issue97 51互助小组第3次作业 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

TOPIC: ISSUE 97 - "It is unfortunate but true that political decisions and activities affect all aspects of people's lives."
WORDS: 729          TIME: 1:00:00         DATE: 2007-6-2

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance.

Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority and federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasing permeated and effected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate exchange rate by even one percentage, and this inevitably will arouse short period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example, thus, political activities have more close effect with our daily lives.

However, it is not to state that political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. In reality, political powers only have their effect in macro aspects, as for concrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.

Further, on the contrary, the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" can best illustrate this point. If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign. Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.

To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level  putting all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.

On the other hand, it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality , many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities.

To sum up, political decisions and activities are either definitely agony the public's freedom of life,  nor effect all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing to some extent.



[ 本帖最后由 ruczephyr 于 2007-6-2 04:31 编辑 ]

tengda89757UID: 2327455

一眼望去水晶这次issue篇幅巨多，中间论述分了五段，相当恐怖！而且写的又是平衡观点，可能在实战中不太现实（就我来说太不现实了哈哈）。细看之后，作者在把握段与段之间的逻辑关系方面有着比较高的水准，不是一般同学的前半篇赞同后半篇反对的形式，而是支持affect all aspects -反对affect all aspects –反对unfortunate-支持unfortunate-反对unfortunate的形式，每一对正反组合都能表现出作者对一件事情的辩证思维。美中不足的是在第四段开头的on the contrary用的不是很好，三段政府并没有剥夺公民的一些自由和四段主题—政府听从群众意见并不是矛盾的。再就是开头段中没有与第三段的对应点。虽然在某些点上论证深度不够，但这也是平衡观点不可避免的。有一点小错误——第二段中increasing改为increasingly。最重要的一点就是水晶听从建议重装了word，这让我将注意力转移到了宏观的结构上而不是拼写和语法错误上，赞一个！！！总之，写的不错，不准骄傲，继续努力！

gluttonUID: 2330210

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance.

Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority and federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasing permeated and effected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate exchange rate by even one percentage, and this inevitably will arouse short period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example, thus, political activities have more close effect with our daily lives.

However, it is not to state that political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. In reality, political powers only have their effect in macro aspects, as for concrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.

Further, on the contrary, the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" can best illustrate this point. If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign. Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.（中间这段的作用是什么呢？个人感觉没有很好起到承上启下的作用，该段主要论述人们 的对political decision的影响，political decision不能忽略人们的意愿（强调the public的反作用），但是下面两段主要是在论述political decision 的正反两个作用，似乎与下面联系不大，而且该段与题目关联也不大）

To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level  putting all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.

On the other hand, it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality , many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities.

To sum up, political decisions and activities are either definitely agony the public's freedom of life,  nor effect all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing to some extent.
这是一篇很长的文章，总体来说还是很不错的，这种由题目分出两个分观点，而且都采用平衡观点来论述的文章确实比较少见，用词上感觉比前两篇好很多，前两篇感觉有些词用的不是很恰当，唯一没搞清楚的是中间那段的具体作用到底是什么，感觉与题目联系不大 。还有平衡观点不可避免的一点是在某些分论点的论述上会出现深度不够的缺陷。总而言之， 不错的一篇文章。
PS：前三篇都是平衡观点，期待lz一篇一边倒的文章



[ 本帖最后由 glutton 于 2007-6-2 19:04 编辑 ]

cy23UID: 2310318

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance.开头简洁明了

Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority andor federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasingincreasingly permeated and effectedaffected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate fluctuated exchange rate by even one percentage, and this inevitably will arouse ashort period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. 可以稍稍再展开一点，多说点对民众的影响，少说点政策会更好 And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example; thus, political activities have more close effect with our daily lives举了个银行调利息的例子.

However, it is not to state that political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. 建议改为extremely monotone In reality, political powers only have their effect in macro aspects, as for 换为whereasconcrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.感觉这段虽然也我的那篇有相似的意思，可是论述比我的深入多了
Further, 我也觉得on the contrary,用的有问题 the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" 有名言了，可是我想知道是不是只能用国外的谚语？国内的也能用吧？还有是不是只能用国外的例子？想讨教下can best illustrate this point. If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign. Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.这段论述很好,但是不是稍稍有些离题,虽说影响的确是相互的,但题目是政府活动对民众的影响.花一段写是否值得?,我个人觉得提一下就行了,没有必要花过多的篇幅

To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level putting all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step steped into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.

On the other hand, 不应该单独成一段吧？it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality, many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities. 这个例子很好

To sum up, political decisions and activities are eitherneither definitely agony换个动词 the public's freedom of life,  nor effect换个动词 all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing to some extent.结尾也简明扼要

总的说相当不错了,除了个别细节,其他都很完美
我要好好向你学习哦!上     一起加油!
BY小青蛙

[ 本帖最后由 cy23 于 2007-6-2 23:26 编辑 ]

TidusnakeUID: 2281340

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance.（看了开头就知道接下来，大概会写什么了）Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority and federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasing(应该是副词-ly吧) permeated and effected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate exchange rate by even one percentage, and this will inevitably  arouse short period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example, thus, political activities have more close effect with our daily lives.(more,跟谁比？)
这段说明政府的influence 确实存在However, it is not to state that political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. In reality, political powers only have their effect in macro aspects, as for concrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.
这段说明 influence不是all aspects 的Further, on the contrary（？？为什么相反）, the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" can best illustrate this point. If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign. Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.（这个互动关系提得好）觉得这个互动的关系可以作为下两段的主论点了
To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level  putting all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.政府不好的influence


