Issue43 限时40分钟哦 不过写的.......狠拍必会～

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

1.        题目：ISSUE43 - "To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards."
2.        字数：508          用时：00:40:00          日期：2007-8-11 上午 09:58:47
3.       
4.        The speaker unfairly generalizes that a public official ,if he want to be a effective leaders , should practice the highest ethical standards all the time .however, in my view, just highest professional ethical contribute to an effective leader, while personal ethics have little to do with a effective leadership.
5.       
6.        First of all, what is necessary to a public official is only a adherence to highest professional ethics, which limits the behaviors of them and guilds the direction to success. we need look no further that Gandhi to illustrate this point. the reason he was trusted by many Indians primarily involves his adherence to the highest moral standards, and the same cases refer to Martin Luther King, who seek for the establishment of a freedom society, also practice the highest moral standard, and this practice contribute a lot to his successful leadership. In addition, I concede that without highest ethical standards, a person could still be a l effective leader, however, history informs us this leadership could not last for a long term, his unethical behaviors will results in a serious protest, even wars, which results in the forfeiture of the power. a typical example goes that: Hitler once was the most effective leaders of German, under his leadership, German restored from the injury of First World War and even thrived better, from this point, he lived up to a "effective leader", however, because he was a serious violator of professional ethics, which should involve love, tolerance, and democracy, and utilized the achievements of German to serve to The Second World War, finally, this "effective leader" received his deserving punishment and down-fall. From above analysis, we could conclude that highest professional ethical standards are dispensable to a lasting, effective leadership, while a violator might achieve a ephemeral "effectiveness".
7.       
8.        On the other hand, I think personal ethics of a leader is unrelated to his leading effectiveness. Common sense tells us that no person  could be perfect, so are those leaders. Moreover, those public officials usually live under the concerns of the public, so he will be preoccupied on their vocational works to avoid even a little mistake. under such pressure, it is not surprise for a leader owning some indulgent  behaviors in his private life, but it has nothing to do with his leadership. Bill Clinton is a typical example. a majority of American like Clinton for the reason that: during his presidency, the economy restored from a long-term depression, his effective diplomatic strategies served American interests in re-obtaining the believes of other countries once treated as "enemies". although Clinton was revealed to have a sex scandal with Lewinsky, which results to his resign. nobody would deny the his talent in leadership. so we might see that, being a lead usually receive far more public concerns which always bring lots of pressure to the leader, if he has some problems with his personal ethics, like ordinary people, it will be forgivable.
9.       
10.        In conclusion, we people should show more tolerance to a leader's private ethics and, be strict to his moral ethics, which be related to a effective leadership.   
11.        学习组长的提前五分钟，但是立刻导致了质量的大幅度下降 orz 大家狠批吧 超级狠批

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

4.        The speaker unfairly generalizes that a public official ,if he want to be a effective leaders , should practice the highest ethical standards all the time .however, in my view, ethical and moral standards should be divided into two parts: professional ethics and personal ones, just highest professional ethical contribute to an effective leader, while highest personal ethics have little to do with (太武断了)is unnecessary for a effective leadership.
5.       
6.        First of all, what is necessary to a public official is only an adherence to highest professional ethics, which limits the behaviors of them and guilds the direction to success.(太空了)应该改为具体的解释，为什么是必要的。As we know, leaders usually deal with affairs which many people would have stake in, only the highest professional ethics could guarantee his decisions always taking account the benefits of majority. If without these ethics, maybe some detrimental results would come out, such as corruption, abuse of power and so on. For example, in China, each year hundreds of official leaders were arrested for conviction on accepting bribes, and study reveals that these officials all suffer from a ethics loss in common, moreover, we need look no further that Gandhi as an opposite example. the reason he was trusted by many Indians primarily involves his adherence to the highest moral standards, and the same cases refer to Martin Luther King, who seek for the establishment of a freedom society, also practice the highest moral standard, and this practice contribute a lot to his successful leadership. In addition, I concede that without highest ethical standards, a person could still be a effective leader, (这句话太失败了)some people may argue that, in some cases, professional ethics violators could also be a leader, even effective in some aspects, (这样改才是正确的)however, history informs us this leadership could not last for a long term, his unethical behaviors will results in a serious protest, even wars, which results in the forfeiture of the power. a typical example goes that: Hitler once was the most effective leaders of German, under his leadership, German restored from the injury of First World War and even thrived better, from this point, he lived up to a "effective leader", however, because he was a serious violator of professional ethics， which should involve love, tolerance, and democracy，moreover, he utilized the achievements of German to serve to The Second World War, finally, this "effective leader" received his deserving punishment and down-fall. From above analysis, we could conclude that highest professional ethical standards could be the only access to a lasting, effective leadership, although a violator might achieve an ephemeral "effectiveness".
7.       
8.        On the other hand, I think practicing the highest personal ethics of a leader is unrelated to(太武断了)unnecessary for his leading effectiveness. And adherence to a strict requirement of leaders’ private moral standards sometimes could pose counterproductive effects. Common sense tells us that no person could be perfect, so are those leaders. Moreover, those public officials usually live under the concerns of the public, which usually serve as a catalyst in manifesting their flaws. so under this condition, he will be preoccupied on their vocational works to avoid even a little mistake. under such pressure, undoubtedly, work under this pressure for a long time will pose some problems. Such as some indulgent behaviors in his private life, but it has nothing to do with 太武断了还是affects his leadership lttle. Bill Clinton is a typical example. a majority of American like Clinton for the reason that: during his presidency, the economy restored from a long-term depression, his effective diplomatic strategies served American interests in re-obtaining the believes of other countries (不地道，应该是wining the trust of several counties)once treated as "enemies". although Clinton was revealed to have a sex scandal with Lewinsky, which results to his resign. nobody would deny the his talent in leadership. so we might see that, being a lead usually receive far more public concerns which always bring lots of pressure to the leader, if he has some problems with his personal ethics, like ordinary people, it will be forgivable. (这个结尾太差了) if the leader works in an effect to his duty, the public should show no less tolerance to their little flaws of private morality. If so, the leaders could also feel tolerance and love from the public and surely will devote far more to his job. That will be a beneficial interaction between leaders and mass.
9.       
10.        In conclusion, we people should show more tolerance to a leader's private ethics and, be strict to his moral ethics, which be related to a effective leadership.

