issue136 同主题写作 有拍必回！！！

hyyrrcathyUID: 172021

提纲
观点：该观点持有者过分简单化了问题。应该根据不同的社会环境来具体地讨论问题。
1在民主社会中，人民有比较多的选择。2在集权社会中，由于生存权的威胁，人民并没有很多选择。3如果回顾过去我们也可以发现过去的人民很少有选择的权力。随着时间的推移，社会的发展，人们才开始有了越来越多的选择。我们也可以因此推测，在不久的将来，集权社会的人民也将有更多的选择。人类全体的选择将越来越多，最后到达不会缺少选择的地步。

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare. I think that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in.On the one hand, people enjoy more choice in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the right to do the things they want as long as they is allowed by the laws. Constitution entitles the people with the right of freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from all the commodities imported from all around the world, without worrying that the government would one day cut the importation because of the so-called political reasons. People have adequate choice usually since they live in a democratic society.
On the other hand, people usually lacked choice in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. The dictator can simply order to execute a person without giving a particular reason. There is not a law. The dictator can do anything he wants. When Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy what they want. They do not have the right to express their thoughts becaus they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey. Ancient China is another example. In a feudal dynasty, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people were his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power. If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice.So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.

Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose from and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by and the science and technology has developed, the commodities in the market have grown to be abundent and we have more choice. The world as a whole is also developing, with more and more countries turning in democratical ones. Similarly, we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.
　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice.

[ Last edited by hyyrrcathy on 2005-7-23 at 19:59 ]

bennUID: 2113048

复制下了‘少等哈

pho0UID: 154113

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare.[开头建议你不要照抄原句，印象不好] I think that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in.

On the one hand, people enjoy more choice in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the right to do the things they want as long as they is allowed by the laws. Constitution entitles the people with the right of freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from all the commodities imported from all around the world, without worrying that the government would one day cut the importation because of the so-called political reasons. People have adequate choice usually since they live in a democratic society.

On the other hand, people usually lacked choice in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. The dictator can simply order to execute a person without giving a particular reason. There is not a law.[力度弱了点，不如改成No law survives.] The dictator can do anything he wants. When Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy what they want. They do not have the right to express their thoughts becaus they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey. Ancient China is another example. In a feudal dynasty, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people were his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power. If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice.So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.
[写的不错。论证的已经很清楚了]
Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose from and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by and the science and technology has developed, the commodities in the market have grown to be abundent and we have more choice. The world as a whole is also developing, with more and more countries turning in democratical ones. Similarly, we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.
　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice.
如果你考试也能写成这样,就差不多了

bennUID: 2113048

issue136 同主题写作 有拍必回！！！

提纲
观点：该观点持有者过分简单化了问题。应该根据不同的社会环境来具体地讨论问题。
1在民主社会中，人民有比较多的选择。2在集权社会中，由于生存权的威胁，人民并没有很多选择。3如果回顾过去我们也可以发现过去的人民很少有选择的权力。随着时间的推移，社会的发展，人们才开始有了越来越多的选择。我们也可以因此推测，在不久的将来，集权社会的人民也将有更多的选择。人类全体的选择将越来越多，最后到达不会缺少选择的地步。

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare. I think that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choice(s) depends on the nature of the society they are in(of their society?).On one hand, people enjoy more choice（s） in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the right to do the(MM你的文章好多the哈) things they want as long as（ they is省了呢？） allowed by （the） laws. The Constitution entitles (the) people with (the right of) freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from (all the) commodities imported from all (around) the world, without worrying about that the government would one day cut the importation (because of)for the so-called political reasons. People have adequate choices usually since they live in a democratic society.
(段落间空一行吧，有专家介绍的说。可是我觉得你段落分得不对吧，或是我没看自习？)

On the other hand, people usually （lacked）lack choice（s） in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. There is no law，and the dictator can do anything he wants. Such as simply to execute a person without giving a particular reason. In fact, when Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy (what they want这个也好多). They do not have the right to express their thoughts becaus they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey.（这里例子是有了，可好象没贴题说明一下啊，表为举例而举例哦）Ancient China is another example. In （a feudal dynasty）feudal society, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people （were） his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power.（重复了些） If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice（没读懂：））.So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.（我觉得应该尽量贴题吧，比如妹妹老是谈the right to choose,但这似乎与choice本身有一定差距的，倒不一定要转化说理角度，至少改用原题的词，别冒跑掉的风险哪）

Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice（s）. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose from and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by， the science and technology develop, commodities in the market grown （to be） abundantly， and we have more choice. The world(political system?) as a whole is also developing(develops as well?), with(since) more and more countries turning in democratical ones. Similarly(For this reason), we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.

　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice（S） depends on the nature of the society they are in. People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice.
（恩，感觉最大的毛病是每段之间的句子没有衔接的，段落之间貌似有连词，但又有生套模板的感觉：）批的很了些，不过我也不是高手，一家直言吧）
快考了，拥抱一下，互勉吧

claymanUID: 2102470

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare.[开头建议你不要照抄原句，印象不好] 同意，并建议加个转折词I think that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. 第一段句子还是稍微复杂点好，第一印象嘛

On the one hand, people enjoy more choice in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the right to do the things they want as long as they is allowed by the laws. Constitution entitles the people with the right of freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from all the commodities imported from all around the world, without worrying that the government would one day cut the importation because of the so-called political reasons. People have adequate choice usually since they live in a democratic society.

