Issue48【0710G Victors互助小组】第5次作业

fengyinyangUID: 2321139

The speaker makes an assertion that the study of history should places more emphasis on groups of common people rather the famous few. It's tempting because that the common people. It's tempting because the society is mainly constituted of common people which create the history. However, the arguer just overlooks the function and characteristic of great individual and is partially correct for following reasons.

To begin with, admittedly, the world is replete with common people and history, which is the reflection of past world, is also made up of ordinary people. When we talk about a progress of society, we tend to attribute it to the significant leader or decision-maker. However, whether a policy can be well carried out depends on the populaces. Why the revolutions takes place and ultimately succeed is not completely owe to how intelligent someone is, but the contradiction between the temporal situation and demand of people. It's the signal not the integrate process that the giants play a role of. But if we simply ascribe it to a individual, we possibly will ignore the essence of the truth.

In addition, the undertakers of the folk-custom and the structure of society are groups of people. Therefore, if the study of history only places emphasis on individuals, which will reveal few or even nothing relevant to what the folklorists and historians desire to know. I concede that some individuals are considered as the symbol of the tendency or represented as the typical ones of the common people, and yet such subjects are so complex that we can not draw a panorama from a single.

However, just because of the essential effect and impulse the great persons brought to their temporal society, their effort also worth being studied. The decision they made can influence the situation and make the circumstance changed to another. For example, when we consider about the elements of a major victory, the stratagem which is mainly designed by the leaders must be the most significant one, although it is unfair to the soldiers concerning their sacrifice. However, an incorrect decision will lead to more deaths and finally induce a horrible disaster. In the business world, it is more obvious. The leadership of a company is the very factor to succeed in the business circles and the experience of a successful leader can be used as a schoolbook for a fresh hand. That's because the leader himself is the aggregate of traits leading to success.

In sum, both the majorities and minorities are indispensable in the study of history. Without the commonalty, we can hardly know the essence of some history events and without the individuals, the events may be deferred or even never happen. Therefore, we should take these two kinds of people depending on different affairs.

[ 本帖最后由 fengyinyang 于 2007-6-5 00:11 编辑 ]

#十指飞舞UID: 2330769

The speaker makes an assertion that the study of history should places more emphasis on groups of common people rather [rather than ]the famous few. It's tempting because that the common people.[句子不完整] It's tempting because the society is mainly constituted of common people which[who] create the history. However, the arguer just overlooks the function and characteristic of great individual and is partially correct for following reasons.

To begin with, admittedly, the world is replete with common people and history, which is the reflection of past world, is also made up of ordinary people. When we talk about a progress of society, we tend to attribute it to the significant leader or decision-maker. However, whether a policy can be well carried out depends on the populaces. Why the revolutions takes [took]place and ultimately succeed [succeeded]is not completely owe to how intelligent someone is, but the contradiction between the temporal situation and demand of people. It's the signal not the integrate process that the giants play a role of. But if we simply ascribe it to a individual, we possibly will ignore the essence of the truth.

In addition, the undertakers of the folk-custom and the structure of society are groups of people. Therefore, if the study of history only places emphasis on individuals, which will reveal few or even nothing relevant to what the folklorists and historians desire to know. I concede that some individuals are considered as the symbol of the tendency or represented as the typical ones of the common people, and yet such subjects are so complex that we can not draw a panorama from a single.

However, just because of the essential effect and impulse the great persons brought to their temporal society, their effort also worth being studied. The decision they made can influence the situation and make the circumstance changed to another. For example, when we consider about the elements of a major victory, the stratagem which is mainly designed by the leaders must be the most significant one, although it is unfair to the soldiers concerning their sacrifice. However, an incorrect decision will lead to more deaths and finally induce a horrible disaster. In the business world, it is more obvious. The leadership of a company is the very factor to succeed in the business circles and the experience of a successful leader can be used as a schoolbook for a fresh hand. That's because the leader himself is the aggregate of traits leading to success.

In sum, both the majorities and minorities are indispensable in the study of history. Without the commonalty, we can hardly know the essence of some history events and without the individuals, the events may be deferred or even never happen. Therefore, we should take these two kinds of people depending on different affairs.

本文持的是折中的观点。
行文稍微有点像Argument.
全文论证的不错，能多一些事例论证就更好了