Issue48

xsr6064UID：2312664

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."


Words : 872   
Time :1小时30分左右，因为晚了，后来就直接修改和增加了一些东西才交.

有点写过头了，麻烦了。

提纲：

Para 1. 开头，陈述问题，提出观点：同意普通人是创造历史的主要力量，但不同意把历史研究的重点转向普通人。
Para 2 . 说明普通人对历史发展的重要性。
Para 3 . 指出历史研究的目标不应该是论功劳，避免重蹈覆辙。
Para 4 . 指出研究普通人群不是科学的研究方法，而研究名人才是最有效的。
Para 5-6 . 说明名人对历史研究来说更有价值的原因。
Para 7 . 结论。

The speaker claimed that most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few , but by groups of people , and that the study of history should emphasize latter instead of former(借用) . I concede that the statement’s premise is on the right philosophical direction .However, the speaker easily draw the conclusion without considering the fundamental aim and measures in the study of history, which would be involved in my points of contention, and be discussed below.

Briefly, in the theories of philosophy, society is described as the sum of ALL the social members’ activities, so the crucial impetus of social development would be the power of ALL the ordinary people rather than those few hero’s, whose efforts can only influence the procedure of this development: to accelerate it or to decelerate it, but can not change the main direction. In short, the human history is made by groups of people. This ought to be easily understood . Let us take a smaller event as example , such as a war or a battle . Although a eminent general is indispensable for a troop , who can give wonderful tactics that indicate how to defeat the enemy , he will never get any victory unless having excellent soldiers . On the battlefield , those loyal soldiers enforce the general’s commands , using their blood even life to exchange win of the war . Yet it is just the same condition as the procedure of human history . “Famous few” is to be the general , ordinary people are the soldiers .

On the other hand , when we talk about the study of history , we can not draw the pivot on groups of people any more , and there are two arguments to sustain my point . The first has to do with the fundamental objective of historical study . Although in the process of studying history , people will gain the image that those famous individuals are more important , while ignoring ordinary groups , in my opinion the main purpose of historical research is not to attribute credit to certain groups of people or individuals , but to reveal the origin and to evaluate the consequence or impact of  historical events . With this history knowledge , we can avoid making the same mistakes as our forerunners , and find a more effective way to develop ourselves, while those famous individuals are just the resources and examples in the study . So that whether it is equitable for groups of people to gain less credit is not important here .

The second argument is about the measures of study . Since the huge amount of the ordinary people , it is too difficult for historians to investigate each person in every significant event in history . Besides , little of their accurate information can be preserved after such a long period . Any study depended on such kind of measure will eventually get into the troubles of endless finding and debating . A most efficient way of doing research which is generally accepted in nearly every subject is to study the most representative models in the field . Consider the works of Vinci in art field . Despite he has countless painting throughout his lifetime , artists usually only study and discuss several ones of them , for these pieces can essentially express the skills and characteristics of the composer . Similarly , famous individuals are more valuable in researches of history .

One of the reasons is that those famous individuals’ power or prominent talent may usually influence the historical events greatly . For examples , those leads of important events , such as Churchill and Roosevelt in World War two , and those engineers and scientists , such as Watt , Edison and Newton . Through investigating these people’s effect and their products , historian can more easily get a broader and clearer view of the origin , consequence and impacts of the events which they participated .

Another reason is that famous people can generally represent the characteristics of the public in their era . By studying the Plato’s philosophy , we can basically get the view of ideology of ancient Greek , and by studying speech , activities and attitudes of Martin Luther King , we can also understand the black’s status and both attitudes about ethnic problems in America of that time . Moreover , their relatively integral information will greatly ease historians’ work , helping them to save much time for collecting messages , and with the extra time they can do more meaningful researches .

In sum , although we can not ignore the ordinary people’s contribution for our society , we need have a scientific attitude toward the study of history . We can not risk to scarify the whole historical study only because of our sympathy . Since the advantages of the famous few for the research , they will always be one of the most important parts of the study of history .

[ 本帖最后由 xsr6064 于 2007-8-2 16:35 编辑 ]

SavileRowUID：2284947

The speaker claimed (claims?) that most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people, and that the study of history should emphasize latter instead of former(借用) . I concede that the statement’s premise is on the right philosophical direction .However, the speaker easily draw the conclusion without considering the fundamental aim and measures in the study of history, which would be involved in my points of contention, and be discussed below.
开头好熟练啊，羡慕

Briefly, in the theories of philosophy, society is described as the sum of ALL the social members’ activities, so the crucial impetus of social development would be the power of ALL the ordinary people rather than those few hero’s, whose efforts can only influence the procedure of this development: to accelerate it or to decelerate it, but can not change the main direction. In short, the human history is made by groups of people. This ought to be easily understood . Let us take a smaller event as example , such as a war or a battle . Although a eminent general is indispensable for a troop , who can give wonderful tactics that indicate how to defeat the enemy , he will never get any victory unless having excellent soldiers . (此处如果有个连接词作为连接会更好些)On the battlefield , those loyal soldiers enforce the general’s commands , using(这个词有点普通了，而且显得有点中国式表达，是不是可以用sparing no代替) their blood even life to exchange（这个词似乎放在这里位置不恰当，exchange的句型是exchange sth. with sth.这里的“换来”胜利用exchange直译有点生硬了） win of the war . Yet（这里上下句有转折关系吗？是不是表示“尽管这个例子是索small event，但是也代表普遍想象”，如果是要表示这个意思，转折的前后离得有些远了，不容易理解） it is just the same condition as the procedure of human history . “Famous few” is to be the general , ordinary people are the soldiers .这里再加一句把例子稍微深化一下——把历史人物比将军，普通人比战士这个类比再发展一下，效果可能更好，也和TS有个呼应。否则读起来有些嘎然而止的味道，似乎没写完。

