issue43 请狂拍，必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

issue43  "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
The speaker's claim has considerable merit as it sufficiently valued the importance of ethical and moral standards to a public official being an effective leader. However, the claim that a successful leadership is just determined by one's ethical and moral standards, is hasty generalized and ignored some other important factors. And the requirement that all the leaders should maintain the highest standards is not just unnecessary, but also impossible.

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that as an effective leader, one should have relatively higher ethical and moral standards, especially when his or her action has huge influence on our society. There are two clear benefits of doing so. First of all, it is moral and ethicalness which make a leader trustful and indispensable, thereby effective. Obviously few of us will qualify a public official who with no conscience at all，and follow his or her order without question. How can such officials with lots of discontent lead the underling effectively? And this is why all the candidates apply themselves to showing their leading capacity by keeping abreast with emphasizing that they are good parents, they are loyally to their spouse, and they are honest and kindhearted as well.

Secondly, if we definite "effective" leader as one contribute a better society in long tern, then it is necessary for our public official to maintain a high ethical and moral standard. Without responsibility and conscience, a business leader who is just aspire after profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners may do serious damage to the customers, the nature environment and the society. Lacking the justice and honesty a mainstream media leader who just want to catch people's eyes, may conceal or even extort truth. And an inhumanity and aggressive political leader who put his or her power on the first place, may put the whole nation into terrible warfare and cause unnecessary death of our people.

Admittedly, without moral and conscience, no one can be an effective leader. However, the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials. It is the courage and confidence to charge authority, help Martin Luther King lead our people to pursue freedom and equality. It is the stability and adamantine made Mahatma Gandhi guide people out of unfairly oppressing. It is the outstanding perspicacity and professional skill lead Bill Grace to be an effective business leader. All of these factors far from ethicalness and moral contribute to an effective leader. Moreover, without sufficient organization and communication skill,  professional knowledge, and the capacity to endure pressure, one just with kind hearted or conscience can never be an effective leader as well.

Moreover, it is not only unnecessary but also impossible to require public official maintain the highest moral and ethical standards. As a nature human, public officials could never be faultless. Even the greatest leaders may make mistakes for their selfish motives sometimes. Furthermore, who can judge who is the one with highest moral and ethnical standard? Is the one always telling truth regardless of the potential consequence or the one telling a lie for good reason? Is the one who reject to downsize rather than cutting the necessary cost or the one  who inconsiderately fire employees to save the whole company? On many issues, no one can do the judgment. Additionally, given the limited time and energy, our public officials may not have the chance to pursue the highest standard instead of dealing with some other pressing problems, which is obviously more relevant to their duty.

In conclusion, as Socrates once said 'look into your own selves and find the spark of truth that god has put into every heart, and that only you can kindle to a flame', different situations should be different treated. Ordering our public officials to maintain sufficient moral and ethical standard world help them to be an effective leader as some respects, however, it is not a foolproof panacea to all the leadership problems. Only given the limited time and energy, our officials should consider circumspectly before draw the final conclusion.

DIDOROSEUID: 2183292

issue43  "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
The speaker's claim has considerable merit as it sufficiently valued the importance of ethical and moral standards to a public official being an effective leader. However, the claim that a successful leadership is just determined by one's ethical and moral standards, is hasty generalized and ignored some other important factors. And the requirement that all the leaders should maintain the highest standards is not just unnecessary, but also impossible.
(看来我们理解的题目都不一样，我来说说我怎么理解的
首先public official, 我查了很多美国网站，发现主要指的还是政府工作人员，还有一些参与指挥社会活动的其他人物，欢迎讨论，我觉得这个理解不好很难下手
还有就是speaker actually assert an effective leader must maintain…..他并没有说这个就是唯一或者是最重要的标准，所以把他忽视了其他因素作为攻击点我认为不妥)
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that as an effective leader, one should have relatively higher ethical and moral standards, especially when his or her action has huge influence on our society. There are two clear benefits of doing so. First of all, it is moral and ethicalness which make a leader trustful and indispensable, thereby effective. Obviously few of us will qualify a public official who with no conscience at all，and follow his or her order without question. How can such officials with lots of discontent lead the underling effectively? And this is why all the candidates apply themselves to showing their leading capacity by keeping abreast with emphasizing that they are good parents, they are loyally to their spouse, and they are honest and kindhearted as well.
(这一段的例子极端了点，根据作者的HIGHEST，我们主要应该说有点小错也是可以原谅的==， 而不是只举很极端的道德败坏的例子)

