issue48[aero小组] 第二次作业 by liuyingbnu

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

Has the study of history overemphasizes on individuals while, on the other hand, ignores the contributions of the groups of individuals who, in some sense, actually initiate and prompt the process of history evolution? To present a compelling answer to such a question, we should firstly probe in difference between the group and individual as to the significance in history. And from my personal angel, there is no bias upon such a controversial issue adopted by the scholars deliberately.
Firstly, there is no doubt that it is with the efforts and struggles of the public that the society can progress as the history proceeds. The glorious civilization in history, without any doubts, is created by the intelligent people as a whole. The incredible Egypt Pyramid, the continuous wandering Great wall, is the outcome of the total efforts-in terms of labor and mentor work-of the ancient precedents in these two old countries. Further, the vital events and trends in history were sparked by public as well, and the France revolution serves as an appropriate example. The incidence that the furious rob, tired of oppressive brutality of the French monarchy, captured the Bastille, the royal prison in Paris, is the sign of the commencement of France revolution. As we perceive from this even, it aptly illustrate the point that anyone who underestimate the power of groups of people is destined to be punished and that the history is indeed created by the majority of people instead of a few of elites.
However, the contribution of the famous few individuals should not be erased from the history considering their dedication to the nation, the society or even the world. Owing to the exploration of Newton, the secrets in Physical world, to some extent, can be revealed to the public, and with its assistance, new inventions and discoveries have flourished. Without the insistent pursuit of beauty of the noted artists Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael in Renaissance, we might determinately suffer from the loss of numerous treasures in the form of painting, sculpture and so forth. The single individual is memorized by the public at contemporary time and the offspring, for he has sacrificed the whole life for the progress of human beings.
Other than that, there is no denying the fact that the few famous people are representative of the whole group. No matter how significant events made possible by them, those people, after all, are members of the citizens in their times. The founder of a liberal nation-Gorge Washington, the author of Declaration of Independence-Jefferson, are typical of the new settlers with the hope of architecting the paradise fulfilled with desirable notions such as human rights, equality, as well as freedom. There is no exaggerating saying that those elites in history are from the people, by the people and for the people.
When focusing on academic study, obviously, the history is clarified and connected by a series of events completed by some celebrities. Aiming at acquiring clear vision of history process, there is no better choice than concentrating on a few people, providing that the limitation of human resource in academic research and lack of materials relevant to the common people. Taking these factors into account, it's reasonable to focus on the few famous people than the unsubstantial groups of people.
To sum up, while the history has the inclination to focus more on elites than the common majority, there seldom should be blame for the scholars. By recording the few famous people's contribution, the majority of people are in fact on the list of history textbooks. They have never been forgotten, and will never be.
outiline:
历史确实是有大众创造的.
但是，个人对历史做出的贡献也不能被抹杀
个人也是大众的代表.
focusing on individuals can present clear cause and effect relationship
谢谢上次的队友认真的修改，希望大家不要手下留情哦，一起加油！*^_^*

hziu2UID: 2326409

Has the study of history overemphasizes on individuals while, on the other hand, ignores the contributions of the groups of individuals who, in some sense, actually initiate and prompt the process of history evolution? To present acompelling answer to such a question, we should firstly probe in difference between the group and individual as to the significance in history. And from my personal angel, there is no bias upon such a controversial issue adopted by the scholars deliberately.
Firstly, there is no doubt that it is with the efforts and struggles of the public that the society can progress as the history proceeds.（there is no doubt that it is that the society can progress as the history proceeds with the efforts and struggles of the public.） The glorious civilization in history, without any doubts, is created by the intelligent people as a whole. The incredible Egypt Pyramid, the continuous wandering Great wall, is the outcome of the total efforts-in terms of labor and mentor work-of the ancient precedents in these two old countries. Further, the vital events and trends in history were sparked by public as well, and the France revolution serves as an appropriate example. The incidence that the furious rob, tired of oppressive brutality of the French monarchy, captured the Bastille, the royal prison in Paris, is the sign of the commencement of France revolution. As we perceive from this even, it aptly
illustrate the point that anyone who underestimate the power of groups of people is destined to be punished and that the history is indeed created by the majority of people instead of a few of elites.
However, the contribution of the famous few individuals should not be erased from the history considering their dedication to the nation, the society or even the world. Owing to the exploration of Newton, the secrets in Physical world, to some extent, can be revealed to the public, and with its assistance, new inventions and discoveries have flourished. Without the insistent pursuit of beauty of the noted artists Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael in Renaissance, we might determinately suffer from the loss of numerous treasures in the form of painting, sculpture and so forth. The single individual is memorized by the public at contemporary time (去掉) and the offspring, for he has sacrificed the whole life for the progress of human beings.
Other than that, there is no denying the fact that the few famous people are representative ( representation ) of the whole group. No matter how significant events made possible by them, those people, after all, are members of the citizens in their times. The founder of a liberal nation-Gorge Washington, the author of Declaration of Independence-Jefferson, are typical of the new settlers with the hope of architecting the paradise fulfilled with desirable notions such as human rights, equality, as well as freedom. There is no exaggerating saying that those elites in history are from the people, by the people and for the people.
When focusing on academic study, obviously, the history is clarified and connected by a series of events completed by some celebrities. Aiming at acquiring clear vision of history process, there is no better choice than concentrating on a few people, providing that the limitation of human resource in academic research and lack of materials relevant to the common people. Taking these factors into account, it's reasonable to focus on the few famous people than the unsubstantial groups of people.
To sum up, while the history has the inclination to focus more on elites (on famous few) than the common majority, there seldom should be blame for the scholars. By recording the few famous people's contribution, the majority of people are in fact on the list of history textbooks. They have never been forgotten, and will never be.作者文章写得不错,论证很全面,论据也很充分.
但可能我的水平有限,有些句子看得挺吃力.有的词用得太汉语化.

