ISSUE48 【Aero小组】第2次作业 by lingfoz

lingfozUID: 2435613

第一篇~没有限时~主要是限时了写不出来啊~求猛砖

                                          

The speaker asserts that the most important historical events and trends are made possible by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten; therefore, the study of history should place more emphasis on groups of people rather than the famous few. I agree insofar as the masses’ contributions to history should not be neglected. However, I tend to disagree that in the study of history we should emphasize the masses instead of key individuals.

                                                                                      

To begin with, I concede that it was the masses who had participated in the entire course of history, that contributed the whole history, just like it is drips constitute oceans. Yet it is crucial to realize that the famous few such as key leaders in religion, politics,   and art almost always belonged to certain types of organizations and might be remarkable delegates of the organization. That is, key individuals embodied being value and notions   of the groups they attached and even they were admired and followed by their groups as indispensable diction indication. Consider, for example, China's war of resistance against Japan. Admittedly, it was because of the powerful resistance of whole Chinese nation for upholding nation’s independence and sovereignty, Chinese people can ultimately win that war. Great leaders such as Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou as portion of the community express Chinese nations' faiths and notions that Chinese people would never compromise to Japan and would resist invasion until gaining freedom, and they also pointed out the right direction and leaded the community to fulfill final destination, without their wisely command in the battle, the masses would probably remain grope a way out in the dark. In short, based on the premise that the famous few is part of the masses, I consider that leaders played more significant role than faceless, nameless people; therefore, history courses focused on the leaders' ideas and deeds seem reasonable.

                                                            

On the other hand, learning about key individuals in history is far much useful than learning the masses' contributions for our own lives. In my observation, people are always inspired by historical figures to achieve great things themselves. When it comes to the study of science, learning about greatest scientists’ achievements and personalities would just like mirrors for scientific students to inspect themselves and are modals incited students to achievement. For example, as a student of biology, it seems to me that learning about the achievement and personality of Curie, who was one of the greatest scientists in the history, that do indeed benefit my study, I admire her so much and try to work hard for obtain achievement as she did. Obviously it hardly works out through the study of groups of nameless and faceless people.  

                              

Nevertheless, the study of history should not solely focus on individuals separated from the masses; otherwise, it would obscure the cause-and-effect relationships with which the study of history is chiefly concerned. Without the support of the masses, nobody could accomplish any achievements. Consider one of the greatest architectural feats in history--the Great Wall. We have always been told that the Great Wall was attributable to Chin Dynasty First Emperor Ying Cheng. However, could Ying Cheng accomplish this grand undertaking by his own? Of course, no. The Great Wall came out only through the efforts of large groups of people who were oppressed by the tyrant.

                                      

To sum up, I concede that the masses create history and their contributions should not be neglected. However, I would be hard-pressed to find any watershed events and trends attributable to a leaderless group. Moreover, learning about the famous few is more beneficial for ourselves to achieve success. Thus, the study of history focus on individuals is effectively and reasonable.

[ 本帖最后由 lingfoz 于 2007-12-20 06:39 编辑 ]

sheldenUID: 2338299

The speaker asserts that the most important historical events and trends are made possible by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten; therefore, the study of history should place more emphasis on groups of people rather than the famous few. I agree insofar as the masses’ contributions to history should not be neglected. However, I tend to disagree that in the study of history we should emphasize the masses instead of key individuals.
                                                                                       
To begin with, I concede that it was the masses who had participated in the entire course of history, that(which 有逗号了 不能用that) contributed the whole history, just like it is drips constitute oceans. (比喻不是最恰当 前者是说人多力量大 能办事  而后者是说的汇聚作用)Yet it is crucial to realize that the famous few such as key leaders in religion, politics, and art almost always belonged to certain types of organizations and might be remarkable delegates of the organization. That is, key individuals embodied being value and notions of the groups they attached and even they were admired and followed by their groups as indispensable diction indication. Consider, for example, China's war of resistance against Japan. Admittedly, it was because of the powerful resistance of whole Chinese nation for upholding nation’s independence and sovereignty, Chinese people can ultimately win that war. Great leaders such as Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou as portion of the community express Chinese nations' faiths and notions that Chinese people would never compromise to Japan and would resist invasion until gaining freedom, and they also pointed out the right direction and leaded the community to fulfill final destination, without their wisely command in the battle, the masses would probably remain grope a way out in the dark. In short, based on the premise that the famous few is part of the masses, I consider that leaders played more significant role than faceless, nameless people; therefore, history courses focused on the leaders' ideas and deeds seem reasonable.
这段逻辑不是最强 ： 先说承认集体重要  但是关键人物是集体的代表 是核心  （论证了 关键人物对于集体的不可或缺性 但没有说明集体对关键人物是否同样不可或缺  比如 如果没有集体的力量  关键人物的作用是否还能发挥） 所以 结论关键人物更重要 有点草率

