issue29 就快考试了,请指教

excellantUID: 2362238

29 Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy.

I agree with the assertion that Public figures should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy. After all, as public figures, they are the focus of the society. They receive so much attention that every action and every talk of them have potential to became the fist-page news in the newspaper.

Actually, public figures can not blame excessive concern from the public. For general citizens, it is the nature of curiosity that motivate their concentration on public figures, whose everyday life is considered interesting and mysterious, different from most population. Especially to those idolizing a certain figure, not only their idols’ perform in an TV show or participation in a competition, but also details of private life, such as the color or the food the star most prefers, can grasp the fans’ attention firmly. They even imitate the stars, acting in the similar style as their idols. With respect of mass media, their chief objective is to satisfy the public and maximize the profits. Therefore, as long as there is interest in the public, with no doubt, the media will doubt pursue figures’ private life. Since concern either from fans or media is unavoidable, public figures should expect and be prepared to lose some of their privacy.

Besides, to some extent, the more attention a public figure’s private life calls for, the famous he or she will be. Can we consider an actor, whose messages, no matter whether they are about public appearance or private life, infrequently appear in the media or talked by people , as a popular star? Therefore, public figures can not go a long way without such concern from the public, although they sometimes complain about troubles caused by concern about their privacy.. This can explain why some newly-emerged singers even divulge aspects of their privacy, such as love, to capture lasting attention, and eventually attain fame and welfare.

However, the same as everyone of us physically and mentally, the public figures should also be granted the right over privacy. Though they have to sacrifice some privacy for the identity of public figures, they should appeal to legal protection once their rights are violated. On the other hand, the media have the responsibility in   conduct the public to look into privacy of public figures rationally, rather than just provide news about privacy.

In sum, public figures should prepare themselves for losing some privacy. Nevertheless, they also have right to protect their privacy from being violated in legal ways.


[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-20 10:17 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

I agree with the assertion that Public figures should expect that they will lose at least some of their privacy. After all, as public figures, they are the focus of the society. They receive so much attention that every action and every talk of them have potential to became the fist-page news in the newspaper. (此句放在首段没太大必要, 它只是把主论点的情况又说了一遍而已, 而你的论点之前两句话已经说的很清楚了, 如果是作为的背景的话应该放到前面而不是后面)

Actually, public figures can not blame excessive concern from the public. For general citizens, it is the nature of curiosity that motivate their concentration on public figures, whose everyday life is considered interesting and mysterious, different from most population. Especially to those idolizing a certain figure, not only their idols’ perform in an TV show or participation in a competition, but also details of private life, such as the color or the food the star most prefers, can grasp the fans’ attention firmly. They even imitate the stars, acting in the similar style as their idols. With respect of mass media, their chief objective is to satisfy the public and maximize the profits. Therefore, as long as there is interest in the public, with no doubt, the media will doubt pursue figures’ private life. Since concern either from fans or media is unavoidable, public figures should expect and be prepared to lose some of their privacy.(除了本段第二句说明大众对公众人物好奇外其它句子都在叙述一个社会现象, 即人们关心公共人物, 这对于论证是没有帮助的, 因为你只是陈述这种现象, 而没有研究它的根源和原因, 进而论证它是否合理. 打个比方, 山西有很多黑煤窑,  由于窑主要谋求最大利益, 所以残酷剥削工人, 因此我们能推得工人在那里就应该做好被剥削的觉悟么? 显然存在并非合理. 再举个正面的比方, 俱乐部选足球运动员会考虑他们的身体素质, 所以足球运动员要做好被考察的觉悟--这么说你觉得合理么? 而如果给出理由, 足球运动员的身体素质是决定他们在俱乐部表现的硬条件, 而他们的表现关系到俱乐部的利益, 因此俱乐部要考察, 这个是合理多了吧? 简言之, 分析是否合理不是说它是否存在或者它如何作用, 不是问HOW, 而是问WHY, 只有知道原因才知道存在道理. 比如你这里的They even imitate the stars, acting in the similar style as their idols. 问一句WHY? 因为偶像是他们的目标, 是他们对于理想状态的诉求, 所以获得这些偶像的细节信息能满足他们使自己模仿偶像从而自我感觉价值实现的有利条件, 因此社会会关心公众人物...那么相应的结果就显得合理了)

Besides, to some extent, the more attention a public figure’s private life calls for, the (more) famous he or she will be.(论点之后具体解释, 不要直接转向具体事例,这样会让你的论证方向不明确, 这里论证的出发点是什么? 我觉得你此段的论证是基于"公共人物之所以被称为公共, 就是因为他们被公共关心着, 所以相应地损失隐私也是必然结果" 但以这样一句主题句并不足以说明这个问题, 后面直接又说到演员, 显得过于唐突) Can we consider an actor, whose messages, no matter whether they are about public appearance or private life, infrequently appear in the media or talked by people , as a popular star? (这个因果太跳跃了, 一个反问能作为原因么? 你甚至没有给出回答和解释)Therefore, public figures can not go a long way without such concern from the public, although they sometimes complain about troubles caused by concern about their privacy.(这句是让步, 不属于本段观点, 要写的话还得加限定加解释, 建议别放这段里). This can explain why some newly-emerged singers even divulge aspects of their privacy, such as love, to capture lasting attention, and eventually attain fame and welfare.(how? 因果还是跳跃, 你也没解释为什么明星不受大众关心就不能走得很远, 唯一能支持它的句子是本段的主题句, 而主题句是需要被论证的不是用来论证别人的, 换言之这段里你能做论据的只有那句反问, 剩下的都是基于从它出发的推理, 这种论断是没有力度的. 接下来你又从一个比较抽象的概念--大众不关心公众人物后者就走不远--转到解释一个具体现象, 这个现象之前没有提到过, 然后到这又戛然而止, 说是例子不知道它在支持什么, 说是结论又过于specific, 造成段落中要素的职位不明确, 使得论断的论证力度减弱, 逻辑联系混乱)

However, the same as everyone of us physically and mentally, the public figures should also be granted the right over privacy.(however一般表示侧重后面的内容，你文章的重心在前面, 不建议用此类转折词让步, nevertheless/admittedly会好些) Though they have to sacrifice some privacy for the identity of public figures, they should appeal to legal protection once their rights are violated.(why? how? 有论断没论证) On the other hand, the media have the responsibility in   conduct the public to look into privacy of public figures rationally, rather than just provide news about privacy.(整个这一段由3句论断组成, 大致关系是两个解释一个, 但却没有论证支持, 也没有范围限定, 看下来的感觉与之前两部分内容冲突, 什么范围的隐私算合法的? 什么目的算合理的? 什么关注算正确的? 不把这些概念明确就会造成正面和反面论点限定的范围模糊, 进而相互重合, 造成前后矛盾)

In sum, public figures should prepare themselves for losing some privacy. Nevertheless, they also have right to protect their privacy from being violated in legal ways.

总评:
1, 论证问题比较严重, 段落内的元素功能不明, 建议看下北美, 写的时候注意自己哪部分是主题句, 哪部分是假设, 哪部分作为论证和论据来支持前两者, 前两者又怎么连接, 现在的感觉写得太随意了.
2, 发展观点的时候注意不要自我矛盾, 找好立场以后看看自己的观点能不能构成或者推导出一个可行的解决方案, 而不是为了写三个论点而写三个论点, 它们应该都为一个主论点服务.