Issue48 历史中的精英与群众 欢迎留链互批 多谢捧场

snaildrUID: 2208393

Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasison individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were madepossible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities havelong been forgotten."



Thespeaker asserts that it is the groups of people, the identities of whom havebeen forgotten for long that created the most significant historical events andtrends, while the few elites hold the focus of history. Whether I agree withthis claim depends partly on how one defines "significant events andtrends" and partly on the specific context of a certain event or trend.

Commonsense dictates that crucial movements, such as revolutions and wars, areusually considered as trends or events which has magnificent meanings or impact--thatis significant --in human history. In this sense, the speaker's claim thatmasses created history is fundamentally correct, which the history lend supportto. Consider, for example, the French Revolution in 1789.Had there been nosupport from the masses, the revolution possibly won't succeeded let alonecaused a major transformation of the society and political system in France andranked as one of the most important events in European history. However, onemight argue that it is the leader ,the commander or the general that make thevery crucial decisions which might ultimately lead to the final success ,or ofcourse, equally possibly an fiasco. I concede that the decisions do weigh much,while the fact is that the actual effect will only caused by the actualexecution not by the general but by the soldiers—the behind-the-scenesforgotten groups. Also, on a more abstract level, in the role of pivot, peopleconstitute the main force which guarantees the éclat. Thus, the speaker's claimdoes have considerable merits.

Similarly,we can evaluate the claim when it comes to the other areas, such as science andhuman culture. Understandably, in the realms of science, it is the groups ofpeople--not the individuals—that make the ultimate contributions to the earthbreaking scientific achievement，especiallyin the modern scientific era; otherwise, how would the Human Genome Project, aninternational scientific collaboration on genetic blueprint of a human being,be carried out worldwide ,involving many different nations and of coursescientists from various consortium differing in expertise. What on the handsecure the research is that the samples of DNA to be analyzed are from manydifferent people, which means various sources, which play a vital role in theproject avoiding the similarity. Accordingly, the project is global, which ismerely possibly achieved by any kind of individuals. Additionally, breakthroughsin science or human culture--such as trends of thought--might, to some extent,inexorably be the result of not a certain action by particular persons, butcontinual accumulation of several generations. So, from the point of view it isunfair to attribute a certain achievement to a single person, scientist orphilosopher. As Newtonmentioned (and I paraphrase):” It was only because I stood on the shoulders ofgiants that by any possibility I have been able to see further.”

However,reflecting on the two points stated above, I have to concede that we should notoverlook or understate the efforts of certain key individuals. Admittedly, themasses in historical breakthroughs indeed act quite essentially. Yet, themasses which could help carry out breakthrough is expected as organized, orrather under a certain leadership. After all, people without an effectiveleader would not likely reach a unanimous state, at least out of human freewill nature, and therefore result in chaos instead of unification. As to theplain facts that, many profound inventions of science and creations in art arefrequently mostly the contribution from not the groups of people who got forgottenbut the very individuals. It is understandable when we recall the historicalscenario of an inventor's endeavor towards promotion of life quality or anideologist's enlightening thought as for the illumination of the masses. But, evenin these situations, we should still be wary of the two points: masterpiecesare often inspired by common groups of people; secondly, if there were nomasses, the inventions or the thoughts cause no avail at all.

Ofcourse it is difficult to weigh the importance of the masses and the famous fewin significant historical events and trends, especially with respect to thecomplexity of the issue. Were we to take either of these two too far to anapproximately extreme extent, the two would cease to consist of thephilosophical whole as they should be previously. In conclusion, to shape thehistory, the famous few need the masses’ basal support, accumulation orinspiration as well as the masses need the timely impetus from the few. (741words)

寻人互改或拼个小组
我9月初的作文

[ 本帖最后由 snaildr 于 2007-7-26 22:48 编辑 ]

snaildrUID: 2208393

寻GF
9.3作文

snaildrUID: 2208393

up

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

***Issue48 历史中的精英与群众 欢迎留链互批 多谢捧场
Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasison individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."

The speaker asserts that it is the groups of people, the identities of whom have been forgotten for long that created the most significant historical events and trends, while the few elites hold the focus of history. Whether I agree with this claim depends partly on how one defines "significant events and trends" and partly on the specific context of a certain event or trend.

