【辉太郎杀G大队】7/9作业by MC dragonfly(Issue203;Argument165)

lmcdragonflyUID: 2601914

TOPIC: ISSUE203 - "The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines."

The speaker claim that the character of the heroes chosen by the society he belongs to reflect the character of the society. Although many heroes somehow represent something, to be frank, I can only concede partly. Instead of representing the character the society owns, most heroes reflect the qualities and characters the society expect they should have. Heroes as they are, the characters of society sometimes are too wide in range for individuals to mirror. Rather than examining the characters of the heroes, to some extent, the best way to understand the characters of the society is examining the literary output concerning both heroes and ordinary people.

In the first place, when it comes to the heroes reflecting the characters of their time and society, such luminaries as America's Abraham Lincoln, India's Gandhi, South Africa's Nelson Mandela, China's Mao Zedong will immediately come into our minds. These outstanding political leaders certainly do reflect the characters of their society simply because they represent the major character of the society-the revolutionary change. During the revolution period of a society, almost everything and every people are involved in. The politics, economy, culture and almost every aspects of the society admits of no exception. The revolution is undoubtedly the major character of the society. Hence, heroes who are signals of this drastic change are certainly represent the character of society.

However, in the most of the peaceful times, heroes we regarded as are not so accurate in mirroring the characters of our society. There are maybe two reasons involved. Firstly, some heroes represents the quality of we all expect rather than we all own. For instance, we Chinese eulogize the heroes who serving for people in the light of altruism, such as Lei Feng, who is really an influential hero in China. March the 5th every year is the memorial day of him in China. But it is ridiculous to get the conclusion that the character of Chinese Society is altruistic and most of people in China are altruists.Moreover, the characters of society are so wide in range that they can hardly be represented by a single hero, no better how influential he is. Considering the two famous M.J., Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson, in the world, they are super heroes of such huge population, but it difficult for us to get more from them other than the fields they belong to, no matter in practice or on spiritual level. So does all of those heroes in their professional fields. In a word, the scoiety is too big for most heroes during harmony periods.

As mentioned above, it is not strange that I hold the opinion that the heroes cannot reflect the society’s character except for some special time. Instead of studying the characters in heroes, it is believed that a better way is to examine the outstanding literary outputs reflects its time. Many great workings often go by the name of "The encyclopedia” of some society periods. Compared with studying the great heroes of their time, we can know more about the 19th century Europe through the stories from Balzac and Tolstoy. It is only one aspect of understanding the character of society to examine its heroes.(535)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.

In this argument, the author concludes that the Promofoods' cans didn't contain chemicals that posed a health risk. The conclusion was made mainly based on the result of a test conducted by the chemists from Promofoods. While we can't deny some merits of this argument, some critical flaws seriously undermine the validity of reasoning, making the argument highly suspect.

First and foremost, the argument rests on problematic testing. The author fails to provide any evidence that the test from P. themselves is reliable. We couldn't rule out the possibility that chemists from P. have received the pressure from authority, which somehow influenced the result of the test. What's more, even if the chemists from the P. are objective, the results are still suspicious, for the author fails to provide any information about the samples tested by the chemists. Are these samples representative? If only a few cans are tested or they are not selected randomly, how can we know the overall situation of 8 millions cans. Hence, the test results are highly suspect and because the argument is mainly base on the test, we see little reliability in it.

Moreover, even if we recognize the authenticity and validity of the test provided by P., we cannot go to such a conclusion through the vague result as the author has done. We are not told the strict definition of the “naturally”. What levels of the 3 kinds of chemicals were found in the P. tuna as compared with other kinds of canned food and what health risks will they pose potentially? The author fails to provide any evidence to confirm us that the amount contained in the cans is harmless. Perhaps it is the plethora of these chemicals leads to the problem. In absence of this information, how can we believe that the natural existing chemicals have nothing to do with the nausea and dizziness.

Finally, the author fail to rule out the possibility that the cans contained chemicals other than the 8 particular suspect kinds will pose the dizziness and nausea. Common sense tells us that there are far more than 8 main kinds of chemicals that can cause such health risk. Even the cans' containing none of the 8 particular kinds of chemicals doesn't equal to their going behind the responsibility, it is unwarranted for the author to make such a assumption.

In summary, the argument hurts several critical flaws mentioned above and the conclusion is not creditable. If the arguer can provide more evidence about the authenticity of the testing result and cite the statistic of the test more concrete, the argument will get more opportunities to convince us. (441)

hdsf2003UID: 2351462

评语 ：
Issue
1，观点清新，但是段落内部组织不够紧密，有些跳跃，读起来有些吃力。
2，平衡观点能够很好的反应作者的分析能力，但是没有能进一步扩展，这点，我也做不好，大家共同提高：）
3，段落之间联结词明显，层次易分
4，作者过分强调长句，使得有些地方显得有一点冗长。减少不必要的重复和无效的长句，可是文章更顺畅。


Argument

1，切入要害，每段开头有明显的模板句子，这样使得主体突出。不错
2，论证递进，很有效，容易让人接受
3，有些语法上、拼写小错误
4，文中的文句能够有效反应cans-test忽略的信息

大家水平都还得提高，加油，一起向AliciaSun学习，她的文章真的不错
A很好，就是I不太好组织，相信你。。。

TOPIC: ISSUE203 - "The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines."