joyceningUID：2314914

The speaker unfairly generalizes that a public official ,if he wants to be an effective leaders(单复数) , should practice the highest ethical standards（practice standards不确定这个说法，所以读起来不顺） all the time .however, in my view, just highest professional（想说什么呢，没看明白） ethical contribute to an effective leader, while personal ethics have little to do with a effective leadership.
5.        
6.        First of all, what is necessary to a public official is only a adherence（语法错误） to highest professional ethics, which limits the behaviors of them and guilds the direction to success. we need look no further that Gandhi to illustrate this point. the reason he was trusted by many Indians primarily involves his adherence to the highest moral standards, and the same cases refer to Martin Luther King, who seek for the establishment of a freedom society, also practice the highest moral standard, and this practice contribute（语法错误） a lot to his successful leadership.（这里的例子没说清楚，说他们只遵守职业上的最高道德，具体是怎么遵守的，遵守的是什么，都没说） In addition, I concede（明明是在让步，为什么用in addition，这个表递进） that without highest ethical standards, a person could still be a l effective leader（晕，怎么感觉观点前后矛盾了，前面说应该有，这里说没有也行。。。）, however, history informs us this leadership could not last for a long term, his unethical behaviors will results in a serious protest, even wars, which results in the forfeiture of the power. a typical example goes that: Hitler once was the most effective leaders of German, under his leadership, German restored from the injury of First World War and even thrived better, from this point, he lived up to a "effective leader", however, because he was a serious violator of professional ethics, which should involve love, tolerance, and democracy, and utilized the achievements of German to serve to The Second World War, finally, this "effective leader" received his deserving（这个词很多好作定语的，sb deserve sth） punishment and down-fall. From above analysis, we could conclude that highest professional ethical standards are dispensable to a lasting, effective leadership, while a violator might achieve a ephemeral "effectiveness".（就是说可有可无，也就是说道德标准不是必要条件，那换个角度论述，直接说他不是必要条件，作为ts，再接下面的论述，貌似更清晰，就像你说的，我看你的ts，不会预料到你这段还会有让步）
7.        
8.        On the other hand, I think personal ethics of a leader is unrelated to his leading effectiveness. Common sense tells us that no person  could be perfect, so are those leaders. Moreover, those public officials usually live under the concerns of the public, so he will be preoccupied on their vocational works to avoid even a little mistake（没读懂）. under such pressure, it is not surprise for a leader owning some indulgent  behaviors in his private life, but it has nothing to do with his leadership. Bill Clinton is a typical example. a majority of American like Clinton for the reason that: during his presidency, the economy restored from a long-term depression, his effective diplomatic strategies served American interests in re-obtaining the believes of other countries once treated as "enemies". although Clinton was revealed to have a sex scandal（很中文） with Lewinsky, which results to his resign（这个是动词）. nobody would deny the his talent in leadership（美国貌似对他很有争议，不是正面的也很多）. so we might see that, being a lead usually receive far more public concerns which always bring lots of pressure to the leader, if he has some problems with his personal ethics, like ordinary people, it will be forgivable.
9.        
10.        In conclusion, we people（不顺） should show more tolerance to a leader's private ethics and, be strict to his moral ethics（为什么呢，你不是说dispensable吗，在第二段）, which be related to a effective leadership.

