Issue185 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第2次作业 by frecklewang 希望大家猛拍

frecklewang1984UID: 2355474

日期：2007-07-22  时间：3hrs     字数：611

185. "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."

I agree that numerous kinds of scandals, such as political scandals and academic scandals, are helpful for us to understand our social, while not all areas of scandals can do good to our world including political, economy, culture, and it will go to an extremity if we focus excessively our attention on scandals. What we need to do is keep objective, clam and tolerant eyes on scandals due to we all have make mistakes.

First, political scandals, separated from private immorality scandals, often involve the alleged wrongdoing, such as graft, bribery and other abuse of the public trusts. Politics, which regulates mainly relations between the groups and the state and between the different socio-political organizations, directly or indirectly connect the function of state power. If, however, politics comes into sharp contradiction with the morality of the people, it certainly loses its efficacy and ultimately fails. Take the Watergate scandal for example, it led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Political scandals are useful as criteria of evaluating or justifying a political staff. In addition, political scandals also include private scandals of politicians. In view of fascination from celebrities, people are curious to pursue all privacy of political statesmen. However, it is useless to pay attention to such political scandals in privacy: as long as political staff can do better service to our society and people with their vocational morality, we should not focus our attention on these scandals.

Second, an academic scandal mainly refers to fraudulent, erroneous or unethical work of a professor, research or senior administer, consequently resulting in academia into disrepute. The exposure of academic scandals helps us understand deeper or advancing information in correlative field, followed by paid closer attention to prevent similar problems from reappearing, i.e. public supervision, which actually prevents pervasively all areas of scandals. Of course, it can warn of experts and specialists in professional fields. It is known to all in academic realms especially in biological fields that cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk in South Korea was on charge of fraud, embezzlement and bioethics violations in an academic scandal over faked stem cell research in 2006. Hwang is indicted by fabricating key data, which had given hope for breakthrough treatments for millions of patients suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases, and paying money to receive human eggs for research, a violation of the country's bioethics law. Therefore, Hwang is fired from his post as a professor at Seoul National University's veterinary department and the government conducted a probe into his finances.

In addition, there is another academic scandal regarding bogus-degree and relative success. Although perhaps this kind of academic scandal is mostly resulting from psychological pressure brought about by social crucial competition, high expectation of families, excellent performance of peers, this deceitful behavior should be focused closely and prohibited, especially for professional educators and reformers

Third, other areas of scandals may also helpless for us to pay close attention to, such as scandals from celebrities in entertainments areas. Such a famous individual in music, dance or performing on the stage probably encounters marriage unhappiness, different sex-inclination, drug-abuse. Even though privacy of celebrities is open out of their own will, we also should keep clam eyes on their scandals, not with intensive attention. Everyone in this world can not escape from erring.

In sum up, a large number of scandals indeed can be beneficial for us, for specialists, for reformers as effective criteria to evaluate political staff, also a warn of preventing similar wrongdoing from reappearing and so on. Meanwhile, we should be aware of that some private scandals cannot overweight individual contributions for our lives, we should keep clam, objective eyes on these scandals.


提纲：
142. "The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."
1：能够质疑权威时，本身就是一种进步。科学、艺术领域哥白尼的日星说，地球是圆的等结论的提出
2：但是有些领域不能盲目的质疑权威，政治领域，盲目的质疑政治容易导致政治混乱。
3：对于任何事情，我们都应该保存冷静，客观的态度来面对。


160. "The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."
1:大众的意见并不一定就是对的，或者大众的意见经常是不能调和的，领导者应该坚持自己原则，以尽量满足最大数量的人受益。
2：但是一个有效的领导者最重要的不是坚持自己的原则的能力，而是有很多判定的标准，如遇到大事随机应变的能力，团队领导能力，吸纳贤才的能力等等

shalonbasUID: 2184474

不好意思拖到现在，俺的想法如下：

By Shalonbas

Issue185 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第2次作业 by frecklewang 希望大家猛拍
日期：2007-07-22  时间：3hrs     字数：611
185. "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."
I agree that numerous kinds of scandals, such as political scandals and academic scandals, are helpful for us to understand our social, while not all areas of scandals can do good to our world including political, economy, culture, and it will go to an extremity if we focus excessively our attention on scandals. What we need to do is keep objective, clam [calm] and tolerant eyes [为什么要加一个eyes呢？有点多余，和前面的形容词不搭] on scandals due to we all have make mistakes. [观点以负面为主，强调对待丑闻的态度应是客观且公正的。]

First, political scandals, separated from private immorality scandals [这个插入语不太明白], often involve the alleged wrongdoing, such as graft, bribery and other abuse of the public trusts. Politics, which regulates mainly relations between the groups and the state and between the different socio-political organizations, directly or indirectly connect the function of state power. If, however, politics comes into sharp contradiction with the morality of the people, it certainly loses its efficacy and ultimately fails [政治丑闻的后果]. Take the Watergate scandal for example, it led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Political scandals are useful as criteria of evaluating or justifying a political staff [丑闻的积极意义-行为准则]. In addition, political scandals also include private scandals of politicians. In view of fascination from celebrities, people are curious to pursue all privacy of political statesmen [政治丑闻还包括政治家的私生活丑闻，你是想说克林顿同学咩？HIAHIA~~]. However, it is useless to pay attention to such political scandals in privacy: as long as political staff can do better service to our society and people with their vocational morality, we should not focus our attention on these scandals. [提出观点，不应该关注这些八卦，重点是他们是否尽责了。]

