ISSUE87【CSMY作文互改小组】第六次作业 有拍毕回

lonixUID: 2202232

Issue87"In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries."【翻译】在所有的研究领域中，新手要比专家更有可能获得重要的发现。
提纲：
(1). 必须承认，新手有很强的好奇心与精力，这对研究是一个好事，有时灵感突现获得发现。
(2). 但是，新手缺乏坚强的知识后盾，也就注定不可能获得太多的重大发现，即使发现，也不容易抓住。
(3). 可是专家就不同，有对一个问题以及事物的深入了解，这样有助于抓住机遇，取得重大发现。DNA 双螺旋结构
(4). 但是过分的专注一个问题可能使专家陷入牛角尖，缺乏灵感，错失很多取得重大发现的机会。

TOPIC: ISSUE87 - "In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries."
WORDS: 511       TIME: 上午 12:45:00         DATE: 2007-1-20
[限时45分钟，只修改单词误拼]

Many discoveries in human history are unearthed by accidentally, but it doesn't mean that the beginner has more chance than the expert to seize them. Really sensational discoveries which are significant to the progress of human society would be based on deep and profound knowledge or experience about the subjects. In this case, the assertion claimed by the speaker seems groundless and also unpersuasive.

Admittedly, the beginner possesses stronger curiosity and more energy about the unknown. They are more likely to carry their work in untraditional way that would offer them sufficient opportunities to discover the inner. The encouragement exerted by interests or curiosity will evoke their inspiration which plays an important role in one's discovery. Although they have abundant enthusiasm and positive attitude towards the objects they study, lack of basic knowledge or background about the objects would hamper the evoking of their inspiration and make them see or investigate the objects in a superficial way that will bound to fail in making important discovery. Even the opportunities presents in front of them, for shortage of the sensitive or intuition to discovery, they would not seize the chance. For this respect, it is unlikely for the beginner to make important discovery except those who have relative background.

However, the experts would be different because they have more expertise. Such expertise renders them more easily and sensitive to discoveries. Equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience, they know how the objects or things will progress, what the phenomenon would turn into, and which direction they would go. This spirit of inquiry would lead them to solve the existing problems they encountered and eventually find the truth. For example, the discovery of DNA two-helical structure would attribute to knowledge and experience accumulation over decades by those doctors who engaged in this field and devoted their whole-heart into them. Without these basic circumstances, it would be hard to imagine that one as a layman can make such sensational discovery. Therefore, compared with the beginner, with profound knowledge and abundant devotion, the expert would have more opportunities to make important discoveries.  

But it is not always true for the expert because of their overdue concentration to the subjects. Long-term study on the same thing and achieving no progress would dismay an expert or confine their thought or ideas into a limited scale that would pose drastic negative effects on their research. Over-devotion to their research would make them lost enthusiasm and conviction that might be a great barrier in the road of making important discovery. They also lose great opportunity if they cannot release their confinement and absorb new ideas. From this respect, perhaps expert, although they have more knowledge and experience would at the same time be more difficult to make important discoveries than the beginner.

In conclusion, if the beginner learns much expertise about the objects they are researching and doesn't lose their curiosity about the things, whereas the expert have more curiosity and motivate that would prevent them from trapping in the dead-end, they would have equal opportunities to make important discoveries.
   


[ 本帖最后由 lonix 于 2007-1-22 10:36 编辑 ]

meichengyuUID: 2121098

Many discoveries in human history are unearthed by accidentally, but it doesn't mean that the beginner has more chance than the expert to seize them. Really sensational discoveries which are significant to the progress of human society would be based on deep and profound knowledge or experience about the subjects. In this case, the assertion claimed by the speaker seems groundless and also unpersuasive.（就这样表态不好吧？这不是写Argu啊，无论如何要提出自己的观点，只单方面否定作者我觉得不够）

Admittedly, the beginner possesses stronger curiosity and more energy about the unknown. They are more likely to carry their work in untraditional way that would offer them sufficient opportunities to discover the inner. The encouragement exerted by interests or curiosity will evoke their inspiration which plays an important role in one's discovery. Although they have abundant enthusiasm and positive attitude towards the objects they study, lack of basic knowledge or background about the objects would hamper the evoking of their inspiration and make them see or investigate the objects in a superficial way that will bound to fail in making important discovery. Even the opportunities presents in front of them, for shortage of the sensitive or intuition to discovery, they would not seize the chance. For this respect, it is unlikely for the beginner to make important discovery except those who have relative background.（加个年轻学者错过重大发现的实例更为生动。不过我也没想到此类例子，找到了共享~~^_^）

However, the experts would be different because they have more expertise. Such expertise renders them more easily and sensitive to discoveries. Equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience, they know how the objects or things will progress, what the phenomenon would turn into, and which direction they would go. This spirit of inquiry would lead them to solve the existing problems they encountered and eventually find the truth. For example, the discovery of DNA two-helical(双螺旋是这样表示的？！？应该是double helix吧！) structure would attribute to knowledge and experience accumulation over decades by those doctors（Watson 和Crick都不是医生！你不会是说那些博士吧？！）who engaged in this field and devoted their whole-heart into them. Without these basic circumstances, it would be hard to imagine that one as a layman（这个词太严重了！新手不等于外行！用rookie 什么的都行）can make such sensational discovery. Therefore, compared with the beginner, with profound knowledge and abundant devotion, the expert would have more opportunities to make important discoveries.  

