issue 181 再发一篇，一点会帮给我的修改i的人修改。

zzfalconUID: 175235

Issue 181。 The way students and scholars interpret the materials they work with in their academic fields is more a matter of personality than of training. Different interpretations come about when people with different personalities look at exactly the same objects, facts, data, or events and see different things.

Is personality or training playing a more important role in the interpretation of the same object? The speaker claims that personality exerts a more significant impact. I strongly agree with the speaker that the impact of one's personality is great. However, in every field of academic subject, the effect of training cannot be omitted.

So important is the training in advance that many people of related subject manifest almost the same way of diagnosing the material they get from the research. When one was receiving the education during his early stages, the research pattern imparted by his professors or supervisors would firmly root in his mind. However, the analytical procedure before one's interpretation will strongly effect the way in which one interprets, since the method partially determine the outcome of the experiment, and this outcome reveals or equally covers some facts pertaining to the truth. For example, in the field of mechanics, one researcher would probably use a force-meter to detect his subject and then can only interpret his material in a way that involves the analysis of the force; moreover, a biologist would probably use a microscope to fulfill his research and his interpretation may have nothing to do with the subject of the force. It is evident that after many years of training, some fixed way of researching and the way of interpretation in wake of it will be set up, no matter how different one may differ from the rest; something in common cannot be ignored. Consequently, the effect of the early training part is great.

On the other hand, the personality that involves one's sensitivity, attribute may play a vital role in one's outcome of the research. Why? Even the identical material one person researches and even the identical outcome each one gets, different sensitive may lead them into different ways. That is partly why only a small portion of scientists will finally win the Nobel Prize; even many do the same experiment with the same goal. When a problem unveils itself, only these who have keen hunch will detect it, while others will easily ignore that fact. That is where personality exerts its mighty power, which determines one's success or failure. Given the different personality, many universities nowadays set up programs dedicated to the improvement of one's academic research by allowing students to choose the subject they are enthusiastic in. Furthermore, in the field of art, the impact of personality emerges larger. It is widely-known that different critic would give different judgment about the same work. Obviously, though receiving partially the same kind of training, their personal affection or aversion tells the outcome.

To sum up, no one can escape his training and his personality, and the truth is that personality and training as a whole control the interpretation of different people. Personality and training does not contradict each other. The early trainings fix a usual way one would take to research and to explain, on the other hand, one's personality determines how deep one can achieve. The author emphasizes the personal part and his statement is obviously right, however he fails to acknowledge the early training, which indicates that his assertion can only be justified partially.

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

帮你顶一下,你要主动一点撒  :)

zhoulin00001UID: 189304

Is personality or training playing a more important role in the interpretation of the same object? The speaker claims that personality exerts a more significant impact. I strongly agree with the speaker that the impact of one's personality is great. However, in every field of academic subject, the effect of training cannot be omitted.开头挺简洁

So important is the training in advance that many people of related subject manifest almost the same way of diagnosing the material they get from the research. When one was receiving the education during his early stages, the research pattern imparted by his professors or supervisors would firmly root in his mind. However, the analytical procedure before one's interpretation will strongly effect the way in which one interprets, since the method partially determine the outcome of the experiment, and this outcome reveals or equally covers some facts pertaining to the truth. For example, in the field of mechanics, one researcher would probably use a force-meter to detect his subject and then can only interpret his material in a way that involves the analysis of the force; moreover, a biologist would probably use a microscope to fulfill his research and his interpretation may have nothing to do with the subject of the force. It is evident that after many years of training, some fixed way of researching and the way of interpretation in wake of it will be set up, no matter how different one may differ from the rest; something in common cannot be ignored. Consequently, the effect of the early training part is great.这一段有点看不明白，到底是什么重要啊，既然说方法决定结果，那不同人必然有不同的方法了，第一个例子好象也说明了这一点，还有生物家的例子我也没看懂。

On the other hand, the personality that involves one's sensitivity, attribute may play a vital role in one's outcome of the research. Why? Even the identical material one person researches and even the identical outcome each one gets, different sensitive may lead them into different ways. That is partly why only a small portion of scientists will finally win the Nobel Prize; even many do the same experiment with the same goal. When a problem unveils itself, only these who have keen hunch will detect it, while others will easily ignore that fact. That is where personality exerts its mighty power, which determines one's success or failure. Given the different personality, many universities nowadays set up programs dedicated to the improvement of one's academic research by allowing students to choose the subject they are enthusiastic in. Furthermore, in the field of art, the impact of personality emerges larger. It is widely-known that different critic would give different judgment about the same work. Obviously, though receiving partially the same kind of training, their personal affection or aversion tells the outcome.题目是说不同的人有不同的结果，不是靠敏锐和兴趣能成功吧，是不是有点跑题？

To sum up, no one can escape his training and his personality, and the truth is that personality and training as a whole control the interpretation of different people. Personality and training does not contradict each other. The early trainings fix a usual way one would take to research and to explain, on the other hand, one's personality determines how deep one can achieve. The author emphasizes the personal part and his statement is obviously right, however he fails to acknowledge the early training, which indicates that his assertion can only be justified partially

总体感觉提纲挺好，句式变换挺多，只是下面的分析都有点跑题，建议重新分析。
我是只菜鸟，水平不高，说的不对请见谅，给我指点一下，让我有所提高。
能帮我看看作文吗？
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247907
请狠狠地砸