[ 本帖最后由 hziu2 于 2007-12-23 12:25 编辑 ]

zhuzhiweiUID: 2438616

Has the study of history overemphasizes on individuals while, on the other hand, ignores the contributions of the groups of individuals who, in some sense, actually initiate and prompt the process of history evolution? To present a compelling answer to such a question, we should firstly probe in difference between the group and individual as to the significance in history. And from my personal angel, there is no bias upon such a controversial issue adopted by the scholars deliberately.
Firstly, there is no doubt that it is with the efforts and struggles of the public that the society can progress as the history proceeds. The glorious civilization in history, without any doubts, is created by the intelligent people as a whole. The incredible Egypt Pyramid, the continuous wandering Great wall, is the outcome of the total efforts-in terms of labor and mentor work-of the ancient precedents in（their）old countries. Further, the vital events and trends in history were sparked (这里要不要换个词，本人见识少，呵呵。没看见这样用的)by public as well, （。）and (不要AND)the France revolution serves as an appropriate example. The incidence that the furious rob, tired of oppressive brutality of the French monarchy, captured the Bastille, the royal prison in Paris, is the sign of the commencement of France revolution. As we perceive from this even, it aptly illustrate the point that anyone who underestimate the power of groups of people is destined to be punished and that the history is indeed created by the majority of people instead of a few of elites.
However, the contribution of the famous few individuals should not be erased from the history considering their dedication to the nation, the society or even the world. Owing to the exploration of Newton, the secrets in Physical world, to some extent,（不要插入语） can be revealed to the public, and with its assistance, new inventions and discoveries have flourished. Without the insistent pursuit of beauty of the noted artists Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael in Renaissance, we might determinately suffer from the loss of numerous treasures in the form of painting, sculpture and so forth. The single individual is memorized by the public at contemporary time and the offspring, for he （or she）has sacrificed the whole life for the progress of human beings.
Other than that, there is no denying the fact that the few famous people are representative of the whole group. No matter how significant events made possible by them, those people, after all, are members of the citizens in their times. The founder of a liberal nation-Gorge Washington, the author of Declaration of Independence-Jefferson, are typical of the new settlers with the hope of architecting the paradise fulfilled with desirable notions such as human rights, equality, as well as freedom. There is no exaggerating saying that those elites in history are from the people, by the people and for the people.
When focusing on academic study, obviously, the history is clarified and connected by a series of events completed by some celebrities. Aiming at acquiring clear vision of history process, there is no better choice than concentrating on a few people, providing that the limitation of human resource in academic research and lack of materials relevant to the common people. Taking these factors into account, it's reasonable to focus on the few famous people than the unsubstantial(这里用这个词是不是过了，既然已经说了GROUPS也是有用的。是在不行，不要形容词可以不？) groups of people.
To sum up, while the history has the inclination to focus more on elites than the common majority, there seldom should be blame for the scholars. By recording the few famous people's contribution, the majority of people are in fact on the list of history textbooks. They have never been forgotten, and will never be.（感觉就最后一句话直接简单一点就好了，不要那么花哈。）




改了你两篇东西，真的是觉得自惭形秽。
文章里面也有很多长句子。字数也很多。唯一建议的是  是否能简练点。觉得很多东西只要说透了就好了。说到位了就好了。毕竟考试的时候有时间限制。