[YB2] 7月13日作业 by lossingzone

lossingzoneUID: 2519545

ISSUE160 - "The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."

Some people agree that the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives is the most essential quality to be an eminent leader, while others oppose it for the fear of autocracy. It's true that adherence to some particular principles and objectives are indispensable to be a good leader. However, insight of a leader must be endowed equal importance.
                                                      
There is no denying that adherence to one’s own principles and targets are necessary for anyone, especially a leader. As a leader, he/she know more information than the public in most cases. What's more, the common citizens usually have narrow view; they just concern their own interest. On the contrary, the leaders are forced to ponder more. They must take the overall's benefits into consideration. With the help of their subordinates, the leaders can make wise decisions in many cases. William.Seward, secretary of state of the USA 150 years ago, made the decision to buy Alaska for the price of 7,200,000 $ from Russia. The public thought that Seward was mad since Alaska is no more than a huge ice without any use. However, it is well known to all of us today Alaska is a land with untold treasures. This issue shows that sometimes a leader should stick to his objectives regardless the opposition of public.

However, as all the democratic countries advocate, national affairs should be determined by as many people as possible. The first reason is to avoid despotism. For the second reason, there are many cases showing that leaders' adherence to the decision which is opposed by the public are detrimental and even fatal to a nation. Gorge Bush, former president of the USA, started the war toward Iraq though the majority of American people opposed it. The consequence is that thousands of American solders and Iraq people lose their lives, while the USA doesn't profit much from the war. Even democratic countries such as the USA still suffers from the false decisions of leaders, not mention the non-democratic countries!

However, it not means that the leaders should always follow the public's opinion. As what we analysis, a leader’s adherence to his/her owns decision is a double sword which can be both detrimental and beneficial. Even leaders of the most democratic countries have the power to make the final decision, otherwise the existence of these leaders are superfluous. Hence a question rises up, how to make best use of the power as a leader? Except listening to the voice of the public, insight is indispensable. A leader who has no insight cannot get great achievement; even he/she doesn't bring harm to the nation. Moreover, a leader may make fatal decision and lead the country to a wrong direction. Gorbachev, the last leader of former Soviet who had no insight of the future of the country, made an absurd decision that give up the control of the country. As a result, the Soviet was disintegrated into several countries in the end. There is no doubt that Gorbachev had a strong ability to stick to his own decision and carry it out, yet his wrong decision destroyed the country.

In the other hand, the leaders who have insight but lack of the courage to stick to his decision which is opposed by the public are not good leaders. Even he realizes his decision is right, yet he gives up it due to the public's critics and as a result his insight doesn't bring benefits to the public.

In sum, both insight and the ability to adhere to some particular principles and objectives are dispensable for a leader. Insight enables a leader to make wise decision, while adherence enables he carry it out.

在结尾再强调一下纵使有insight，还是要有民主监督使得当权者不能任意使用权力。

(2009-7-14 0:10:09)


ARGUMENT161 - In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

The arguer concluded that the results of the first study conducted by the University of Leeville is false, since a follow-up study showed that the readers are most favorable to borrow mystery novel books from libraries in Leeville. It seems reasonable. However, some flaws can be found with careful analysis and hence the arguer's conclusion is not convincing.

First, the arguer ignored an important fact that the reading habit of readers is not stand still, instead, it may change from time to time. The arguer didn't tell us the time interval between the first study and the follow-up study. Perhaps it was a few years did the follow-up study conducted after the first one did. Between these years, readers get bored with literary classics and became interested in mystery novel. As many surveys conducted by various experts show, contemporary readers' reading habits change quite rapidly. They may be interested in mystery novel this year and change to travel book the next year. It's not convincing if the arguer fails to show that the reading habit of local citizen doesn't change dramatically during these two studies.

Second, even reading habit did not change much between the periods of the two studies, whether the result of the follow-up study is questionable. The follow-up study may not be well designed. The conductor of the study just investigated the books of readers borrow from the library. There are some problems with it. Can the conductor guaranteed the readers who borrow books from libraries be able to represent reading habit of Leeville? As we know, many cities has so few libraries that only a small percentage of citizens visit libraries frequently. What's more, there is the possibility that majority of readers of libraries are students. If the arguer fails to give more information about the respondents in the follow-up study, his/her conclusion is not convincing.

