修改【jet】NO10

jinluevaUID: 2390375

The speaker contends that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals because the most important historical events and trends (may be not so proper, try directions) were made by groups of people who have long been forgotten, rather than the famous few. As a matter of fact, history is not as black and white as the speaker perceives. Historical events and trends could not be made without the famous few, nor do groups of people whereas the study of history places much emphasis on individuals have its own sense.

Admittedly, groups of people play a significant role in the stage of history. A case in point is in the architectural field; the Great Wall, which is one of the world ancient wonders, was built by millions of Chinese people. We may never know their names, but through the work they leave (left to) us, we can still identify the qualities they had: cleverness, diligence, and more important, teamwork.

However, no matter how many people a certain historical event involved, it might not succeed as it did in the history if there were no key individuals took part in. These key individuals, as the speaker call them "the famous few", has certain abilities which are necessary for a historical event to occur. Charisma, one of the most important characters one should hold, can make other groups of people work together to a determined goal such us overturn a corrupted government, fight with enemies to protect their homeland, or to build a brand new society. Judgment, another important quality one should have for a key individual, guarantees the event trends to a direction he or she wants. And besides, the bravery(这个写法再确定以下). Significant events in history are those usually obey the regulation or laws set by the authorities at that time. To lead such an event requires great bravery that no dare to dangers it may occur. For example, Chengsheng and Wuguang（还是用外国的事例好一些，尤其陈胜吴广，不过之出现一处问题不大）, leaders of the most meaningful farmer war against the royal family in Chinese history, were the first farmers who claimed that it was not fate that decide who could be the leader of a country and at last be killed in the fight. We remember their stories and emphasize what they did in the history because they had the quality that a key individual requires and what's more, without them, these historical events might never occur.

Such as history, it cannot appear as accurate as things happened in real. It is recorded by a particular group of people, usually historians, who inevitably put their own opinions in. No matter written or drawn materials, obviously they contain the author's feeling and often were transcribed in some ways. Stories and sagas which are oral spread are more understandable in this sense. Still in the case of Chengsheng and Wuguang, certainly there were thousands of other farmers who had been involved in this fight and of course there should be thousands of names recorded in the history. But such as common sense, that cannot happen.

To sum up, it is not because who, the famous few or groups of people, made possible contribution to the significant events or trends in history, but the nature or history made it certain that individuals can be emphasized much more easily and historically than groups of people.



The author asserts that the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is due to overfishing, rather than pollution and suggests （overfishing rather than pollution, and suggests） the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon its original regulations and adopt those of Omni, a (an) island reports no significant decline in its fish populations. I disagree with the author for his or her conclusion contains several facets that are questionable.

First of all, the argument fails to provide evidence about the cause of the decline in Tria's fish population. As the argument says, the marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. It is highly because the increase number of marine mammals which regard fish as their main food that leads the decline in fish populations. Besides, though the regulations ban dumpling and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, there may be still oil drifting towards this area from outside of 20 miles, since the waves are usually affected by sea wind and ultimately by the change of weather. (as long as there is oil drilling around this area, the movement of the ocean waves will easily spread drifting oil to Tria. ) Even if there is no oil, life garbage can pollute the waters as well. The regulations don't ban dumping garbage into Tria's waters and that probably cause the decline of the fish population.

Secondly, the author made an unconvincing analogy since he or she doesn't rule out other aspects between these two islands.(只说aspects有点不清楚，rule out other possible aspects that are incomparable between these two islands.) There is no further information about the qualities of waters in these two islands' area and nor numbers of fish there. Therefore, we cannot simply adopt regulations of Omni to Tria without this information. If there are few fish within 10 miles of Tria, than (then) banning fishing within 10 miles of Tria would have little effects.

What's more, there is no statistics on Omni's fish population given in the argument, thus we cannot conclude that Omni's regulation is good for even itself. The argument only provides that Omni reported no significant decline in its fish population. Maybe the department of environment in Omni hasn't find that the population of its fish has declined or it failed to report it.(this point is not strong enough) Besides, no significant decline doesn't mean there is no decline, or other alarming changes. Maybe the regulations of ban fishing within 10 miles of Omni has already showed that they cannot work efficiently to protect the fish in its own waters, let along to protect fish in Tria's waters.

Furthermore, even though the decline in fish population in Tria's water is the result of overfishing, the best way to restore the fish population may not be as the author asserts. There can be other ways which may even better suit the situation in Tria's water. Such as what I mentioned above to ban dumping life garbage and to ban fishing within an area of certain miles of Tria where most fish live may help.

To sum up, the argument lacks of evidence to persuade me that Tria should adopt Omni's regulations. The author should provide further information about the true cause of the decline in fish populations in Tria's water and result of a research it may concern.

总的来说，两篇文章的结构和观点清晰（值得我学习阿），分论点的观点和论证也比较有利。具有高分作文的潜力。很多的词汇短语也用的很到位。
不过还是说点缺点吧，有时候语言的表达有些力不从心，因而有些意思需要读者去猜测一下，应该多看些范文，反复揣摩，相信一定会有进步。ARGU的语言，特别是中心句的句型表达应该再多样一些，ISSUE的例子还应积累。
祝你成功！

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2008-2-25 22:54 编辑 ]