issue48 [practise小组]quickbreeze作业

quickbreezeUID: 195262

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.
Time: 54:11  words: 602

Who are the creators of history, the famous few celebrities or the populous whose identities cannot be found on books? In my point of view, both two are dispensable if any event is to be possible while they take their separate roles.

It has been widely accepted that the famous few figures have made great contributions to the advancement of human civilization. A person with greater power charges greater responsibility. The famous few individuals are those who dance on the crest of sea waves. When time comes to case of life and death, it is always the leader that makes crucial decisions and distributions which may guide or even change the trend of the river of history. History never lacks examples of famous individuals. For instance, the founding fathers exerted every effort to fight with British colony governors and gave birth to a new nation. Without those famous few, it's difficult to imagine what the American Continent will turn to be. Take the build of quantum theory as another example. The physics master Bohr pointed out the promising future and brought up illuminating ideas which had directed a splendid orientation for modern physics. Historians have acknowledged and are fond of these figures by leaving us so many biographies and anecdotes besides text books. So it's not strange that today we are quite familiar about the story of Washington as a little boy and his cherry tree.

At the same time, the attribution of the populous can't be neglected or understated since nothing important will come into reality without their efforts. Although those significant individuals do give great commands at the pivot, it is the populous that practise and fulfill them little by little. After all, the power and energy of one person, albeit he is the lead, is not sufficient to cover every corner and change the whole world. Review the War of Independence from another perspective will reveal that every soldier is a hero because of his sweat and even blood on this land. Only several excellent generals are far less strong than those with an excellent troop. Also, although Bohr is regarded as the leader of the Copenhagen school, he is not the only member since only after the cooperation of many other brilliant minds can we enjoy the beauty of quantum theory and its appliance. Thus the populous own its unique and irreplaceable status in history.

Finally, it should be pointed that it's justifiable for the history books and files not to document every name of participants in significant events and trends in history. In some respects and to some extent, the power of the whole populous is surprising while that of one member of it is not so. The word "importance" or "significance" may be interpreted differently due to different environment and cases. It's possible that the task of an ordinary soldier in a war can be well finished by another since his role is just a "soldier". Hence in this way this soldier seems to be replaceable to the whole war and his affairs may not be documented by history books. Yet to his family and friends, things appear different. In this situation he is now also a husband, a son and a friend and maybe every night he spent on the battlefield will be talked by his offspring.

In sum, having no record in the books of national library doesn't imply negligence by the country. By contrast, no one with wise judgment will deny the populous. I believe that the famous few individuals and the populous together have written and are writing stories of our society.

SayyesUID: 2186610

Who are the creators of history, the famous few celebrities or the populous whose identities cannot be found on books? In my point of view, both two are dispensable if any event is to be possible while they take their separate roles[有点绕].[开头就把题目转为了是谁创造了历史，不在乎题目中的emphasis，我不知道这样好不好，我当初就为这个主题问题犯难]

It has been widely accepted that the famous few figures have made great contributions to the advancement of human civilization. A person with greater power charges greater responsibility. The famous few individuals are those who dance on the crest of sea waves. When time comes to case of life and death[lives and deaths of people], it is always the leader that[who] makes crucial decisions and distributions which may guide or even change the trend of the river[河流的趋势，比喻似乎不妥] of history. History never lacks examples of famous individuals. For instance, the founding fathers exerted every effort to fight with British colony governors and gave birth to a new nation. Without those famous few, it's difficult to imagine what the American Continent will turn to be. [这例子没有凸现个人作用]Take the build of quantum theory as another example. The physics master Bohr[德布罗意更天才，呵呵] pointed out the promising future and brought up illuminating ideas which had directed a splendid orientation for modern physics. Historians have acknowledged and are fond of these figures by leaving us so many biographies and anecdotes besides text books. So it's not strange that today we are quite familiar about the story of Washington as a little boy and his cherry tree.

At the same time, the attribution of the populous[adj ] can't be neglected or understated since nothing important will come into reality without their efforts. Although those significant individuals do give great commands at the pivot, it is the populous that practise and fulfill them little by little. After all, the power and energy of one person, albeit he is the lead, is not sufficient to cover every corner and change the whole world. Review the War of Independence from another perspective will reveal that every soldier is a hero because of his sweat and even blood on this land. Only several excellent generals are far less strong than those with an excellent troop. Also, although Bohr is regarded as the leader of the Copenhagen school, he is not the only member since only after the cooperation of many other brilliant minds can we enjoy the beauty of quantum theory and its appliance. Thus the populous own its unique and irreplaceable status in history.[这一段论的比较浅显，就是说伟人是将，群众是兵，光杆司令打不了仗]

Finally, it should be pointed[out] that it's justifiable for the history books and files not to document[record] every name of participants in significant events and trends in history. In some respects and to some extent, the power of the whole populous is surprising while that of one member of it is not so[不好意思没读懂]. The word "importance" or "significance" may be interpreted differently due to different environment and cases. It's possible that the task of an ordinary soldier in a war can be well finished by another since his role is just a "soldier". Hence in this way this soldier seems to be replaceable to the whole war and his affairs may not be documented by history books. Yet to his family and friends, things appear different. In this situation he is now also a husband, a son and a friend and maybe every night he spent on the battlefield will be talked by his offspring.[把红军爷爷讲的故事也算作历史了，呵呵][这段是想找历史研究侧重个人的原因，回应了题目，但是与前两段脱节了。最好是在开头时，就回应，并将它融到主题中。 另外此段论证的也不是很清楚]

In sum, having no record in the books of national library doesn't imply negligence by the country. By contrast, no one with wise judgment will deny the populous. I believe that the famous few individuals and the populous together have written and are writing stories of our society.


quickbreeze的错确实很少啊，基本功太厉害了
本文说理比较简单，主题不是很清楚，段与段之间逻辑关系不明显
可不可以定主题为：历史研究确实侧重了个人（那是有原因的），但这并不意味着是伟人创造历史，应是共同创造。然后把第四段提到第二段，再加强衔接。
个人之见，仅供参考

quickbreezeUID: 195262

谢谢指点，努力加油:)