SDx

Seems that time was a factor in your essay. I would take the 3rd paragraph out and elaborate the idea of the 4th paragraph. Otherwise, looks good except for some spelling and grammar. A 4.5 or 5 to me.

Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. That formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits suggests that an education system which enforces a standard curriculum upon its students hinders their intelligence and will to do good in our world. In other words, formal education hinders creativity which inspires the intelligence and tenacity to innovate. In my opinion, any form of formal learning has to cope with our foibles and embrace them for what they are. Throughout society and in life, the evidence to support my viewpoint is pervasive. Consider the case of Lakeview Elementary, a school part of the formal education system in Harris County, Texas. The school follows a 4 subject course load for all its grade level students. Everyday, children from first to fifth grade study Mathematics, Social Science, Physical Science, and English; they do so during similar if not exact block intervals on a day by day basis. Consequently, children here are not presented the ability to explore their own interests from an early age, and rather succumb to the hackneyed routine given by such a curriculum. Eventually, the opportunity to explore innovation is passed by as these children’s minds become ingrained in their respective teaching environments. Another example is provided by a college student graduating the University of Houston class of 2014. J. Fred Thomassen applied to the school to study Computer Engineering because he realizes such a degree aligns with his interests of computers. While in school, he enjoyed exploring computer architecture delving into the history of such machines and taking courses that align with his interests. He fascinates at the fact of parallel computing and such intrigue freed his mind to explore the topic in depth within the curriculum provided by the college. Ultimately, the openness of the college’s education allowed my friend Fred to enrich his mind and spirit with what he enjoys best. Generally, formal education must, at times, compromise its own virtues for the spirit of individuality embraced by our minds. That formal education provides structure is generally good because students can have some uniform base of education to which other people or even institutions can compare. However, each person has unique interests that should not be hindered by a type of education. Nonetheless, formal education that restricts those people’s minds and spirits to an “approved” list of topics does harm to our society in restraining people’s freedom. Clearly, the examples above show that formal education works best when it allows for our minds and spirits to be set free. When an education enforces its own curriculum upon students, it hinders the chance of such individuals to study what they like. Education works best when there are a set of rules that allows for the uniqueness in our minds and spirits to be embraced upon.

The best way to teach—whether as an educator, employer, or parent—is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 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. That the best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones suggests that instructing others should mainly take the attitude of fawning pupils with praise. In other words, they should be commended for any good behaviors while dismissing any malign ones. In my opinion, those being taught must be prepared for the real world, and that includes realizing that actions lead to successes and failures. When the fledgling can embrace one but not the other, as an adult they fail to cope with the unexpected and become non-exemplar members of our society. Throughout society and in life, the evidence to support my viewpoint is pervasive. Consider the case of Mr. Thomassen’s first grade class of Lexington Bend Elementary, situated in Harris County, Texas. Mr. Thomassen employs a behavioral chart to mediate his students good and bad conducts. Their positive actions receive laurels in form of tangible prizes while their negative ones deem a punishment of isolation. By remediating both types of actions, Mr. Thomassen instills in his students the idea to do good while avoiding the malevolent. Moreover, the students are taught at an early age to be exemplar citizens, and hopefully, will carry this behavior forward as they age. Another example is one I came to learn while employed as a programmer at XYZ in 2009. I carried out my duties with ease, but I finished my projects sometimes off schedule. My manager praised my completed efforts, but he failed to acknowledge the failed deadline or even ask me for one before I began the next task. I realized that my boss, Fred Khanom, had a fawning attitude towards his subordinates, and I completely accepted what he had to offer. Ultimately, Fred’s meekness led to a complete project shutdown as it no longer had monetary resources to continue. More importantly, Fred taught me an important lesson that teaching to praise, while appealing to us subordinates, can have devastating consequences. Nonetheless, educators, employers, or parents must find a balance between praising positive actions and ignoring negative ones. Otherwise, the imbalance will lead to unsuccessful results for the one being instructed. Drill sergeants and sport coaches that emphasis the negative performances of their novice students risk damaging their confidence to the point of no return. The officer that repeatedly finds faults in a soldier will cause him or her to abandon their position. Likewise, would a football coach overly criticizing his player’s form and finesse. Clearly, the examples above show that praising positive actions and ignoring negative ones is not the best way to teach. Only by seeking a balanced approach to mediating the good and bad can instructors teach their pupils to become adept in the real world.