Second, an academic scandal mainly refers to fraudulent, erroneous or unethical work of a professor, research or senior administer, consequently resulting in academia into disrepute. The exposure of academic scandals helps us understand deeper or advancing information in correlative field, followed by paid [by paid?] closer attention to prevent similar problems from reappearing, i.e. public supervision, which actually prevents pervasively all areas of scandals. Of course, it can warn of experts and specialists in professional fields. [你的TS是这一句么?] It is known to all in academic realms especially in biological fields that cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk in South Korea was on charge of fraud, embezzlement and bioethics violations in an academic scandal over faked stem cell research in 2006. [跟俺一个例子，嘿嘿] Hwang is indicted by fabricating key data, which had given hope for breakthrough treatments for millions of patients suffering from paralysis and debilitating diseases, and paying money to receive human eggs for research, a violation of the country's bioethics law. Therefore, Hwang is fired from his post as a professor at Seoul National University's veterinary department and the government conducted a probe into his finances. [结论呢？]

In addition, there is another academic scandal regarding bogus-degree [学位门？呵呵] and relative success. Although perhaps this kind of academic scandal is mostly resulting from psychological pressure brought about by social crucial competition, high expectation of families, excellent performance of peers, this deceitful behavior should be focused closely and prohibited, especially for professional educators and reformers. [感觉只是把此类丑闻描述了一下，可却没有实质性内容啊~]

Third, other areas of scandals may also helpless for us to pay close attention to, such as scandals from celebrities in entertainments areas. Such a famous individual in music, dance or performing on the stage probably encounters marriage unhappiness, different sex-inclination, drug-abuse. Even though privacy of celebrities is open out of their own will, we also should keep clam [again, calm] eyes on their scandals, not with intensive attention. Everyone in this world can not escape from erring. [本段TS-影视歌星的八卦消息不值得去关注。]

In sum up [In sum/To sum up both are right，但in sum up 好像不对吧], a large number of scandals indeed can be beneficial for us, for specialists, for reformers as effective criteria to evaluate political staff, also a warn of preventing similar wrongdoing from reappearing and so on. Meanwhile, we should be aware of that some private scandals cannot overweight individual contributions for our lives, we should keep clam [calm], objective eyes on these scandals.

[拙见如下：
第一感觉是作者的词汇量和语言功底很不错了，例子也不少。
但我感觉本文写出来的效果却不太好。首先就是本文的论述给人十分杂乱的感觉，似乎讲了很多，但又让人始终不明就理。从开头和结尾来看，作者希望在一篇文章中讲清楚两个论点：1） 大部分丑闻是有积极意义的;2）我们应该以一个十分客观的态度来看待丑闻。而如果我没有理解错的话，本文的具体论述可概括如下：
正文段一：政治丑闻，既讲了积极意义，又说要客观，把公私分开；
正文段二：学术丑闻，讲了积极意义，没有提到态度。
正文段三：学术丑闻，假文凭及其产生的原因，附带着提出需要关注的态度。
正文段四：娱乐圈丑闻, 没有讲积极意义，提出应该不care。
结尾：大部分丑闻是有积极意义的，但同时，我们也应该以客观的态度看待这些丑闻。
在我看来，本文更像是以前高中时候做的数学题，分情况讨论：
政治丑闻时，意义如何，态度如何；
学术丑闻时，意义如何，态度如何（缺）；
娱乐圈丑闻时，意义如何（缺），态度如何；

既然这样，我们就来比较一下ISSUE和数学题的区别好了，呵呵。
在数学里面，你如要证明A(x)>B(x)，那么可以用如下分情况讨论：
当x>0时，A>B;
当x=0时，A>B;
当x<0时，A>B;
所以，A>B，over
值得注意的是，该法成立有两个很重要的前提：1）A>B就是没有商量余地的事实；2）所有情况都讨论清楚了。

那么在AW中，情况又会如何呢？
首先issue的题目本身就不是绝对的A>B结论（即很少会有完全观点题，不然就没得写了），而且也不可能把所有情况都说清楚（比方说你文中也没有提到其他领域的丑闻比如体育丑闻啊）。
所以我认为，虽然文中观点没错，但这种结构本身并不适合本文（或者说，也不适合与人辩论。）在ISSUE中，最好不要期望通过从实际例子推出观点正确，而应该采用提出观点举例子论证的思路，这样才能打动别人。
我的感想是，不要指望在ISSUE中提出一个很严密的观点（这对AW来说基本是不可能的），只需要做到挑选其中某个方向把它说圆（例子论证），并尽量显得你的思考很全面（让步段就是干这个用的）就可以了。

最后总结一下下：freckle的硬件已经很不错了，下面需要加强一下软件，才能发挥出最大的威力，呵呵。
小小看法，批判接受，欢迎argue，呵呵。
]

[ 本帖最后由 shalonbas 于 2007-7-24 21:43 编辑 ]