issue9 [color=#ff0036]请大家多多指教

六翼小宇UID: 162533

9"Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use

1 从目前社会的飞速发展和科技的融合的确要求学科细化。而事实上，大部分学科越细化，它被人群的接受能力越低。As a matter of fact, the more specialized the ideas, the less accessible to them.
2 然而，学科细化对学者的idea的作用没有太大影响。Specialization does not have any impact on the value of scholars’ideas.原因：评价idea有多少作用，并不是看其audience的多少，而在与idea的应用潜力和对社会的价值。因为这是两个不同的概念。
  1） 有些idea因为过于深奥而不可能reach a wider audience, 但是不影响社会做出了很大的作用，比如NMR, 由于设计到的知识和学科及其广泛和深奥, reaches only a narrow audience, 但是不影响其作出了很大的贡献
  2) 更多的情况是，idea不需要广泛的audience，人们也不需要了解，就可以广泛利用了。比如人们不用知道cup的工作原理，但是对使用电脑没有妨碍。



Issue9 第5篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
作者：六翼小宇     共用时间：59分30秒     583 words
从2004年6月16日18时50分到2004年6月16日19时59分
------题目------
Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years that scholars' ideas reach only a narrow audience. Until scholars can reach a wider audience, their ideas will have little use.
------正文------
Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years, which can only be understand by those who devoted themselves to the subject while avoiding outsiders even from relevant subjects accessing, let alone the public.  By this fact, does scholars' idea have little use due to the narrow assessment of the audience?  At the first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat appealing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

As a matter of fact, the more specialized the ideas, the less accessible to them. I concede that many subjects, such as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. (Abbr. NMR) study, cannot reach a wider audience due to their abstruseness. Anyone who wants to be an effective audient in NMR must hold enough experience in both quantum physics and physical chemistry, and abundant knowledge in medicine, even sufficient comprehension in neuroscience. Obviously, few people know all these skills listed above. Specialized academic disciplines heighten the doorsill; as a result these ideas reach only a narrow audience.

However, few assessments of one idea do not mean that it is useless. To evaluate the social evaluation of one idea, we cannot simply put it by counting the quantity of its audiences. As a matter of fact, the much more important factor is the contribution or potential contribution that the ideas bring to our society. The value of the scholars' ideas have few relationship to the popularity of it’s' audience. To illustrate this, I will give the reasons giving below.

First of all, as the specialization of academic disciplines, certain field of study becomes so profound and complex that it is impossible to reach a wild audience. Nevertheless, these disciplines have broad application and significant worth. Take a look at the study of NMR again (as I mentioned above for its abstruseness), though it have narrow audience, it have significant society value and is regarded as the really break though in medicine and other biological subjects in the 20th century. By NMR Technology, we can observe the physical alternations deeply under the brainpan of our brain instead of troublesome B ultrasonic, we can trace certain drugs observed by our organs and use the best amount to treat tumor instead of harmful chemotherapeutics. For these advantages, 3 times of Nobel Prize was awarded to the scientists who have great contribution on NMR study in past 10 years. Therefore, less audience does not necessary lead to less contribution to our society.

Secondly, it is not necessary for the public to understand all abstruse ideas scholars hold. For example, most people do not know how the CPU is running in the personal computer, but this does not hamper them to using computers. It is the scholars' business, not the public, to explore these ideas. For one pharmacologist, he knows that the popular OMT medicine QUICK to treat cold was first developed for heart disease as Viagra, but under clinic application, QUICK is particularly useful for the cold but injurious to the people who have heart disease. But to the public, what they want to know is the descriptions on the cover: QUICK is useful for cold and not for heart-weak people.

