issue87 v6战队 7.31 新手vs专家

11yvetteUID：2102418

------题目------
In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries.
------正文------
In the first class of the dialectic course I selected in university, our teacher gave us the question that who would be the victor when the beginner meets the expert. It caused the classroom a long time polemic among the teacher and the students. In my point of view, in an average level, the possibility to disclose the important discoveries for experts may overcome that for the beginners a little, though the beginners can also discover or invent the unknown to the public.

To begin with, experts are those people who get higher degree than the beginners and research much deeper than the rookies in domains they set foot in. They do not only have a more specific knowledge on their study, but also spend much more time on it. Time spent means knowledge accumulation, we can not deny that more knowledge accumulate, more easily it is adopted for the deeper research. For example, it is known to all that our parents or grandparents are more sophisticated than us on how to get along with others in social activity, for they are older than us, having more experience on the events. The same as which, fields of inquiry needs experience. As the experts get their experience through the process of study and research, the possibility for them to make significant discoveries is more probable than the beginners.

Secondly, for a higher possibility in uncovering the unknown, a long cast is necessary. And the experts always have longer eyeshot than the beginners which is not a blind assertion. Since the experts' possessing of more experience, their consideration would be training full-scale. As a result, when they meet the same problem as the beginners do, they may think more including where the theory comes, how it direct the current research, whether it can be altered to suit for another kind of problems,  whether it has value for the following study, etc. However, the beginners often have not form such reasoning habit which impedes them in discovering. Moreover, the experts always have the ability to estimate whether a new field is worthy to be studied. For they check out lots of literature of that field and anticipate for it. On the contrary, the beginners sometimes are in trouble in checking the value, and they may spend more time on choosing a subject and covering it, what is really a obstacle for beginners to make prominent researches.

However, the success for experts to make discoveries is not an absolute happening. The young beginners also have right to devote on their field of inquiry and become a professional experts for their discoveries. For beginners are always fulfilled with courage when they decided to work for the fields they choose, and less chain for them when they consider a question, and they also do not so care about the fame as they have not got yet, but the experts always think more about the fame what is really a fetter. For example, in 1924, a young doctor handed in his dissertation which helped him to dominate for Nobel Prize and finally he got it for his discovery of the wave nature of electron. The young doctor is Louis de Broglie, whose major once was history and a totally neophyte in physics for the doctor degree, and the youngest Nobel Prize owner. For de Broglie, he got the Nobel Prize for his dialectic and skeptic reasoning on the theory of particle nature of wave, and he questioned the possibility of the wave nature and put forward in his dissertation. So for a greenhorn, he or she may make astonishing conclusion on his or her field of study, once he or she got the marrow of the related theory and think analytically.

To sum up, the expert is more likely to attain a brand new discovery than the beginner for their profound knowledge accumulating and employing aptly with their longer eyesight of the potential value of the field to be inquire. Yet, for the novice, though the average possibility is not as high as the expert, the feasibility for them to discover and grasp the public attention is undeniable as their courage and without any fetter.

欢迎大家拍~~

11yvetteUID：2102418

补充一下提纲，差点忘了：
观点：反对+让步：从平均水平上来说，专家发现的可能性更大些
提纲：
B1 专家知识渊博，在其专业领域有深入研究，故和新手比更有可能提出重要发现
B2 专家的前瞻性和新手相比也更胜一筹，而且专家对于研究的价值有更深入的了解，所以也更有可能提出发现
B3 新手也是很有资本去提让公众吃惊的重大发现的，因为新手相对于专家，束缚更少，胆量更大，不用顾及面子方面的问题

mkb57288UID：2105771

占位子

mkb57288UID：2105771

In the first class of the dialectic course I selected in university, our teacher gave us the question that who would be the victor when the beginner meets the expert. It caused the classroom a long time polemic（好词） among the teacher and the students. （前面的这两句个人觉得不要也罢，虽说跟主题有关但跟你的态度没有丝毫关系，个人认为阅卷者，包括erater都是在希望马上找到你的态度）In my point of view, in an average level, the possibility to disclose the important discoveries for experts may overcome（可能不太合适，可以用outstrip） that for the beginners （a little删）, though the beginners can also discover or invent（invent the unknown？？） the unknown to the public.

To begin with, experts are those people who get higher degree than the beginners and research much deeper than the rookies in domains they set foot in. They do not only have a more specific knowledge on their study, but also spend much more time on it. Time spent means knowledge accumulation, we can not deny that more knowledge accumulate（ed）, more easily it is adopted for the deeper research. For example, it is known to all that our parents or grandparents are more sophisticated than us on how to get along with others in social activity, for they are older than us, having more experience on the events. （这个例子跟题目的inquiry和discovery差得有点儿远，就算是引言也不要说太多）The same as which, fields of inquiry needs experience. As the experts get their experience through the process of study and research, the possibility for them to make significant discoveries is more probable than the beginners.

Secondly, for a higher possibility in uncovering the unknown, a long cast（可以表达远见么，vista of future） is necessary. And the experts always have longer eyeshot than the beginners which is not a blind assertion. Since the experts' possessing（possession有名词不用ing） of more experience, their consideration would be training full-scale. As a result, when they meet the same problem as the beginners do, they may think more（，） including where the theory comes, how it direct the current research, whether it can be altered to suit for another kind of problems,  whether it has value for the following study, etc. However, the beginners often have not form such reasoning habit which impedes them in discovering. Moreover, the experts always have the ability to estimate whether a new field is worthy to be studied. For they check out lots of literature of that field and anticipate for it. On the contrary, the beginners sometimes are in trouble in checking the value, and they may spend more time on choosing a subject and covering it, what is really a obstacle for beginners to make prominent researches.

