Issue36 【四海一家】第二次作业

rny82UID: 2293947

Issue 36  The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live
after them, not by their contemporaries.
一个人是否伟大只能是由后人评定,而非他同时代的.

time：3 hours                           words：390

It would be tempting to support the speaker's claim that the greatness of individuals
can be decided by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries. It is true
that people who live at aftertime can gain an more authoritative insight into the greatness
of predecessors. In my view, however, the contemporaries also play an important role in
deciding the greatness of celebrities.

Admittedly, people who live at aftertime have more time and experience to evaluate former
individuals and their behaviors, especially which were controversial then and there. Consider,
for instance, the Nobel Prize of medicine, which is always sent to the person whose contributions
has made a few decades ago. A new theory, which has not been caught on by masses, is usually
advanced by the scientist with perspicacity, thus, masses who live at aftertime will catch on the
theory through the practices of a long time and realize the greatness of the scientist. Moreover,
more often than not, the products made according as the theory says, will render the greatness of
the theory to masses who live after the scientist. Accordingly, people who live after the celebrities
have more authoritative insight into the greatness of the celebrities.

Nevertheless, the contemporaries also play a crucial role in the process. The contemporaries
inherently have the same circumstance with the celebrities, can therefore realize the significance
of solving current problems. Consider, for instance, the SARS event during 2003. It was so critical
that hundreds of patients suffered the horrible disease. Hundreds of doctors risked their lives to save
the patients and several of them lost their lives. The contemporaries had cognizance of the greatness
of these doctors authentically. Maybe several years later, SARS will be cured by the scientists, people
who live then can't realize the exact greatness of the doctors who help the patients with contagious
disease. So, in some cases, the estimation of the contemporaries are more convictive than that of
the posterity.

In sum, on the one hand ,it is evident that person who live after the celebrities can serve to evaluate
a person and his or her behaviors more justly through observation of a long time; on the other hand, the
contemporaries do it more actually under the same circumstance. Therefore, it is wise and justifiable that
both posterity and contemporaries can decide the greatness of individuals.

moonappleUID: 2271248

It would be tempting to support the speaker's claim that the greatness of individuals can be decided by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries. It is true that people who live at aftertime can gain an more authoritative insight into the greatness of predecessors. In my view, however, the contemporaries also play an important role in deciding the greatness of celebrities.

Admittedly, people who live at aftertime have more time and experience to evaluate former
individuals and their behaviors, especially which(those who？有点没搞明白) were controversial then and there. Consider,for instance, the Nobel Prize of medicine, which is always sent to the person whose contributions has made a few decades ago (have affected our life for decades). A new theory, which has not been caught on by masses, is usually advanced by the scientist with perspicacity, thus, masses who live at aftertime will catch on the theory through the practices of a long time and realize the greatness (truly value可以适当进行一些词汇变换) of the scientist. Moreover, more often than not, the products made according as (to) the theory says, will render the greatness of the theory to masses who live after the scientist. Accordingly, people who live after the celebritie shave more authoritative insight into the greatness of the celebrities.

Nevertheless, the contemporaries also play a crucial role in the process. The contemporaries inherently have (living in) the same circumstance with the celebrities, can therefore (immediately) realize the significance of solving current problems (much thoroughly). Consider, for instance, the SARS event during 2003. It was so critical that hundreds of patients suffered (from) the horrible disease. Hundreds of (词汇可以考虑灵活替换，比如用numerous) doctors risked their lives(put their lives into risk,视觉重心就放在risk了) to save the patients and(and even) several of them lost(devoted) their lives. The contemporaries had cognizance of the greatness of these doctors authentically. Maybe several years later, SARS will be cured (cure表示治愈，overcome比较好，SARS作为一个“难题”) by the scientists, people who live then can't realize(绝对化了，用个副词限定比较好 can not totally/vividly realize) the exact greatness(使用频率有些高啊，achievement,meaning都可以考虑) of the doctors who help the patients with contagious disease. So, in some cases, the estimation of the contemporaries are more convictive than that of the posterity.


我觉得lz可以考虑列一个提纲，重点突出论点，论述更鲜明一些，现在看来文章有点两面模棱两可。可以试着用不同的词汇表达同一个意思，英语也是丰富多彩的开头什么的建议参照一下nostrum的评价，写得真的很好：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-580386-1-1.html
还有，以后不要每一段后面加回车了啊，看起来很不方便的:)

[ 本帖最后由 moonapple 于 2007-2-3 17:16 编辑 ]

rny82UID: 2293947

多谢moonapple耐心的讲解，多谢多谢。只是每段后面的回车没明白，我写的时候没有故意那样啊，
我只是在记事本里写的时候，到了一定长度就换行了，是不是因为这个？再次谢谢你的评语，我会好好改正的，你的文章我也经常会拜读。