The speaker claims that the character of the heroes chosen by the society he belongs to reflect the character of the society. Although many heroes somehow represent something, to be frank, I can only concede partly. Instead of representing the character the society owns, most heroes reflect the qualities and characters the society expects. Heroes as they are, the characters of society sometimes are too wide for individuals to mirror. Rather than examining the characters of the heroes, to some extent, the best way to understand the characters of the society is examining the literary output concerning both heroes and ordinary people.

In the first place, when it comes to the heroes reflecting the characters of their time and society, such luminaries as America's Abraham Lincoln, India's Gandhi, South Africa's Nelson Mandela, China's Mao Zedong will immediately come into our minds. These outstanding political leaders certainly do reflect the characters of their society simply because they represent the major character of the society-the revolutionary change. During the revolution period of a society, almost everything and every people are involved. The politics, economy, culture and almost every aspects of the society admit of no exception. The revolution is undoubtedly the major character of the society. Hence, heroes who are signals of this drastic change are certainly representing the character of society.

However, during most of peaceful times, heroes we regard are not so accurate in mirroring the characters of our society. There are maybe two reasons involved. Firstly, some heroes represent the quality what we all expect rather than we all own. For instance, we Chinese eulogize the heroes who serve for people in the light of altruism, such as Lei Feng, really an influential hero in China. The 5th every March is the memorial day of him in China. But it is ridiculous to get the conclusion that the character of Chinese Society is altruistic and most of people in China are altruists. Moreover, the characters of society are so wide that they can hardly be represented by a single hero, no better how influential he is. Considering the two famous M.J., Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson, in the world, they are super heroes of such huge population, but it is difficult for us to get more from them other than the fields they belong to, no matter in practice or on spiritual level. So do all of those heroes in their professional fields. In a word, the society is too big for most heroes during harmony periods.

As mentioned above, it is not strange that I hold the opinion that the heroes cannot reflect the society’s character except some special time. Instead of studying the characters in heroes, it is believed that a better way is to examine the outstanding literary outputs reflecting its time. Many great works often go by the name of "The encyclopedia” of some society periods. Compared with studying the great heroes of their times, we can know more about the 19th century Europe through the stories from Balzac and Tolstoy. It is only one aspect of understanding the character of society to examine its heroes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC: ARGUMENT165 - The following appeared in a business magazine.

In this argument, the author concludes that the Promofoods' cans don't contain chemicals that posed a health risk. The conclusion was made mainly based on the result of a test conducted by the chemists from Promofoods. While we can't deny some merits of this argument, some critical flaws seriously undermine the validity of reasoning, making the argument highly suspect.

First and foremost, the argument rests on problematic testing. The author fails to provide any evidence that the test from P. themselves is reliable. We couldn't rule out the possibility that chemists from P. have received the pressure from authority, which somehow influencs the result of the test. What's more, even if the chemists from the P. are objective, the results are still suspicious, for the author fails to provide any information about the samples tested by the chemists. Are these samples representative? If only a few cans are tested or they are not selected randomly, how can we know the overall situation of 8 millions cans. Hence, the test results are highly suspect and because the argument is mainly base on the test, we see little reliability in it.

Moreover, even if we recognize the authenticity and validity of the test provided by P., we cannot go to such a conclusion through the vague result as the author has done. We are not told the strict definition of the “naturally”. What levels of the 3 kinds of chemicals were found in the P. tuna as compared with other kinds of canned food and what health risks will they pose potentially? The author fails to provide any evidence to confirm us that the amount contained in the cans is harmless. Perhaps it is the plethora of these chemicals leading to the problem. In absence of this information, how can we believe that the natural existing chemicals have nothing to do with the nausea and dizziness?

Finally, the author fail to rule out the possibility that the cans contained chemicals other than the 8 particular suspect kinds will pose the dizziness and nausea. Common sense tells us that there are far more than 8 main kinds of chemicals that can cause such health risk. Even the cans' containing none of the 8 particular kinds of chemicals doesn't equal to their going behind the responsibility, it is unwarranted for the author to make such an assumption.

In summary, the argument hurts several critical flaws mentioned above and the conclusion is not credible. If the arguer can provide more evidence about the authenticity of the testing result and cite the statistic of the test more concrete, the arguer will get more opportunities to convince us.

lmcdragonflyUID: 2601914

:)Thanks