On the other hand, it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality , many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities. （例子很好）政府好的influence

To sum up, political decisions and activities are either definitely agony the public's freedom of life,  nor effect all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing to some extent.


by Ian~~

[ 本帖最后由 Tidusnake 于 2007-6-3 00:15 编辑 ]

为了忘记UID: 2317994

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance.
Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority and[or] federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasing permeated and effected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate exchange rate by even one percentage, and this inevitably will arouse short period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example, thus, political activities have more close effect with our daily lives.
However, it is not to state that political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. In reality, political powers only have their effect in macro aspects, as for concrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.
Further, on the contrary, the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" can best illustrate this point. If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign. Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.
To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level  putting all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.
On the other hand, it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality , many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities.
To sum up, political decisions and activities are either[neither] definitely agony the public's freedom of life,  nor effect all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing to some extent.
[思路很清晰,也很全面,除了一些小的语法错误,看着楼主的文章真的感觉无比自卑啊,回头决定自己重写ISSUE97~~~]

[ 本帖最后由 为了忘记 于 2007-6-3 21:59 编辑 ]

candyylyUID: 2307493

说明：用蓝色字体表示写得好的，红色字体是修改意见

Is it a misfortune and dilemma that political decisions and activities have permeated in all aspects of people's daily lives? Concerning this issue, any extreme response would be improper. Fundamentally, I am prone to assert that it is true that politics has much influence on citizens' lives, however, such kind of influence has not permeated in every detail of our everyday lives, and further political activities and decisions are double-edged sword, which not only bring about restraints but also beneficial guide and assistance. 这段开头写得很棒啊

Obviously, in no matter countries of centralization of authority and federal countries, the decisions and political activities of the governments have increasing permeated and effected the lives of ordinary people. Consider, for instance, economical choices of one government are able to influence income of the public and daily commercial and financial activities. Suppose, the central bank has just only fluctuate exchange rate by even one percentage, and this inevitably will arouse short period of confusion and further relevant strategies to overcome the influence of such fluctuation. As for most ordinary citizens, they might choose to save money in the bank or check out to make purchases. And other aspects of daily lives would be very similar with this illustrating example, （；）thus, political activities have more close effect with (改on 好像更合适) our daily lives.

However, it is not to state that（这句看不太明白，还恳请你指教噢）political decisions and activities have deprived the originality and freedom of the public's daily lives. Suppose that all aspects of the lives are ruled and guided by authorities, the lives themselves would turn out to be extreme monotony. In reality, political powers only have their effect in （on）macro aspects, as for concrete life styles are more chosen by the public themselves. For example, political leaders do not have the authority to order hair styles or cloth fashions, and people can get dressed freely according to private disposition and esthetical favorite. 不但例子用得好，语言也很精彩啊佩服哦To such extent, citizens, though have to confirm with macro decisions of the authorities, still have enough spaces for their own choices.

Further, on the contrary, the governors can not neglect the voices and minds of the most ordinary citizens, and sometimes choices of the public will determine the decisions and activities of the political leaders. An old saying that" the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up" can best illustrate this point. 引用得很棒啊我该好好学学If certain political leaders imperiously make decisions in accordance with their own minds and tend to neglect response from the public, they might not only evoke grumbles but also enrage the crowd to overturn their reign.用词非常精彩啊 Consequently, the relation between government and the public is mutual minds exchange rather than only one-sided obeisance.这段从另一个角度阐述政府不能忽视了民众的反映,论证更深入一层次了

To further expand the issue, on the one hand, we might be reluctant but have to face the dilemma that decisions and activities of the government would disturb private lives to some extent. As the government might make decisions from the macro level  putting (taking 更合适一些) all aspects into consideration, political decisions and activities might go against private behaviors and self-favorite. An illustrating example involves that being afraid that immaturity of the commercial market, governments might legislate some laws （这个表达欠妥legislate 本身有立法的意思了，后面最好不加law）to forbid citizens joining such market. While, from people's private sight, such market is so profitable that once they have step into it they will definitely gain much profit. Under such circumstance, private behaviors do have to confront the dilemma to accord with the laws.On the other hand, it is unfair to blindly ignore the benefit that activities of the government have brought to our daily lives, which largely promotes the standard of our lives. Because the government can judge situation from macro level, they are able to make the most suitable choice by foreseeing possible results, and naturally such choices would bring the public benefit. For instance, China has come back to WTO no more than ten years, and during this period of time, industries and businesses of the mainland keep roaring to emulate the leading countries. And based on good quality , many Chinese firms have obtained their brand as world wide famous. All these should be contributed to the wisest decision to rejoin WTO to further participate in world commercial and technical activities. 举例很好啊

To sum up, political decisions and activities are either definitely agony the public's freedom of life,  nor effect all aspects of people's lives. In fact, restraints and freedom, benefit and restriction are co-existing （改为co-exist）to some extent.

水晶的ISSUE写得太棒了，700多字太让我佩服了啊！全篇结构严谨，思路很清晰，好多例子啊，非常丰富，语言更是精彩。希望你有空也帮我看看，给我的作文批批，我写的比你差多了，得好好向你学习啊！By candyyly

[ 本帖最后由 candyyly 于 2007-6-4 17:35 编辑 ]