Issue48 历史类题，真是头疼啊，写的自己都觉得论证无力了。大家给点意见吧。

amanda1011UID: 2106668

------摘要------
作者：amanda1011     共用时间：56分30秒     585 words
从2005年6月18日22时40分到2005年6月18日23时56分

------题目------
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.

------正文------
Does the study of history place too much emphasis on individuals? I disagree with the speaker's claim because, in my opinion, it is the famous few, not the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten, who made the most significant events and trends in history.

As we know, every why has a wherefore. There are some inevitable reasons why historians place so much emphasis on individuals rather than groups of people. Since there are so many materials about the common people that no historian could be able to read them all, when studying the history, they have to choose some typical people who can reflect the social environment and put the seemingly irrelated events together to get some useful information about the historical movement. For example, we pay attention to some famous writer, like O. Henry, a famous short-story writer because their works were exact images of the the social activities at that time while the other anonymous writers would be ignored even if their works were part of the whole literature in history. Another reason is that the famous few play a pivotal role in the progress of history for they always make the significant decisions which may change our times. By the study of these important people, we can find the line of the development of our history.

Furthermore, when considering the events in the scientific areas, we will find that the most significant events in the history which would be the impetus of our society, is accomplished by the famous few.  For instance, Watt improved the stream engine and put the train into practice. Although the manufacture and extensive use of the stream engine need groups of people to participate, is it wise of us to place more emphasis on the anonymous people who adopt the stream engine and neglect the man who invents this equipment? Besides, many famous people who made a contribution to the history had been opposed in their lifetime. Galileo, who climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped several balls with different weight, before he did this experiment, all people believe that the weightier a ball, the faster it falls off. Is it correct to pay more attention to people in the majority with wrong ideas about the science?

Also, in the social area, the most important events were decided by the famous few, whose influence were indelible and often changed the whole society while groups of anonymous people only helped to accomplish the tasks. However, decisions made by the leaders were representative of the ideas of the majority, if we widely study the actions and opinions of the anonymous people, we would hardly find out the cause of the historical events. In reversen, from the study of the famous political leaders and their thought about the events, we could get out the most related things about the history. For example, we can know about the cause and effect of American Resolution by study of George Washington as he was the key man in the war and his activities went through the whole event. So, compared to paying attention to the groups of people who only attend American Resolution, we can gain more about the process and cause from Washington.

To sum up, it is inevitable that many people who have been forgotten by the times take part in the historical activities. However, if we place more emphasis on them, we may not hold the developing line of the history and lose ourselves in the rules of it.

alcestisUID: 2101945

Does the study of history place too much emphasis on individuals? I disagree with the speaker's claim because, in my opinion, it is the famous few, not the groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten, who made the most significant events and trends in history.

As we know, every why has a wherefore. There are some inevitable reasons why historians place so much emphasis on individuals rather than groups of people. Since there are so many materials about the common people that no historian could be able to read them all, when studying the history, they have to choose some typical people who can reflect the social environment and put the seemingly irrelated events together to get some useful information about the historical movement. For example, we pay attention to some famous writer, like O. Henry, a famous short-story writer because their works were exact images of the the social activities at that time while the other anonymous writers would be ignored even if their works were part of the whole literature in history.例子不是十分贴切 不过也算差强人意 Another reason is that the famous few play a pivotal role in the progress of history for they always make the significant decisions which may change our times. By the study of these important people, we can find the line of the development of our history.这一点很好展开为什么不写了？？

Furthermore, 没看出递进亚 when considering the events in the scientific areas, we will find that the most significant events in the history which would be the impetus of our society, is accomplished by the famous few.  For instance, Watt improved the stream engine and put the train into practice. Although the manufacture and extensive use of the stream engine need groups of people to participate, is it wise of us to place more emphasis on the anonymous people who adopt the stream engine and neglect the man who invents this equipment? Besides, many famous people who made a contribution to the history had been opposed in their lifetime. 这句话说得太隐讳了， 美国人肯定不懂。我想你要表达的意思是：真理掌握在少数人手中 我们应该强调他们。Galileo, who climbed the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropped several balls with different weight, before he did this experiment, all people believe that the weightier a ball, the faster it falls off. Is it correct to pay more attention to people in the majority with wrong ideas about the science?

Also, in the social area, the most important events were decided by the famous few, whose influence were indelible and often changed the whole society while groups of anonymous people only helped to accomplish the tasks. However, decisions made by the leaders were representative of the ideas of the majority, if we widely study the actions and opinions of the anonymous people, we would hardly find out the cause of the historical events. In reversen, from the study of the famous political leaders and their thought about the events, we could get out the most related things about the history. For example, we can know about the cause and effect of American Resolution这个可千万不能在考试的时候写错~ by study of George Washington as he was the key man in the war and his activities went through the whole event. So, compared to paying attention to the groups of people who only attend American Resolution, we can gain more about the process and cause from Washington.

To sum up, it is inevitable that many people who have been forgotten by the times take part in the historical activities. 这个however转折有问题，去掉就好了However, if we place more emphasis on them, we may not hold the developing line of the history and lose ourselves in the rules of it.
结构没问题case-by-case处理的不错！！