回报G友，开贴改作文，大家不用客气~（新人慎入，熟人快来）

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

今天下午在北京鼎钧考的逻辑作文，两篇都中了高频。A是51，肌肉拉伤+二次感染。I是艺术家与评论家。另一个是非高频，至少不在高频前100，我从来没见过，现在也忘了~

二十多天来头一次两篇都写完，字数、好坏未知，反正基本都是写到最后10秒，太兴奋了，就忘了自己写了什么了~应该跟平时练的差不多吧

不能说高频一定能中，但是通过写高频，分析每个话题中最难的题目，写作水平、分析能力都有很大的提高

下面说说改作文的事：

快考试之前的几天，我没有时间看大家的作文，但是很多G友都无私的看了我的提纲，还详细的帮我改了作文，真是感激不尽
现在履行诺言，帮大家改作文。
有几点小要求，希望大家理解：
1 熟人、朋友、帮我改过作文的G友优先
2 不改新人的第一篇作文——第一篇作文很重要，需要点拨思路；本人水平有限，不敢误人子弟
3 主要讨论思路，最好附上提纲；请在发文前，用word查一下单词的拼写和语法，错误太多的请好好修改一下再发上来吧
4 不敢保证说的都对，欢迎讨论、反驳
5 改作文的时间是7月29日——8月3日，基本都在晚上。8月3日以后我要回家，所以酌情而定
6 可以在楼下发链接，也可以直接粘贴, 也可以发站内短信。
7 不敢保证有发必回，但是尽力而为之

jtmachineUID: 2751012

赞一个，呵呵，今天我还按照楼主7.10号发的第一篇习作仿练了一篇呢

jtmachineUID: 2751012

沙发沙发！

jtmachineUID: 2751012

楼主能把你的习作都发给我看看吗？149767353@qq.com
拜谢！

秋尽江南UID: 2636333

赞楼主RP～看来我是第一个吃螃蟹的人啦～
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1130389-1-1.html
thx~

ppjoyceUID: 2623631

顶LZ 加油加油：）

章小杰UID: 2830569

Argument 3

The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis.
"In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."

The author of this article unreasonably assume a causal relationship between the fact that the number of law school graduates who seeks employment in large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three year with job preferences obtained from a recent problematic survey among first-year law school students, and, therefore, unreasonably suggest that large, corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work in order to attract potential employees.   

The cited survey in this argument is problematic in the sense that it only covers first-year students at one particular leading law school, which do not represent the entire population. It is entirely possible that students of this particular school bear more sense of social responsibility and lean more towards job satisfaction when seeking for a job than the average law school students. It is also likely that students in this leading law school get more financial aids, such as fellowships and scholarships, from government and alumni, which leave them less financial pressure after gradation than students from other law schools, therefore, leave them more freedom to choose a position with lower salary and less benefits, but more job satisfaction.

Also, first-year students in leading law school’s preferences have little indication of the job preference of law school graduates. Many years have to be passed before the survey attendees become job candidates. Their job preference can be greatly altered due to their experiences during these school years or economic conditions at that time. The author of this article needs careful consideration about this fact before drawing any conclusion based on this survey.

Moreover, the assumption that the 15 percent declining in the number of law school graduates in large corporate firms is caused by students’ preference towards greater job satisfaction offered by small companies is highly suspicious. First, no evidence is provided showing that small companies offer greater job satisfaction than large firms. It is more likely that small firms face more competition pressure in order to survive, which is also transferred to their employees. Serving at small firms may end up to be lower salary, less benefits, higher pressure and not necessary greater job satisfaction. The decrease in the number of law school graduates in Megaloplis seeking position in large firm may simply due to the migration of large firms out of the town in the past three years, while most law students prefer to work in Megaloplis.

Finally, the conclusion of this article does not follow as no creditable evidences are provided bolstering that offering more benefits and reducing working hours could alter graduates’ choices of employment towards large, corporate firms. Benefits and working hours may be completely irrelevant to graduates’ choice if new law school graduates are not attracted by monetary rewards.