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. Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented. That college students should consider only their talents and interests when choosing a field of study suggests that personal factors are the motivating ones for the pursuance of an education. On the other hand, the statement that other collegiates should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field hints at a sense of practically guiding a vigilantly pragmatic soul. In my opinion, such individuals must have an avarice nature and thus utilize both factors when possible. Otherwise, the resolve when selecting a field of study lies with one’s personalities. Throughout society and in life, the evidence to support my view point is pervasive. Consider the case of Pepelo, an adamant young woman about to make her debut as a 2014 freshman of the University of Houston. Throughout her life, Pepelo grew a habit of being wary about the people she interacted with, and even at times doubted her own confidence. As her brother, I realized such emotions developed from a reoccurrence of mishaps during her lifetime. In elementary, she was scorned and later snubbed by her comrades. Moreover, Pepelo exaggerated the rare occurrences of her routs in some classes such as Literature and Biology. Ultimately, such happenstances accumulated into a timid girl who prefers the safe route, and as a result decided to enter the university with a major of Mathematics; the subject she most enjoyed, always excelled, and in great demand - financial, oil and gas, teaching, etc… all require some form of the subject! Another example involved J. Fred Thomassen, a recent graduate of the 2010 University of Texas class. Thomassen remained the complete opposite of Pepelo. He was guided by his own judgement, choosing classes based on his own personality. My good friend Thomassen was always intrigued by “how things work”, and therefore exited college with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Interestingly enough, his first job was with a oil and gas company, selling emulsifiers. Not satisfied by his work, Thomassen turned his priorities to securing a job as a Mechanical Engineer within the same company. Therefore, his strong perseverance secured him his ultimate desire of a job in his field of study. Basically, Thomassen’s personalities guided his career-based decisions. That college students must select their field of study aligned with their own desires or with the job market is a blanked statement that implies such individuals cannot have it all. This conjecture is clearly wrong. Planning for the future well ahead of one’s entry to college can merge the two choices. Stated otherwise, high-school students can shape their future to satisfy their own desires by formulating relationships with companies that offer the jobs they want. Furthermore, they can fill those jobs by participating in college internships that have the potential to change to full-time positions. Clearly, the examples above show that college students have a choice when deciding their field of study. Some people are guided by their own foibles, and therefore succumb to dictate their field of study based on practically or based on passion. Nonetheless, an open-minded student, with enough time and resolve, can well-prepare themselves for future careers they aspire for.

The explanations are straightforward, and the questions are in fact completely different from one another. The first question (from ETS) is of a normally distributed population of data. The upper and lower bounds of the percentile in interest are given so you can infer about the actual value. The second question (from Manhattan) does not tell you anything about the population of data. Furthermore, you have to extrapolate (rather than interpolate) the data. There is insufficient information to do this, so the answer is unknown. Good luck.

For sentence equivalence, I know of 2 strategies. 1. If you have a good vocabulary, then try to find the pairs of synonyms before diving into the question. This shouldn't take but more than 10 seconds. Usually, there are two pairs of synonyms and two answer choice irrelevant to the question. Next read the question, find the contextual clues, and pick your pair of synonyms. The context clues are pretty obvious. Most times they define the blank, relate the blank to some idea, or use shifts to oppose the aforementioned first and second point. 2. Do #1 but in reverse. Fill in the blank (Sentence completion?) 1. You will see 6 of these on the test of increasing order. 2. Context clues are key - The blank is either defined or part of some cause and effect to a general idea of the sentence. The blank may or may not be reversed by "shifts" in the sentence. 3. Vocabulary in context is key to these questions. 4. So is the understanding of the general idea the question is conveying. 5. For 2-3 blank questions, I usually find the 2nd or 3rd is the easiest to tackle. Sometimes other blanks can be solved separately of one another, but usually with the harder questions I find the "easiest" blank telltales the others. Good luck.

Issue essay #2 Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. That government officials should rely on their own judgment suggests such individuals must be iconoclasts to the ideals of a public servant. In other words, the elected fail to consider their constituents, and rather carry out civil duties based on their own moral reasoning. In my opinion, government officials must compromise their own judgment at times to satisfy the will of the people they serve. Otherwise, they run risk to being no better than an autocratic ruler. Throughout society and in life, the evidence to support my view is pervasive. Consider the case of Sugar Land’s Mayor Bigsby in the 1988 decision between a major landmark for humanity versus the business appeal for his town. Given one hundred thousand dollars of pork money by a super political action committee (PAC), Bigsby was forced to decide between a park for the animals or the construction of new homes. The former remained the will of Sugar Land’s denizens. They enjoyed the beauty of their town and hoped to expand upon it. The latter, in Bigsby’s eyes, was a gateway towards expansion of the city and a better lucrative opportunity as a result. The Mayor selected the latter option, and thus failed to do his job. His judgement eclipsed the fact that government officials have a duty to heed the will of the people they serve. Another example is provided by the January 1994 impeachment of debauched representative J. Fred Thomassen in Harris County, Texas. Resourceful Fred used any means necessary to carry out his duties, even while ignoring his friends honest advice in the process. He carried out shady schemes, making monetary deals with local companies in exchange for exemptions from local law. Thomassen attempted to elevate the county’s status and ended up doing the reverse. Although his constituents pleaded for improvement to the town’s unemployment status and overall quality of life, they remained in a much more rout position. Corruption killed the values of the town leading to rampant crimes and job losses. Had Thomassen stuck to the honest values of his people, he would have been in a better position today. More importantly, he would have successfully performed his duties as a public servant. Government officials that usually make decisions counter to the common opinion of their people have some reason in doing so, and the hoi-polloi must understand why. Sometimes the decisions are for long-term goals that undermine short-term ones supported by the common people. Others, however, involve aspects outside the realm of the people represented by a particular government official (e.g. county versus state). Consequently, our mayors, governors, or even senators support a bill unfriendly to our own interests. Rather than quickly jumping the gun, we should be wise as to hear their reasons in doing so; that is if they are communicated. Being reasonable denizens is our responsibility notwithstanding the fact that our liberties are not at stake. The latter provides grounds for vehemently opposing the particular public servant. Clearly, the examples above show that government officials must at times heed the will of its people. Bigsby learned that his victory can really be a failure in the eyes of a larger populace. As for Thomassen, he soon understood that the will of the people can be more powerful than his own autocratic rule. Ultimately, government officials are elected as public servants and must remember such as a preface to their own judgments.