In today's day and age critically evaluating each and every issue becomes very important to study and

piece of work. Some might argue that critically evaluating something is a waste of time and moves away
our focus from getting something actually done however this couldn't be further from the the truth as
by critically evaluating a piece of work we gain greater insights into it and find its flaws thereby
providing an opportunity to improve. The next question that may come to our mind is who should be
the judge while evaluating something. Some might feel that it may not be necessary that only a expert
can critically evaluate a piece of work and although this might hold some merit I believe that a expert in
a particular field is best suited to critically evaluate a piece of work. To present my argument I would like
to present two cases first a work is evaluated by an expert and then it is evaluated by non-expert.

In the first case where a piece of work is evaluated by an expert, the expert has most probably spent
numerous hours studying the particular field and creating many masterpiece therefore he/she has
immense knowledge and experience in the particular field which can be used to not used to critically
analyse the piece of work but also provide invaluable inputs regarding ways in which the work can be
further improved upon. Therefore I feel that in this way the primary purpose of critically evaluating a
work is fulfilled.

On the other hand, in the second case where the work is evaluated by an non-expert. The reviewer has
very limited or no knowledge working in the particular field therefore the analysis may be cosmetic at
best. Furthermore a non-expert can easily be swayed by the creator and unknowingly form a biased
opinion in favour of the creator. Most importantly he/she most probably won;t be adding anything new
to piece of work thereby the point of critical evaluation becomes futile.

On the flip side one might argue that a expert may have a very biased outlook on certain topics and may
be adamant on certain issues and this might be true so it becomes important to choose the right experts
who have an unbiased outlook on different issues.

To wrap up we can see that an expert can always critically analyse a issue and provide inputs to improve
upon the work that is being evaluated which is not true in case of an non-expert.