Secondly, if we definite "effective" leader as one contribute a better society in long tern, then it is necessary for our public official to maintain a high ethical and moral standard. Without responsibility and conscience, a business leader who is just aspire after profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners may do serious damage to the customers, the nature environment and the society. Lacking the justice and honesty a mainstream media leader who just want to catch people's eyes, may conceal or even extort truth. And an inhumanity and aggressive political leader who put his or her power on the first place, may put the whole nation into terrible warfare and cause unnecessary death of our people.
(这一段就完全看怎么理解public official 了)

Admittedly, without moral and conscience, no one can be an effective leader. However, the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials. It is the courage and confidence to charge authority, help Martin Luther King lead our people to pursue freedom and equality. It is the stability and adamantine made Mahatma Gandhi guide people out of unfairly oppressing. It is the outstanding perspicacity and professional skill lead Bill Grace to be an effective business leader. All of these factors far from ethicalness and moral contribute to an effective leader. Moreover, without sufficient organization and communication skill,  professional knowledge, and the capacity to endure pressure, one just with kind hearted or conscience can never be an effective leader as well.
(这一段又看你是怎么理解作者说法的了)

Moreover, it is not only unnecessary but also impossible to require public official maintain the highest moral and ethical standards. (发现一个问题，你这里说it is not only unnecessary，但是你只说过the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials在上一段，但并没论证过它的必须性)As a nature human, public officials could never be faultless. Even the greatest leaders may make mistakes for their selfish motives sometimes. Furthermore, who can judge who is the one with highest moral and ethnical standard? （我觉得这里应该质问的是怎么定义这个最高标准，先有了定义才能用来判断）Is the one always telling truth regardless of the potential consequence or the one telling a lie for good reason? Is the one who reject to downsize rather than cutting the necessary cost or the one  who inconsiderately fire employees to save the whole company? On many issues, no one can do the judgment. Additionally, given the limited time and energy, our public officials may not have the chance to pursue the highest standard instead of dealing with some other pressing problems, which is obviously more relevant to their duty.（并不能这么说，因为作为一个public official其实他的工作时时刻刻都和道德观联系在一起的，并不是要他单独去追求实现道德目标）

In conclusion, as Socrates once said 'look into your own selves and find the spark of truth that god has put into every heart, and that only you can kindle to a flame', different situations should be different treated. Ordering our public officials to maintain sufficient moral and ethical standard world help them to be an effective leader as some respects, however, it is not a foolproof panacea to all the leadership problems. Only given the limited time and energy, our officials should consider circumspectly before draw the final conclusion.
（你总结的时候忽视了你前面几段讲的东西，而都在说要具体情况具体分析，也就是你最后一段说的，感觉好像把前面遗忘了一样。而且你也并没有展开说在不同情况下怎么区别对待道德标准，只是在质问如何评价领导力的时候的排比句提到过，这里感觉比重不对）

