issue36

commhcUID: 192491

Issue36: 600 words  45 minutes
The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

Can the greatness of individuals be decided by their contemporaries? While the speaker asserts that greatness of individuals can only be decided by those who live after them, in my view answer to this question varies from case to case. In this essay, I will explicate several important explanations.

To begin with, in political fields greatness of individuals can be admitted immediately. To judge greatness of political leaders, common people do not refer to their money or power, and greatness of political leaders is determined by what they do for the masses. More specifically, to win support from the masses, political leaders will do their best to improve the living standards of ordinary people. Therefore, a great political leader is certainly those who bring benefits to the masses. History is replete with examples to illustrate my position. For example, President Washington, the first president of America who united the continental army and won independence from the Great Britain won fame and prestige from his contemporaries. The reason underling the fact is simple. If a political leader wants to be regarded as a great one, then he or she will inevitably perform well and bring benefits to ordinary people. Only by this means, political leaders can win support and reverence from the masses, thereby finally being regarded as a great one. In short, in political field greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries.

However, in artistic fields, many great artists are only admitted by those who live after them. There are a host of examples to bolster my position. Vincent Van Gogh can serve as an apt example to my point. In spite of the fact that most of the works by Van Gogh are now regarded as masterpieces and worthy of millions of dollars, in the times when Van Gogh lived no one artistic critic can accept Van Gogh's artistic styles and concepts, and in fact Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime. The same tragedy happened on Monet, who cannot be admitted by his contemporaries too. There may be several reasons leading to such consequences. First of all, artistic works of outstanding value often transcend the times when they are created. Artists who bring completely new styles and new schools to artistic field, therefore, cannot be regarded as great ones in their times. Further, when artistic works are evaluated, critiques from artistic critics are mixture of critics' subjective views and objective judgment. Therefore, it is likely that art works cannot receive just judgments.

In the final analysis, in field of scientific research there are examples in which greatness of individuals fails to be admitted by contemporaries. For example, Mendel, who proposed his famous two laws in heritance, failed to be admitted by his contemporaries. Despite that Mendel devoted years of time to conduct pea experiments in which more than 20000 different types of peas were tested and he used statistic methods to draw his final conclusion, it is after 200 years when his works were finally accepted. Another example shedding some light on this point is Copernicus whose heliocentric theory failed to be accepted by their contemporaries. Again, the reasons leading to such consequence is that scientific works of great value inevitably transcend their times. Understandably, in scientific fields greatness judgment comes from those who live after them.

To sum up, based on the foregoing discussions and analyses, I can draw a safe conclusion that while in political fields greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries, in artists and scientific fields just judgment of greatness of individuals comes from those who live after them.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-24 at 16:50 ]

seraph_hydeUID: 184809

Can the greatness of individuals be decided by their contemporaries? While the speaker asserts that greatness of individuals can only be decided by those who live after them, in my view answer to this question varies from case to case. In this essay, I will explicate several important explanations.（这样写会不会被判没有thesis sentence?）
To begin with, in political fields greatness of individuals can be admitted immediately. To judge greatness of political leaders, common people do not refer to their money or power, and greatness of political leaders is determined by what they do for the masses. More specifically, to win support from the masses, political leaders will do their best to improve the living standards of ordinary people. Therefore, a great political leader is certainly those（去掉？） who bring benefits to the masses. History is replete with examples to illustrate my position. For example, President Washington, the first president of America who united the continental army and won independence from the Great Britain won fame and prestige from his contemporaries. The reason underling the fact is simple. If a political leader wants to be regarded as a great one, then he or she will inevitably perform well and bring benefits to ordinary people. Only by this means, political leaders can win support and reverence from the masses, thereby finally being regarded as a great one. In short, in political field greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries.

However, in artistic fields, many great artists are only admitted by those who live after them. There are a host of examples to bolster my position. Vincent Van Gogh can serve as an apt example to my point. In spite of the fact that most of the works by Van Gogh are now regarded as masterpieces and worthy of millions of dollars, in the times when Van Gogh lived no one（去掉或者not one？） artistic critic can accept Van Gogh's artistic styles and concepts, and in fact Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime. The same tragedy happened on Monet, who cannot be admitted by his contemporaries too. There may be several reasons leading to such consequences. First of all, artistic works of outstanding value often transcend the times when they are created. Artists who bring completely new styles and new schools to artistic field, therefore, cannot be regarded as great ones in their times. Further, when artistic works are evaluated, critiques from artistic critics are mixture of critics' subjective views and objective judgment. Therefore, it is likely that art works cannot receive just judgments.

