dicapino

Yeah ..... please I am in a similar quandary as the original post; i got the ets book and the questions are more intricate than questions from the power prep and the ETS GUIDE. Same question has the quantitative become harder? Please from people who took the test recently. I have a date for Nov 28

There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Masonton. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Masonton the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. Finally, the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Masonton residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted. The author suggests that people who want to live healthy and longer lives should consider moving to small towns. This assertion is supported by premises and assumptions that have some logical flaws. 1Firstly, the author uses a small town, Leville, and a nearby large city, Mansonton to support his argument that people would live more salubrious lives in small communities. But this evidence begs the question, are both Leville and Mansonton representative of thousands of other cities and towns? The opposite could be the case, may be other large cities have more healthy residents due to better health care facilities. The author has to provide extra evidence that this town and city are exemplary of all other towns and cities generally. 2Apart from the author’s foible of generalizing, his argument is supported by the premise that fewer people take sick leave in Leville businesses when juxtaposed with Mansonton. This reports could be due to higher population in the Mansonton and not necessarily that its resident are sick. Also, may be many of the sick leave reported in Mansonton were routine and preemptive medical check-ups that are sponsored and supported by employers. For this claim to be air-tight the author has to give the actual number of the working population in these communities. 3The argument posits that since there is one doctor to 1000 residents in Leville, residents of small towns are less sick and healthier than people in large cities. It could be that the physician is there to act as a buffer in cases of emergencies like; child birth and road accidents. And residents with more serious ailments- like depression, diabetes, alzhemier- go to neighbouring large cities like Mansonton where they adequate medical care for their condition 4Lastly, the author support his claim by stating that the average age of Leville residents is significantly higher that Mansonton residents. This may have being due to other factors like the kind of food they eat: since Leville is a small town they may produce a lot of fresh vegetables that are consumed by majority of the residents.Also, may be majority of the population used in this survey are old people who are not suffering from terminal sickness, but still have other minor health problems that are been adequately seen to. The author is adviced to check the medical records of Leville’s residents to ascertain if actually these older generations are not sick. in summary, the author’s suggestion of considering immigrating to smaller towns if an indidividual wants to live a salutary and long life should be accepted with sceptism.

There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Masonton. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Masonton the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. Finally, the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Masonton residents. These findings suggest that people seeking longer and healthier lives should consider moving to small communities.Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.The author suggests that people who want to live healthy and longer lives should consider moving to small towns. This assertion is supported by premises and assumptions that have some logical flaws.Firstly, the author uses a small town, Leville, and a nearby large city, Mansonton to support his argument that people would live more salubrious lives in small communities. But this evidence begs the question, are both Leville and Mansonton representative of thousands of other cities and towns? The opposite could be the case, may be other large cities have more healthy residents due to better health care facilities. The author has to provide extra evidence that this town and city are exemplary of all other towns and cities generally.Apart from the author’s foible of generalizing, his argument is supported by the premise that fewer people take sick leave in Leville businesses when juxtaposed with Mansonton. This reports could be due to higher population in the Mansonton and not necessarily that its resident are sick. Also, may be many of the sick leave reported in Mansonton were routine and preemptive medical check-ups that are sponsored and supported by employers. For this claim to be air-tight the author has to give the actual number of the working population in these communities.The argument posits that since there is one doctor to 1000 residents in Leville, residents of small towns are less sick and healthier than people in large cities. It could be that the physician is there to act as a buffer in cases of emergencies like; child birth and road accidents. And residents with more serious ailments- like depression, diabetes, alzhemier- go to neighbouring large cities like Mansonton where they adequate medical care for their conditionLastly, the author support his claim by stating that the average age of Leville residents is significantly higher that Mansonton residents. This may have being due to other factors like the kind of food they eat: since Leville is a small town they may produce a lot of fresh vegetables that are consumed by majority of the residents.Also, may be majority of the population used in this survey are old people who are not suffering from terminal sickness, but still have other minor health problems that are been adequately seen to. The author is adviced to check the medical records of Leville’s residents to ascertain if actually these older generations are not sick.In summary, the author’s suggestion of considering immigrating to smaller towns if an indidividual wants to live a salutary and long life should be accepted with sceptism.

Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field. In this period were countries have just started recovering from the recession, and availability of jobs has stagnated in certain sectors; I believe college students should only consider fields of study were there are availability of jobs. The reasons for this view are two-folds: first, it will give them a chance at a secured future; also, it will be the best decision for students that use loans to pay for their schooling. Firstly, it will give college students a chance at a secured future. By making this decision students are able to get jobs after graduating; thus, since getting jobs means being on a regular wage, they will be able to pay their bills, meet their needs, and those of their immediate families. They are able to live comfortably. For instance, in Nigeria you don’t hear a student say I want to learn painting at college, and the reason is that there is no real appreciation of artworks, I have never seen an art gallery around me, but I do see many banks. Furthermore, such a decision will be the best for students that pay for their schooling with loans. After earning a degree some students will be in debt, and they have to pay this off before they can even start their lives. Thus, it will have been the best decision to pick a field where he or she would get a job immediately after school. For example, a lecturer told me of foreign student who was a exchange student in my department, he said the student was now working to pay off all the debt he incurred for his schooling. Opponents against my argument say that with the right skills and talents a student is sure of landing a job in any field. I agree that having skills give you an upper hand in getting a job, but these skills are useless when there are no job opportunities for you to utilise such skills. In summary, with the present situation of the global economy, college students should pick fields that will give them a competitive advantage of living a comfortable life. Skills and talents are good, but there is no need having these skills, and not having food on the table. **** is this okay. any feedback will be deeply appreciated

I am not a rater, but it sends the message. i like the intro.............. i like reading good essays, i am stimulated when i read good write ups, this is one. kindly check mine. it is like they dont comment on essays in this blog.

Competition for high grades seriously limits the quality of learning at all levels of education Students in all levels of education are given the orientation that scoring high grades is the only means to show true learning. Competition for high grades limits the quality of learning due to these reasons: first, students prepare more for exams than for actual learning; also, students willing to learn are discouraged, and don’t perform well in examinations. Firstly, students prepare more for examinations than for actual learning. Students prepare more to pass examinations; thus, they may take to rote memorization, and will not be interested in having a better understanding of concepts and ideas they are taught. Therefore, students are good test-takers, but not good learners. For example, it is normal to question students on a course that they took exams on a week back, and they don’t recall even a minute detail. Also, students willing to learn are discouraged and do not perform well in examinations. Students who are not able to cope with such competition, and are interested in having a proper understanding of concepts, and ideas are not motivated continue this mode of learning, since students with high grades are given utmost preference. For instance, during my undergraduate studies, students that did not score high grades had a better understanding of courses more than some so called brilliant lads. Opponents against my view argue that competition for high grades motivates student to do well. I believe that such competition may motivate some students, but a majority will be discouraged to learning since they do not meet up these high grades. In summary, competition for high grades make student excellent test-takers, but not excellent learners. Encouraging this will seriously reduce the standard of learning, as schools will produce individuals that are only effective in school classrooms, but not in the society. i took 35 mins.

Educators should find out what students want included in the curriculum and then offer it to them Although getting student feedback on their teachers, and their teaching methods is a good idea; I do not think students’ input should be considered when creating a curriculum. The reasons for these views are: first, students will want to avoid topics that are mundane to them; also, teachers are better positioned to make these decisions. First and foremost, students will try to avoid courses they do not understand. Naïve students who feel certain courses are not necessary will see this as an opportunity to get rid of it. These courses may be pre-requisites to higher level courses, thus these students find it difficult to catch-up on such courses. For instance, if simple algebra- that is, x and y, is removed from the curriculum, students will not effectively understand calculus. Also, teachers are better positioned to make these decisions. Educators having been adequately trained; thus, have a better understanding of the importance of each course towards the learning of a student. Teachers have an idea of what the end-result should be when these students completely go through these courses. Students who in most cases have no idea of what a particular course entails before taking it should not make these decisions. For instance, during my undergraduate studies, I only knew the importance of a course I offered a year ago when a present course makes reference to it. Opponents against my view argue that students will be motivated to learn courses they have interest in. I believe formal education is not meant to be rosy all the time; students should be ready to make these so called boring areas interesting. In summary, teachers have more understanding than students on what should be in the curriculum. Allowing student input will surely reduce the standard of their learning; also, such curriculum will not produce well schooled individuals. ***** untimed essay