On the other hand , when we talk about the study of history , we can not draw the pivot on groups of people any more , and there are two arguments to sustain my point .(我读完全文后往回看，认为这句话应该是后面几个para.的总领了，不过略显简单，如果点出我们的研究重心在famous few会好些。现在这个句子看起来像是只领导本段) The first has to do with the fundamental objective of historical study . Although in the process of studying history , people will gain the image that those famous individuals are more important , while ignoring ordinary groups , in my opinion the main purpose of historical research is not to attribute credit to certain groups of people or individuals , but to reveal the origin and to evaluate the consequence or impact of  historical events . With this history knowledge , we can avoid making the same mistakes as our forerunners , and find a more effective way to develop ourselves, while those famous individuals are just the resources and examples in the study .(这句话是对第一个分论点“历史研究目标”的进一步解释和发展，在整段有着重要坐标作用，如果作为独立的句子或者和本段最后一句连起来会更好，作为从句显得力量弱了) So that whether it is equitable for groups of people to gain less credit is not important here .

The second argument is about the measures of study. Since the huge amount of the ordinary people , it is too difficult for historians to investigate each person in every significant event in history . Besides , little of their accurate information can be preserved after such a long period . Any study depended on such kind of measure will eventually get into the troubles of endless finding and debating . A most efficient way of doing research which is generally accepted in nearly every subject is to study the most representative models in the field . Consider the works of Vinci in art field . Despite he has countless painting throughout his lifetime , artists usually only study and discuss several ones of them , for these pieces can essentially express the skills and characteristics of the composer . Similarly , famous individuals are more valuable in researches of history .

One of the reasons is that those famous individuals’ power or prominent talent may usually influence the historical events greatly . (这句话和上一段衔接很自然，很好。不过只写one of the reasons没有起到提醒大家“看，我要继续上一段的论述了”的作用，反正我是茫然了一会，心里想“怎么突然讲道原因了，什么的原因？”，重看上一段才恍然大悟。如果这句话点出是more valuable可能意义更明确些)For examples , those leads of important events , such as Churchill and Roosevelt in World War two , and those engineers and scientists , such as Watt , Edison and Newton . Through investigating these people’s effect and their products , historian can more easily get a broader and clearer view of the origin , consequence and impacts of the events which they participated .

Another reason is that famous people can generally represent the characteristics of the public in their era . By studying the Plato’s philosophy , we can basically get the view of ideology of ancient Greek , and by studying speech , activities and attitudes of Martin Luther King , we can also understand the black’s(这个用词不够准确，书面语应该写African American) status and both attitudes about ethnic problems in America of that time . Moreover , their relatively integral information will greatly ease historians’ work , helping them to save much time for collecting messages , and with the extra time they can do more meaningful researches .
在我看来这一段和para.4有些重复了，都是说研究名人是因为他们的代表性。怎么处理这个问题你可能要权衡一下，对哪一段进行合并。

In sum , although we can not ignore the ordinary people’s contribution for our society , we need have a scientific attitude toward the study of history . We can not risk to scarify the whole historical study only because of our sympathy . Since the advantages of the famous few for the research , they will always be one of the most important parts of the study of history . （我认为结尾的力度不够，只是进行了观点重述，如果进行深化和拔高会更好一些）

总体来说我觉得写得很好，遣词造句方面是我努力的方向，段与段之间，段内的转换都很自然，行文很流畅，达到well-articulated。

不过well-focused和well-organized显得有些不足。不是技巧和行文方面的问题，毕竟每段都有TS，而是在整个思想不够集中，有些散了。

全篇是想从历史研究的目标和手段来作为切入点，而这两个本来应该平衡的分论点显得有点失衡了。所说“显得”是因为仔细看过之后并未感到失衡，造成错觉的就是para.4最后一句，虽然起到很好的连接上下段作用，但也把这分属两个意群的段落弄得太藕断丝连了，给人错觉接下来的para5还是研究方法的继续论述，莫不如把这句话放到para5去，仍然有效连接，却也能划清界限。

另一个值得改进的是para2部分。我建议你看看lastangel写的AW进阶手册: ISSUE破题策略那篇帖子的刚开头就写了如何把“让步段”为中心服务，而不是为了让步而让步。很值得一读。

[ 本帖最后由 SavileRow 于 2007-8-2 18:30 编辑 ]

xsr6064UID：2312664

太好了，有了你的这个评论我的确发现了不少需要改进的地方，忍不住想说说。
1. 倒数2，3段的确感觉凌乱，应该合为一段，并去掉“Moreover , their relatively integral information will greatly ease historians’ work , helping them to save much time for collecting messages , and with the extra time they can do more meaningful researches .”一句，即倒数第二段最后一句；再将第一句修改，以使之与上段更好的呼应。
2. 历史研究的目标和手段这两个方面的确着力不平均，但研究的目标方面很难再丰满，也许将倒数2，3段合并，在缩减一些内容能够达到平衡的效果。
3. 如何使让步能够好的服务中心还有待研究。

最后，非常感谢！