In the final analysis, in field of scientific research there are examples in which greatness of individuals fails to be admitted by contemporaries. For example, Mendel, who proposed his famous two laws in heritance, failed to be admitted by his contemporaries. Despite that Mendel devoted years of time to conduct pea experiments in which more than 20000 different types of peas were tested and he used statistic methods to draw his final conclusion, it is after 200 years when his works were finally accepted. Another example shedding some light on this point is Copernicus whose heliocentric theory failed to be accepted by their(his) contemporaries. Again, the reasons leading to such consequence is that scientific works of great value inevitably transcend their times. Understandably, in scientific fields greatness judgment comes from those who live after them.

To sum up, based on the foregoing discussions and analyses, I can draw a safe conclusion that while in political fields greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries, in artists and scientific fields just judgment of greatness of individuals comes from those who live after them.

我得能力有限，实在没什么可改得了，就是觉得分析有点少，不过也许还是我能力问题吧，理解不到？
很不错得文章，条例清晰，段落之间关联也较好，例子也很恰当。加油吧，你没问题得

abigredUID: 154473

The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

Can the greatness of individuals be decided by their contemporaries? While the speaker asserts that greatness of individuals can only be decided by those who live after them, in my view answer to this question varies from case to case. In this essay, I will explicate several important explanations.

To begin with, in political fields greatness of individuals can be admitted immediately. To judge greatness of political leaders, common people do not refer to their money or power, and greatness of political leaders is determined by what they do for the masses. More specifically, to win support from the masses, political leaders will do their best to improve the living standards of ordinary people. Therefore, a great political leader is certainly those who bring benefits to the masses. History is replete with examples to illustrate my position. For example, President Washington, the first president of America who united the continental army and won independence from the Great Britain won fame and prestige from his contemporaries. The reason underling the fact is simple. If a political leader wants to be regarded as a great one, then he or she will inevitably perform well and bring benefits to ordinary people. Only by this means, political leaders can win support and reverence from the masses, thereby finally being regarded as a great one. In short, in political field greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries.

However, in artistic fields, many great artists are only admitted by those who live after them. There are a host of examples to bolster my position. Vincent Van Gogh can serve as an apt example to my point. In spite of the fact that most of the works by Van Gogh are now regarded as masterpieces and worthy of millions of dollars, in the times when Van Gogh lived no one artistic critic can accept Van Gogh's artistic styles and concepts, and in fact Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime. The same tragedy happened on Monet, who cannot be admitted by his contemporaries too. There may be several reasons leading to such consequences. First of all, artistic works of outstanding value often transcend the times when they are created. Artists who bring completely new styles and new schools to artistic field, therefore, cannot be regarded as great ones in their times.therefore后面似乎有点问题，为什么因为跨时代而无法被成为是great呢？或者加一个关系会好一点，例如说超出理解水平 Further, when artistic works are evaluated, critiques from artistic critics are mixture of critics' subjective views and objective judgment. Therefore, it is likely that art works cannot receive just judgments.

In the final analysis, in field of scientific research there are examples in which greatness of individuals fails to be admitted by contemporaries. For example, Mendel, who proposed his famous two laws in heritance, failed to be admitted by his contemporaries. Despite that Mendel devoted years of time to conduct 好像是ing形式 pea experiments in which more than 20000 different types of peas were tested and he used statistic methods to draw his final conclusion, it is after 200 years when his works were finally accepted. Another example shedding some light on this point is Copernicus whose heliocentric theory failed to be accepted by their contemporaries. Again, the reasons leading to such consequence is that scientific works of great value inevitably transcend their times. Understandably, in scientific fields greatness judgment comes from those who live after them. （科学家也有不少被当代人认同的，是不是balance一下比较好？）

To sum up, based on the foregoing discussions and analyses, I can draw a safe conclusion that while in political fields greatness of individuals can be decided by their contemporaries, in artists and scientific fields just judgment of greatness of individuals comes from those who live after them.

语言很纯熟了，而且例子也很好，保持良好状态上考场吧，你一定行

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=304986

[ Last edited by abigred on 2005-7-24 at 22:54 ]

禾日因心UID: 174510

文章真的很不错了，就现在的状态拿高分没问题的，楼主加油