Issue48 爱乍拍就乍吧

walkfurtherUID: 2236051

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.”
提纲：
1．历史是由英雄和群众共同创造的，毕竟英雄也是来源于群众。
2．英雄与群众的相互关系，正反进一步说明共同性
3．历史研究的几大特性注定历史的研究只能关注个人，而不是大众。
4．以史记等为例进行说明
5．总结。

The speaker asserts that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, though 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. I agree with the broad opinion of the speaker, but I think there are several grounds that make the study of history have to pay most attention to individuals, rather than common people, which is different from the speaker's assertion, as discussed below.

Undoubtedly, I concede the significance of the common people and I insist that the heroes and the common people are coequal importance to the events and trends in history. On one hand, the heroes or leaders in a war or campaign who are of great force, unique foresight, and general notion played a leading, organizing, commanding role as the leader of spirit. Such as Washington, the founder of America; Lincoln, the leader of the civil war, it is their great personality and leadership that lead the people following behind achieve success.  On the other hand, the common people are the footstone of the leaders or heroes. Without the support of common people, these leaders can do nothing. It is easy to image what Washtington and Lincoln can achieve if there is no one fighting for him. Therefore, the success of a war or campaign fully depends on the common efforts of both leaders and common people.

Although the history is created by the common efforts of both people above, the features of the study of history make the historian cannot help but emphasis on individuals, that is, the study is limit, typical, successive. First, it is impossible to record the information of all the people involved, even if recording all the names is a large projects, the rather that all the things occurred during the war. Secondary, most of the things happened around several persons, whose decision dominated the success of failure of the war and represented the general views of common people who just obey the command. Thirdly, history is read by the people living after, what they want to know is what happen at that time and some typical  characters for them to learn from, rather than numerous names. Hence, the history inevitably places much attention to limited few individuals and ignores groups of people.

For example, Shih Chi (or named as Historical Records), a famous and authoritative historical work in China, had recorded from the beginning to Han Dynasty of Chinese history. It is written in the way of recording famous persons and events related with them. Each title of the articles is the name of an important person, such as the name of emperor or king of each Dynasty, and so on. After reading this work, we can know clearly the events taken place several hundreds years ago.

To sum up, the most significant events and trends in history are achieved by the combination of the groups of people and the famous few who come from the groups as well. Limiting to several reasons of the study of history, only a few famous individuals have been recorded, while most of the groups haven't been written in history, we can not forget the great contribution of the common people forever.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-7-21 19:54 编辑 ]

gyyxUID: 2290150

The speaker asserts that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, though 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. I agree with the broad opinion of the speaker, but I think there are several grounds that make the study of history have to pay most attention to individuals, rather than common people, which is different from the speaker's assertion, as discussed below.

Undoubtedly, I concede the significance of the common people and I insist that the heroes and the common people are coequal importance to the events and trends in history. On one hand, the heroes or leaders in a war or campaign who are of great force, unique foresight, and general notion played a leading, organizing, commanding role as the leader of spirit. Such as Washington, the founder of America; Lincoln, the leader of the civil war, it is their great personality and leadership that lead the people following behind achieve success.  On the other hand, the common people are the footstone of the leaders or heroes. Without the support of common people, these leaders can do nothing. It is easy to image what Washington and Lincoln can 【not】achieve【vt，后面应该有宾语】 if there is no one fighting for him. Therefore, the success of a war or campaign fully depends on the common efforts of both leaders and common people.

Although the history is created by the common efforts of both people above, the features of the study of history make the historian cannot help but emphasis on individuals, that is, the study is limit, typical, successive. First, it is impossible to record the information of all the people involved, even if recording all the names is a large projects, the rather that all the things occurred during the war. Secondary, most of the things happened around several persons, whose decision dominated the success of failure of the war and represented the general views of common people who just obey the command. Thirdly, history is read by the people living after, what they want to know is what happen at that time and some typical  characters for them to learn from, rather than numerous names. Hence, the history inevitably places much attention to limited few individuals and ignores groups of people.

