authority in Iraq would be arrested, exiled and killed. There is no freedom and choice right for Iraq people. In contrast, the typical example is stated democratic election of American president. When Nixon became the new leader of America, he changed the old diplomatic policies, make a wise decision to visit China. His visit improved the relationship between two countries and helped cease the antagonism begun two decades earlier. Obviously, replacement of leadership is premise and insurance for the democratic and healthy advance in politics and government.

Nevertheless, although changing a new leader would be able to bring a field new blood, it is too extreme to limit the leader’s term in 5years. We appeal to more flexible terms in certain cases. As we know, American president have another opportunity to be elected if he gets the credit of citizens as a civil servants. It is better for wise policies continuing. Go back to the example of Nixon. In his second administration he resumed his political ambition, negotiated with North Vietnam, got a cease-fire agreement ultimately. He achieved his unfinished goal---bring American soldiers home. If execute 5 years limitation strictly, American persidents would have not finished their sencond 4-year term.

In university and scientific institute, academic authorities, who have great achievement and rich teaching experience, are preferred to continue their leadership even they have been serviced several decades. Besides, education is a long-term enterprise to nurture young people. As a result, president and deans of university are incumbent to devote themselves into teaching. Take Harvard for example, Harvard has steadily developed under some great educators, majority of whom in the position of power for more than two decades.

Furthermore, it is unwise for changing a manager in fixed 5 years in a company. Modern enterprises generally consist of large corporation, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders. A capable manager, who has ability of leading his or her team to largest profit, could be encouraged to continue staying in the manager position. Others, who were defeated in the competition of market, would have lost their position. Yamauchi, who changing Nintendo from a small company manufacturing playing card to a leading manufacturer of home video-game system, managed the company for about half century. This example is vivid to convince us that there is no need to draw a limitation on term of leadership in economic organizations.

As discussed above, we are aware that leader’s term is crucial for efficiency of government. In certain cases, like education and economy, we need flexible programs to guide the leadership in profession. After all, Wise leader is important for us to make great breakthrough in modern society.


[ 本帖最后由 liquidshile 于 2007-1-15 20:12 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

seat taken

expire7UID: 2160574

Modern nations found democratic mechanism for replacement of power.（第一句话和后面几乎失去联系。虽然不能说毫无意义，不过看不出来有什么作用。） Although I agree that changing leader in fixed term is valuable for holding justice and efficiency of government（我觉得你一开始就把自己限定在government不是好的方法。你这里如果说，such as government都要好一点，也就是说你某种程度某个条件下同意题目观点。现在你这样虽然不能说偏题，不过有嫌疑。毕竟，题目没有 government.此外，你限制了你之后的思路扩展。如果，你写成比如说政府，就是一个不错的开题。）, the statement overstates the available range and the term is too extreme to be limited in 5 years. In my perspective, whether leaders need to be changed depend on the actual situation of the enterprise. （开头段格式和写法没有问题，不过犯了错误。首先，题目第二句完全没有呼应。为何作者有这个观点？是因为第二句的铺垫，新领导才能革新而且保证成功。从第一段，不看后面考官就会定性你可以得到几分了。请参考一下别人的提纲

Limiting the term of leadership is an effective way to prevent corruption and lack of initiatives.

1.       When leaders have no fear of losing their power, they tend to abuse their power.

2.       A new leadership usually has greater initiative and would bring in new ideas.

3.       However, in certain realms such as business it might not be so necessary to limit the term of leadership.

4.       Furthermore, new leaders often lack the necessary skill and experience to cope with existing problems; therefore, they need a period of time for adaptation.