An individual’s learning process is not complete if the individual is not inquisitive enough to question what he or she has been taught. Students should question what they have been taught because of these reasons: firstly, they have a better understanding and are more engaged in the class; also, teachers and theories are not infallible. An individual’s learning process is not complete if the individual is not inquisitive enough to question what he or she has been taught. Students should question what they have been taught because of these reasons: firstly, they have a better understanding and are more engaged in the class; also, teachers and theories are not infallible. Furthermore, teachers and theories are not infallible. There may be instances when educators do not give genuine information to students, thus it won’t be out of place for a student to question such kind of information. For example, the world would have continue to believe the geocentric theory – that is, earth as the centre of the universe, if Copernicus had not questioned the truthfulness of this theory, and then disabused it by postulating the heliocentric theory. Opponents against my view argue that students become arrogant and precocious, thus believe educators should not allow this. But the opposite is the case, students are emboldened and build up self-confidence when they don’t learn passively without questioning. In summary, the major goal of learning is to make the individual have a thorough understanding of different concepts and ideas. Thus student should continually question what they have been taught. [[[ This is a timed essay used like 35 mins for this........any feedback, as usual will be very help full.

hello donbuser nobody is commenting on our essays,,,,,,,, i am really tired

Government should offer college and university education free of charge to all students High tuition fees in most colleges and universities in countries like the US, and UK make it difficult for students to acquire college education, especially impecunious students. But even with this, it won’t be right for government to offer free education to students because of these reasons: first, it will not be a cost- effective venture, and some students will not take this opportunity seriously. First and foremost, government funding a totally free education will be cost-intensive. Apart from paying for students’ fees, government also have to maintain college buildings, stock libraries with book, and equip laboratories, since these schools do not collect tuitions. Furthermore, government need funds to contend with other social problems like health, security and infrastructure; thus spending a large portion of the budget on a free education is not a wise decision. In addition, such policy will make public funds to be used to subsidize education for families that can pay. A totally free education is not the answer. Also, such largess will meet up with students that won’t take their studies seriously. Already, in schools there are students that waste their family funds either by not been serious or dropping out from school. A free education system will lead to a high increase in drop outs, as more students might see no reason to be serious, since they don’t pay for their schooling. Higher education should be for students that have zeal to learning, not just any student. Proponents of free education argue that it will equip individuals with tools which can make them self-actualize in the society, especially now when most jobs require higher education. But, government gives grants, loans and financial aid to students who cannot meet these high fees, thus families should plan well, and take advantage of these opportunities. In summary, free education is not cost-effective for government, and might make students unserious with their studies. Thus, government should continue with their aid to penurious students, and families should plan well for their ward’s education, even at a period that tuition continues to increase. ** it took me 40 mins to complete this essay ......i have written a lot of essays without timing.......any feedback will be helpful.Am i on the right track? Thank you

Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position Proponents of this view argue that the traditional step pay system – that is, teachers’ salaries based on years in service, is flawed and bias, as it does not consider the criteria of how well these teachers do, they favour a student performance based system which they believe will bring renewed vigour into the profession, and improve the standard of education. But still, teachers’ pay should not be fully based on their students’ performance because of these reasons: a student’s performance is not totally dependent on a teacher; also, educators do more than make students get good grades in examinations; thirdly, such a policy will put certain teachers at a disadvantage. First and foremost, a student’s academic performance is not totally dependent on a teacher. Teachers are only in control of students during school hours, they may teach, and give assignments, but performance also depends on what the student does with his or her time when away from school . Students will do well academically by spending extra time on their studies, and this is only possible if there is an enabling environment at home to study, and also if parents put interest on their kid’s academics. For instance, the poor academic performance of a kid that plays video games after school hours consistently cannot be put on the teacher. Furthermore, the prompt creates the notion that a teacher’s duty towards student is simply to make them score good grades. From my experience, teachers do more than this, it is from school students learn morals, how to behave in public, how to be respectful to constituted authority and older persons. Especially, students who are not from good homes are able to learn from these teachers. For example, I learnt good table manners during my primary education. In addition, teachers who work with kids that are challenged or have problems with learning will be at a disadvantage. There are communities or districts that have children with illnesses that make it difficult for them to learn at a similar pace as their well-to-do counterparts. For example, kids with brain disease will find it hard to learn and thus good teachers will be helpful to such kids. But basing salaries on academic performance may make these teachers think of their own interest, and look for better options. Opponents against my argument will posit that such a policy if implemented will make teachers work harder, and attract people to the profession. I agree with this to an extent, but I think salaries partly based on performance will also create the right motivation in the profession. In summary, a student’s performance is not totally dependent on the teacher, and they do more than only make student get good grades. If such a policy is implemented, teachers will respond by teaching students constrained information- that is, just what they need to know for examinations, and I believe this may reduce the standard of learning in our schools.

Universities are centres of learning that should produce the “complete” individual for the society. Thus, students should offer courses outside their field of study, for these institutions to get anyway near this. Firstly, requiring students to take these courses will broaden their knowledge. Students are able to relate with thoughts, and ideas outside their field of study; therefore, can interact with individuals from different fields. Also, university graduates are able to appreciate, and grasp the diversities they find in the society. For instance, courses in the humanities or liberal arts would make science major students have an adequate understanding of social topics in literature, arts and history; furthermore, through these courses they know their duties, and obligation to society. Apart from making students vast, it creates academic discourse between students on campus. In taking these interdisciplinary courses, students have different perspectives on a wide range of topics not taught in their specialist fields. And this creates forums in which student can share ideas on. For example, blogs that discuss on different topics taken in different interdisciplinary courses. In addition, taking these extra courses adds value to the individual on graduating. Individuals are empowered with information that may prove useful in their future careers.Graduates with something extra in various workplaces are more favoured for employments, promotions, and self actualization. For example, a science academic who learnt a foreign language, may find it valuable when presenting paper in a different country. Opponents of this idea argue why students should take courses that are not related to their core fields, but they fail to recognise that the barriers between different fields have been lowered. For example, the undertaking of many science projects is dependent on what the needs of the society are; therefore, a good scientist should be in tune with the dynamics of a society. Conclusively, universities are saddled with the task of training students to become complete individuals able to fit into the society, and this can be achieved by requiring them to take courses outside their specialist field.

Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. Students should have the freedom to choose, and explore fields of study that are appealing to them. Thus, the role of educational institutions is to train students in fields of their choice, and not actively encourage them to choose fields on the basis of opportunities at lucrative careers. The reasons for these views are as follows: having a lucrative career depends on the individual, and not the field of study; also, changes in government policies and economic stability may render these so called lucrative jobs unavailable. First, and foremost, such a statement creates the notion that some fields of study do not lead students to lucrative careers. Having a successful career depends on the student, what the student makes of the field, and how the student effectively applies learning in the classroom to the real world. There are numerous lucrative areas available within any field of study. For instance, in Nigerian universities, there is a cachet placed on courses like medicine, engineering, and law. However, agricultural students are viewed ludicrously, but many of them are able to start lucrative poultry, and fish rearing businesses before their counterparts get jobs. Furthermore, the continuous availability of these so called lucrative jobs or careers in particular fields of study is not certain. Changes in government policies and economic stability may reduce the presence of these jobs. For example, the effect of the economic recession in countries like Greece, and Portugal has been a lack of jobs, even high paying jobs. In addition, in the Nigerian banking sector, the apex bank implemented a recapitalization policy for banks, these lead to bankers taking pay-cuts and in other cases been let go. Thus, a banking sector once considered lucrative is now less benign. Opponents against my idea argue that educators are helping students make the right decisions for their future careers. However, students should make the decision of what kind of career paths or options they plan to take; if they fancy careers in academic research or want to be lawyers that take pro bono cases or work in the oil industry, it is their choice, a career choice should be one were an individual feels fulfilled. Conclusively, lucrative opportunities are inherent in all fields of study, educators should help students meet their aspirations and not advice them to take particular fields of study because the chances at lucrative careers in such areas are apparent.

Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. Universities are centres of learning that should produce the “complete” individual for the society. Thus, students should offer courses outside their field of study, for these institutions to get anyway near this. Firstly, requiring students to take these courses will broaden their knowledge. Students are able to relate with thoughts, and ideas outside their field of study; therefore, can interact with individuals from different fields. Also, university graduates are able to appreciate, and grasp the diversities they find in the society. For instance, courses in the humanities or liberal arts would make science major students have an adequate understanding of social topics in literature, arts and history; furthermore, through these courses they know their duties, and obligation to society. Apart from making students vast, it creates academic discourse between students on campus. In taking these interdisciplinary courses, students have different perspectives on a wide range of topics not taught in their specialist fields. And this creates forums in which student can share ideas on. For example, blogs that discuss on different topics taken in different interdisciplinary courses. In addition, taking these extra courses adds value to the individual on graduating. Individuals are empowered with information that may prove useful in their future careers. Graduates with something extra in various workplaces are more favoured for employments, promotions, and self actualization. For example, a science academic who learnt a foreign language, may find it valuable when presenting paper in a different country. Opponents of this idea argue why students should take courses that are not related to their core fields, but they fail to recognise that the barriers between different fields have been lowered. For example, the undertaking of many science projects is dependent on what the needs of the society are; therefore, a good scientist should be in tune with the dynamics of a society. Conclusively, universities are saddled with the task of training students to become complete individuals able to fit into the society, and this can be achieved by requiring them to take courses outside their specialist field.

Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. 1)Universities are centres of learning that should produce the “complete” individual for the society. Thus, students should offer courses outside their field of study, for these institutions to get anyway near this. 2)Firstly, requiring student to take these courses will broaden their knowledge. Students are able to relate with thoughts, and ideas outside their field of study; therefore, can interact with individuals from different fields. Also, university graduates are able to appreciate, and grasp the diversities they find in the society. For instance, courses in the humanities or liberal arts would make science major students have an adequate understanding of social topics in literature, arts and history; furthermore, through these courses they know their duties, and obligation to society. 3)Apart from making students vast, it creates academic discourse between students on campus. In taking these interdisciplinary courses, students have different perspectives on a wide range of topics not taught in their specialist field. And this creates forums in which student can share ideas on. For example, blogs that discuss on different topics taken in different interdisciplinary courses. 4)In addition, taking these extra courses adds value to the individual on graduating. Individuals are empowered with information that may prove useful in their future careers. Graduates with something extra in various workplaces are more favoured for employments, promotions, and self actualization. For example, a science academic who learnt a foreign language, may find it valuable when presenting paper in a different country. 5)Opponents of this idea argue why students should take courses that are not related to their core fields, but they fail to recognise that the barriers between different fields have been lowered. For example, the undertaking of many science projects is dependent on what the needs of the society are; therefore, a good scientist should be in tune with the dynamics of a society. 6)Conclusively, universities are saddled with the task of training students to become complete individuals able to fit into the society, and this can be achieved by requiring them to take courses outside their specialist field.