Third, even the follow-up study was well designed and readers in Leeville were interested in reading mystery novel books during that time, there is still a problem left. It's known to us that many readers want to buy literary classics because these books require reader to read them again and again, while mystery novel just need a fast reading without repetition. As a result, it's naturally for more mystery novel books being borrowed, since the readers can read 10 such books a day, while readers can't finish a literary classic in a month! What's more, many readers prefer to buy literary classics rather than borrow them from the libraries, for the reason that these books are of great value that worth of being cherished.

In sum, the readers should provide further information as follows. First, what's the exact reading habit during the time of the follow-up study? Second, did the reading habit change during the two studies? The arguer can't make any convincing conclusion unless he does this.

(2009-7-14 0:54:43)

sunxcintUID: 2654472

ISSUE160 - "The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives. Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little."

Some people agree that the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives is the most essential quality to be an eminent leader, while others oppose it for the fear of autocracy. It's true that adherence to some particular principles and objectives are（is） indispensable to be a good leader. However, insight of a leader must be endowed equal importance.


There is no denying that adherence to one’s own principles and targets are necessary for anyone, especially a leader. As a leader, he/she know（hold） more information than the public in most cases. What's more, the common citizens usually have narrow view; they just concern their own interest. On the contrary, the leaders are forced to ponder more .
(While common citizens usually have comparative narrow view and just concern their own interest, the leaders are demanded to consider more. 后两句都去掉) They must take the overall's benefits into consideration. With the help of their subordinates, the leaders can make wise decisions in many cases. William.Seward, secretary of state of the USA 150 years ago, made the decision to buy Alaska for the price of 7,200,000 $ from Russia. The public thought that Seward was mad（crazy比较准确） since Alaska is( was then view as) no more than a huge ice without any use.( without any use去掉)（Against all odds, Seward insisted in the completion of the deal.） However, it is well known to all of us today Alaska is a land with untold treasures. This issue(example) shows that sometimes(in certain occasions or cases) a leader should stick to his objectives regardless the opposition of public. (我觉得你这一段要表达的意思是符合题意的，需要修改的是一些表达方法。)

However, as all the democratic countries advocate, national affairs should be determined by as many people as possible. The first reason is to avoid despotism. For the second reason, there are many cases showing that leaders' adherence to the decision which is opposed by the public are detrimental and even fatal to a nation. Gorge Bush, former president of the USA, started the war toward Iraq though the majority of American people opposed it. The consequence is that thousands of American solders and Iraq people lose their lives, while the USA doesn't profit much from the war. Even democratic countries such as the USA still suffers from the false decisions of leaders, not mention the non-democratic countries! (这一段比较好，我也准备借用一下)

However, it not means that the leaders should always follow the public's opinion. As what we analysis, a leader’s adherence to his/her owns decision is a double sword which can be both detrimental and beneficial. Even leaders of the most democratic countries have the power to make the final decision, otherwise the existence of these leaders are superfluous. Hence a question rises up, how to make best use of the power as a leader? Except listening to the voice of the public, insight is indispensable. A leader who has no insight cannot get great achievement; even he/she doesn't bring harm to the nation. Moreover, a leader may make fatal decision and lead the country to a wrong direction. Gorbachev, the last leader of former Soviet who had no insight of the future of the country, made an absurd decision that give up the control of the country. As a result, the Soviet was disintegrated into several countries in the end. There is no doubt that Gorbachev had a strong ability to stick to his own decision and carry it out, yet his wrong decision destroyed the country.

In the other hand, the leaders who have insight but lack of the courage to stick to his decision which is opposed by the public are not good leaders. Even he realizes his decision is right, yet he gives up it due to the public's critics and as a result his insight doesn't bring benefits to the public.
(我感觉这两段说得不是很清楚，而且跟第一个论点有点重复，其实完全可以说点别的，例如 qualify the word
most essential quality in the statement。 )

In sum, both insight and the ability to adhere to some particular principles and objectives are dispensable for a leader. Insight enables a leader to make wise decision, while adherence enables he carry it out.

总体来说应该还过得去，但是思路似乎还是受到了限制，论述的点需要丰满完善

综合你的观点和我的观点，我觉得以下几点可以写：

1、领导人坚持好

2、领导人坚持就是权力滥用

3、领导人面临的政治环境复杂，有时候无法坚持

4、领导人的最重要的素质是否就是坚持