I will focus on organization here. ※ 引述《jarlinlove (永夜角聲悲自語)》之銘言： : 1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to : be a member of a group than to be the leader of a group. : ======================================================================= : For the sake of effectiveness, all kinds of group are mostly formed with : a policymaker, who we call a leader. Generally, leaders manage the : decision-making affairs, while the members practice them. Both of them play : crucial roles in a group, but there are still some differences, which make me : agree with the statement “It is better to be a member than to be a leader of : a group.” 1. a leader may not be a policy maker, so you might want to change that definition. 2. in english writing, writers often put the major information in the first setence. so you might first mention, both a member and the leader of a group play crucial roles in complete a task. -->give reasons (why they play crucial roles? because they share different reponsibilities).--> then you give your own opinion. : The first difference is that leaders are considered to make decisions. : Although in a democratic organizations, most decisions are based on the : common consensus of all. However, according to the psychological theory “ : Duty Diffusing Effect”, the more the members are, the less the : responsibility is for everyone. Consequentially, leaders are expected to make : the final decisions by themselves. if you want to make the argument that the leaders usually make decisions, just stick to that by having more examples.from the second sentence on, it's more about counter-argument, which kind of weakens your argument. EX. what if it's a small group? : Due to the first reason mentioned above, the second difference is : obvious that leaders are in charge of the success or loss. That is to say, : merits and demerits are mostly attributed to them in accordance with whether : the policy works. Leaders have to support their policies with persuasive : viewpoints, even if others do not bring up any ideas. they are responsible for the success or failure, why? readers might want to know the reasons. and the last sentence is a littli bit ambiguous. what do you mean by that sentence? : In addition, leaders have the duty to ensure the group to run smoothly. : Take some frequent situations for example: First, they have to break the ice : if there is lack of responses. Second, in case of quarrel, it is unshirkable : for leaders to play the negotiators. Third, the time-management is also a : significant work for them to stop members from sidetracking. it's good to have examples. this paragraph is more persuasive than the previous ones. : To sum up, leaders have much burden than members of a group. They are : the last ones to dawdle over, even in a little while. They are also the : targets if any errors occur. That’s why I think being a leader is better : than a member. 1. dawdle over carries negative meaning. so you might want to change that. 2. in the last sentence, you say being a leader is better? is that a typo? 3. maybe you can add some advantages about being a member, not just listing the burderns for being a leader. and maybe you can state explicitly why you think being a memeber is better--it's because a leader has too many responsibilities and too much work, in contrast to a member. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 128.205.231.174