staroceanUID: 2271193

issue43  "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
The speaker's claim has considerable merit as it sufficiently valued the importance of ethical and moral standards to a public official being an effective leader. However, the claim that a successful leadership is just determined by one's ethical and moral standards, is hasty generalized and ignored some other important factors. And the requirement that all the leaders should maintain the highest standards is not just unnecessary, but also impossible.
(看来我们理解的题目都不一样，我来说说我怎么理解的
首先public official, 我查了很多美国网站，发现主要指的还是政府工作人员，还有一些参与指挥社会活动的其他人物，欢迎讨论，我觉得这个理解不好很难下手
还有就是speaker actually assert an effective leader must maintain…..他并没有说这个就是唯一或者是最重要的标准，所以把他忽视了其他因素作为攻击点我认为不妥)（我对public offucer的理解和你一样，不知道怎么不一样了，但是因为题目说must所以我觉得可以说不用非得有，因为别的也可以成就领导人。）
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that as an effective leader, one should have relatively higher ethical and moral standards, especially when his or her action has huge influence on our society. There are two clear benefits of doing so. First of all, it is moral and ethicalness which make a leader trustful and indispensable, thereby effective. Obviously few of us will qualify a public official who with no conscience at all，and follow his or her order without question. How can such officials with lots of discontent lead the underling effectively? And this is why all the candidates apply themselves to showing their leading capacity by keeping abreast with emphasizing that they are good parents, they are loyally to their spouse, and they are honest and kindhearted as well.
(这一段的例子极端了点，根据作者的HIGHEST，我们主要应该说有点小错也是可以原谅的==， 而不是只举很极端的道德败坏的例子)（这一段的立论点是基本的道德应该有，所以举的例子是没有基本的不可以，我觉得不偏激 呵呵）

Secondly, if we definite "effective" leader as one contribute a better society in long tern, then it is necessary for our public official to maintain a high ethical and moral standard. Without responsibility and conscience, a business leader who is just aspire after profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners may do serious damage to the customers, the nature environment and the society. Lacking the justice and honesty a mainstream media leader who just want to catch people's eyes, may conceal or even extort truth. And an inhumanity and aggressive political leader who put his or her power on the first place, may put the whole nation into terrible warfare and cause unnecessary death of our people.
(这一段就完全看怎么理解public official 了)

Admittedly, without moral and conscience, no one can be an effective leader. However, the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials. It is the courage and confidence to charge authority, help Martin Luther King lead our people to pursue freedom and equality. It is the stability and adamantine made Mahatma Gandhi guide people out of unfairly oppressing. It is the outstanding perspicacity and professional skill lead Bill Grace to be an effective business leader. All of these factors far from ethicalness and moral contribute to an effective leader. Moreover, without sufficient organization and communication skill,  professional knowledge, and the capacity to endure pressure, one just with kind hearted or conscience can never be an effective leader as well.
(这一段又看你是怎么理解作者说法的了)

Moreover, it is not only unnecessary but also impossible to require public official maintain the highest moral and ethical standards. (发现一个问题，你这里说it is not only unnecessary，但是你只说过the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials在上一段，但并没论证过它的必须性)（上一段不是说有很多别的也可以成就领导人吗，意思就是说最高道德不必要了。）As a nature human, public officials could never be faultless. Even the greatest leaders may make mistakes for their selfish motives sometimes. Furthermore, who can judge who is the one with highest moral and ethnical standard? （我觉得这里应该质问的是怎么定义这个最高标准，先有了定义才能用来判断）Is the one always telling truth regardless of the potential consequence or the one telling a lie for good reason? Is the one who reject to downsize rather than cutting the necessary cost or the one  who inconsiderately fire employees to save the whole company? On many issues, no one can do the judgment. Additionally, given the limited time and energy, our public officials may not have the chance to pursue the highest standard instead of dealing with some other pressing problems, which is obviously more relevant to their duty.（并不能这么说，因为作为一个public official其实他的工作时时刻刻都和道德观联系在一起的，并不是要他单独去追求实现道德目标）（我写的是，要追求最高肯定就要耽误时间等等，我觉得还是有道理的。）

