ssue 21 [b]"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after [b]them, not by their contemporaries." [b][b]想必大家已看了20篇范文了，有何感想呢？一句话，gre的作文并不难“烤”,问题就是不能 [b]烤“焦”（整篇文章如江水之滔滔不绝，虽雄辩但要不离题要不庸于罗嗦）也不能“半生不 [b]熟”（缺乏必要的论据和论点）。而且，大家有目共睹的，在这20天来，我们所初接触的题 [b]目均是或多或少有逻辑错误，利用我们的常识也知道不够完善，或是太多绝对化的观点，于 [b]是我们发觉总有想象的空间可发挥，不愁没话说，这是ets的仁慈了。想拿合格的分数，不 [b]难，只要不要有抄袭之嫌，不要离题万里。但是要拿4.5分以上，就要下点苦工了。想想那么 [b]多竞争对手那么多跟你雷同的文章，想脱颖而出，标新立异，就应该是有自己的亮点。但往 [b]往有人问我，我就是这么想的呀，无论如何也想不到什么啦，怎么办？Ok, 如果，实在无法 [b]抠脑门，那么我们就从句法的复杂度还有言辞方面独具一格一点吧。我不是说鼓励大家摒弃 [b]“思维训练”，恰恰相反，这是万不得已而为之的上上策了。确实，n*n篇作文肯定有相似的 [b]地方，无法避免，那么就让我们尽量让自己的文章变得“学术味”浓一点，迷惑一下咱们挑 [b]剔的阅卷者吧。 [b][b]下面一篇文章我个人认为，并不算写得太过理想的，因为，他所分析的也只是从一个角度出 [b]发的（in other areas, particularly the physical sciences, greatness must be [b]tested over time before it can be confirmed. In still other areas, such as [b]business, the incubation period for greatness varies from case to case.）他 [b]并没有太多的运用我之前介绍过的两片6分文章那样多角度——正推，反推，再综合或进一步 [b]推理，完全没有！那么这就说明他这片文章肯定死菜了吗？吾以为不尽然也。我们永远不要 [b]忘记ets出的作文没有像我们这么多年来的应是教育体制一样，想尽办法也要搞出个所谓标准 [b]答案来，并且必须要跟这个答案99.999％的吻合，非也！ets是没有最终答案的，只有最佳表 [b]达方式，她欣赏的是有creative mind的人，这一点在大家去到老米那学习了一段时间后或 [b]许会深有感触。所以，现在我们的应试对策就是，有好的逻辑推理当然最好啦，但是没有也 [b]不必紧张，花多点工夫在词句运用方面，也是不会有什么闪失的，但要提醒一句的是，千万 [b]别在句法上走火入魔了，搞得高深莫测的，连ets也不懂汝之为何，那就真正死翘翘的啦！ [b][b]Can a person's greatness be recognized only in retrospect, by those who [b]live after the person, as the speaker maintains? In my view the speaker [b]unfairly generalizes. In some areas, especially the arts, greatness is [b]often recognizable in its nascent stages. However, in other areas, [b]particularly the physical sciences, greatness must be tested over time [b]before it can be confirmed. In still other areas, such as business, the [b]incubation period for greatness varies from case to case. [b][b][b]We do not require a rear-view mirror to recognize artistic greatness-- [b]whether in music, visual arts, or literature. The reason for this is [b]simple: art can be judged at face value.There's nothing to be later proved [b]or disproved, affirmed or discredited, or even improved upon or refined by [b]further knowledge or newer technology. History is replete with examples of [b]artistic greatness immediately recognized, then later confm-ned. Through [b]his patronage, the Pope recognized Michelangelo's artistic greatness, while [b]the monarchs of Europe immediately recognized Mozart's greatness by [b]granting him their most generous commissions. Mark Twain became a best- [b]selling author and household name even during his lifetime. And the leaders [b]of the modernist school of architecture marveled even as Frank Lloyd Wright [b]was elevating their notions about architecture to new aesthetic heights. [b][b][b]By contrast, in the sciences it is difficult to identify greatness without [b]the benefit of historical perspective. Any scientific theory might be [b]disproved tomorrow, thereby demoting the theorist's contribution to the [b]status of historical footnote. Or the theory might withstand centuries of [b]rigorous scientific scrutiny. In any event, a theory may or may not serve [b]as a springboard for later advances in theoretical science. A current [b]example involves the ultimate significance of two opposing theories of [b]physics: wave theory and quantum theory. Some theorists now claim that a [b]new so-called "string" theory reconciles the two opposing theories--at [b]least mathematically. Yet "strings" have yet to be confirmed empirically. [b]Only time will tell whether string theory indeed provides the unifying laws [b]that all matter in the universe obeys. In short, the significance of [b]contributions made by theoretical scientists cannot be judged by their [b]contemporaries--only by scientists who follow them. [b][b][b]In the realm of business, in some cases great achievement is recognizable [b]immediately, while in other cases it is not. Consider on the one hand Henry [b]Ford's assembly-line approach to manufacturing affordable cars for the [b]masses. Even Ford could not have predicted the impact his innovations would [b]have on the American economy and on the modern world. On the other hand, by [b]any measure, Microsoft's Bill Gates has made an even greater contribution [b]than Ford; after all, Gates is largely responsible for lifting American [b]technology out of the doldrums during the 1970s to restore America to the [b]status of economic powerhouse and technological leader of the world. And [b]this contribution is readily recognizable now--as it is happening. Of [b]course, the DOS and Windows operating systems, and even Gates' monopoly, [b]might eventually become historical relics. Yet his greatness is already [b]secured. [b][b][b]In sum, the speaker overlooks many great individuals, particularly in the [b]arts and in business, whose achievements were broadly recognized as great [b]even during their own time. [b]Nevertheless, other great achievements, especially scientific ones, cannot [b]be confirmed as such without the benefit of historical perspective. [b][b][b]关于这篇文章，我的感想是，并无太大的特色，印象最深的唯有其例子n多，但似有绝对化之 [b]嫌，不够有太大的说服力，但考虑到能在段时间内写成这样，已是功德无量了！ [b]