charlesrc

Hello, Your essay is really well-written, I have not seen blatant mistakes in the development. Your examples are cool, well-developed and connected to the issue. I think you could try to put forward the idea of each of your paragraph, for example with a first sentence (I am french, so I may be too attached to concepts and ideas..). Doing so, each of your paragraphs would be a complete argument : idea + example illustrating the idea and connected to the issue. If I had to grade your essay I think it would be a 5. With one more example or idea, you would clearly get a 5.5 or a 6. I also tried to work on this subject, if you could give it a read, it'd be cool. Best Charles MY ESSAY : As the economic crisis is still looming on the developed countries’ horizon, the government’s funds invested in research has decreased in some countries. It has become necessary for research teams to market their works and to be competitive so as to be granted government’s financial help. The question of the selection of these funded projects among others has then become of paramount importance. The given statement advocates that states should fund research projects depending on their possible dropouts. I totally disagree with this statement as applying this policy could jeopardize some fundamental research works. This argument completely pushes aside the serendipity of research, though the potential fallouts of a research program can be put forward when looking for funds in other none-governmental institutions. Research is all about serendipity, and cutting funds for « unclear » projects which can not precisely forecast their possible fallouts would kill research in some years, as every applied project has a theoretical background, and the connections between the two was not forecastable at first sight. For instance, when Pierre & Marie Curie studied the properties of Uranium’s isotopes, they did not expect to discover radioactivity. If an investor had decided not to fund their works because they could not predict they would discover radioactivity, it would certainly have changed history, and not in a good way, as many developed countries still rely on nuclear power. Besides, the connections between fundamental and applied research cannot be forecast in general, and putting some kind of pressure on fundamental researchers’ shoulders will not bring more applied results. Serge Haroche, 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics, expressed his doubts concerning the current policy of research-funding, as the first question he was asked when being awarded the Nobel Prize was « What is the use of your discovery? ». Actually, he did not even know, and did not care a lot, as he considers it is not fundamental researchers’ work. And threatening labs will not boost research, as one can not run a lab like a company. On the contrary, it will push researchers to publish less documented papers, because of the pressure. As it is not the government’s duty to fund on the basis of the clearness of results, I would say there are other institutions that fund research following this principle : the army and private companies. For instance, Google has know a vast collection of labs in a really wide range of subjects from Biology to fundamental Mathematics. They have a huge amount of money to fund many research projects. Actually, they are funding a Quantum Computer project with the NASA at the moment. So even when research projects cannot find government’s fund, they can turn their back on state to look for funds at research-centered private companies. This kind of funding led to the boom in telecommunications thanks to Bell Labs in the twentieth century. To conclude, I would say that this type of funding endanger research in general, so the government should not follow this principle. However, some other institutions can provide applied projects with money, as they will never lack money.

Hello everyone, I have been practicing some GRE tests for several days, and I would need some feedback so as to realize if I have made some progress (or not). I took a mock GRE exam yesterday with the following argument, and I would be really grateful if someone could have a look at what I wrote on the subject. Best, Charles ARGUMENT : The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist. "Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures." MY ESSAY : In the given extract from Dr. Karp’s works, the author exposes a strongly critical viewpoint over Dr. Field’s research works on Tertia’s traditions. His analysis clearly lacks some evidence which could corroborate his deduction or prove his acid critics to be unfounded. Dr. Karp’s assumes, without any evidence, that his work and Dr. Field’s study the same society, while 20 years have gone by. We do not have any information concerning the evolution of Tertia’s people during the last two decades, and even if this society lives on an island, we could imagine some events that would have drastically changed their lifestyle. For example, the island could have become a touristic destination, and the people of Tertia would be often in contact with people from more developed societies. Dr. Karp needs to check there has not been such an upheaval in this society’s recent history and that traditions have kept on being transmitted over the last two decades. Besides, the anthropologist also clearly assumes the « group of islands » he is studying is relevant and representative of Tertia’s people. The results he is talking about, as they concern a whole groupe of islands including Tertia, could be not representative at all of Tertia’s traditions if the other people do not share them. The researcher should then prove the sample of island he is working on is representative with the considered problem : they share Tertia’s way of rearing the young. He also assumes without evidence that his interview-based technique is relevant and different from Dr. Field’s works. There is no proof this technique reflects the way children are reared, as we do not have any information concerning the questions asked, the amount of children interviewed… For example, if the adults from Tertia were used to teaching the young to cherish their parents, it would be normal that children speak a lot about them, though they are raised by the whole village. If Dr. Fields wants to defend his technique, he should first prove its concept, giving us the evidence it is representative of the way children are reared. Moreover, giving the responsibility of the work to a team « of graduate students » may be not enough to revoke the work of an experienced researcher. To conclude, the given extract is clearly too critical compared to the amount of evidence that lacks in its deduction. Dr. Karp should bring them to the readers so as to prove his technique is really more convenient and to prove Dr. Field’s results’ are wrong.

Hello everyone, I have been practicing some GRE tests for several days, and I would need some feedback so as to realize if I have made some progress (or not). I took a mock GRE exam yesterday with the following issue "Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws." I would be really grateful if someone could have a look at what I wrote on the subject. Best, Charles While many protest mouvements have pushed people to get to the street in the last decade, one can observe that people’s capacity of revolting against unfair laws is still (at?) the foundation of democracy. Laws and regimes can change many times, evolve every year, but what is fair abides by superior principles that stay quite the same as the years go by. It leads us to ask the question of people’s responsibility to distinguish between lawful and fair laws, as the given claim clearly assumes there is a difference between these two notions, and I totally agree with this necessary discrepancy. When observing the amelioration of people’s rights in France after the French revolution, it is obvious that this responsibility is at the heart of our modern developed societies. I think that Every law-abiding citizen should be aware, and endlessly endeavor to understand the laws and to make out what is fair from what is simply lawful (and could change in some time). It is for example a principle in France’s judiciary system : « One should not ignore the law. ». This principle gives responsibility to the people as they do not have the right to hide behind their ignorance when committing an infraction. Besides, this responsibility can even turn into a duty when times get darker, when one has to defend its rights, what he considers to be fair and that a regime or a law prevents him from being free to do. During French Occupation, some people realized they were responsible for defending their freedom and resisted this terrible regime. They even had to put their lives at risk so as to defend their basic rights. However, one should not consider this responsibility as a gift : it has to be smartly used, by well-taught citizens. Otherwise, protests become habits and every future revendication looks like some spoiled children’s demand. Using this right too much, when it is not necessary, can make the revendications lose their meaning. It also has to be used the right way, as using violence is definitely not always the answer : one can witness the hell-like situation going on in Syria at the moment. To conclude, I think it is necessary that every citizen be aware of this responsibility he or she gets when living in one of our modern developed society. However, one should not take this right for granted, always defend it when threatened, and use it the right way to as to be sure it keeps the same meaning.