In conclusion, as Socrates once said 'look into your own selves and find the spark of truth that god has put into every heart, and that only you can kindle to a flame', different situations should be different treated. Ordering our public officials to maintain sufficient moral and ethical standard world help them to be an effective leader as some respects, however, it is not a foolproof panacea to all the leadership problems. Only given the limited time and energy, our officials should consider circumspectly before draw the final conclusion.
（你总结的时候忽视了你前面几段讲的东西，而都在说要具体情况具体分析，也就是你最后一段说的，感觉好像把前面遗忘了一样。而且你也并没有展开说在不同情况下怎么区别对待道德标准，只是在质问如何评价领导力的时候的排比句提到过，这里感觉比重不对）（这个我确实有点硬套呵呵，套的不好。）

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-28 02:10 编辑 ]

piggy2006UID: 2272134

The speaker's claim has considerable merit as it sufficiently valued the importance of ethical and moral standards to a public official being an effective leader. However, the claim that a successful leadership is just determined by one's ethical and moral standards, is hasty generalized and ignored some other important factors. And the requirement that all the leaders should maintain the highest standards is not just unnecessary, but also impossible.我觉得在这一点上我跟你对题目的理解是有偏差的，我觉得作者只是强调了highest ethical and moral standards的必要性，但是并没有强调其唯一性阿，所以我觉得绿色部分标的观点其实不用说。。。

I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that as an effective leader, one should have relatively higher ethical and moral standards, especially when his or her action has huge influence on our society. There are two clear benefits of doing so. First of all, it is moral and ethicalness which make a leader trustful and indispensable, thereby effective. Obviously few of us will qualify a public official who with no conscience at all，and follow his or her order without question. How can such officials with lots of discontent lead the underling effectively? And this is why all the candidates apply themselves to showing their leading capacity by keeping abreast with emphasizing that they are good parents, they are loyally to their spouse, and they are honest and kindhearted as well. 我觉得这段的竞选这个例子举得不错。但是再深入一点分析就更好了。比如说：他们之所以这样是因为。。。只有拥有高尚道德，人们才。。。等等，相当于既分析了例子，又点了题。

Secondly, if we definite "effective" leader as one contribute a better society in long tern, then it is necessary for our public official to maintain a high ethical and moral standard. Without responsibility and conscience, a business leader who is just aspire after profit maximization for a firm's shareholders or other owners may do serious damage to the customers, the nature environment and the society. Lacking the justice and honesty a mainstream media leader who just want to catch people's eyes, may conceal or even extort truth. And an inhumanity and aggressive political leader who put his or her power on the first place, may put the whole nation into terrible warfare and cause unnecessary death of our people.这段的并列的例子用得不错。还是，最后差一句总结点题的话。。。

Admittedly, without moral and conscience, no one can be an effective leader. However, the ethical and moral standard is not the only determinant to judge public officials. It is the courage and confidence to charge authority, help Martin Luther King lead our people to pursue freedom and equality. It is the stability and adamantine made Mahatma Gandhi guide people out of unfairly oppressing. It is the outstanding perspicacity and professional skill lead Bill Grace to be an effective business leader. All of these factors far from ethicalness and moral contribute to an effective leader. Moreover, without sufficient organization and communication skill,  professional knowledge, and the capacity to endure pressure, one just with kind hearted or conscience can never be an effective leader as well.个人觉得哈，这段完全没有必要。。。

Moreover, it is not only unnecessary but also impossible to require public official maintain the highest moral and ethical standards. As a nature human, public officials could never be faultless. Even the greatest leaders may make mistakes for their selfish motives sometimes. Furthermore, who can judge who is the one with highest moral and ethnical standard? Is the one always telling truth regardless of the potential consequence or the one telling a lie for good reason? Is the one who reject to downsize rather than cutting the necessary cost or the one  who inconsiderately fire employees to save the whole company? On many issues, no one can do the judgment. Additionally, given the limited time and energy, our public officials may not have the chance to pursue the highest standard instead of dealing with some other pressing problems, which is obviously more relevant to their duty.这段说得就比较含糊了。我觉得最重要的是要区别对待不同的leader，职位不一样，公众效应不一样，应该具备的道德也就不一样。当然你前面提到的人无完人也是一方面，我觉得最好再展开一点来说，举例子然后分析，会显得更有说服力。

In conclusion, as Socrates once said 'look into your own selves and find the spark of truth that god has put into every heart, and that only you can kindle to a flame', different situations should be different treated.正如我上段评语中说的，对这个问题最好独立成段，展开来说，加例子分析~ Ordering our public officials to maintain sufficient moral and ethical standard world help them to be an effective leader as some respects, however, it is not a foolproof panacea to all the leadership problems. Only given the limited time and energy, our officials should consider circumspectly before draw the final conclusion.

