ISSUE181

dnazymeUID: 168025

共使用时间：约2小时 570多字。

本人共写了两篇文章，还有不到一月就考，前一个月全来练打字了，结果盲打速度才9wpm. 有好建议发信至
dnazyme@126.com  :p

The arguer owes the most influential factor in interpreting of objects, facts, data, or events and see different things to personality of students and scholars rather than training in academic fields, which I strong disbelieve. In my opinion, when persons, no matter scholars or students in the same field of academic looking at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events, one’s interpretations mainly influenced by their training rather than their personalities.

The most basic assumption in academia is that interpretations to objects, data or things that they research should be objective. Any conclusion that is based upon the same data or facts by logic method should be consistent, that is to say, the interpretations are independent of the observer. For example, when person observe a smear of bacteria, the observer, whoever he or she is, student or scholar, should point out that that is a smear of bacteria, not a smear of yeast. On the other hand, the deduction process that basic on the objective facts or data should be logic. Take this experiment to illustrate the point performed by a well-train person under well-established protocol. Put pepsin into protein solution, and then assay the solution. Anybody who is trained in biochemistry will hold that the treated solution is composed of amino acid, peptide and protein. Nobody, no matter who is rash or careful, would point out that that solution is composed of DNA or polysaccharide.

The differences of interpretations when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things result from the fact that persons with different training backgrounds would possibly interpret differently, while those different interpretations can be derived by persons whose personalities are similar. For example, to compare two groups of data with different means, one person who has no training in statistics would think that one group is significantly greater than another. However, the other person who has been well trained in statistics would calculate these two groups of data to analyze whether the difference between these two groups of data has statistical significance. Then they would arrive at different interpretation about the same data, which is influenced by different academic ground, not by the difference of their personalities.  A great number of cases in academia can be found examples that can warrant the view that training, not personality is the key factor in interpretation about acadamic problem, which is the purpose of education.

History is abound with stories to show that personalities can be a contributory factor in interpreting exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events occasionally. Professor Sharp, Nobel Laureate ever got a radiogram from experiment that showed a weird loop on it. Some research think that the loop is formed because two DNA strands overlapped, however, Professor Sharp, a very cautious person think otherwise. He advanced a new theory to explicate that phenomenon, which was widely accepted latter in field of Molecular Biology. This illustrates that interpretation can be influenced by personality of researcher. A careful observer can go further. Albeit personality of student or scholar affects the process of interpretation, training outweighs that in interpretation.

In sum, the way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of training than of personality. Different interpretations come about when people with different trainings look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things. Positive personality, such as carefulness, perseverance and curiosity is contributory to interpretations in academic fields.

pxm204192UID: 171774

打字要十分注意你的指法，要十分强调你的节奏性。

redpelican9703UID: 180027

4 point

lakeqianUID: 157560

The most basic assumption in academia is that interpretations to objects, data or things that they research should be objective.不太懂写这个假设想干什么，而且假设通常是不成立的。
interpretations to objects, data or things that they research should be objective.？？是这样吗？
objective的应该是数据的获得rather than interpretations吧？对数据的理解通常有很大的主观性：
客观的说：杯子里有半杯水。乐观的人认为，还省半杯；而悲观的人认为，只有半杯。这样，我们有objective observation但是对数据的解释不同。

你B3段开头写History is abound with stories to show that personalities can be a contributory factor in interpreting exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events occasionally.然后结尾句是这样的：Albeit personality of student or scholar affects the process of interpretation, training outweighs that in interpretation.
好像有点矛盾？而且，training outweighs that in interpretation.没论述吧？

本人打字属于没有指法那种，但是速度还行。总之多练吧。9wpm是太慢。另外注意限时写。

用了几个难词但是结构好像不太清晰，可能因为我看的比较急。

lakeqianUID: 157560

另外，考试不需要盲打吧？？你可以低着头看键盘打啊。