觉得这样分类不太好，很多道德无法分为个人还是职业上的。你说希特勒的道德，其实归到个人范畴内，也说得通

woodmanUID：161906

The speaker unfairly generalizes that a publicofficial ,（标点还是老问题，不是标点前空格，是后空格）if he want to be a effective leaders , shouldpractice the highest ethical standards all the time .however（大写）, in my view, ethical and moral standards should bedivided into two parts: professional ethics andpersonal ones（这样的划分要给予一定的说明，否则一上来就来两道大餐，人家莫名其妙）, just highest professional ethicalcontribute to an effective leader, while highest personal ethics is unnecessaryfor a effective leadership. 呵呵，其实我也是这么分类的，不过没有冠以专业名词，因为冠了专业名词就的花笔墨解释它

First of all, what is necessary to a public officialis only an adherence to highest professional ethics, which limits the behaviorsof them and guilds the direction to success.(太空了，同意) As we know, leaders usually deal with affairs which many people would have stake in（好像是have a stake in吧？）, only the highest professional ethicscould guarantee his decisions always taking account the benefits of majority.If without these ethics, maybe some detrimental results would come out, such ascorruption, abuse of power and so on. For example, in China, each year hundredsof official leaders were arrested for conviction on accepting bribes, and study reveals that these officials all suffer from aethics loss in common（这样写让人觉得信服力不强了，摆事实好了，不要说研究表明…）,moreover,（前面是反面例子，突然急转到正面例子，缺少过度） we need look no further that Gandhi as anopposite example. the reason he was trusted by many Indians primarily involveshis adherence to the highest moral standards, and the same cases refer toMartin Luther King, who seek for the establishment of a freedom society, alsopractice the highest moral standard, and this practice contribute a lot to hissuccessful leadership.（为什么会有助于，要写清楚，这是很关键的信息。否则就有点打擦边球了。正面列举一个就行了，因为那两个例子是很相似的）（从这里分成两段吧，否则你这一大段包罗万象）In addition, I concede that withouthighest ethical standards, a person could still be a effective leader, (这句话太失败了，附议：这句根前面的论述矛盾啊)some people may argue that, in some cases,professional ethics violators could also be a leader, even effective in someaspects, however, history informs us this leadership could not last for a longterm, his unethical behaviors will results in a serious protest, even wars,which results in the forfeiture of the power. a typical example goes that:Hitler once was the most effective leaders of German, under his leadership,German restored from the injury of First World War and even thrived better,from this point, he lived up to a "effective leader", however,because he was a serious violator of professional ethics，which should involve love, tolerance, and democracy，moreover,he utilized the achievements of German to serve to The Second World War,finally, this "effective leader" received his deserving punishmentand down-fall. From above analysis, we could conclude that highest professionalethical standards could be the only access to a lasting, effective leadership,although a violator might achieve an ephemeral "effectiveness".
这一大段内容太多了，即使你有千言万语也要克制住啊，有的时候写多了反倒杂了，你正也写了，反了写了，还来了无数例证，让人觉得很华丽，眼花缭乱的，但是经不起推敲，段内的衔接很弱。

On the other hand, I think practicing the highestpersonal ethics of a leader is unrelated to(太武断了)unnecessary for his leading effectiveness. And adherence to a strictrequirement of leaders’ private moral standards sometimes could posecounterproductive effects. Common sense tells us that no person could beperfect, so are those leaders. Moreover, those public officials usually liveunder the concerns of the public, which usually serve as a catalyst inmanifesting their flaws. so under this condition, he will be preoccupied ontheir vocational works to avoid even a little mistake. under such pressure,undoubtedly, work under this pressure for a long time will pose some problems. （前面写那么多的压力什么的想说明什么呢？难道压力大就应该降低道德标准？逻辑上说不过去）Such as some indulgent behaviors in hisprivate life, but it has nothing to do with 太武断了还是affects his leadership little. Bill Clinton is a typical example. amajority of American like Clinton for the reason that: during his presidency,the economy restored from a long-term depression, his effective diplomaticstrategies served American interests in re-obtaining the believes of othercountries (不地道，应该是wining the trust of several counties)oncetreated as "enemies". although Clintonwas revealed to have a sex scandal with Lewinsky, which results to his resign.nobody would deny the his talent in leadership. so we might see that, being alead usually receive far more public concerns which always bring lots ofpressure to the leader, if he has some problems with his personal ethics, likeordinary people, it will be forgivable. (例子太长了，可以保留有用的信息，把非核心信息去掉) if the leader works in an effect to his duty, thepublic should show no less tolerance to their little flaws of private morality.If so, the leaders could also feel tolerance and love from the public andsurely will devote far more to his job（这个和有效领导有什么关系呢？写这个还是应该紧扣有效领导）. That will be a beneficial interaction between leadersand mass.  我觉得你不要解释为什么有的领导降低道德标准，因为这个与主题关联不大，你只要说明这并不影响人们对他有效领导的认可就行了。

In conclusion, we people should show more toleranceto a leader's private ethics and, be strict to his moral ethics, which berelated to a effective leadership.你上边的段落那么长，结尾显得太短了，就好像看到一个无比壮实的人长了三寸金莲的感觉，呵呵