总的来说前面两段写得不错，后面就比较含糊。。。
加油哈！
^@^~

DIDOROSEUID: 2183292

还是2个最基本的问题
1。我是看到你写了a business leader ，不知道这个算不算OFFICIAL，不过北美上也这么写的，疑惑
2。你说的是“很多别的也可以成就领导人吗”，但是同时也可以有最高道德啊
MM起床了没：）

staroceanUID: 2271193

最高 没必要有最高 呵呵
其实这是逻辑问题的，必须有意思就是没有不行，但是别的也可以成就领导人，意思就是说没有也行。
其实是在攻击必要性。
再说的直白一点，作者认为必须有，但是没有就不行了吗？别的东西就都不能成就领导人了吗？其实还有很多。。。
唉 那个具体问题具体分析，确实应该拿出来写。

谢谢猪给我改哈

tianrushuiUID: 207550

海啊，我还没太仔细看，就你说的必要性这点说点看法哈。“意思就是说没有也行”，你的这个意思在文中是在正文第三段体现的吧，那么你在那一段应该举一些人们对他们的道德步态认可但仍然是个effective leader的例子。事实上我觉得你没有必要写说出了moral and ethical standard以外还有别的影响因素，因为别的重要并不代表moral and ethical standard不重要。

staroceanUID: 2271193

水也来了哦，呵呵
恩，好像也是，我再看看的。

staroceanUID: 2271193

那么把三四段合在一起这么写，可以吗？
首先最高是不可能的，人无完人，也没办法定义最高
moreover,就算没有最高，在有些时候也可以做effective leader，
比如。。。没有最高的道德，但是凭借其他的strength成为了有效的领导人。。。总之，在这些情况下是别的因素成就了领导人，但不是道德。
最后再说所以应该具体问题具体，分析，不能一概而论要求我们的领导人有最高。。。
这样可以吗？

AZAZUID: 2281834

issue154 请猛拍，必回拍


TOPIC: ISSUE154 - "Both parents and communities must be involved in the local schools. Education is too important to leave solely to a group of professional educators."
提纲：
同意不能完全交给职业教育者，参与确实有必要也有意义，但是过度参与有害。
１．        不能完全交给职业教育者，有以下３个原因：
第一，与父母和社区相比，职业教育者很难和他们一样关注并且了解孩子。
第二，职业教育者往往是政府等决定的，那么他们很可能通过这个来灌输给孩子他们认为重要的思想和理念，可能不是很符合孩子的需要，而且至少不是那么民主。
第三，教育应该是全方位的，如果教育者和家长社区的观念大相径庭，那孩子很可能只是迷惑，根本不知道到底要怎么样，而这样的教育是没有效果的。
２．        让父母和社区参与进来，提供建议并且帮助教育者一同完成教育，即必要也有好处。
第一，父母更了解孩子可以提供好的建议，比如学科的设置和安排，作业量的大小，是不是应参与课外活动。尤其是一些试行的课程应该通过父母对孩子的观察做出决定。
第二，社区可以监督并协助学校，保证教学质量。并且给孩子提供好的环境等等。
３．        但是过分参与，连所有重要的决定权都交给父母和社区就不好了，
   毕竟父母和社区都没有受过专业训练，可能目光短浅，盲目，而且也不知道如何安排教育资源，把所有重要的决定权交给他们有害无利。举例，比如学科的设置和安排，课程及教材的选用，是否应参与课外活动等等。。。

总结，应该平衡。相互结合。

The speaker’s claim has considerable merit as it sufficiently valued the importance of getting involved the parents and community（communities） in local school(s), since that leaving education alone to professional educators will be not only ineffective but also harmful. Nevertheless, there is no need to go to extremes when we do everything。 I would caution that extending the proposition too far might risk undermining those objectives.