To sum up, due to the above mentioned reasons, which sometimes correlate with each other to generate an integrate whole and thus become more convincing than any single one of them, we may be comfortable to say that though the specialization of academic disciplines today narrow the audience of scholars' ideas, it does not influence the value of that idea

阿秀UID: 137492

很好啊,逻辑,结构都不错,这样写得好象不多见,不过不错.
只是开头觉得罗嗦了一点. 语法我并不好,你的文章还是留给别人细改吧. :P

海边女巫UID: 159476

Take seat.
but why are there so many" 删删删删删删删ized "?

六翼小宇UID: 162533

我的电脑word中宏病毒了,不好意思,已经修正

讨厌下雨UID: 163095

反驳的重点在第二句，我觉得如果题目的第一句话是介绍背景，就不必单列这个body1来支持，可以放在开头段带过吧（这样你的开头段就不必那样罗嗦也能有很多字数，呵呵）。其实在后面的论证过程中对这个背景的肯定已经很明显了。（个人意见，供讨论吧）

body2是过渡，引出重点的两段，使角度转变显得自然些。（但如果像我所说的把body1并入beginning，这个小段就显得单薄了。）另，“I will give the reasons giving below.”这句需要改进，呵呵

"First of all, as the specialization of academic disciplines, certain field of study becomes so profound and complex that it is impossible to reach a wild audience. Nevertheless, these disciplines have broad application and significant worth. "这段要表达的意思主要是Neverthless之后的部分，因此不应该把让步成分放在First of all的位置自成一句，不然乍看第一句(以为是ts的话)好像不对头。

secondly这段，例子不错，表达欠清楚。最后少一个和题目相扣的conclusion（lovebrian狒狒刚改了我的issue1，对例子之后conclusion的缺失深表遗憾，呵呵，希望大家也注意扣题，表学我）

ending里“which sometimes correlate with each other to generate an integrate whole and thus become more convincing than any single one of them”不明白，请指教？

结构清晰，语言还可以，认真改改是篇好文章哦。

sarahongUID: 161981

Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years, which can only be understand understood by those who devoted themselves to the subject while avoiding outsiders even from relevant subjects accessing, let alone the public. By this fact?觉着有点别扭, does scholars' ideaideas have little use due to the narrow assessment of the audience? At the first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat appealing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

As a matter of fact, the more specialized the ideas, the less accessible to them. I concede that many subjects, such as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. (Abbr. NMR) study, cannot reach a wider audience due to their its abstruseness. Anyone who wants to be an effective audientaudience in NMR must hold enough experience in both quantum physics and physical chemistry, and abundant knowledge in medicine, even sufficient comprehension in neuroscience. Obviously, few people know all these skills skills 是技能啊，this knowledge listed above. specialized academic disciplines heighten the doorsill to those ideas; ,and as a result these ideas reach only a narrow audience.

However, few assessments accesses of to one idea do not mean that it is useless. To evaluate the social evaluation of one idea, we cannot simply put it by counting the quantity of its audiences. As a matter of fact第二次出现哦, the much more important factor is the contribution or potential contribution that the ideas bring to our society. The value of the scholars' ideas have few relationship to the popularity of it’s' its, 由于前面是ideas, 应该是their吧 audience. To illustrate this, I will give the reasons giving 删givingbelow.

First of all, as the specialization of academic disciplines, certain field of study becomes so profound and complex that it is impossible to reach a wild audience. Nevertheless, these disciplines have broad application and significant worth value. Take a look at the study of NMR again (as I mentioned above for its abstruseness)这个插入没必要吧, though it have narrow audience, it havehas significant society value and is regarded as the really break thoughbreakthrough in medicine and other biological subjects in the 20th century. By NMR Technology, we can observe the physical alternations deeply under the brainpan of our brain instead of troublesome B ultrasonic, we can trace certain drugs observed by our organs and use the best amount to treat tumor instead of harmful chemotherapeutics. For these advantages, 3 times of Nobel Prize was awarded to the scientists who have great contribution on NMR study in past 10 years这儿是要强调3 times，所以用被动语态么？感觉主动语态更好一点. Therefore, less audience does not necessarynecessarily lead to less contribution to our society.