Commonsensecommon sense中间分开表示名词 dictates that crucial movements, such as revolutions and wars, are usually considered as trends or events which has magnificent meanings or impact—that is significant –这个插入语也可以不要in human history.“用常识来理解”这样无形中把significant events and trends in history 的范围缩小了，可以说成是你自己的假设 In this sense, the speaker's claim that masses created history is fundamentally correct, which the history lend support to. Consider, for example, the French Revolution in 1789.Had there been no support from the masses, the revolution possibly won't succeeded let alone caused a major transformation of the society and political system in France and ranked as one of the most important events in European history. However, one might argue that it is the leader, the commander or the general that make the very crucial decisions which might ultimately lead to the final success ,or of course, equally possibly an fiasco. I concede that the decisions do weigh much, while the fact is that the actual effect will only caused by the actual execution not by the general but by the soldiers—the behind-the-scenes forgotten groups. Also, on a more abstract level, in the role of pivot, people换个词，不然不确定是在指个人还是大众 constitute the main force which guarantees the éclat这个词啥意思 . Thus, the speaker's claim does have considerable merits.
TS太长了些，其实简单点的处理可以是In the realm of ……

Similarly, we can evaluate the claim when it comes to the other areas, such as science and human culture. Understandably, in the realms of science, it is the groups of people--not the individuals—that make the ultimate contributions to the earth breaking scientific achievement，especially in the modern scientific era; otherwise, how would the Human Genome Project, an international scientific collaboration on genetic blueprint of a human being, be carried out worldwide ,involving many different nations and of course scientists from various consortium differing in expertise. What on the hand secure the research is that the samples of DNA to be analyzed are from many different people, which means various sources, which play a vital role in the project avoiding the similarity这句句子太长了，而且还套用多重从句，容易引起歧义，老实说我也没大明白. Accordingly, the project is global, which is merely possibly achieved by any kind of individuals.这句话起了什么作用呢 Additionally, break through in science or human culture--such as trends of thought--might, to some extent, inexorably be the result of not a certain action by particular persons, but continual accumulation of several generations.这里可以用rather than 精简下 So, from the point of view it is unfair to attribute a certain achievement to a single person, scientist or philosopher. As Newton mentioned (and I paraphrase):” It was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants that by any possibility I have been able to see further.”一般的习惯是在每段结尾都有个段落小结概括下，使文章论述条理更清晰
TS中既然提到了科学和文化两个领域，段中论述就应该对两个方面都有所涉及，但是我只看到了关科学的论述，文化的没有

However, reflecting on the two points stated above, I have to concede that we should not over look 改overlook or understate the efforts of certain key individuals. Admittedly, the masses in historical breakthroughs indeed act quite essentially. Yet, the masses which could help carry out breakthrough is expected as organized, or rather under a certain leadership. After all, people without an effective leader would not likely reach a unanimous state, at least out of human freewill nature, and therefore result in chaos instead of unification. As to the plain facts that, many profound inventions of science and creations in art are frequently mostly the contribution from not the groups of people who got forgotten but the very individuals. It is understandable when we recall the historical scenario of an inventor's endeavor towards promotion of life quality or an ideologist's enlightening thought as for the illumination of the masses. But, even in these situations, we should still be wary of the two points: masterpieces are often inspired by common groups of people; secondly, if there were no masses, the inventions or the thoughts cause no avail at all.
本来我觉得LZ的三段论述思路是比较清楚的，一二段突出大众的作用，第三段强调个人的作用，可是，读到这段的最后，又迷惑了……怎么提到大众的重要性了？ 我觉得即使你最后所说的两点是客观存在的真理，也不应该放到这里来，因为论述的目的是服务你的论点，而不是就事论事的辨对错，对论述不起作用的，哪怕再重要，恐怕也不能提。

Of course it is difficult to weigh the importance of the masses and the famous few in significant historical events and trends, especially with respect to the complexity of the issue. Were we to take either of these two too far to an approximately extreme extent, the two would cease to consist of the philosophical whole as they should be previously. In conclusion, to shape the history, the famous few need the masses’ basal support, accumulation or inspiration 其实这两点可以放在一二段里提as well as the masses need the timely impetus from the few. (741words)

