ISSUE185 同主题 请大家看看（我的第一篇Issue）

nathandUID: 2268462

ISSUE185 - "Scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."
我的提纲：
1 丑闻可以使人们跟多的关注一些被人们忽视的现象
2 丑闻使人们更加谨慎，不再盲目相信一些人，如权威人士
3 丑闻是的一些本来很有前途的人被抛弃
words:458

Thanks to the technological modernization of communication, more and more scandals seem to be overflowing the media-either newspapers or televisions and radios, straining the trust of the public. Fundamentally but not totally do I agree with the assertion of the speaker that scandals can be useful, focusing the attention of the public.

On the one hand, obviously, scandals-whichever fields they are in-draw people’s attention to particular issues effectively and helpfully. A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, mostly one possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention. It is always the scandalous cases that focus people’s attention on a certain thing which used to be overlooked or neglected unintentionally in the past. The case of Woo Suk Hwang, a famous South Korean cloning researcher, validates this point of view. If it is not for the very case of Hwang, the phenomenon of scientific fraud is not likely to gain such public fixation albeit it does not hide itself from either the scientists or the public in spite of the appeal of some scientific workers. In cases like this, scandals do function in a more effective and useful way in focusing the attention of the public that no speaker or reformer could match.

What is more, scandals are also likely to alert people of the excessive trust they are consigning to certain kinds of persons, urging them to be more cautious. It is common that sometimes people excessively trust some authorities in a indiscreet way. The Enron scandal, serves as a perfect example, compromising the long-established reputation of the Wall Street stock analysts and leading successfully the investors to wander whether they should trust corporations, auditors, or stock analysts.

On the other hand, scandals can be of destructive effects, while being useful on some other occasions. Certain scandals of some figures might ruin them by leading people to focus mainly on the wrong deeds they perpetrate, overlooking their great contributions to the society they make or the prominent performance they have rendered. Ben Johnson, the Canadian track athlete, makes the responding case. The athlete, who might be the potential world-record breaker, was ruined by his use of steroids, a performance-enhancing drug, which caused the withdrawal of financial support for him and ended his career as a runner.

In sum, scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful in that they could focus people’s attention on things deserve it but not given yet in a more effective way and with more efficiency than the speakers or reformers could do. However, scandals, like coins, could also cause ineluctable losses as they solve the problems focusing attention of the public, exerting themselves in a harmful way.

写得时间比较长，好像字数也不太多，希望大家能找找错，看看有什么地方不够恰当的。
谢谢。



[ 本帖最后由 nathand 于 2007-2-14 21:25 编辑 ]

nicaishibiantaiUID: 2259558

Thanks to the technological modernization of communication, more and more scandals seem to teem the media, either newspapers or televisions and radios, straining the trust of the public. 这两句之间似乎不够连冠Fundamentally but not totally do I agree with the assertion of the speaker that scandals can be useful by means of focusing the attention of the public.

On the one hand, obviously, scandals-whichever fields they are in-draw people’s attention to particular issues effectively and helpfully. A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, mostly one possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention. It is always the scandalous cases involving popular figures that focuses focus people’s attention on a certain thing which used to be overlooked or neglected unintentionally in the past. The case of Woo Suk Hwang, a famous South Korean cloning researcher, validates this point of view. If it is not for for 后应该界句子把the very case of Hwang, the phenomenon of scientific fraud is not likely to gain such public fixation albeit it does not hide itself from either the scientists or the public in spite of the appeal of some scientific workers. In cases like this, scandals do function in a more effective and useful way in focusing the attention of the public that no speaker or reformer could match.
这一段，popular figures和论点有点跑提，例子还可以这样据，但是不用说“involving popular figures”虽然都是再说丑闻，那个例子可以不用交代这
What is more, scandals are also likely to alert people of the excessive trust they are consigning to certain kinds of persons, urging them to be more cautious. It is common that sometimes people excessively trust some authorities in a indiscreet way. 应该加解释来证明段论点，如：yet due to these scandals peope no more regard these persons as unblameble...The Enron scandal, serves as a perfect example, compromising the long-established reputation of the Wall Street stock analysts and leading successfully the investors to wander whether they should trust corporations, auditors, or stock analysts.

On the other hand, scandals can be of destructive effects, while being useful on some other occasions. Certain scandals of some figures might ruin them by leading people to focus mainly on the wrong deeds they perpetrate, overlooking这句话不太合适，容易让人误解为scandal is the subject of overlook their great contributions to the society they make or the prominent performance they have rendered. Ben Johnson, the Canadian track athlete, makes the responding case. The athlete, who might be the  potential world-record breaker, was ruined by his use of steroids, a performance-enhancing drug, which caused the withdrawal of financial support for him and ended his career as a runner.

In sum, scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful in that they could focus people’s attention on things deserve it but not given yet in a more effective way and with more efficiency than the speakers or reformers could do. However, scandals, like coins, could also cause ineluctable losses as they solve the problems focusing attention of the public, exerting themselves in a harmful way.

