来和我的美女外教ＰＫ下！ [复制链接]

miriam26
UID：2335699

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 277
注册时间: 2007-5-6
精华: 0
帖子: 21

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-10-16 03:28:55 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

原文地址:https://bbs.gter.net/thread-749203-1-2.html

下面是我的美女外教帮我改的,修改方式最后有说明,我就直接贴上来了,没用红字,句法语法改的很地道了,但她不太了解AW的要求,估计没注意逻辑,结构,破题,思维等,所以大家也可以去原文帮我看下,使劲的拍,处女作嘛,将就和她PK下,各位应该也会有收获吧,谢谢,鞠躬:loveliness:

TOPIC:
"No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge and experience to that field of study."
I agree with the speaker's broad assertion that significant advance in knowledge requires expertise from various fields. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace cooperation (of others') results ( which is )controversial, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of cooperation might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker involve the fundamental objectives and nature of cooperation, as discussed below.
   Admittedly, under some background of society, interference of ( from ) outsiders can be counterproductive to advance of research. For(--- supporting---) example, Galileo Galilei, an Italian mathematician who lived from 1564 to 1642 when the doctrines of the Catholic church dominated belief of every field of study. Galileo's observations convinced him that the earth revolved around the sun, however, at* that time science had not yet become differentiated from philosophy and religion which (---all----) believed the earth was the center of the universe, so Galileo's views were--- considered * radically entrenched and the doctrines that he was tried for* by the Inquisition 。He was forced to spend the last eight years of his life under house arrest. The end result is that astronomy's research was* impeded.
   Cooperation can also inhibit progress* when two experts who come from different fields of study disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful cooperation. For example, when (socialists whose )view is that a centralized power should control all economic activity bring their knowledge and experience to economics and finance experts, the dynamics of a laissez-faire system can't be advanced, ( but on the contrary), they can be violated. And when experts whose religious belief systems ( exclude) the possibility of evolution begin to take part in (studying) paleontology, the study can't take place( because of the rudimentary contradictions).
   Aside from the foregoing two provisos however, I fundamentally agree with the speaker's assertion. In fact, isolation results in stagnation. Knowledge and experience from outsiders provide greater insight and comprehension to the study of some problems, and often lead to cross-disciplines and collaboration which are required for continuing progress and success of modern study.
   Consider when an infectious disease occurs and spreads.* The patients are treated and cured and health y people are prevented from being infected not by the expertise of doctors—who initially just estimated the state of the illness, and guide d patients to take *examinations—but ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, pharmacist s, psychologists and even statisticians. By analyzing the samples of blood, urine, *feces and tissue, biochemists can determine the cause, type, degree of illness and damaged sites of organs and body. These experts can also guide the further examination( needed )and provide important materials to pharmacists. Pharmacists must make some new medicines which can eliminate the cause of disease s including bacteria, viruses and parasites, protect organs and bod ies from damaging, prevent complications and invent vaccines. Psychologists play wonderful roles in curi ng( as well). ( They )relieve patients' pain, nervousness and anxiety which result s from discomfort of the body. And the statisticians are needed to investigate and collect unnumberable *amounts of data and materials which can identify the source, range and degree of infection, age, sexual and type of people who are ( likely) to be infected.
   In sum, unless experts of different studies *are (each) willing to play by the same rules (to a great extent), I (argue )that cooperation can( in fact )impede research.  (But if they do), the close relationship and interplay* among the sciences are the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. And accordingly, the speaker's broad generalization is fundamentally correct.

COMMENT:
(I would suggest changing the first sentence to:  I argue that if experts of different studies cannot agree on fundamental basics, then cooperation is not possible and progress can in fact not occur. )

Hope this helps. Sorry the highlighting is hard to see.. But if it's highlighted I changed something. If I used ----- I took something out. And *means I added something. ()means I corrected.

Your work is very good though! Thanks for asking me to help!

See you in class