On the other hand, people usually lacked choice in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. The dictator can simply order to execute a person without giving a particular reason. There is not a law.[力度弱了点，不如改成No law survives.] 赞，帅改 The dictator can do anything he wants. When Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy what they want. They do not have the right to express their thoughts becaus they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey. Ancient China is another example. In a feudal dynasty, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people were his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power. If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice.So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.
[写的不错。论证的已经很清楚了]
个人感觉两个例子相似度很高，反复论证的手法值得学习，但是后一个例子不是很好。我自己常常感到难以写多字数，例子描写简单也算是重要原因。
Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose from and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by and the science and technology has developed, the commodities in the market have grown to be abundent and we have more choice. The world as a whole is also developing, with more and more countries turning in democratical ones. Similarly, we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.这段批一下：TS没有很好的概括全段意思。整个后半段内容在TS中没有体现，不合格哦：）
　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. 用破折号吧 People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice.

学习楼主举例手法。提个小小建议：大部分句子结构基本是平铺直叙型，各种从句大都按相同顺序展开，读着比较闷－－当然，这个不是ISSUE的重点，分析才是关键嘛

阿择菜UID: 2110339

提纲
观点：该观点持有者过分简单化了问题。应该根据不同的社会环境来具体地讨论问题。
1在民主社会中，人民有比较多的选择。2在集权社会中，由于生存权的威胁，人民并没有很多选择。3如果回顾过去我们也可以发现过去的人民很少有选择的权力。随着时间的推移，社会的发展，人们才开始有了越来越多的选择。我们也可以因此推测，在不久的将来，集权社会的人民也将有更多的选择。人类全体的选择将越来越多，最后到达不会缺少选择的地步。

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare. I think that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in.

On the one hand, people enjoy more choice in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the right to do the things they want as long as they is allowed by the(删) laws. Constitution entitles the people with the right of freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. (这句话有毛病,你再改改哦)They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from all the commodities imported from all around the world, without worrying that the government would one day cut the importation because of the so-called political reasons.(过渡起来,这样看着你的文章没有衔接性的) People have adequate choice usually since they live in a democratic society.
On the other hand, people usually lacked choice in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. The dictator can simply order to execute a person without giving a particular reason. There is not a law(There is no law at all in fact in this country). The dictator can do anything he wants. When Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy what they want. They do not have the right to express their thoughts because they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey. (最好过渡一下)Ancient China is another example. In a feudal dynasty, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people were his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power. If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice(表达什么意思呢).So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.

Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose from and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by and the science and technology has developed, the commodities in the market have grown to be abundent and we have more choice. The world as a whole is also developing, with more and more countries turning in democratical ones. Similarly, we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.(其实你的文章对选择的范围定义的比较大,比较抽象,现在又仅仅局限在commodity上,是不是又突然范围缩小的感觉?后半段没有照应TS,并且和TS没有恰当的联接,改一下!)
　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice
整个文章我觉得你写的有点范围过大,定位于民主国家和非民主国家来说,立意很新颖的,但是往往范围大的东西不好表达具体的含义,以至于你后来的范围又突然缩小,给人的感觉很不稳定

另外就是过渡!transition is important in the issue!!!

yufengfeng9UID: 197696

issue136 同主题写作 有拍必回！！！
136. "The absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare."
提纲
观点：该观点持有者过分简单化了问题。应该根据不同的社会环境来具体地讨论问题。
1在民主社会中，人民有比较多的选择。2在集权社会中，由于生存权的威胁，人民并没有很多选择。3如果回顾过去我们也可以发现过去的人民很少有选择的权力。随着时间的推移，社会的发展，人们才开始有了越来越多的选择。我们也可以因此推测，在不久的将来，集权社会的人民也将有更多的选择。人类全体的选择将越来越多，最后到达不会缺少选择的地步。

There is the view that the absence of choice is a circumstance that is very, very rare. 最好同义改写吧 I think据说gre里面用I think是不好的用法，因为太主观，而且I think有很多同义可以替换啊比如it occurs to me等。I think太口语拉 that it has oversimplified the issue. Whether or not people have adequate choicechoices depends on the nature of the society they are in. On the one hand, people enjoy more choicechoice是可数名词 in a democratic society. Take US for example. People have the rightrights to do the things they want as long as they isare allowed by the laws. Constitution entitles the people with the right of freedom and equality, thus making it possible to make a choice and have what they favor. They have the right to choose their president, and to choose from all the commodities imported from all around the world, without worrying that the government would one day cut the importation because of the so-called political reasons. People have adequate choice usually这个usually似有不妥 since they live in a democratic society.
On the other hand, people usually用always好一点吧？ lacked choice in an authoritarian society, in which they do not even have the primary right of existence. The dictator can simply order to execute a person without giving a particular reason. There is not a law. The dictator can do anything he wants. When Iraq was ruled by Sadam, the people were not allowed even to have a party and buy what they want. They do not have the right to express their thoughts because they are simply not equal to the so-called president who was actually an emperor. What Sadam said was the law and was the absolute command that his people should obey. Ancient China is another example. In a feudal dynasty, the emperor has the absolute power. All the territory was his dominion, and all the people were his slaves. The only thing that the populace can do is to obey the emperor's order. In an authoritarian society, there is no law and the emperor has the absolute power. If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice. So generally speaking, people in an authoritarian society do not have the right to choose.

