This paper evaluates the innovation degree, research scheme, research foundation and budget. The Fund Committee is most welcome to make a substantive evaluation of the specific content, cut out the "nonsense" without effective information, and point out the key defects and deficiencies to the point. Don't say "the innovation is not high, the technical route is unreasonable, the research plan is unscientific, and the budget does not pay attention". It is to point out where you think the problem is, where the unreasonable place is, and how unreasonable the law is. Let the applicant die unconvinced, such as:

1, no negative, positive and blank control test;

2. According to the fact that there is no difference between two individuals, it is concluded that there is no difference in reasoning logic between two individuals. Everyone has a different opinion. Some people move out all the shortcomings in great detail, while others try to pick out some trivial problems without paying attention to the key points. For example, I mainly value the reasoning process led by scientific questions, the academic value of the expected research results, the technical route, the content of the research plan, and basically do not evaluate other contents.