首先要肯定的是LZ的语言方面的娴熟技巧，确实遣词造句都信手拈来，运用灵活，但是有些地方感觉有些过于华丽，修饰过多反而会引起歧义
另外在论述中也存在一些问题，读完全文之后我回头看开头段，发现LZ的论述其实是按不同情况或领域学科的分类来讨论的，确实第一段是革命和战争的角度，第二段是科学和历史的角度，那第三段也应该和前面的步调一致，讲特殊领域的个人的重要作用，但是第三段开头看似又以整体的角度来说个人的作用，后来才提到了发明和艺术创作领域，和前面有些脱节，且第三段段内的问题我在上面提到过了
总的来说，LZ的文章很有希望，第一篇就写到这个水平证明实力很强~~
多加练习就更好了！

fingerliUID: 2130195

The speaker asserts that it is the groups of people, the identities of whom have been forgotten for long that created the most significant historical events and trends, while the few elites hold the focus of history. [语言不错，但复述有误，topic中说的是possible而没有说全部的significant events…]Whether I agree with this claim depends partly on [how one defines "significant events and trends" ]and partly on [the specific context of a certain event or trend]. [既然在这里说明了这两点，文中就要就这两点展开讨论]

Common sense dictates that crucial movements, such as revolutions and wars, are usually considered as trends or events which has magnificent meanings or impact—that is significant --in human history. In this sense, the speaker's claim that masses created history is fundamentally correct, which the history lend support to. [TS确实太长]Consider, for example, the French Revolution in 1789.Had there been no support from the masses, the revolution possibly won't succeeded let alone caused a major transformation of the society and political system in France and ranked as one of the most important events in European history. However, one might argue that it is the leader, the commander or the general that make the very crucial decisions which might ultimately lead to the final success ,or of course, equally possibly an fiasco.[ I concede that the decisions do weigh much, while the fact is that the actual effect will only caused by the actual execution not by the general but by the soldiers—the behind-the-scenes forgotten groups]. Also, on a more abstract level, in the role of pivot, people constitute the main force which guarantees the éclat. Thus, the speaker's claim does have considerable merits.
[此段的论证结构不错，赞一个，但是感觉对于one might argue that 部分的讨论（蓝色标记出）,并不十分充分]
Similarly, we can evaluate the claim when it comes to [the] other areas, such as [science and human culture.] Understandably, in the realms of science, it is the groups of people--not the individuals—that make the ultimate contributions to the earth breaking scientific achievement，especially in the modern scientific era; otherwise, how would the Human Genome Project, an international scientific collaboration on genetic blueprint of a human being, be carried out worldwide ,involving many different nations and of course scientists from various consortium differing in expertise. [What on the hand secure the research is that the samples of DNA to be analyzed are from many different people, which means various sources, which play a vital role in the project avoiding the similarity. Accordingly, the project is global, which is merely possibly achieved by any kind of individuals.感觉多余，建议去掉，或做简化处理] Additionally, breakthroughs in science or human culture--such as trends of thought--might, to some extent, inexorably be the result of not a certain action by particular persons, but continual accumulation of several generations. [论述human culture十分不充分，建议不要，或另起一段单独论述]So, from the point of view it is unfair to attribute a certain achievement to a single person, scientist or philosopher. As Newton mentioned (and I paraphrase):” It was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants that by any possibility I have been able to see further.”

However, reflecting on the two points stated above, I have to concede that we should not overlook or understate the efforts of certain key individuals. Admittedly, the masses in historical breakthroughs indeed act quite essentially. Yet, the masses which could help carry out breakthrough is expected as organized, or rather under a certain leadership. After all, people without an effective leader would not likely reach a unanimous state, at least out of human freewill nature, and therefore result in chaos instead of unification. As to the plain facts that, many profound inventions of science and creations in art are frequently mostly the contribution from not the groups of people who got forgotten but the very individuals. It is understandable when we recall the historical scenario of an inventor's endeavor towards promotion of life quality or an ideologist's enlightening thought as for the illumination of the masses. But, even in these situations, we should still be wary of the two points: masterpieces are often inspired by common groups of people; secondly, if there were no masses, the inventions or the thoughts cause no avail at all.

