GREgarious

How about these fellas: provisional: tentative purchase: firm grasp or footing- prehensile- rapacious- plundering mannered: not natural riddle : make holes strut: supporting bar studied: unspontaneous, thoughtful reputed: supposed divert: entertain doctor: adulterate attest: testify,bear witness august: majestic, impressive champion: support militantly colossus: antonym-figurine compact: agreement,contract converse: opposite (antonym-obverse) contest: dispute personification:attractiveness awe: A feeling of profound respect for someone or something

Nice Explanation Paul. Thanks. Regarding the second question, the idea of the sentence is that science has influenced philosophy ( . . .philosophers use scientific concepts . . .) not that science and philosophy are the same. Also, superfluous and axiomatic fit together. The idea is that the link between science and philosophy is widely taken as a given, so a proof is not necessary.

Oh I understood the key is in "Rather than " it has to be opposite of first statement. ..

I still didn't understand Why a country would be vulnerable (Susceptibility to injury or attack) if it has successful nuclear program ?:doh:

Confused between A and C. Can any one HELP!!! 8) grow:burgeon a) beat:palpitate b) transport:enrapture c) flourish:thrive d) rot:decay e) evolve:multiply

the answer to first question is given B "remind:contradict" in one of the text book. By any chance anyone feels that can be an answer.

Hey lastnightilie, Thanks for the analysis. Even I was not satisfied with the last one and I totally agree with ur points. Although the one I'm posting here now is also not my final essay but better than the last one. I wanted to give more general example for the "Cloud" and thus chosen that as the statement simply demands analysis of originality, thinking and old ideas. Particular examples of discoveries and invention would be be specific and loose the general analysis required. Anyways pls assay this essay: "Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways" Originality has its own dimensions and facets. Its based on each case whether that particular piece of gem have to be treated as an original, the banal repetition of a forsaken idea or the revitalization of a lost idea. In all the three cases the relation between the previous idea and the new born idea is what thus matter. So it is the human perception which determine the quirk of the thought. Thus by any means the Originality is nothing but the association of two thoughts. If the defination of Originality suggests that it is any new concept which is sown in the human brain without linking it to any previous thought then there are very rare instances in the annals of the human development where an inventor had achieved any worthwhile creation without linking it to the previous thought. A scientist has developed a new object if he was devoid of that facility. For example the invention of incandescent Electric Bulb was possible because Thomas Edison felt its requirement to the society. He associated the Electric Energy with Light Energy. And even the human-brain study suggests that the mind is a nexus of neurons which have different thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings garnered in them. The general thinking pattern suggests that we link two facets of thoughts to create a new thought. It is observed throughout the course of history that the inventions where made due to long deductive phase of thought process. Exemplary is the Theory of Relativity, which is not totally new concept but many of its concepts restore the basic theory of Newton's Theory. This applies to the Artwork. The painters, sculptors are often driven by strong forces of their thoughts to create the wonders through their works. In fact this ability of linking the most polarized thought in the work of art separates the common person and an artisan. But this analysis of Originality is limited in the sense that if the previous thought is an antediluvian or is way different from the relevant topic then linking them may appear to be a genuine case of originality which is fallacious. For example if I state that "the Aliens are not like the conventional UFO's with two hands and legs as depicted in Hollywood movies, but it's possible that they may be like Clouds or may be just a collection of few heavy metal gases and have very different language than us, may be they communicate through light." Now this appears to be Original but this is nothing but linking of Aliens and Clouds! So it is the imagination of the thinker which decides whether the thought is an Original in true sense without involving two old ideas. Thanks in advance! :)

MY SECOND ATTEMPT: Human Society has progressed from gamut of ancient discoveries to colossal of recent technological creations, machineries and facilitators. This is imputed to the constant urge of human mind to ameliorate. But the technology has still long way to engender before it could tantamount the capabilities of the Human Brain. At no point of time in history did the machine created itself or implemented changes in itself. So the reverance of gargantum of technological advancement goes solely to human mind. So I believe that the abilities of humans to ponder will not be deteriorated by habituation of technology. Discovering or Inventing a solution to a problem may have taken centuries to evolve like in case of fire but once known to the human society it has enabled man to think of its implications. As once fire was discovered a man could think of cooking and settling at one place rather than hunting and itinerancy. The problem humankind faced however simple or difficult demanded easy and fast solution or a general solution which could be used by all. Once this was implemented it was easy for man to think of further deductions. It saved slew of time and dint of efforts through the use of technology for our question than to repete the same trite steps to find the result of a question which was already deciphered by our antecedents. Exemplary to this is the invention of Calculator. This is frequently used to solve the mathematical problems. If a student is able to solve his/her maths faster and accurately through calculator he/she can better concentrate on the other aspects of the problem, may be the analytical analysis which may enlighen his/her ken. Human Mind is largess bestowed by GOD/Nature to us. It has unfathomable capabilities which can't be met by Best Supercomputers of World even today. It has astounding ability to analyze, associate, communicate, adapt etc. in iota of time. Human Mind has a basic nature of Improvising the system. At each invention we have thought of exploring it to fullest. For example the Wheel was invented in around 3500 BC. Its invention is conceived to be for the transporting of heavy objects, but after that we has used wheel in possibly thousands of way to make our lives better and smarter. Also this hiatus between human mind potential and its achievement in terms of technological advancement it made will bolster him to keep finding better answers. Although depending excessively on a technology for our quotidian tasks may mar our intelligence in a similar manner as the old metal may be rusted due to negligence. But brain can be burnished by indulgence in brain improvement exercises. A critical rejoinder to this may object that the humans want the development and discoveries to be assuaged and once an answer is found he may alleviate his ability of exploring further. I have three couters for this fallacy. First, the man is malcontent by nature, he can never be assuaged for long and thus require better technological results after each platitudinal result. Second, the inventor of the technology may be complacent for his achievement but for the next generation of scientists that invention was older and he/she demands better answers again. Third, this seems unlikely because humans won't quit their nature of Improvising any time sooner as we have evolved through eon retaining this quality. So humans must consider exploiting the technology to its fullest with a thought that he must at least know the longer manual solution to his problem. And at the time when technology can't be used he can easily use his mental faculty to solve the problem at hand. Please retort/assay the essay...