Secondly, it is not necessary for the public to understand all abstruse ideas that scholars hold. For example, most people do not know how the CPU is running in the personal computer, but this does not hamper them to using use computers. It is the scholars' business, not the public, to explore these ideas. For one pharmacologist, he knows that the popular OMT medicine QUICK to treat cold was first developed for heart disease as Viagra, but under clinic application, QUICK is particularly useful for the cold but injurious to the people who have heart disease. But to the public, what they want to know is the descriptions on the cover: QUICK is useful for cold and not for heart-weak people.

To sum up, due to the above mentioned reasons, which sometimes correlate with each other to generate an integrate whole and thus become more convincing than any single one of them, 前面这个从句到底想说什么啊we may be comfortable to say that though the specialization of academic disciplines today narrow the audience of scholars' ideas, it does not influence the value of that idea
全文结构清晰，表达也不错，除了个别时态/单复数的问题，写的不错！佩服
关于5楼指出的，body1的现象段要不要，这个问题，希望有高人指点哦

apolloxpUID: 156355

你的TS: At the first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat appealing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.
然而就正文来看，你是同意原题第一句的而反对第二句。类似于一个1+1的写法
何不在主题句中表明，你同意原题第一句不同意第二句

六翼小宇UID: 162533

to:讨厌下雨
我认为题目的逻辑是这样的:学科专业话---导致--- reach only a narrow audience----导致--llittle use---所以除非reach wild audience,才可以有更大的作用.[:) ]
所以我的论证逻辑是
1 承认前提,就是"学科专业话---导致--- reach only a narrow audience"
                                       
2 否认后者,reach only a narrow audience----导致--llittle use
                                      
3 提出我的观点,narrow audience和use(社会作用)无关

我认为我的body1是承认题目的论证前提,可能我表达不清楚吧,:)
只有承认了题目的第一个推论,才可以反驳第二个

不过你的提议body1并入开头其实也不错

六翼小宇UID: 162533

to :apolloxp
我的这句Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years, which can only be understand by those who devoted themselves to the subject while avoiding outsiders even from relevant subjects accessing, let alone the public. 就是同意题目的第一句By this fact, does scholars' idea have little use due to the narrow assessment of the audience? 这句质疑第二句,是不是这样写不清楚?At the first glance, this opinion seems to be somewhat appealing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons

海边女巫UID: 159476

我觉得 BODY1有存在的必要，文章是肯定前句否定后句类型，直接展开对后面的批驳，有些突兀。这样展开文章也令人信服。

"First of all, as the specialization of academic disciplines, certain field of study becomes so profound and complex that it is impossible to reach a wild audience.这句话中，WILD应该是“WIDE”这个单词吧？另外此句不适合做TS，同“讨厌下雨”意见。

还有，请教一个单词，你文章出现了Viagra这个单词，虽然我是医学类专业，也不记得是什么意思，请教之。

另外，文中讨论了“不能”“不需要”两个方面，能否加些反过来的论证，如“某些领域需要少数人知道”的分论点呢？

讨厌下雨UID: 163095

巧得很，我第一篇文章第一句话就把wide写成了wild
和六翼小宇一样笔误:)  算是有缘分吧？呵呵

六翼小宇UID: 162533

这个这个～～～
Viagra,一种药品，本来是用来治疗心脏病的，后来用作～～～～
这个单词是在细胞生物学里signaling  pathway里学到的，NO pathway里
意思就不用说了吧，:)

infernoUID: 167303

最初由 海边女巫 发布
[B]我觉得 BODY1有存在的必要，文章是肯定前句否定后句类型，直接展开对后面的批驳，有些突兀。这样展开文章也令人信服。

"First of all, as the specialization of academ..

以下省略...... [/B]

它的中文名叫“万艾可”

对了，楼主也是学生物的吗？

六翼小宇UID: 162533

yes
有空交流一下