Of course it is difficult to weigh the importance of the masses and the famous few in significant historical events and trends, especially with respect to the complexity of the issue. Were we to take either of these two too far to an approximately extreme extent, the two would cease to consist of the philosophical whole as they should be previously. In conclusion, to shape the history, the famous few need the masses’ basal support, accumulation or inspiration as well as the masses need the timely impetus from the few.

[总评：snaildr各段过渡自然，语言也不错，但在某些地方如事例列举上贪多而导致论证展开不充分，建议提到的尽量展开论证充分，要不就不提。一家之言，权当参考，呵呵]

snaildrUID: 2208393

看了二位的点评颇有收获
1、有些话我写的太废了，句子写复杂了就没重点了，呵呵
2、正文第二段确实少写了一个方面~~
3、正文第三段最后是想让一下步让逻辑圆满一点，另外呢再说一下“群众”，让文章更有倾向性，似乎搞得太混乱了:funk:
4、论证不cogent~~~~
4、结构问题：第三段应该跟前面对应着论证为好
5、结尾写得太平衡
6、每段该写结尾句~~

谢谢指点！

[ 本帖最后由 snaildr 于 2007-7-27 23:33 编辑 ]

snaildrUID: 2208393

Issue 48
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten."



As the author of the statement indicates, in the study of history too much emphasis is involved on individuals, and the historical trends or events were made possible by the masses rather than the individuals. I fundamentally agree both aspects of the statement.

To begin with, the study of history indeed emphasize the importance of specific individual much too excessively, while overlook the equally important but forgotten groups of people. Too often we can observe cases in this point. When we scan through history record or documents, we can find most concern with the accomplishment of great men( or an occasional woman) yet rarely anything about whole groups without a obvious symbolic individual. On the one hand, it is because it is more effective, feasible and accuracy rather to collect information with regard to a single historical people than to explore the behavior of a certain group of people. On the other hand, learning about the famous few inspires us to similar achievement and is more meaningful for setting a mold. Admittedly, placing emphasis on single individual may cause a failure in understanding history itself and the gravity of historical events.

To examine whether it is the masses or the individuals that make the significant events and trends possible, we can discuss in different areas. Common sense dictates that crucial movements, such as revolutions and wars, are usually considered significant in human history. In this sense, the speaker's claim that masses created history is fundamentally correct, which the history also lends support to. Consider, for example, the French Revolution in 1789. Had there been no support from the masses, the revolution possibly won't succeeded let alone caused a major transformation of the society and political system in France and ranked as one of the most important events in European history. However, one might argue that how would the actions of the masses be in the revolutions without being scripted by their leaders. I concede that it is the leading individuals that provide necessary impetus which consequentially create a level of consciousness and organization among a sufficient number of people, and thus essentially guarantee the success. Yet, the leaders are just one link of a chain of other factors which means individuals cannot exert their independently of social conditions in which they find themselves and thus they cannot influence the history in any direction so they choose.

Similarly, we can evaluate the claim when it comes to the other areas, such as science and human culture. Understandably, in the realms of science, it is the groups of people--not the individuals—that make the ultimate contributions to the earth breaking scientific achievement，especially in the modern scientific era; otherwise, how would the Human Genome Project--- an international scientific collaboration on genetic blueprint of a human being--- be carried out worldwide ,involving many different nations and of course scientists from various consortium differing in expertise. What on the other hand secure the research is that the samples of DNA to be analyzed are from many different people, which play a vital role in the project avoiding the similarity. One may point out that, many inventions and discoveries were almost all contributed by single individuals. Admittedly, this view make some sense; yet making judgments in present pales against the possibility of forming a sight based on a rich past. As Newton mentioned (and I paraphrase):” It was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants that by any possibility I have been able to see further.” A continual view of the developments of science and technology is much more desirable. Besides, in the fields of human culture, it is reasonable to believe that long-term trends are instigated rather by the masses than by key individuals; although, more often than not the trends are initiated by a single individual’s particular thought, yet the thought does need objective conditions. It may, for example have been possible for a philosopher in ancient Greece to dream of circumnavigating the globe, but the technology and the desire of navigators did not exist until the 15th century.

In sum, the individuals possess too much emphasis in history study while in fact it is the masses created the history because that, to affect the outcome of history, ideas expressed by individuals only have to become material forces.

snaildrUID: 2208393

up