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. In today’s shrinking world and in the economy expanding far and across, the most important part that anything plays in progress is technology. The increasing dependence of human brains on microchips poses a serious threat to the human beings themselves. So in this topic of argument I shall put forward the ideas that strengthen the issue that the increasing dependence on technology will definitely lead to the deterioration of people’s thought process. With the evolution of science where being more and more sophisticated and so-called ‘Smart’ gadgets are being invented each and every day, with an intend to decrease the manual labor, the area harshly impacted is the human thought process. The aftermath of over dependence on the technology and its blessings is decrease in the human capability to think more informatively. The markets are flooding with novel devices that promise to reduce the load on the human brain by making the work more simpler and faster. But, the darker side is little known of. More the human gray matter increase its dependence on the silicon chips and wires, more it becomes vulnerable to destruction, by its own self. For instance , a simple calculator, one of the magnificent technological gifts to humans makes the calculations, rather complex ones , shorter. But the soaring effect is the exponential decrease which reflects in the thinking capacity of the users. The recent studies in the united states have shown that the majority of the people who often used calculators for simpler tasks, were not as quick in retention of things and ideas as were the non-users. The facts make it clear that technology no doubt is con than a pro. Take another example for instance- computer. This peerless invention undoubtedly is the core of today’s running business and market. But the over dependence on these machines deteriorates the mental and intellectual power of human brains. Time taken to do a work might have reduced from 3 seconds to 1 second; increasing the overall profit to unit in millions of dollars, but the reduction in the thinking speed and accuracy of humans that too for simple as well as complex calculations has increased more the less to plus 3 seconds. On the ending note I would say that the import of the situation is to understand the positives and negatives of the technology and try to decrease the habitual dependence it at least for the jobs suitable for human potential. The step might be small but will definitely prove a significant one to halt the attrition of potential of human brain or else it will be we who are to be blamed.

Please comment on the length, grammar and content along with your personal suggestion. Thanks in advance! Originality has it's own dimensions and facets. Its based on the case that a particular piece of gem has to be treated as an Originality, the banal repetition of a forsaken idea or the revitalization of a lost idea. In all the cases the relation of the previous idea and the new born idea thus matter. If the definition of Originality suggests that it is any new concept which is sown in the human brain without linking it to any previous thought then their are very rare instant in the annals of the human development where an inventor had achieved any worthwhile creation without linking it to the previous thought. A scientist has developed a new object if he was devoid of that facility, due to forced compulsion of another mind who was again expecting a relinquishment which he was lacking without that object. And even the philosophy suggests that the mind is nothing but a nexus of neurons which have different thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings garnered in them. The general thinking pattern suggest that we link two facets two create a new thought. It is observed throughout the course of history that the inventions where made due to long deductive phase of thought process. Exemplary is the Theory of Relativity, which is not totally new concept but many of it's concepts restore the basic theory of Newton's Theory. This applies to the field of creativity. The painters, sculptor are often driven by strong forces of their thoughts to create the wonders through their works. In fact this ability of linking the most polarized thought in the work of art separates the common person and an artisan. But this analysis of Originality is limited in the sense that if the previous thought is an antediluvian or is way different from the relevant topic then linking them may appear to be a genuine case of Originality without linking two thoughts. For example if I states that "the Aliens are not like the conventional UFO's with two hands and legs, but it's possible that they may be like Clouds or may be just a collection of few heavy metal gases and have very different language than us, may be they communicate through light." Now this appears to be Original but this is nothing but linking of Aliens and Clouds! So it is the imagination of the thinker which decides whether the thought is an Original in true sense without involving two old ideas.

Congrates Dude...I have my test on 27th June ....advise what to do in last 3 weeks. I am done with Barron's and quite confident with the words. But didn't start anything else.