ertda

Real : V 370 Q 780 PP1 : V 490 Q 750 PP2 : V 400 Q 780

Don't deal with the author too much this is not an argument essay

Yes try to write in 45 minutes like the real one.

Just a point: I would make the introduction more brief.

This is from powerprep

This is ok but I m just doubtful for the last sentence.

Vijaysirohi, I would think about that fourth paragraph once more, if I were you.

I think you are not convincing in your essay, you don't provide us reasons to believe you but you try to explain everything from examples but the example you give; are they a reflection of the values or created by media, I don't think so.

Yes, this is ok, but 4th paragraph isn't necessary.

This is a good one, but just one point: I am doubtful if focusing this much on technology and inventions for this topic is right, for example, I would expect an example about a war and what people learnt from it.

This one is OK but take care of some long sentences that are hard to follow.

Your essay is generally OK, but I think it could me more coherent, you can use more transitional sentences between the paragraphs. [

Yes, that comment seems a little subjective. I just don't think that those examples are suitable for that topic. I just feel it would be better to give examples from the really (?) great discoveries. These examples from biotechnology and nasa seem monotonous research activities, but as I said this is my idea.

apprentice I think your examle is also great it could be added to for example the 2nd paragraph of my essay or a seperate one

thanks for the advice

“Six months ago the region of Forestville increased the speed limit for vehicles traveling on the region's highways by ten miles per hour. Since that change took effect, the number of automobile accidents in that region has increased by 15 percent. But the speed limit in Elmsford, a region neighboring Forestville, remained unchanged, and automobile accidents declined slightly during the same six-month period. Therefore, if the citizens of Forestville want to reduce the number of automobile accidents on the region's highways, they should campaign to reduce Forestville's speed limit to what it was before the increase.” It is claimed that the recent increase in the speed limit of Forestville caused an increase in the number of accidents, and therefore the limit is proposed to be reduced to the previous value in order to prevent the increase in the accident number, which was achived in the neighbor Elmsford by keeping the limit same. The reasons for the author's proposition, however, is not a completely convincing one because it is based on a simple analogy dependent idea and the supporting data for his proposal is either incomplete or insufficient. The author's main fallacy is the simple assumption he makes that a solution in a neighbor region should also be the solution of Forestville. Although a neighbor region, Elmsford could have harder different landscape, its highways could be narrower, its population could be higher leading to bigger traffic in its roads, and also the people of this region could be less educated requiring more strict rules to govern. In order to make us believe his idea, the author should have mentioned about these issues. Furthermore, the data about the number of accidents in these two regions is an incomplete and an uncomparable one. The author does not mention if the speed limit of Elmsford is the same with the previous limit in Forestville. The percentage of the decline in automobile accident of this region is also not mentioned, raising questions about the significance of this decline. It is possible that this could be a vary low, therefore an ignorable one. In conclusion, the author is not believable in the propsed idea of drawing back the speed limit Forestville regions, because of the unconvincing reasons provided such as the simple analogy that is made with the neighbor, and the incompleteness of the data.

"Our declining environment may bring the people of the world together as no politician, philosopher, or war ever could. Environmental problems are global in scope and respect no nation's boundaries. Therefore, people are faced with the choice of unity and cooperation on the one hand or disunity and a common tragedy on the other." Throughout the history humans lived in different communities each of which had distinct characteristics. This distinction made them foreginer to each other and it was always difficult to bring them together inspite of the efforts of any politician, philosopher, or war. The recent environmental problems, however, is maybe the only factor that could end this long separation because of the global effect range of this problem. The most important feature of the environment is that all of the different nations share it. No border can protect any country from a danger caused by global warming, ozone disruption, and any other similar problems, therefore any solution to these environmental problems should be global, from a unity of all of the nations of the World. In the threat of a big environmental threat, different groups of people will understand the common danger that would destroy anyone of them, and because of this they will find a way to agree with each other and unite in order to fight against the problem in the most efficient way. For example, in the case of global warming threat the different societies already began to share similar ideas and to have a common goal for this imminent global threat. The governments of the most wealthy countries came together to find a way to solve it together. People would choose to unite and cooperate against environmental problems, also because of the already present tendency among them to unite against big dangers. It is something present in the nature of humans to be more noble in the presence of bad conditions. The disintegrity of the current world is because of the lack of big problems, which would make people from any nation to get rid of disloyal ideas to other nations. People become disobedient to each other in welfare conditions and this is a natural characteristic that cannot be changed. Therefore, a big danger like an environmental problem would make people more noble and make it easy to get rid of the nationalist ideals and think about the other people as well. For example, after the industrial revolution, Europe lived its best times, became the leader of the world, reached a far more wealthy state than any other region in the World. However, this good conditions brought the first and second World Wars, maybe the most catastrophic events of the history. But these wars made them unite to European Union although to some extent. Then, since wars could cause this much unity, a big environmental threat should cause a much stronger one. In summary, people from different nations would unite in the presence of an environmental danger because of the greatness and global scope of the problem and the natural tendency of people to do so.

I think it is certainly >= 4 but I prefer not to give a direct grade :)

Be more brief and to the point in the introduction, continue your second and fourth paragraph with an example to support your view further. By restricting the consequences to academic achievement, you are narrowing the subject. In addition, there are some problems with the grammer that I doN't mention here but anyway it is ok I think keep on working ;)

Great work, I'm just doubtful for the idea in the 5th paragraph. Is it a no relation fallacy or an incomplete relation one? I think recycling is not unrelated to garbage disposal amount but rather it is just one of the factors affecting it.

Quite well done, agree with you on the link between the 2nd-3rd para.s

I think you should mention about the point of "people from different ages should study together" in your essay, you just emphasize on studying in groups in your essay

The essay is ouf of the topic except for the last two paragraphs, be careful about the issue given

Overall good work

This is generally ok