GRE analyze an issue task that examines the candidate’s writing proficiency by providing ideas on a general interest topic. This GRE analyze an issue sample essay - Critical judgment at work focuses on how anyone in a certain field is given less importance until someone expert comes.

Candidates need to practice from GRE writing practice papers to improve the score.

Topic: Critical Judgement of Work

“Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.”

Answer:

Is the critical judgment of work in an exceedingly given topic has nearly no worth unless it comes from an expert? I don't assume this is correct, it may be worth it. However, most of them are actually useless because almost all non-experts don't perceive what they did, and the way to deal with their issues. I think undergraduate-level backgrounds are necessary to form an essential judgment.

I agree that almost all opinions coming from non-experts are useless. This is a result of non-experts typically lacking the understanding of precise definition regarding what they might do and the tools they'll use. Therefore, they only create useless judgments regarding problems or work out for misunderstood problems. Various pseudoscientists and pseudo mathematicians would be examples: most of them don't have any correct understanding regarding the problems they mentioned.

However, I additionally assume that non-experts may give a new perceptive work: to be professional needs learning gigantic quantity of knowledge, and unfortunately, most specialists prefer to be rigid; they have a tendency to not divert from the precise and known information because it's an easy way to digest vast quantity of knowledge. Therefore, non-experts generally show additional illuminating ideas than specialists. For instance, I actually have heard from an acquaintance regarding social science class. Both undergraduate students and graduate students take this class, and apparently, the undergraduates tend to recommend more inventive and maverick ideas than the graduates. She acknowledged that undergraduates aren't poured into deep knowledge regarding social science, so they couldn't prohibit themselves from previous discussions in social science. On the opposite hand: I even have seen someone, who argues he proved the Riemann hypothesis. However, he couldn't even say the precise statement of Bernhard Riemann’s hypothesis. Even more, his understanding of calculus and algebra is completely broken: mistakes he created were so elementary that even sophomores may point it out.

Also, Check:

There is a potential opposition concerning the previous example: undergraduates of social science aren't specialists, however, they learn social science so that they are comparatively "more" specialists than non-sociology majors. This can be true, I cannot deny, and I suppose those who can make helpful vital judgments ought to have undergraduate-level backgrounds: although undergraduates don't learn the way to study, they learn the way to understand the thesis and knowledge of their field. Therefore, the possibility of misunderstanding their problem or mistreatment tools poorly is low for them. Let me explain regarding pseudo mathematicians again: All pseudo mathematicians I have ever seen don't major in mathematics. Moreover, majors I have seen don't do pseudo mathematics, although they often show weak understating of their major. They learned why pop pseudo mathematics is wrong, and that they understood at least the statement of problems, typically targeted by pseudo mathematicians. As a result, they didn't make pretend proofs or wrong arguments.

Can a TV channel appoint an expert doctor as the judge for one of its reality shows that's based on a condiment dance competition? The answer is clear. There’s no way that the doctor will be able to ascertain the winner of the competition unless he himself is conscious of the nuances of condiment dance. The modern world consists of various self-proclaimed critics who decide to work in any given field regardless of their own knowledge in this field. Such judgment is completely useless unless the person creating the judgment is a professional in the field to which the work being judged belongs.

If you browse the net for reviews of the most recently released movies, you'll notice various internet sites where folk has posted reviews of the film. Do we provide importance to the comments posted on such blogs? We most likely don't provide a lot of importance to what these folks say about a specific film as such observations are mostly personal opinions and that they might have nothing to do with the actual worth of the film. However, we tend to provide due credence to the opinion of a known film critic who might seem on a TV program that's based on film reviews. The observations created by the film critic might amend our perspective on the film much before we've actually seen it. Why do we have this distinction in accepting the views given by random bloggers and those given by well-known film critics? The explanation behind this distinction in acceptance of judgment from differing types of individuals is that we attach higher importance to the judgment glided by those who are skilled within the same field.

If someone needs to choose the appropriate furniture for home decor that falls inside his monetary budget, where would he/she search for sound advice? Would he simply ask his friends at random, or would he rather ask an acquaintance who is a furniture designer himself? This designer would be able to provide him an idea regarding how much the furniture ought to ideally cost and he would even be conscious of the names of unremarkably known furniture dealers and therefore the price they charge for the furniture marketed by them. Those who don't have any idea regarding furnishings styles, quality of furniture piece and therefore the prices concerned won't be able to suggest the pros and cons of the furniture being chosen by this person. They will solely glide by the external look of the furnishings and their judgment will most likely not have any worth. contrast this with someone who may be seasoned furniture professional. He would be able to determine the kind of wood used, its sturdiness, insect resistance, and different connected aspects that got to be considered before shopping for the furnishings. His judgment would hold rather more value as he will be able to identify the actual value of the furnishings with relation to their value.

The same holds true for crucial judgment in all fields whether or not they are associated with the sciences or to the arts. The judgment for the best college science project is often done solely by the science lecturers of the college. On the other hand, the same science lecturers won't be able to pass valued judgment in a painting competition. They’ll be able to choose a painting by its face price, however, the kinds of colors and brushes that ought to have ideally been used are often judged solely by the painting lecturers as they're specialists in this specific field. Hence, it's obvious that you ought to be a professional in a specific field to be able to pass valued judgment on work concerning that field.

In the modern era of fast social and technological amendment resulting in enhanced complexity in every single aspect of any area, crucial judgment from professional or amateur perspectives is currently facing both appreciation and challenge. Any conclusion might fall under bias if it's examined with absolutization, thus is the value of judgment, which, at least, ought to be separately examined in science or in art. With the speedy development of science, the general public in the area of scientific research is currently focusing on just one spot, resulting in individuals from outside who will barely judge the work critically. On the other hand, those areas of art that based mostly on its life resource on the spirit of human beings are able to entail crucial judgment by someone who might not be in the area of art but still have the mind for appreciation of beauty.