I essentially agree that imagination seems more important than knowledge in copious professions and academic fields. However, author actually draws an imprudent and absolute conclusion，undervalues the complexity of the situation. Accordingly, the applicability of the assertion is dubious when it comes to some particular statements. Specifically, considering whether the claim is accurate, I prefer to dispute that if author exaggerates or underestimates the fact, meditate on it from different and concrete circumstances or standpoints.

 The author’s claim understates how terrible owning imagination without necessary knowledge is. From this point of view, knowledge is at least as significant as imagination, even more consequential than it. The reason is that we need to unremittingly study and exercise to maintain a high level of knowledge, but imagination requires no myriad practice. Thinking too highly of imagination will make people overlook the necessity of working hard on knowledge, which always means indolent in most professional and academic fields.

 Furthermore, the claim amounts to an overstatement when it comes to the effectiveness of imagination. Renowned professors in professions and academic fields may ascribe their achievements to ideas coming from their imagination, but don’t forget all of them are firstly erudite in their fields. Indeed, most of us have to spend a lot both in time and vigor when we are imagining, unless we get enough knowledge that can help us confine the province in our naturally infinitive minds. Even after we own sufficient knowledge, imagination is still a marathon. In short, imagination can not leave the basis of knowledge, and imagination itself is not a shortcut for achievement. Its effectiveness does not match such an important position.

 Notwithstanding, I still fundamentally agree with the claim when it comes to the essence of knowledge and imagination. Knowledge is what we already know, but what we are looking for in most professions and academic fields is something we know nothing. Researchers do not have the prescience to know the content, even the form, of the conclusion in numerous researches. From this point of view, imagination is more significant than knowledge, because it is the imagination, not the knowledge, grasp something out of “nothing” .  

 In the final analysis, as for the author’s broader assertion, I agree that imagination is more important than knowledge has its rationale. Nevertheless, the accuracy of the claim is suspectable in particular statements mentioned above. The claim belittles the outcome if someone only has imagination without enough knowledge, and overstates how effective imagination is.