issue48 有拍必回

gorbyUID: 2730851

In the statement the speaker asserts that the historians paid too much attention to individuals and most significant events and trends in history were made possible by groups of people but the famous few.I disagree with the speaker for the reason that individuals and groups are all indispensable for the development of  history as well as
nowadays historians are not only focus on the individuals' influence on history.
     In retrospect of our history,individuals and groups all play so important roles that history could not go on without anyone of it. In consideration of the famous saying--Rome was not built in a day,Rome also could not build by one person.How could Napoleon Bonaparte across Alps without his soldiers?And don't you think pyramids are still a pile of clay if slaves resisted to implement Pharoahs' incredible conceive.Groups are the direct power which contributes to the significant events and the direct constructor of the great building of history. Comparing groups to dynamite,then individuals are the fuses.Without dynamite fuse is only a shooting star in the sky when it is lighted.At the same time,explosion also depends on the dynamite.Having the attitude that going with the crowd,most people will not react until who break the pane first.It's may result of the "collective unconsciousness".Motivated by  the "Great Soul"Gandhi's  non-violent civil disobedience peasants, farmers, and urban labourers in India protest for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, ending
untouchability, and increasing economic self-reliance.Which leads to the independence of India from foreign domination.Much more difficulties and pain Indian may suffer in fighting for their independence without Gandhi.Concerning with the characteristics of individuals and groups ,the two are all very important in the progress of history.

  There are also other factors that historians realized which exert an influence on the development of history besides individuals and groups.For example,Stavrianos places emphasis on the interaction between part and the whole in his"A Global History". And McNeill focuses on the conflict between the four earliest civilizations.Admittedly,individuals and groups are the main actors on the stage of history .Nonetheless,historians are paying more and more attention to the causes of the events but the analysis the actors on the stage.For this reason,I disagree with the speaker's idea that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals.

To sum up,the individuals are the pioneers and the the groups followed are the direct power related to the progress of history.It is lop-sided exaggerate either of the two.And the historian of today take other factors such as interactions into consideration when they studying history.So the speaker's positively statement is poorly supported.

LaoZZZZZUID: 2747300

In the statement the speaker asserts that the historians paid too much attention to individuals and most significant events and trends in history were made possible by groups of people but the famous few.I disagree with the speaker for the reason that individuals and groups are all indispensable for the development of  history as well as(最好换个连接词。。) nowadays historians are 删 not only focus on the individuals' influence on history.
     In retrospect of our history,individuals and groups all both play so important roles that history could not go on without anyone of it 删. In consideration of the famous saying--Rome was not built in a day,Rome also could not build by one person.How could Napoleon Bonaparte across Alps without his soldiers?And don't you think pyramids are still a pile of clay if slaves resisted to implement Pharoahs' incredible conceive.（例子拿走啦，哈哈）Groups are the direct power（最好换个词。。暂时还没有想好用哪个，但是觉得这个词不太合适） which contributes to the significant events and the direct constructor of the great building of history. Comparing groups to dynamites,then individuals are the fuses赞.Without dynamite fuse is only a shooting star in the sky when it is lighted.At the same time,explosion also depends on the dynamite.Having the attitude that going with the crowd,most people will not react until who break the pane first.It's may result of the "collective unconsciousness".Motivated by  the "Great Soul"Gandhi's  non-violent civil disobedience peasants, farmers, and urban labourers in India protested for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, ending untouchability, and increasing economic self-reliance.Which leads to the independence of India from foreign domination.Much more difficulties and pain Indian may suffer in fighting for their independence without Gandhi.Concerning with the characteristics of individuals and groups ,the two are all very important in the progress of history.(建议两个部分分段叙述，这样可能显得文章更丰满些，毕竟改作文的老师更青睐5段的文章！)

  There are also other factors that historians realized（这样写不是很顺。。建议用定语从句比如：that has come to the attention of historians） which exert an influence on the development of history besides individuals and groups.For example,Stavrianos places emphasis on the interaction between part and the whole in his"A Global History". And McNeill focuses on the conflict between the four earliest civilizations.Admittedly,individuals and groups are the main actors on the stage of history .Nonetheless,historians are paying more and more attention to the causes of the events but the analysis （中间少个介词吧？）the actors on the stage.For this reason,I disagree with the speaker's idea that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals.