Overall, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. A creditable study of the cause of decreasing number of law school graduates seeking for position in large firms concerning the position availability in large firms in Megalopolis, new law school graduates vocational preference, economic conditions and so on is needed before any conclusion is drawn.      

新手入门，谢谢楼主关照

美丽太阳花UID: 2798404

ISSUE8
"It is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public."


I agree with the speaker that on some certain occasions, it is necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public, especially the information is involved in national security, military secrecy, social stability and so on. However, in any democracy society, if the situation permits, public leaders should not conceal information.

Admittedly, it is advantaged to withhold information for the leaders. Political leaders work for the certain parties, organizations, their nation and all citizens aiming at making their ultimate interests come true. If the information is adverse to put the interest into effect, it is the embodiment of duty and responsible of political leaders to withhold it from the public. For example, the country's top secrete is indispensable and helpful for a country in defending aggression and keep safety. In the sixties of 20th century, Kennedy did not tell the truth about Cuban Missile Crisis, since at that time it was very sensitive to the military race and against the Soviet Union. Certain types of information would threaten public safety and harmony developments. For example, the President would conceal the government's projects for thwarting special plans of crimes who threaten to the improvement of society and citizenship. The projects would surely fail if the information were given away, so the political leaders must withhold it.

However, going too far that the political leaders withhold too much information is a disaster for the democracy system and all citizens.

As for the political individual, if he often withholds the information, it impedes their political careers. He is considered as unreliable with converses to ethical bottom, legal principles and basic laws of nature. Would you elect him as the political leader? Obvious the answer is. During the Great Depression, President Hoover concealed the truth of crash of stock market and economic; another President Nixon' withholds of information about his active role in the Watergate. They are dishonest and spoke falsehood then could not be political leaders any more.

As for the community, with decreasing the effectiveness concealing information from the public would result in corruption in the government, subversion of administration and then brings detriment to society. As common sense, Constitution of the United States regulated that people have the right to know the truth, so they could supervise the political leaders and government. It is one of the essence and principle in democracy society, which benefits for the improvements of government system. The France writer Tocqueville wrote the book Democracy in American, comparing with Europe, he pointed out that the supervision which was from citizens avoided personal centralization and enhanced the democracy of government and political system. Development of American history has proved that this is necessary and the most valuable.

In sum, whether the political leader should withhold the information from the public depends on the current condition and the nature of information. An effective leader is able to make accurate decisions and judgments according to the specific condition, knowing how to deal with current affairs. He is loyal to voters and creditable, with deciding whether withholding the information or not.

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

赞一个，呵呵，今天我还按照楼主7.10号发的第一篇习作仿练了一篇呢
jtmachine 发表于 2010-7-28 23:04

额(⊙o⊙)…
照我写的练还不如找版里的一个 优秀高频作文 那里的作文写的才叫牛，值得学习
不好意思啊，我怕误人子弟，就不传我的习作了
我写的提纲基本都发过，你可以参考一下

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

8# 美丽太阳花

I agree with the speaker that on some certain occasions, it is necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public, especially the information is involved in national security, military secrecy, social stability and so on. However, in any democracy society, if the situation permits, public leaders should not conceal information.
看到开头，我产生的疑问是你的观点到底是什么呢？是I agree 还是However?如果是However 后面的内容，那么都有哪些situation,哪些information是允许泄露的呢？？
Admittedly, it is advantaged to withhold information for the leaders. Political leaders work for the certain parties, organizations, their nation and all citizens aiming at making their ultimate interests come true. If the information is adverse to put the interest into effect, it is the embodiment of duty and responsible of political leaders to withhold it from the public. For example, the country's top secrete is indispensable and helpful for a country in defending aggression and keep safety. In the sixties of 20th century, Kennedy did not tell the truth about Cuban Missile Crisis, since at that time it was very sensitive to the military race and against the Soviet Union. Certain types到底是哪几种呢？应该强调一下特征吧 of information would threaten public safety and harmony developments. For example, the President would conceal the government's projects for thwarting special plans of crimes who threaten to the improvement of society and citizenship. The projects would surely fail if the information were given away, so the political leaders must withhold it.
这段出现了两个for example,第二个可以换成Another example is that …
论证了对国家安全有害的机密不能泄漏。建议列举几个，再举例子。因为你例子前的议论说服力不够

