[Idiom] deserves another

[Ashiuhto]

Are the following sentences acceptable?

(1) I believe that one good turn deserves another.

(2) If I do a good deed, I prefer to make it known to the public so as to exalt virtues becoming a common practice.

 

[Raymott]

Are the following sentences acceptable?

(1) I believe that one good turn deserves another. Yes.

(2) If I do a good deed, I prefer to make it known to the public so as to exalt virtues becoming a common practice. No

Whenever I do a good deed ... 'Whenever' is better here, because it's apparent that you do goods habitually, or at least occasionally, so that there is no question of "if". Also, you want it to happen every time you do a good deed. Of course, 'if' is often used in this context.
... so as to encourage the exaltation of virtue.
... so as to make the exaltation of virtue more common.
... so that the exaltation of virtue becomes a more common practice.
You can't "exalt virtues becoming a common practice."

I'm still not sure what you mean by the second sentence. I gather that you mean you want to encourage virtuous behaviour. Or perhaps that you want virtue to be exalted - that is, the incidence of virtue doesn't change, but when it occurs, it is exalted.
I don't like 'exalt' here. 'Exalt' means to raise, lift up, heighten. I'm not sure how making a good deed public exalts virtue, or even encourages it.
What exactly do you mean?

 

[Ashiuhto]

Hi, the context is as written.

(1) The above example brings about two opposite issues:to be an open donor or anonymous one.
(2) As for me, I would rather be an open doner than anonymous one.
(3) I believe that one good turn deserves another.
(4) Whenever I do a good deed, I prefer to make it known to the public so that the exaltation of virtue becomes a more common practice.

Furthermore, in #3, my original idea is "a benevolent action should be commended in public so as to encourage charity." However, I really don't know the meaning of "one good turn deserves another." Are the two clauses have the same meaning? Is #3 acceptable in the context?

 

[Raymott]

Hi, the context is as written.
I wasn't asking about the context. I was uncertain what you meant by the sentence.

(1) The above example brings about two opposite issues:to be an open donor or anonymous one.
(2) As for me, I would rather be an open doner than anonymous one.
These examples don't occur in this thread. Perhaps they're somewhere else. Listing sentences in this way tends to imply that they're not related, especially if you're asking whether the sentences are acceptable.

(3) I believe that one good turn deserves another.
This means that if you do me a good turn, you deserve for me to do you one. Or, more generally, if you do someone a good turn, you deserve having a good deed done to/for you.

(4) Whenever I do a good deed, I prefer to make it known to the public so that the exaltation of virtue becomes a more common practice.
This is still a confused sentence. It doesn't say what you describe below. What this sentence says is that your making your good deeds known to the public will make exalting virtue more common. That's not a logical inference.

Furthermore, in #3, [#4 ?] my original idea is "a benevolent action should be commended in public so as to encourage charity."
Ah, now that's a clear statement. There's a difference between i) making your good actions known to the public and ii)
public commendation for performing a good deed. One might possibly lead to the other, but you haven't explained that your conclusion depends on this occurring.


However, I really don't know the meaning of "one good turn deserves another."
Explained above.
Are the two clauses have the same meaning?
What two clauses?
Is #3 acceptable in the context? Do you mean #4? No, as I said in my last post - because it doesn't mean what you intend it to.

The acceptability of #4 as a sentence is independent of the other sentences, since it's semantically wrong.
But now I have your intended meaning - A person who does a good deed should be praised publicly because that will encourage good deeds.
Your sentence 4 doesn't mean that.

Making your good deed known to the public (as in sentence 4) doesn't imply that you will be praised, so advertising your virtue does not guarantee that good deeds will increase. Your sentence 4 says nothing about your being praised, so it cannot mean that public praise will increase the performance of good deeds.

You don't mean that the "the exaltation of virtue" will cause more good deeds. You mean that the praising of people who perform virtuous acts will lead to more good deeds.
Exaltation of virtue, to me, means heightening the recognition that virtue is a good thing, not increasing the praise given to virtuous people.

I hope you understand my points, and can see that something is missing in your sentence #4.

 

[Ashiuhto]

Hi,
I am writing a short essay whose topic is “do you like to be an open or anonymous donor”. In the first paragraph, I give an example of controversial Chinese philanthropist Chen Guanbiao took his charity trip to Taiwan and donated cash to underprivileged people and charity groups. During his visit to Taiwan, Chen’s high-profile style of giving away cash to people in need has earned both praise and criticism from the public. In the second paragraph, I narrate the different reactions of praise and criticism. In the last paragraph, I declare which way I would like to choose to help people in need. So I revise the last paragraph as following. Is it semantically acceptable?

As for me, I would rather be an open donor than anonymous one. I believe that a person who does a good deed should be praised publicly because that will encourage good deeds. Therefore, I prefer to make it known to the public whenever I do a good deed.

 

[Raymott]

As for me, I would rather be an open donor than anonymous one. I believe that aperson who does a good deed should be praised publicly because that will encourage good deeds. Therefore, I prefer to make it known to the public whenever I do a good deed.

I can only repeat what I've said twice already.
The argument you've offered is this:
1) You do a good deed
2) People should praise you publicly because that will lead to more good deeds being done.
3) Other people will want similar praise
4) Therefore other people will do good deeds.

For this to be a valid argument, 2. has to read:
2) People will praise you publicly.

So, your good deed is completely wasted as a way of helping people in need (beyond your actual deed) - unless you assert that what you think should happen, will happen. (Actually, what you've offered is more of an argument for your praising good deeds than for your doing good deeds, as a way of increasing good deeds.)

Also, to complicate the argument, the "because ... " clause in 2. is begging the question. That is, you are using your conclusion (4) as a premise (2) to prove your conclusion.

But if you don't follow this, don't worry too much. I've seen far worse arguments in essays, and your teacher might understand what you're trying to say.