To sum up,the individuals are\ as the pioneers and the the groups  followed \ as followers are the direct power\impetus等表示推动力的词 related 删 to the progress of history.It is lop-sided (to) exaggerate either of the two.And the historian of today take other factors such as interactions(互换位置) into consideration when they studying history.So the speaker's positively statement is poorly supported.（最后一句可有可无的。。而且有点A的味道。。）


整体上来说，逻辑清晰，但是有些语法错误，有些词还是用的不是很恰当。还有就是第三段的内容好像在首段没有提到。说实在的，例子用的却似乎不错的，呵呵，花了不少功夫去找的吧？

prettywraithUID: 197049

In the statement the speaker asserts that the historians paid too much attention to individuals and most significant events and trends in history were made possible by groups of people but the famous few. I disagree with the speaker for the reason that individuals and groups are all indispensable for the development of history as well as nowadays historians are not only focus on the individuals' influence on history.（你这句话翻译过来是这个意思“和当代历史学家不仅仅关注个人在历史的影响一样，个人和群体在历史中都必不可少”，用这句作为原因感觉不太有力，而且前后感觉没什么关系）

陈述题目观点+原因+驳斥题目观点，陈述句开头，注意这种开头需要将题目转述的恰当准确又不让人觉得是在抄题目。

     In retrospect of our history, individuals and groups all play so important roles（play important role in...） that history could not go on without anyone of it. In consideration of the famous saying--Rome was not built in a day, Rome also could not build by one person. How could Napoleon Bonaparte across Alps without his soldiers? And don't (do not不要用缩写)you think pyramids are still a pile of clay if slaves resisted to implement Pharoahs' incredible conceive.（这里是问句吧？） Groups are the direct power which contributes to the significant events and the direct constructor of the great building of history. Comparing groups to dynamite, then individuals are the fuses. Without dynamite（加个逗号） fuse is only a shooting star in the sky when it is lighted.（比喻用的比较不错，学写了） At the same time, explosion also depends on the dynamite. Having the attitude that going with the crowd, most people will not react until who break the pane first. It's may result of the "collective unconsciousness". Motivated by  the "Great Soul" Gandhi's  non-violent civil disobedience peasants, farmers, and urban labourers（是labour？？） in India protest for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, ending
untouchability, and increasing economic self-reliance. Which leads to the independence of India from foreign domination.
（这里是问句吧？）
Much more difficulties and pain Indian may suffer in fighting for their independence without Gandhi. Concerning with the characteristics of individuals and groups ,the two are all very important in the progress of history.

  There are also other factors that historians realized which exert an influence on the development of history besides individuals and groups. For example, Stavrianos places emphasis on the interaction between part and the whole in his"A Global History". And McNeill focuses on the conflict between the four earliest civilizations. Admittedly, individuals and groups are the main actors on the stage of history. Nonetheless, historians are paying more and more attention to the causes of the events but the analysis the actors on the stage.（这句话后半句没读懂） For this reason, I disagree with the speaker's idea that the study of history places too much emphasis on individuals.（如果能把除了个人和群体外，这几个原因列出来更好了，文章能更饱满些）

To sum up, the individuals are the pioneers and the the groups followed（the the groups followed ？？） are the direct power related to the progress of history. It is lop-sided exaggerate either of the two（both two）. And the historian of today（用contemporary更好点） take other factors such as interactions into consideration when they studying history. So the speaker's positively statement is poorly supported.

补充一下，引用别的历史学家作为例证是好事，但最好包含自己的观点和理解，否则罗列过多别人的观点容易削弱文章中展示自己分析能力的作用。