But it is not always true for the expert because of their overdue concentration to the subjects. Long-term study on the same thing and achieving no progress would dismay an expert or confine their thought or ideas into a limited scale that would pose drastic negative effects on their research. Over-devotion to their research would make them lost enthusiasm and conviction that might be a great barrier in the road of making important discovery. They also lose great opportunity if they cannot release their confinement and absorb new ideas. From this respect, perhaps expert, although they have more knowledge and experience would at the same time be more difficult to make important discoveries than the beginner.（这段又是让步？！前面第一个论述段也有让步，这样感觉正反两面的论述都差不多，那就是说你并不是完全否定的，而是部分否定！所以问题出来了吧？！搞不清楚你的态度了！第一段没有挑明你的观点就收尾了！）

In conclusion, if the beginner learns much expertise about the objects they are researching and doesn't lose their curiosity about the things, whereas the expert have more curiosity and motivate that would prevent them from trapping in the dead-end, they would have equal opportunities to make important discoveries.

例子和论述都还不错，最大的问题就是前面没有表态，让人看不明白。感觉老美应该不喜欢这样风回路转的挑逗他吧？！

有时间帮我看看，师兄！

[ 本帖最后由 meichengyu 于 2007-1-22 15:33 编辑 ]

lonixUID: 2202232

Many discoveries in human history are unearthed by accidentally, but it doesn't mean that the beginner has more chance than the expert to seize them. Really sensational discoveries which are significant to the progress of human society would be based on deep and profound knowledge or experience about the subjects. In this case, the assertion claimed by the speaker seems groundless and also unpersuasive.（就这样表态不好吧？这不是写Argu啊，无论如何要提出自己的观点，只单方面否定作者我觉得不够）[这个问题指出来得很好，既然是论述题么，就得摆出自己的论点]

... Really sensational discoveries which are significant to the progress of human society would be based on deep and profound knowledge or experience abou the subjects. But this is not always the case, any experts over-devote to his research would also be likely to fall into deadend that they easily miss the opportunities as the beginers. In order to make great discoveries, it is therefore important for the beginner to obtain much knowledge or background, and the expert to properly use his energy and profound knowledge to make unprecedented discoveries.   

Admittedly, the beginner possesses stronger curiosity and more energy about the unknown. They are more likely to carry their work in untraditional way that would offer them sufficient opportunities to discover the inner. The encouragement exerted by interests or curiosity will evoke their inspiration which plays an important role in one's discovery. Although they have abundant enthusiasm and positive attitude towards the objects they study, lack of basic knowledge or background about the objects would hamper the evoking of their inspiration and make them see or investigate the objects in a superficial way that will bound to fail in making important discovery. Even the opportunities presents in front of them, for shortage of the sensitive or intuition to discovery, they would not seize the chance. For this respect, it is unlikely for the beginner to make important discovery except those who have relative background.（加个年轻学者错过重大发现的实例更为生动。不过我也没想到此类例子，找到了共享~~^_^）[这个地方我确实没有找到合适的例子，所以只有大说一通了，不过我好像记得在化学领域好像有一个，而且比较出名的，就是发现什么元素什么的，就差一步之遥，后来被别人发现了]

However, the experts would be different because they have more expertise. Such expertise renders them more easily and sensitive to discoveries. Equipped with sufficient knowledge and experience, they know how the objects or things will progress, what the phenomenon would turn into, and which direction they would go. This spirit of inquiry would lead them to solve the existing problems they encountered and eventually find the truth. For example, the discovery of DNA two-helical(双螺旋是这样表示的？！？应该是double helix吧！[ 这个还是可以保证的，e.g. DNA double-helix DNA model ]) structure would attribute to knowledge and experience accumulation over decades by those doctors（Watson 和Crick都不是医生！你不会是说那些博士吧？！[我当时写的时候根本就没注意这些，只想快点写完，呵呵]）who engaged in this field and devoted their whole-heart into them. Without these basic circumstances, it would be hard to imagine that one as a layman（这个词太严重了！新手不等于外行！用rookie 什么的都行[这个地方你说得对，改成new beginner吧，rookie也挺好]）can make such sensational discovery. Therefore, compared with the beginner, with profound knowledge and abundant devotion, the expert would have more opportunities to make important discoveries.  

But it is not always true for the expert because of their overdue concentration to the subjects. Long-term study on the same thing and achieving no progress would dismay an expert or confine their thought or ideas into a limited scale that would pose drastic negative effects on their research. Over-devotion to their research would make them lost enthusiasm and conviction that might be a great barrier in the road of making important discovery. They also lose great opportunity if they cannot release their confinement and absorb new ideas. From this respect, perhaps expert, although they have more knowledge and experience would at the same time be more difficult to make important discoveries than the beginner.（这段又是让步？！前面第一个论述段也有让步，这样感觉正反两面的论述都差不多，那就是说你并不是完全否定的，而是部分否定！所以问题出来了吧？！搞不清楚你的态度了！第一段没有挑明你的观点就收尾了！）[我把第一段修改了一下，提出了自己的观点了，谢谢你在这方面的指出哦]

In conclusion, if the beginner learns much expertise about the objects they are researching and doesn't lose their curiosity about the things, whereas the expert have more curiosity and motivate that would prevent them from trapping in the dead-end, they would have equal opportunities to make important discoveries.

例子和论述都还不错，最大的问题就是前面没有表态，让人看不明白。感觉老美应该不喜欢这样风回路转的挑逗他吧？！

有时间帮我看看，师兄！