我的建议是 不说集体 直接论证 关键人物与历史事件的关系 从而得到 必须深入研究关键人物的必要性

至于和集体的比较  可用研究的意义 研究的可行性来论证

可能有吹毛求疵的嫌疑  参考参考即可  ： ）
                                                            
On the other hand, learning about key individuals in history is far much useful than learning the masses' contributions for our own lives. In my observation, people are always inspired by historical figures to achieve great things for themselves. When it comes to the study of science, learning about greatest scientists’ achievements and personalities would just like mirrors for scientific students to inspect themselves and are modals incited (inciting) students to achievement. For example, as a student of biology, it seems to me that learning about the achievement and personality of Curie, who was one of the greatest scientists in the history去THE 有定语时才需要, that do indeed benefit my study. I admire her so much and try to work hard for obtain achievement as she did. Obviously it hardly works out through the study of groups of nameless and faceless people.  
                              
Nevertheless, the study of history should not solely focus on individuals separated from the masses; otherwise, it would obscure the cause-and-effect relationships with which the study of history is chiefly concerned. Without the support of the masses, nobody could accomplish any achievements. Consider one of the greatest architectural feats in history--the Great Wall. We have always been told that the Great Wall was attributable to Chin Dynasty First Emperor Ying Cheng. However, could Ying Cheng accomplish this grand undertaking by his own? Of course, no (not). The Great Wall came out only through the efforts of large groups of people who were oppressed by the tyrant.
                                      
To sum up, I concede that the masses create history and their contributions should not be neglected. However, I would be hard-pressed to find any watershed events and trends attributable to a leaderless group. Moreover, learning about the famous few is more beneficial for ourselves to achieve success. Thus, the study of history focus on individuals is effectively and reasonable.

思路清晰
词汇丰富
好样的  加油

katu1204UID: 2355887

The speaker asserts that the most important historical events and trends are made possible by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten; therefore, the study of history should place more emphasis on groups of people rather than the famous few. I agree insofar as the masses’ contributions to history should not be neglected. However, I tend to disagree that in the study of history we should emphasize the masses instead of key individuals.[观点明确]

To begin with, I concede that it was the masses who had participated in the entire course of history, that contributed the whole history, just like it is drips constitute oceans[感觉这个比喻有点看不懂]. Yet it is crucial to realize that the famous few such as key leaders in religion, politics, and art almost always belonged to certain types of organizations and might be remarkable delegates of the organization. That is, key individuals embodied being value and notions of the groups they attached and even they were admired and followed by their groups as indispensable diction indication [？？direction indication  ]. Consider, for example, China's war of resistance against Japan. Admittedly, it was because of the powerful resistance of whole Chinese nation for upholding nation’s independence and sovereignty, Chinese people can ultimately win that war. Great leaders such as Chairman Mao and Premier Zhou as portion of the community express Chinese nations' faiths and notions that Chinese people would never compromise to Japan and would resist invasion until gaining freedom, and they also pointed out the right direction and leaded the community to fulfill final destination, without their wisely command in the battle, the masses would probably remain [to] grope a way out in the dark.[一句里有5个and，而且这句超长读起来有点累，感觉应该重新组织哈] In short, based on the premise that the famous few is part of the masses, I consider that leaders played more significant role than faceless, nameless people; therefore, history courses focused on the leaders' ideas and deeds seem reasonable.

On the other hand, learning about key individuals in history is far much useful than learning the masses' contributions for our own lives. In my observation, people are always inspired by historical figures to achieve great things themselves. When it comes to the study of science, learning about greatest scientists’ achievements and personalities would just like mirrors for scientific students to inspect themselves and are modals incited students to achievement. For example, as a student of biology, it seems to me that learning about the achievement and personality of Curie, who was one of the greatest scientists in the history, that do indeed benefit my study, I admire her so much and try to work hard for obtain[ing] achievement as she did. Obviously it hardly works out through the study of groups of nameless and faceless people.

Nevertheless, the study of history should not solely focus on individuals separated from the masses; otherwise, it would obscure the cause-and-effect relationships with which the study of history is chiefly concerned. Without the support of the masses, nobody could accomplish any achievements. Consider one of the greatest architectural feats in history--the Great Wall. We have always been told that the Great Wall was attributable to Chin Dynasty First Emperor Ying Cheng. However, could Ying Cheng accomplish this grand undertaking by his own? Of course, no[not]. The Great Wall came out only through the efforts of large groups of people who were oppressed by the tyrant[who were oppressed by the tyrant.

To sum up, I concede that the masses create history and their contributions should not be neglected. However, I would be hard-pressed to find any watershed events and trends attributable to a leaderless group. Moreover, learning about the famous few is more beneficial for ourselves to achieve success. Thus, the study of history focus on individuals is effectively and reasonable.

总体来说词汇很丰富，论证清晰，句式也比较复杂，但是有些地方感觉还是有点不地道，一起加油

[ 本帖最后由 katu1204 于 2007-12-22 16:55 编辑 ]