issue184还有5天就考试了，好心人帮忙看看呗。。。

349295094UID: 2809040

ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before onehas data."

Whether theorizing before one has data is agrave mistake is a complex question which should be determined on case-by-casebasis. Although at first glance how appealing the issue is, under somecircumstances, it is impossible or even could cause equal peril to alwaysconclude before collection enough data.

I fundamentally agree with the speaker'sclaim insofar as in the economic and social science realm. Since the data wouldgive us the most direct manifestation of certain goods, on which the theorybased on lends more credibility than other conclusions whichjust rely on prediction or personal will. Without enough data, people would beunconvincing for they are able to find various reasons to cast doubt about the unsubstantiatedassumptions. For example, Forbes ranks the millionairesby their total fortune. The rank list involves not only the ranker's name butalso their wholly incomes, which makes this rank quite convincing and increaseits authority. For another example in the political realm, in any democraticsociety, the decision about who is qualified to bethe president is finally determined on how many votes the candidate has got.The direct appointment of a leader would be a symbol ofnothing but the despotic political system which would be refuted by mostpeople. In short, as mentioned above, it is irrational and responsiblefor the checker to theorize before he/she has data, otherwise, this woulddiminish the credibility of the theory.

Nevertheless, in the sphere of science, theconclusion would be the contrary. To my knowledge, it is reasonable for ascholar or researcher to theorize, in other words to make a hypothesis, beforehe/she achieve enough data to justify or deny thetheory. And most of the breakthroughs in science and technology are actuallydiscovered in this way. Commonly, the scientist would hypothesize a conclusionaccording the current phenomenon, and then design anexperiment to test the correctness of the assumptive theory. If the result ismatched with the expected performances, then the hypothesis could be called acorrect theory. If not, the result just proved that the theory is wrong.Moreover, sometimes it is impossible to gain useful data from an experiment bycurrent anthropogenic forces. Consider the Albert Einstein's theory ofrelativity. Could we accelerate a good to move quicker than a light beam? Absolutelynot, even at the supreme state-of-the-art laboratory on the present technicallevel. On this condition, scientist would turn to use formula to deduce theconclusion rather than get the impractical data.

In addition, under some specious circumstanceslike natural disaster, continuing to wait for sufficient data would be equally,or far worse, detrimental especially on the condition that it is likely to riskcitizen's life. For remarkable example, one need see no further than the recentforest conflagration happened in Russia. The national authority was widely blamedfor their slow response in fighting the fire. Much valuable times had beenwasted in waiting for exact data to evaluate the current situation and takecorresponding measures. However, if the authority had taken emergency measures opportunelyirrespective of the vague data, hundreds of houses and the victim would besurvived. In this manner, to theorize and take corresponding steps after onehas data turns out to be grave mistakes

To sum up, in the field of economy orsocial science, it is better to theorize after one has data. However, this issueis not always true when it comes to science and some extreme situations when wehave no much time to collect data but take quick actions.

forkidUID: 2845790

Whether theorizing before one has data is a grave mistake is a complex question which should be determined on case-by-casebasis. 【这句句子读着有些奇怪，建议拆成两句写，Whether…or not? It is a ….which…】
Although at first glance how appealing the issue is, under somecircumstances, it is impossible or even could cause equal peril to always conclude before collection enough data. 【你想说的是与题目It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data相反的情况吧，但这句imposssilbe 和 even could cause equal peril 正好说了相反的意思。你觉得呢？】
其次开头段说了case by case, 意味着下文至少有two cases
提到了impossible 所以下文要说可能性
提到了有enough data再下结论也不好

I fundamentally agree with the speaker'sclaim insofar as in the economic and social science realm. Since the data wouldgive us the most direct manifestation of certain goods, on which the theorybased on lends more credibility than other conclusions whichjust rely on prediction or personal will. Without enough data, people would beunconvincing for they are able to find various reasons to cast doubt about the unsubstantiatedassumptions. For example, Forbes ranks the millionairesby their total fortune. The rank list involves not only the ranker's name butalso their wholly incomes, which makes this rank quite convincing and increaseits authority. For another example in the political realm, in any democraticsociety, the decision about who is qualified to bethe president is finally determined on how many votes the candidate has got.The direct appointment of a leader would be a symbol ofnothing but the despotic political system which would be refuted by mostpeople. In short, as mentioned above, it is irrational and responsiblefor the checker to theorize before he/she has data, otherwise, this woulddiminish the credibility of the theory.

Nevertheless, in the sphere of science, theconclusion would be the contrary. To my knowledge, it is reasonable for ascholar or researcher to theorize, in other words to make a hypothesis, beforehe/she achieve enough data to justify or deny thetheory. And most of the breakthroughs in science and technology are actuallydiscovered in this way. Commonly, the scientist would hypothesize a conclusionaccording the current phenomenon, and then design anexperiment to test the correctness of the assumptive theory. If the result ismatched with the expected performances, then the hypothesis could be called acorrect theory. If not, the result just proved that the theory is wrong.Moreover, sometimes it is impossible to gain useful data from an experiment bycurrent anthropogenic forces. Consider the Albert Einstein's theory ofrelativity. Could we accelerate a good to move quicker than a light beam? Absolutelynot, even at the supreme state-of-the-art laboratory on the present technicallevel. On this condition, scientist would turn to use formula to deduce theconclusion rather than get the impractical data.
【没细看句子但的确case by case了！很好！】

In addition, under some specious circumstanceslike natural disaster, continuing to wait for sufficient data would be equally,or far worse, detrimental especially on the condition that it is likely to riskcitizen's life. For remarkable example, one need see no further than the recentforest conflagration happened in Russia. The national authority was widely blamedfor their slow response in fighting the fire. Much valuable times had beenwasted in waiting for exact data to evaluate the current situation and takecorresponding measures. However, if the authority had taken emergency measures opportunelyirrespective of the vague data, hundreds of houses and the victim would besurvived. In this manner, to theorize and take corresponding steps after onehas data turns out to be grave mistakes 【这个例子是用来说开头提到的后两点的嘛？不然，开头就有没有交代得内容咯~嘿嘿， 提到了不好的地方，不过impossible似乎没有说】

To sum up, in the field of economy orsocial science, it is better to theorize after one has data. However, this issueis not always true when it comes to science 【你觉得用research science，for instance, biology,的表达是不是更好些？因为social science 也是science.】 and some extreme situations when wehave no much time to collect data but take quick actions.【用science的种类来区分是不是绝对了？相信在economy and social science 中也能找到counterproductive examples】

【例子举得不错！开头也没有废话！可能各段的开头和结尾处有总起总结句会更好些，结尾有些轻率了哦！加油！个人意见，供参考了！】

349295094UID: 2809040

2# forkid 谢谢楼上的建议，有个很重大的问题我也发现了，就是一些总领表述自己观点的句子，由于比较长，最后写着写着就不小心将意思表述反了。。。这个很纠结啊