Admittedly, I agree with the speaker’s conclusion that we should not leave education solely to professional educators. This point of view has considerable merit, in three respects. First, it is hard for educators to take care of every student as much as their own parents. Given the limited time and energy, they have to equally treat
every one(everyone), it is impossible and unfair to pay too much attention to an individual. Secondly, without participation of parents and community, leaving education alone to professional educators, will risk making them too autocratical (感觉词性不对)to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to children. It will be even more dangerous if these educators do not have the best interests of society’s children in mind.  Thirdly, if education is leaving to faculty exclusively, children may not just lose the opportunity to get inspiration from their parents and community（communities）, which may carry more weight. What is worse students will be even more confused to see the different attitude between their teacher and their parents or community. Consider, for example, if students are told not to drink or smoke by their teachers, while their parents and community do not forbid them for this action, then it seems reasonable for them to just follow the direction which is more convenient to themselves. In this case, education is not effective any more.

Moreover, only when parents, community, and educators work together, education can be most effective, and students can benefit (the) most. By virtue of more meticulous acknowledge about the needs of children, parents should give suggestion to educators concerning several respects, which may include the choice of curriculum, pace and schedule for learning, the quantity of homework, and so forth. Additionally, when educators experiment some new methods, parents can better report the extent of reflection from their children. At the same time, community and parents can also supervise educators and help to serve a whole educational atmosphere for our children. Only under this atmosphere, children will not jut informed knowledge and moral dogma imparted by teachers, they will also get pragmatic experience from the practice with their parents and community. Education will be more effective and vivid by virtue of this atmosphere.

However, the call for involving parents and community into education as the path to raise instruction standard is with one important caveat. Neither parents nor communities should be the final decision-maker to education’s issues. It is true that parents are more motivated to take whatever measures are needed to ensure their children receive the best possible education, however, this should not overshadow the facts that they are not necessarily best equipped to know what is best for their child when it comes to education. They may be narrow-minded, and haste to make a terrible decision. Meanwhile, without specialized training, communities cannot understand what pedagogical methods are most effective, what constitutes a balanced in education, how developmental psychology affects a child’s capacity for learning at different stages and levels. They cannot make the decision too. Accordingly, only professional educators are far better capacity to ensure that students can receive a balanced, properly paced education.

In sum, as ancient Greek philosopher Plato once said,” Better be unborn than untaught, for ignorance is the root of misfortune.”, education is so important to our children, that we can never let professional educators work alone. Parents and communities should be required to provide suggestion, supervision, and cooperation, however, they should never dominate the decision-making process involving education, otherwise, our students’ education is at risk.

总体来说，正反方面论证的都很充分。

细节上，单复数形式注意一下就好了。
内容上，
第三段在论证家长更了解孩子的论述中，说到“比如学科的设置和安排，作业量的大小”由于家长的受教育程度不一样，甚至有没有受过教育的，也由于受到教育的不同，家长对课程的设置可能并不是是十分了解。
我觉得可以从家长对孩子兴趣爱好，思想等方面来说，家长更了解孩子。

我记得，上新东方时老师说过，西方人在论述是习惯以自己的身份来表明自己的观点，中国人习惯用“我们，大家”（we , our）等来论述。我也经常犯这种毛病，不知道在判卷时是否有影响？

仅供参考，说的不对的地方，见谅!
：P

staroceanUID: 2271193

非常感谢

觉得那个第三的建议很好，我再看看。

我之前听说老是写我，似乎不好，所以就改成我们了 呵呵
是不是我们更不好呢，不知道了哦。

再一看发现，这个154的怎么跑到43来了呢 呵呵 不过无所谓了哈

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-28 15:54 编辑 ]