issue108,3G，求拍啊。。。。

jm444862668

108) Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.（同110）

According to the statement, the speaker assert that whatever the fields it is, only experts can put forward useful critical judgments, whereas the others' opinions show no value. I fundamentally agree insofar that maven in their fields are the most valuable speakers that could cast objective advices for most problems. However, it oversimplifies the issue. First, do the experts always have the most useful advice? Second, can ordinary people project valuable judgment also?

It would be acknowledged that experts in any given fields are the most valuable advisor. It is natural that experts who delve their fields in a deep and all-rounded way make their opinion show an high value.  By focus on their fields, the experts achieve a deep understanding of their own studies. Therefore, represent the most authority voice to an given field.

Nevertheless, it is not to say that the experts' critical judgments are always the best choices. It is inevitable that people have their own limit of knowledge even experts. In terms of such limitation, whatever mavens or ordinary people, we could not assert the absolute right of one judgment. Consider Plato, one of the most wisdom person in the history, believed that knowledge will always   unchangeable.  On the other hand, human, even the elites, all have their own favors. As we all know, everybody have an angle, such is human nature. As a result, although experts possess rich knowledge, it is not means truth will always stand in their side.

When turning our attention to people who do not special in one field, it is no surprising to find that they can also put an valuable judgment in some cases. People who have a the ability of critical thinking, when basing correct theory and have enough information can raise useful critical judgment as well. One telling example is the discovery of the microbe, Antonie, who created the first microscope in the world.  Though the effort to make his telescope more accurate, he open human the door to the world of microform.  Besides, the outdoors, who are free from the academic disciplines and dogmas may even project a more creative and broaden judgment. For the experts in Antonie's time, there is no more ridiculers than believing a micro-world's exist. If Antonie share the same opinion with the experts, the develop of human will surely slow down.

Actually, the essential criterion we used when decide the availability of one judgment is not base on who he is, but what he said. It is presumptuous to judge an opinion according whether he or she is an expert. The objective attitude, carsful testy and enough evidences can only judge the value of a judgment.

jm444862668

改了一些基本的语法错误。。。不好意思啊。。。
According to the statement, the speaker asserts that whatever the fields it is, only experts can put forward useful critical judgments, whereas the others' opinions show no value. I fundamentally agree insofar that mavens in their fields are the most valuable speakers who could cast objective advices for most problems. However, it oversimplifies the issue. First, do the experts always have the most useful advice? Second, can ordinary people project valuable judgment also?

It would be acknowledged that experts in any given fields are the most valuable advisor. It is natural that experts who delve in their fields in a deep and all-rounded way make their opinion show a high value.  By focus on their fields, the experts achieve a deep understanding of their own studies. Therefore, represent the most authority voice to a given field.

Nevertheless, it is not to say that the experts' critical judgments are always the best choices. It is inevitable that people have their own limit of knowledge even experts. In terms of such limitation, whatever mavens or ordinary people, we could not assert the absolute right of one judgment. Consider Plato, one of the most wisdom person in the history, believed that knowledge will be always unchangeable.  On the other hand, human, even the elites, all have their own favors. As we all know, everybody has an angle, such is human nature. As a result, although experts possess rich knowledge, it not means truth will always stand in their side.

When turning our attention to people who do not special in one field, it is no surprising to find that they can also put a valuable judgment in some cases. People who have the ability of critical thinking, when basing correct theory and have enough information can raise useful critical judgment as well. One telling example is the discovery of the microbe, Antonie, who created the first microscope in the world.  Though the effort to make his telescope more accurate, he opens human the door to the world of microform.  Besides, the outdoors, who are free from the academic disciplines and dogmas may even project a more creative and broaden judgment. For the experts in Antonie's time, there is no more ridiculers than believing a micro-world's exist. If Antonie shares the same opinion with the experts, the develop of human will surely slow down.

Actually, the essential criterion we used when decide the availability of one judgment is not based on who he is, but what he said. It is presumptuous to judge an opinion according whether he or she is an expert. The objective attitude, careful testy and enough evidence can only judge the value of a judgment.

竹林中人

本文比较好的地方是语言功底不错，每段开头的连接词，用的很好。结构安排也很得当。
但文章的内容没有深度，写的很大众化，没有更深入地去挖掘题目意思。Critical judgment of work in any given field 这个过程，有些时候需要专家的意见，有些时候需要外人的意见，分领域而定，这点你需要说明，而不是空洞地说两者都需要的，最后，很多时候这两者不是孤立的，而是相辅相成的，比如说新研发的产品上市（比如手机），需要用户体验，虽然用户对手机本身的只是了解很少，但用户的意见对一款手机是否卖得好至关重要，还有就是文艺作品、电影等等很多领域的东西，都是二者相互作用的

jm444862668

谢谢斑竹！！！我会努力改好的！！！