Moreover, if we look back in history, we would find that ancient people seldom have adequate choice. The productivity was at such a low level that they do not have enough commodities to choose fromfrom可以删 and they were usually ruled by a head who had the absolute power. As time passes by and the science and technology has developed, the commodities in the market have grown to be abundentabundant and we have more choice. The world as a whole is also developing, with more and more countries turning in democraticaldemocratic ones. Similarly, we can expect that people will all enjoy more choice in the future.
　In summary, whether or not people have adequate choice depends on the nature of the society they are in. People in democratic societies have more choice than people in authoritarian societies. As time passes by we can expect that in the future people all around the world will have more choice.这几句话是基本重复上面出现过的，最好考虑替换一下比较好

感觉你主要是在讨论什么时候选择比较多什么时候选择比较少的问题，但是题目是希望说明没有选择的时候是多还是少。你并没有提到“absence of choice”的情况，而只是说seldom have adequate choices,可是没有充分的选择还是有选择，这样一来对题目的回应就显得不是很正面而有些偏了~~

[ Last edited by yufengfeng9 on 2005-7-25 at 19:09 ]

hyyrrcathyUID: 172021

谢谢大家这么仔细地帮我改作文啦～～～谢谢啦～～～
综合了一下，我自己总结出这几条大毛病：
1开头应该写的稍微华丽一点，给人好一点得印象；
2第二段里说专制国家不存在法律这句话大家都指出有错误，至少语气不够。我参考pho0姐姐得改法，想这样是不是好一点：no actual law could ever exist.
3to benn哥哥，分段得问题，你复制下来起始段和body1混在一起了啦。第一段和第二段我是分开来看民主社会和专制社会正反讨论得啦。还有，谢谢你告诉我写完一段要多空一行的规矩啦。那么是不是考试的时候都要这样再空一行的呀？
4benn和clayman都指出我第二段的例子举的不是很贴切，其实我还是觉得自己举的例子很好呀～～～～呜呜，想例子就像生小孩一样的，好不容易想出来的，呜呜呜～～～我拒绝承认自己的例子不好啦～～～～～（笑！！开玩笑啦）不过，我觉得阿择莱的建议满对的，都缺乏过渡，我可以在例子结束之后再总结一下，把举例子的目的表示出来！！再试试吧。
5还有阿择莱提出我选的范围太大了，而benn提出我老是用the right to choose 来代替choice,有跑题之嫌，由此我发现了自己这篇文章有一个很大的漏洞，就是在破题的时候没有把选择的权力和供选择的选项分开来，然后前两段讲的是选择权，body3讲的是供选择的事务，导致看的人觉得我把body3是来凑字数的呵呵。
其实我的思路是这样的，就是说，b1和b2通过民主社会和专制社会对比，而b3作为把论述补完整的一段，指出其实随着时间的发展，专制社会渐渐会变成民主社会；过去古代大多是专制社会，而现代大多是民主社会，就是因为时间的推移，生产力提高了，技术水平提高了，人们选择的选项就更多了，也就是说是选项增多导致了选择余地的增加，选择权的加大，这样就可以对以后展望（汗～），选项越来越多，选择的权力越来越大是必然趋势。～～～～我自己想出这段理论的时候很自豪的说～～～可惜写的时候都没有表现出来～～～
6大家都说这句话 If people chose to do what they really want to do, the cost would be death, which made it an unfair choice有问题，可是我实在觉得没问题啊！！！！（郁闷ing），我是想说，（在专制社会中人们在听任暴君驱使的同时，还有一个选择，那就是不听他的命令然后被处死）。但是这样一来，他做自己想做的事情的代价就是死亡，这就使得这个选择是一个不公平的选择。～～偶觉得没错嘛～～～麻烦大家再帮我看看好不？

再次谢谢大家，晚点我会再想想再写一篇贴上来的！！希望大家再来拍！！！谢谢啦！！

ps,还要请教大家，1签名档里我想把我的文章的链接做进去，但是显示不可超过50个字，怎么办呢？2要修改别人的作文的时候我想改颜色，怎么弄呀？
呵呵，偶是电白，大家多多指教～～～

hyyrrcathyUID: 172021

嘻嘻，没想到刚刚我在回帖的时候yufengfeng9同学又帮我看了。谢谢。嘻嘻，好开心啊！我会注意的！！

yufengfeng9UID: 197696

赫赫大家共同进步马  我后来又重新看了一遍把以前的编辑了一下你看看吧

[ Last edited by yufengfeng9 on 2005-7-25 at 19:14 ]