你比较一下别人提纲和你的。其实你们差别不大，就是中间的过渡对方更呼应题目。）


It is true that changing leadership within fixed terms would make the government more effective and keep it away from corruption, bureaucracy as well as autarchy and the like. New leader would be able to bring innovative spirit, new views as well as courage, which the old one may have lost. Anyone who stays in the most powerful position of a country in along time would lead to disaster of economy, politics even humanism（过于绝对）. The great tragedy happened in Iraq, Saddam, authoritarian president of Iraq, who led Iraq into two devastating wars, made hundreds of thousands people died. He controled（单词错） Iraq more than two decades, under his brutal control anyone who was thought to threaten his authority in Iraq would be arrested, exiled and killed. There is no freedom and choice right for Iraq people. In contrast, the typical example is stated democratic election of American president. When Nixon became the new leader of America, he changed the old diplomatic policies, make a wise decision to visit China. His visit improved the relationship between two countries and helped cease the antagonism begun two decades earlier. （这两个例子不能呼应。至少从你写的看来。你第一个例子是从long time出发的。第二个如果对比，那么应该说Nixon前任如何，是不是什么问题无法解决，nixon上来就解决了。）Obviously, replacement of leadership is premise and insurance for the democratic and healthy advance in politics and government.（过于绝对化，insurance不好。）


Nevertheless, although changing a new leader would be able to bring a field new blood, it is too extreme to limit the leader’s term in 5years. We appeal to more flexible terms in certain cases. As we know, American president have another opportunity to be elected if he gets the credit of citizens as a civil servants. It is better for wise policies continuing. Go back to the example of Nixon. In his second administration he resumed his political ambition, negotiated with North Vietnam, got a cease-fire agreement ultimately. He achieved his unfinished goal---bring American soldiers home. If execute 5 years limitation strictly, American persidents would have not finished their sencond 4-year term. （这个例子和陈述都不错。不过最好点明为何美国总统会有第二次机会。虽然大家懂你意思。但是现在不是谈恋爱，直率点。考官没时间去考虑你的潜台词。）


In university and scientific institute, academic authorities, who have great achievement and rich teaching experience, are preferred to continue their leadership even they have been serviced several decades.（这个开头不好。其实后面2个，甚至3个 body都是并列的领域例子。不能按照独立的body段落那样写了。写简单点的句子。） Besides, education is a long-term enterprise to nurture young people. As a result, president and deans of university are incumbent to devote themselves into teaching. Take Harvard for example, Harvard has steadily developed under some great educators, majority of whom in the position of power for more than two decades.


Furthermore, it is unwise for changing a manager in fixed 5 years in a company. Modern enterprises generally consist of large corporation, whose chief objective is to maximize profits for their shareholders. A capable manager, who has ability of leading his or her team to largest profit, could be encouraged to continue staying in the manager position. Others, who were defeated in the competition of market, would have lost their position. Yamauchi, who changing Nintendo from a small company manufacturing playing card to a leading manufacturer of home video-game system, managed the company for about half century. This example is vivid to convince us that there is no need to draw a limitation on term of leadership in economic organizations.(乍看之下，似乎例子都没问题。的确也不错，不过你忽略了题目后半句话，始终让你的例子不够呼应题目。我觉得，这里谈公司，可以提到。虽然没有创意的不能找到新的经济增长点的经理应该替换，但是不代表做了很多年的经理都不能找到创新的道路，带来革新，使公司长时间成功下去。而你举例子是某个人坐他的位置很多年。如果是个家族公司呢？如果对方不介意经济增长呢？逻辑上还不够严密。)


As discussed above, we are aware that leader’s term is crucial for efficiency of government. In certain cases, like education and economy, we need flexible programs to guide the leadership in profession. After all, Wise leader is important for us to make great breakthrough in modern society.（结尾离题50步，需要修改）

没看过你其他文章，只从这篇文章来说。
优点:
语言，词汇都不错。应该算是及格的AW写作要求了。
例子用的都不常见，准备得不错。不过body写的不吸引人，很平淡。

缺点：
逻辑不严密。
对文章的控制能力不够，尤其长文章这是一个常见的毛病。写着写着就跑题。
对题目审题不够好。
结尾还不行。

毛病都是容易改进的地方，应该可以取得好成绩的。加油。我无法用其他颜色给你标记了，麻烦你自己挑着看了。:rolleyes:



[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-1-15 21:31 编辑 ]

liquidshileUID: 2254332

狂感谢老大的修改
终于有权威的批评了
我是hamming组的，我在贴几个多来，请老大多多修改，辛苦辛苦！！