Go Back   TestMagic Forums > English tests > TOEFL > TWE
Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2009 November 1st, 09:59 AM   #1 (permalink)
Have 760+ in GMAT
 
gmatissimple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 660
gmatissimple just joined TestMagic.
please rate my essay!! (Kaplan02)

In the lecture, the professor made several points about the banning of smoking. The professor argues that banning smoking will not hamper the right of the smokers rather it will protect the rights of non-smokers. However, the reading contends that banning smoking in open places and in the hotels and bars will hamper the rights of the smokers who pay lots of money to the government as tax, and to support this contention the reading cites several examples. The professor's lecture casts doubt on the reading by using several points and examples that are antithetical to the reading's theory that smoking will hamper the rights of the smokers.

First of all, one of the theories that the reading described is that it takes 20 years for direct smokers develop cancerous malignancy, and for the indirect smokers it takes 40 years. So, reading concludes that the statistics are suspected. However, the professor refutes this theory stating that cancer is not the only disease that is caused for smoking, but there are other diseases such as hear attack. After quitting smoking about 40% chance of heart attack reduces.
Additionally, the reading claims that banning smoking in bars and clubs will reduce the revenue those businesses dramatically. Nevertheless, the professor disagrees with this claims uttering that there will another places for the smokers to smoke such as home, open places, and those businesses can actually increase their revenues by attracting non-smokers to their bars. So, the reading is untenable.

Finally, the reading holds that the smokers pay lots of money as tax to the government; therefore, to ban means to betray with them. Still, the professor opposes this holding saying that banning smoking is not hampering the rights of smokers rather it is the protection of the rights of non-smokers.

In sum, from the discussion above it can be easily concluded that the reading has failed to consider some factors on the basis of which the professor criticizes the reading.

Would any one rate my essay?
Thanks.
gmatissimple is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

What you can do
You cannot post new threads
You cannot post replies
You cannot post attachments
You cannot edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:19 PM.

Contact TestMagic   TestMagic Forums      Archive   Privacy Statement

TestMagic Locations   Legal   Privacy


SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright © 2009 TestMagic
Ad Management by RedTyger

Scroll Up