For example, Shih Chi (or named as Historical Records), a famous and authoritative historical work in China, had recorded from the beginning to Han Dynasty of Chinese history. It is written in the way of recording famous persons and events related with them. Each title of the articles is the name of an important person, such as the name of emperor or king of each Dynasty, and so on. After reading this work, we can know clearly the events taken place several hundreds years ago.

To sum up, the most significant events and trends in history are achieved by the combination of the groups of people and the famous few who come from the groups as well. Limiting to several reasons of the study of history, only a few famous individuals have been recorded, while most of the groups haven't been written in history, we can not forget the great contribution of the common people forever.

大体上说都没什么问题的说，挺全面和通顺的，是篇中规中矩的好文章吧

walkfurtherUID: 2236051

谢谢

walkfurtherUID: 2236051

:)

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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.” 提纲：(你的中心论点是什么?怎么正面回应题目? 列提纲不写中心论点是很危险的, 特别这种信息比较多的题) 1．历史是由英雄和群众共同创造的，毕竟英雄也是来源于群众。 2．英雄与群众的相互关系，正反进一步说明共同性 3．历史研究的几大特性注定历史的研究只能关注个人，而不是大众。 4．以史记等为例进行说明 5．总结。 The speaker asserts that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals, though 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. I agree with the broad opinion (作者有两个论点, broad opinion是哪个? 请明确指出) of the speaker, but I think there are several grounds that make the study of history have to pay most attention to individuals, rather than common people, which is different from the speaker's assertion, as discussed below.(soo what's your stance to the issue? 如何和speaker的论点different, 和哪点different? 从你的表达里很难看出与题目的直接对应, 所以使文章有跑题的危险, 至少说一句, ...attention to individuals, which means we can never emphasis TOO MUCH on individuals, and it is reasonable to have such ...)(总体感觉你的首段对于自己思路的组织条理不清楚, 立场不鲜明, 原因在于你把题目混在一起复述, 然后很笼统说作者怎么样怎么样, 所以读者就看不出你的点是对应到作者哪个点上的. 我这么说不够明白, 试着帮你改写下就应该清楚了: I concede the point conveyed by the latter sentence is true, that no significant events and trends can ever take place without participation of common groups. However this, as a premise, could not be deduced to an assertion that we place too much emphasis on individuals, as the speaker states. Because when taking history study into consideration, not only must we assess who made the events and trends, but also several features of this subject need lights shedded on, and thus make it happen as hardly too much emphasis may be placed on individuals.) Undoubtedly, I concede the significance of the common people and I insist that the heroes and the common people are coequal importance to the events and trends in history. On one hand, the heroes or leaders (此句中leaders出现两次, 后面那个建议改成symbol之类的) in a war or campaign who are of great force, unique foresight, and general notion played a leading, organizing, commanding role as the leader of spirit(as前后不一致, 且无因果关系, 精神领袖和领导组织命令者差挺多的, 或者说应该是并列关系). Such as Washington, the founder of America; Lincoln, the leader of the civil war, it is their great personality and leadership that lead the people following behind achieve success.(how? 虽然美国人可能很熟悉但作为你的文章而言这两个例子就显得太笼统了, 换谁都可以, 说说华盛顿的军事才能民主意识, 林肯的政治敏感性和对美国梦的深刻理解, 让你的例子更specific一些, 另外要从这得个结论, success cannot be gained without them什么的)  On the other hand, the common people are the footstone of the leaders or heroes. Without the support of common people, these leaders can do nothing. It is easy to image what Washtington and Lincoln can achieve if there is no one fighting for him.