However, the success for experts to make discoveries is not an absolute happening（occurrence）. The young beginners also have right（opportunity） to devote on their field of inquiry and become a professional experts for their discoveries. For beginners are always fulfilled with（是full of吧）  courage when they decided to work for the fields they choose, and less chain（好词！） for them when they consider a question, and they also do not so care about the fame as they have not got yet, but the experts always think more about the fame what is really a fetter. For example, in 1924, a young doctor handed in his dissertation which helped him to dominate for Nobel Prize and finally he got it for his discovery of the wave nature of electron. The young doctor is Louis de Broglie, whose major once was history and a totally neophyte in physics for the doctor degree, and the youngest Nobel Prize owner. For de Broglie, he got the Nobel Prize for his dialectic and skeptic reasoning on the theory of particle nature of wave, and he questioned the possibility of the wave nature and put forward in his dissertation. （例子很合适，楼主是学物理专业的么:)）So for a greenhorn, he or she may make astonishing conclusion on his or her field of study, once he or she got the marrow of the related theory and think analytically.

To sum up, the expert is more likely to attain a brand new discovery than the beginner for their profound knowledge accumulating（accumulation） and employing aptly with their longer eyesight of the potential value of the field to be inquire. Yet, for the novice, though the average possibility is not as high as the expert, the feasibility for them to discover and grasp the public attention is undeniable as their courage and without any fetter.

总的立论很清楚，结构也很清晰，特别是用词也不错--还有一些习惯性的得注意，但个人认为跟主题无关的语言应该删掉，例子可以简要的表达，腾出时间多写一个，文章会更丰满

nickaaronleeUID：183378

这道题我觉得满难得，我来占个坐

nickaaronleeUID：183378

------题目------
In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important discoveries.
------正文------
（In the first class of the dialectic course I selected in university, our teacher gave us the question that who would be the victor when the beginner meets the expert. It caused the classroom a long time polemic among the teacher and the students. 这个开头挺有意思）In my point of view, in an average level, the possibility to disclose the important discoveries for experts may overcome that for the beginners a little, though the beginners can also discover or invent the unknown to the public.

To begin with, experts are those people who get higher degree than the beginners and research much deeper than the rookies in domains they set foot in. They do not only have a more specific knowledge on their study,（ but also spend much more time on it. Time spent means knowledge accumulation, we can not deny that more knowledge accumulate, more easily it is adopted for the deeper research.有疑义，对于beginners同样也可以spend much time） （For example, it is known to all that our parents or grandparents are more sophisticated than us on how to get along with others in social activity, for they are older than us, having more experience on the events. 建议换一个acamdemic例子）The same as which, fields of inquiry needs experience. As the experts get their experience through the process of study and research, the possibility for them to make significant discoveries is more probable than the beginners.

Secondly, for a higher possibility in uncovering the unknown, a long cast is necessary. And the experts always have longer eyeshot than the beginners which is not a blind assertion. Since the experts' possessing of more experience, their consideration would be training full-scale. As a result, when they meet the same problem as the beginners do, they may think more including where the theory comes, how it direct the current research, whether it can be altered to suit for another kind of problems,  whether it has value for the following study, etc. However, the beginners often have not form such reasoning habit which impedes them in discovering. Moreover, the experts always have the ability to estimate whether a new field is worthy to be studied. For they check out lots of literature of that field and anticipate for it. On the contrary, the beginners sometimes are in trouble in checking the value, and they may spend more time on choosing a subject and covering it, what is really a obstacle for beginners to make prominent researches.（这段分析得不错，两个角度都蛮好的）

However, the success for experts to make discoveries is not an absolute happening. The young beginners also have right to devote on their field of inquiry and become a professional experts for their discoveries. For beginners are always fulfilled with courage when they decided to work for the fields they choose, and less chain for them when they consider a question, and they also do not so care about the fame as they have not got yet, but the experts always think more about the fame what is really a fetter. （For example, in 1924, a young doctor handed in his dissertation which helped him to dominate for Nobel Prize and finally he got it for his discovery of the wave nature of electron. The young doctor is Louis de Broglie, whose major once was history and a totally neophyte in physics for the doctor degree, and the youngest Nobel Prize owner. For de Broglie, he got the Nobel Prize for his dialectic and skeptic reasoning on the theory of particle nature of wave, and he questioned the possibility of the wave nature and put forward in his dissertation.这个例子很贴切，很到位，个人觉得：写的长了一点，如果可以简练一些更好） So for a greenhorn, he or she may make astonishing conclusion on his or her field of study, once he or she got the marrow of the related theory and think analytically.

To sum up, the expert is more likely to attain a brand new discovery than the beginner for their profound knowledge accumulating and employing aptly with their longer eyesight of the potential value of the field to be inquire. Yet, for the novice, though the average possibility is not as high as the expert, the feasibility for them to discover and grasp the public attention is undeniable as their courage and without any fetter.
（总体来说，从论述到分析都不错，body2 and body3都写得蛮好的，比较清晰，逻辑分明，就是body1还有一些问题，例子换一下，其他的问题不大，加油~~~）