However, going too far that the political leaders withhold too much information is a disaster for the democracy system and all citizens.
As for the political individual, if he often withholds the information, it impedes their political careers. 总是保守秘密就阻碍了政治前途了？作者犯了两个错误：总是保守信息，那如果全是国家机密呢？到底什么样的信息可以透露给人民呢？第二个是：一个政治领导代表的是他领导的政府，不是他个人，用政治前途不太合适吧？He is considered as unreliable with converses to ethical bottom, legal principles and basic laws of nature. Would you elect him as the political leader? Obvious the answer is. During the Great Depression, President Hoover concealed the truth of crash of stock market and economic; another President Nixon' withholds of information about his active role in the Watergate. They are dishonest and spoke falsehood then could not be political leaders any more.
保守秘密又上升到了道德层面了~⊙﹏⊙b汗。我认为评价一个人的成就，无论如何都不应该采用道德标准。只有在我们天朝才要求德艺双馨。如果隐瞒的是你上一段说的机密，算不算是欺骗呢？因此最好把不应当隐瞒的信息的特点说出来。建议作者仔细想想另一篇高频：领导是不是需要有最高的道德准则

As for the community, with decreasing the effectiveness concealing information from the public would result in corruption in the government, subversion of administration and then brings detriment to society. As common sense, Constitution of the United States regulated that people have the right to know the truth, so they could supervise the political leaders and government. It is one of the essence and principle in democracy society, which benefits for the improvements of government system.
和上一段的问题一样，如果人民要求知道国家机密，领导要不要说呢？The France writer Tocqueville wrote the book Democracy in American, comparing with Europe, he pointed out that the supervision which was from citizens avoided personal centralization and enhanced the democracy of government and political system. Development of American history has proved that this is necessary and the most valuable. 怎么证明了？为什么不展开说说呢？

In sum, whether the political leader should withhold the information from the public depends on the current condition and the nature of information.到底是什么呢？到最后都没有说出来是怎样的情况和怎样的信息An effective leader is able to make accurate decisions and judgments according to the specific condition, knowing how to deal with current affairs. He is loyal to voters and creditable, with deciding whether withholding the information or not.

总的来说，我认为作者对这个问题只是泛泛而谈，虽然走中庸路线，不全反对也不全同意，但是并没有抓住问题的本质，只是大概说了下应该怎么做，然后就开始举例子了。
可是，我要问了，为什么要这么做？理由是什么？好处和坏处各是什么？例子到底说明了什么？我想这些作者都没有仔细考虑吧
我写issue的习惯是喜欢先问什么是。。。为什么要。。。
看到这个题，我想的就是，领导为什么需要向公众隐瞒信息？那些信息需要隐瞒？这样做的好处是什么？
请作者想好这些问题再下笔
另外，例子内容比较空，建议具体讲述、解释

以上都是我的观点，主要是说不足。有哪些不同意的欢迎反驳

anniehalUID: 2716032

谢谢哦~等等粘上来。。哈哈~

怒放的生命UID: 2754391

楼主不改Argument吗？

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

楼主不改Argument吗？
怒放的生命 发表于 2010-7-30 08:53

都改啊

figuechenUID: 2850619

Issue43，领导人的道德问题，唉总觉得写得有点晕，帮忙看一下逻辑和语言吧~

贴在附件里了，你就直接在Word里改然后发上来吧~辛苦啦