Issue48 [0710G Victors互助小组]第5次作业

鬼马丁丁UID: 2333532

TOPIC: ISSUE48 - "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."


The speaker gives an assertion that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most siginificant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose indentities have long been forgotten. I disgree with both aspects of this claim. To begin with, learning about key historical figures inspires us to achieve great things ourselves-far more so than learning about the contributions of groups of people. Moreover, history informs us that it is almost always a key individual who provides the necessary impetus for what otherwise might be a group effort, as dicussed below.

Almost a lot of significant events and trends in history were made possible by those famous few. For the reason that few famous historical figures provide a certain accessible way for people to attain great things about which individuals are still unaware. Human beings are also regarded to achieve great things themselves far more than learning about the devotions of groups of people. One crucial people sometimes is respected as a cheif core leader to gather strength of others, moreover, respecting a  trend of thought of a group. Definitely, when such a person placed in a certain enviroment, such as a war battle, commercial negotiations, or stake, a fight agaist a government which worships totalitarianism, his effect as an impact on such societal problems will be relative obvious to be seen for the perspective and decision of one person is more definitely explicit and charaterastic. On the contray, groups of people owns too many diverse thoughts towards one thing, I concede that it is more effective to bring a complete understanding and a resolution towards a problem, However, those more high-hearted man are capable of inciting significant events and therefore, is justifiable to be praised and recorded down by time and people, and more emphasis shoud be put on them.

People who viewed as famous and outstanding were recorded by historical books and several authoritative dossiers handed down by generations and generations. They being respected as heros, or sigificant symbols of a trend status quo, are powerful enough to influence our comportaries and bring advancements to our society. even propeling society to head along not only for people themselves but social developments. Gutenberg is just one example of a historical pattern in which it is individuals who have been ultimately responsible for the most siginificant developments in human history. Profound scientific inventions and discoveried of the past are nearly all attributable not to forgettable groups of people but to certain key individuals-for example, Copernicus, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Curie, and of course Gutenberg. Moreover, when it comes to seminal sociopolitical events, the speaker's claim finds even less support from the historical record. Admittedly, sweeping social changes and political reforms require the participation of large groups of people. However, I would be hard pressed to indentify any watershed sociopolitical event attributable to a leaderless group. History informs us that groups rally only when incited and inspired by key individuals.

To sum up, with few historical exceptions, history is shaped by key individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. Those people who outstanding enough to be a leader is a perfect response to the question that why there are so many records handed down to collect a lot of stories of such famous ones.

puzilongUID: 2308557

The speaker gives an assertion that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most siginificant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few [individuals], but by groups of people whose indentities have long been forgotten. I disgree with both aspects of this claim. To begin with, learning about key historical figures inspires us to achieve great things ourselves-far more so than learning about the contributions of groups of people. Moreover, history informs us that it is almost always a key individual who provides the necessary impetus for what otherwise might be a group effort, as dicussed below.

Almost a lot of significant events and trends in history were made possible by those famous few. For the reason that few famous historical figures provide a certain accessible way for people to attain great things about which individuals are still unaware. Human beings are also regarded to achieve great things themselves far more than learning about the devotions of groups of people. One crucial people sometimes is respected as a cheif core leader to gather strength of others, moreover, respecting a  trend of thought of a group. Definitely, when such a person placed in a certain enviroment, such as a war battle, commercial negotiations, or stake, a fight agaist a government which worships totalitarianism, his effect as an impact on such societal problems will be relative[relatively] obvious to be seen for the perspective and decision of one person is more definitely explicit and charaterastic. On the contray, groups of people owns too many diverse thoughts towards one thing, I concede that it is more effective to bring a complete understanding and a resolution towards a problem, However, those more high-hearted man are capable of inciting significant events and therefore, is justifiable to be praised and recorded down by time and people, and more emphasis shoud be put on them.

People who viewed as famous and outstanding were recorded by historical books and several authoritative dossiers handed down by generations and generations. They being respected as heros, or sigificant symbols of a trend status quo, are powerful enough to influence our comportaries and bring advancements to our society. even propeling society to head along not only for people themselves but social developments. Gutenberg is just one example of a historical pattern in which it is individuals who have been ultimately responsible for the most siginificant developments in human history. Profound scientific inventions and discoveried of the past are nearly all attributable not to forgettable groups of people but to certain key individuals-for example, Copernicus, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Curie, and of course Gutenberg. Moreover, when it comes to seminal sociopolitical events, the speaker's claim finds even less support from the historical record. Admittedly, sweeping social changes and political reforms require the participation of large groups of people. However, I would be hard pressed to indentify any watershed sociopolitical event attributable to a leaderless group. History informs us that groups rally only when incited and inspired by key individuals.

To sum up, with few historical exceptions, history is shaped by key individuals, not by nameless, faceless groups. Those people who[are] outstanding enough to be a leader is a perfect response to the question that why there are so many records handed down to collect a lot of stories of such famous ones.


比ISSUE17好很多啊( 我也认为很难写). 观点明确, 论证清楚,有理有据,语言流畅. 相信是我手写我心的文章. 应该是4分往上把. 嘿嘿!!