词汇还是很高级的，如果不是差词霸的话，真得很让人佩服。但是很多长句子，比如从句中还套着分词短语等，让人分不清楚主谓了，不容易看懂，像是绕迷宫一样。也许外国人读了会清楚一点。李子很丰富，我要想你学习了

nathandUID: 2268462

哥们说的很中肯啊，一定改。盖了后再贴上来。真是太感谢你了！
我也搞不懂，怎么一上来就那么多长句子，可能是我说话时候一句话就是很长的吧，有机会的话我得找个老外看看，呵呵，不过我现在还是得改，我也觉得太多长句了，呵呵

nathandUID: 2268462

我写的时间比较长，大约两三天，写一段就干别的去了，淹没在了王洛给我带来的巨大信息里面，呵呵，看到有意思的新闻就去看看，都是些没用的东西，你可以弄个百科全书什么的，

nathandUID: 2268462

Thanks to the technological modernization of communication, more and more scandals seem to be overflowing the media-either newspapers or televisions and radios, straining the trust of the public. On this issue, the speaker asserts that scandals, focusing the attention of the public, can be useful, fundamentally but not totally do I agree with the assertion.

On the one hand, obviously, scandals-whichever fields they are in-draw people’s attention to particular issues effectively and helpfully. A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, mostly one possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention. It is always the scandalous cases that focus people’s attention on a certain thing which used to be overlooked or neglected unintentionally in the past. The case of Woo Suk Hwang, a famous South Korean cloning researcher, validates this point of view. If it is not for the very case of Hwang, the phenomenon of scientific fraud is not likely to gain such public fixation albeit it does not hide itself from either the scientists or the public in spite of the appeal of some scientific workers. In cases like this, scandals do function in a more effective and useful way in focusing the attention of the public that no speaker or reformer could match.

What is more, scandals are also likely to alert people of the excessive trust they are consigning to certain kinds of persons, urging them to be more cautious. It is common that sometimes people excessively trust some authorities in an indiscreet way, yet due to such scandals the situation is improving. The Enron scandal serves as a perfect example, compromising the long-established reputation of the Wall Street stock analysts and leading successfully the investors to wander whether they should trust corporations, auditors, or stock analysts.

On the other hand, scandals can be of destructive effects, while being useful on some other occasions. Certain scandals of some figures might ruin them by leading people to focus mainly on the wrong deeds they perpetrate, with the great contributions to the society they make or the prominent performance they have rendered put aside. Ben Johnson, the Canadian track athlete makes the responding case. The athlete, who might be the potential world-record breaker, was ruined by his use of steroids, a performance-enhancing drug, which caused the withdrawal of financial support for him and ended his career as a runner.

In sum, scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful in that they could focus people’s attention on things deserve it but not given yet in a more effective way and with more efficiency than the speakers or reformers could do. However, scandals, like coins, could also cause ineluctable losses as they solve the problems, exerting themselves in a harmful way.

不知道你说的高级词汇是哪些，说说看，我看看我又没有查字典，不记得了，呵呵。
不过teem这个词我是用错了，检查语法的时候发现的。
你能不能把比较绕的句子指出来，我看看我会不回改，有的句子真的得用长句表达，我还不一定会用短句子，可能我的水平还不到家，呵呵

panmhUID: 2278800

写得好啊，一处小纰漏， at the end of the 3rd paragragh: leading sb. to wander whether/
几个打字的小毛病，少个逗号呀，破折号少摁一下呀。

I appreciate the 3 examples you put forward to substantiate the 3 different claims and
it is likely that you arrange them with great care by delicately introduing each of them with sentences like,
The case of Woo Suk Hwang... validates this point of view.
The Enron scandal serves as a perfect example.
Ben Johnson, the Canadian track athlete makes the responding case.

If you could finish it within 45 minuyes, the practice on writing definitely deserves 6
points .:loveliness:

panmhUID: 2278800

还有一处请赐教，either A or B and C, at the 2nd line of the 1st paragragh.

nicaishibiantaiUID: 2259558

1，A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, mostly one possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention."mostly one possessing "这句话的语法我不太懂，one应该指的市scandal，既然主语一致，为什么还要加一个one呢，应该直接家补充修饰就可以了
2 The Enron scandal, serves as a perfect example, compromising the long-established reputation of the Wall Street stock analysts and leading successfully the investors to wander whether they should trust corporations, auditors, or stock analysts.个人认为，serving as..., compromises...and leads...会议懂一些，加了很长的分词短语，虽然愈发没错，但是有点别扭
outrage fixation steroids 都是我插词典出来的，敬佩，还有很多词都是建了认识不会用级别的
另外，“哥们“，呵呵第一次听人这么叫

nathandUID: 2268462

Enron 的例子是查了之后发现很符合的，所以拿来用了，第三个例子最费力了，因为我以为是刘易斯服了兴奋剂，但是怎么艘也搜不到刘易斯的丑闻，后来才发现是ben johnson. 我虽然例子用得很好，但是都是查到的，自己没有积累，写得很慢，我觉得关键就是积累例子

either A or B and C，出自 either A or B，意思是不管是a还是b, here B and C==b

nathandUID: 2268462

A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, mostly one possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention. one==an organization or a person,我想应该改成这样就好了：
A scandal is usually a disclosure of a disgraceful thing causing public outrage or censure of an organization or a person, who is always possessing authority and consuming much of the public’s attention.
outrage 是scandal 的定义里面的词，拿来用的，steroids是在查例子的时候看到的，我以前也不知道。
不过serving as..., compromises...and leads...有些罗嗦了吧，那么多谓语，我觉得谓语太多了，所以后面两个改成定语了。不过确实比较长，不过也无所谓了，反正是最后一句话，呵呵，我确实想不出更好的了，我慢慢焐吧，文章有的词都是慢慢想出来的，因为我用得时间较长，所以可能词汇就会改来改去，想到好的就马上替换了，真正写的时候未必有时间针刺酌句

nathandUID: 2268462

哦 对了，“哥们”这个词也用错了，呵呵