Rococo

The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper. "Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. ******************************************************************** The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. It assumes what is true for Green Highway is also true for nearby Blue Highway. It also assumes that last year’s condition is unchanged until now. Moreover, it assumes the residents who are keen bicyclists will actually use a bicycle lane during rush hour. Thus, these assumptions if prove to be unwarranted the whole argument falls apart. The argument assumes that Blue Highway is similar to nearby Green Highway. Even if these two highways are close to each other, there may be significant differences such as may be Green Highway does not connects suburbs and city center rather it connects downtown to national highway where probability of accidents are higher. Highway plan and structure of Green Highway may be faulty. Had the argument taken into account that the two highways both between suburb and downtown, even then it must be prove that the structure and planning of these two highways are similar. Thus, if these two highways are not similar the argument falls apart. Another assumption is that what happened last years will also likely to happen in future. Even if these two highways are similar, may be last year the climate condition was worse than usual and there was excessive snow, rain or heat etc. which lead to increased traffic jams. Moreover, may be the city held some kind of world cup championship and many people came from outside the city which lead to more traffic. So it must be proved that last year’s condition was similar to typical condition, otherwise this argument won’t hold true. Finally, it assumes that residents who are keen bicyclists will actually use a bicycle lane and use bicycle for their commute. May be these residents use bicycle for their recreational activities or after work they may be exhaust and lack energy for their return home during rush hour. So it must be prove that they will actually willing to use bicycle in their everyday commute. If this assumption prove to be false then the argument will not be compelling. Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions it fails to make a convincing case that, a bicycle lane will reduce the rush-hour traffic jam in Blue Highway.

In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. 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. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Experts in a particular field are highly skilled, experienced and have systematic approaches, nonetheless unlike beginners, they lack unpredictability in their methods and may fail to think in a wide range which are essential in making any major discovery. Thus, in any field of inquiry, a beginner with enthusiasm and devotion can make crucial progress than a pundit in that field. It may seem an expert in a particular field with particular knowledge and experience can do more convincing inquiry than a dilettante in that particular field. But a beginner with lack of expertise may use unpredictable method of inquiry and get tremendous success. For example, many scientific discoveries that greatly shapes human culture, society, technology – as we know of today--are made by just mere accident. When lightening stroke causes fire in dry leafs, ancient human learnt how to use and manipulate fire. Moreover, vitamin-C found in lemon can be used to treat a disease known as “scurvy “: discovered by sailors in ships when they began to use lemon in their appetite. Even in modern era the famous physist Newton came up with his groundbreaking “Gravitational Theory” by merely observing an apple that fell from a tree. In field of archeology many expedition sites are discovered by apprentice archaeologists. Penicillin was discovered by Flemming just by happy chance. Thus, beginner can greatly contribute in their respective fields. Experts are highly experienced and have more systematic approach in dealing with a particular field; this may also lead them to become more stereotype. On the hand, fledglings can be more flexible in their thinking and their method can be peculiar to some of us but they can be highly effective. In other words beginners are more likely to think ‘out of the box’ than an expert. This free thinking ability can lead to more prolific and significant contribution in a particular field. For example, while military experts could not break the so called Enigma Code, an idiosyncratic scientist Alan Turing deciphered it successfully. Hence, these ardent beginners play an important role in exploring new phenomena in a particular field. It cannot be denied that expert personnel are more experienced, highly skilled and have more organized working methods that may lead to new discoveries and improvement that can help human society, culture, technology etc. Experts may even come up with a groundbreaking theory by using their methods. In the end, it can be said that both experts and beginners can make important contributions in their respective field of inquiry. However since beginners with their enthusiasm, unpredictable method and ‘out of the box’ thinking are more likely to come up with successful results. The challenge is to figure out how a beginner approaches and his/her devotion to the field of inquiry.

Availability: Any day after 7 PM (GMT +6). English level: medium Target TOEFL speaking anyone interested can reply to this thread TIA