(还是例证缺乏specific的关系, 只说了没有民众存在就没有成功, 这与领导者的品质就形成了不对等--你是为了说明二者的平等关系, 而不是说民众存在就是为了被领导的, 因此要强调民众除了存在帮忙干活之外的品质, 强大的力量, 忠诚, 智慧, 领悟等等, 另外你的提纲中提到的英雄来自于大众你也没说) Therefore, the success of a war or campaign fully depends on the common efforts of both leaders and common people. (其实提纲列得很有辨证深度, 我甚至想到了比如英雄来自民众是因为他代表了大众意志, 实现了为多数人所承认的理想，也就是社会正义, 因此才被称之为英雄, 然后反面观点由此展开, 因为他成为代表, 所以历史研究他等于研究了大众, 而直接研究大众则缺乏细节和可靠性, 等等, 可惜的是你在用英文表达的时候把这些点都丢了, 只说领导和大众要一起干活而已) Although the history is created by the common efforts of both people above, the features of the study of history make the historian cannot help but emphasis on individuals, that is, the study is limit, typical, successive. First, it is impossible to record the information of all the people involved, even if recording all the names is a large projects, the rather that all the things occurred during the war.(记录完全跟能不能研究有什么关系? 你可以说样本太庞大无法全面记录因此不可信, 也可以说难以做到有效的随机抽样, 但至少要说明这种记录和历史研究结果的关系, 别人可以反驳我们不需要全部记录, 有部分就可以了) Secondary, most of the things happened around several persons, whose decision dominated the success of failure of the war and represented the general views of common people who just obey the command.(thus make it more effective to study indivudals than common. 把话说完) Thirdly, history is read by the people living after, what they want to know is what happen at that time and some typical  characters for them to learn from, rather than numerous names.(研究大众=记名字? 又有什么证据证明后人只想知道典型人物? 这些都是无论断的假设, 放这没有说服力. 需要说明研究历史的价值在于给后人提供榜样并为后来的社会人进行指导, 因此我们需要了解成功者的做法, 这些成功者都是领导者, 而相反, 民众则是作为客观实体存在的, 我们不能找到有效的手段研究他们, 同时我们也不能有效的将他们的特质传达给后人, 因此关注他们很难让历史研究起到应有的作用) Hence, the history inevitably places much attention to limited few individuals and ignores groups of people. For example,(没见过单开一段举例子的, 因为你前面那么多论点, 这个例子要证明哪点? 如果分条一一证明又要把前面的论点说一遍, 还不如把例子拆了放进前面去) Shih Chi (or named as Historical Records), a famous and authoritative historical work in China, had recorded from the beginning to Han Dynasty of Chinese history. It is written in the way of recording famous persons and events related with them. Each title of the articles is the name of an important person, such as the name of emperor or king of each Dynasty, and so on. After reading this work, we can know clearly the events taken place several hundreds years ago.(why? how? 有例子叙述, 没解释, 进而无法对应到你的论点, 于是没有作用, 别人可以说你这些都是臆断, 搞不好史记记的其实没那么大用. 要充分利用前文的论证, 说明史记中的领导者处于一个什么位置, 为什么要记录他们而不是人民, 他们给了我们现在社会什么启示, 等等. 不推荐你单开一段也是因为这些直接的对应放到前面一起说会更好) To sum up, the most significant events and trends in history are achieved by the combination of the groups of people and the famous few who come from the groups as well. Limiting to several reasons of the study of history, only a few famous individuals have been recorded, while most of the groups haven't been written in history, we can not forget the great contribution of the common people forever.( 你的论证侧重点到底是? 从提纲来看是肯定后半句否定前半句, 从行文来看也是平衡论点, 并没有要牢记人民的意思, 这个结尾却只说人民作用, 把历史研究作为一项客观事实而不是一个论证主题来说了, 所以显得与文章内容又差距, 也难以升华主题, 甚至有降低文章立意的表现) 总评: 觉得LZ写了篇中规中矩的文章, 但这道题不是中规中矩的题, 很难, 要把问题说明一定要进行深入的辨证思维, 从实用角度来说明反面观点, 而不是说我们做不到就行了. 因为即使我们做不到, 也不能说我们就too怎么着了, 就好象我们现在消耗了太多的石油, 这是为了我们的生计, 不消耗就会过得很苦, 但这不说明我们消耗的就不是"太多"了. 要明确把这个"太"解释清楚就还是需要深入的思考. 改的过程中有点自己发挥了, 可能思维比较跳跃, LZ看下这两贴会更清楚些 0510G同主题写作第五期——Issue48    0706G同主题写作第七期——Issue48

hailidUID: 2744864

Loushang de Hao shengke a . Niu