issue9 交作业，以前写了，改了一下

六翼小宇UID: 162533

以前写的，自己改了一下，再放上来给大家批一下结构和逻辑，看看这样写可不可以

"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。
Academic disciplines have become so specialized in recent years, which can only be understood by those who devoted themselves to the subject while avoiding outsiders even from relevant subjects accessing, let alone the public. Therefore, do scholars’ ideas have little use due to the narrow assessment of the audience, as the author assert? 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 its abstruseness. Anyone who wants to be an effective audience in NMR must hold enough experience in both quantum physics and physical chemistry, abundant knowledge in medicine, and even sufficient comprehension in neuroscience. Obviously, few people know all these episteme listed above. Specialized academic disciplines heighten the doorsill to those ideas, and as a result these ideas reach only a narrow audience.

However, few accesses 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. In 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 has little relationship to the popularity of their audience. To illustrate this, I will give the reasons below.

First of all, I concede that 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 value. Take a look at the study of NMR again (as I mentioned above for its abstruseness), though it reach only a narrow audience, it has significant society value and is regarded as the really breakthrough 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 necessarily 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 use computers. It is the scholars' business, not the public, to explore these ideas. For one pharmacologist, he knows that the popular OTC medicine QUICK to treat cold was first developed for heart disease, 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 of the drug: QUICK is useful for cold but not for heart-weak people. Therefore, less audience does not hamper any application of scholars’ ideas.

To sum up, due to the reasons mentioned above, we may be comfortable to say that though the specialization of academic disciplines nowadays narrow the audience of scholars' ideas, it does not influence the value of that idea. Otherwise, to value one idea that is useful or not, we must refer to the contribution or potential contribution of that idea, not merely emphasize on the apprehension of their audience.

pummboUID: 168227

结构很清晰，
分析也到位

风格我喜欢

美中不足的是 感觉单薄

2，3 两段宜简单， 四五宜展开

detail_yyyUID: 167745

非常不错
结构清晰，论证也到位

imongUID: 140258

第四段一开头那个I concede明显就是车轱辘话又说了一遍 多余

其实整篇的结构还算可以了 不过太啰嗦的地方（不止这一处）都尽量省省 看着太变扭

noteethUID: 192534

结构太赞~~~唉，我不知道要练多久，可惜只有一个月考了，还不是全日制搞这个，只能说羡慕你们了！