YeeHaun Kim

Thanks again Naveen for the pointers. I have posted some comments on your essay too ;)

Thanks Naveen again for vetting my essay. For overall comments, the essay structure is very clear with good paragraphs. Sentences are also varied, both in length and in structure. It was a good read. 1. Minor grammar mistakes I'd recommend using http://www.grammarly.com to check for grammar, I find that helpful to get quick learnings before posting it online. I noticed both of your essays exhibited a bias in omitting determiners before a noun, which you could quickly improve by looking up this grammar rule alongside with appropriate exceptions to the rule on the web. Examples below: 2. Vocabulary application a. Since compassion is a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another, I don't think you meant compassion. Is dedication or devotion a better synonym for passion? b. Since extradite is to give up a criminal, did you mean expedite (to speed up)? 3. Rearrange the sentence for clarity Because this is a new paragraph, I felt lost at the first mention of "such issues" -> did you mean the everyday issues or complicated issues? Later in the paragraph, I realised you were discussing complicated issues. I thought the quote could be more concise and 'punchy', I'm not sure if you'd agree that this is better, just my thoughts. "Conclusively, such convoluted problems require the meticulous effort from a wide collection of perspectives, and the solution is usually not quotidian;" Hope this helps! :)

Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive. Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. Whilst I agree with the author that many of the cultural traditions are found in the major cities for many nations, I strongly disagree with the subsequent reasoning that cultural heritage should then drive financial support decisions. National budgets have rightfully been in the center of immense debate amongst politicians and the public because it is important to get this right; development plans are funded by taxpayers, for taxpayers. Hence, governments have the fiduciary duty to steward funds so that the country prosper economically. The financial investment decisions of a nation depend largely on whether the investment is likely to bring returns. It is a contrived argument that the cultural heritage of a city would bring in a large proportion of the nation's income; it might be possible for a small country like Vatican City, but it is much harder for that to be true in a large country, say China. Beijing is the capital city of China, rich in heritage, home to the imperial palace and the world renowned great wall of China. Although Beijing draws in millions of domestic and international tourists eager to visit this heritage, it is Shanghai the financial and business hub of China, that brings in a larger proportion of its national income. It would hence be prudent to consider the possible returns on investment based on the additional income it brings before deciding on the beneficiary of investments. Secondly, nonmajor cities should also be considered as candidates. Along the same lines of argument regarding returns on investment, investments in nonmajor cities could prove to be lucrative. Take Western Australia for example, the mining industry of Western Australia is a major contributor towards the Australian economy; it was a perspicacious move by the Australian government to ramp up infrastructure investments in Western Australia to facilitate the growth of the industry even though none of the major cities are found there. It is the investment potential that drives the economy, hence whether a city is considered major or not is a tangential discourse from the pith of the analysis. Thirdly, departing from the argument of maximizing the return on investments, we should note that imbalance in investments across the country should be monitored and arrested before any crisis arises. If the government runs the country based solely on mercenary principles, cities that possess some innate advantage, such as geography, may continue to attract financial support; other cities are left undeveloped and over time, civil struggles would become inevitable. Public goods like welfare and infrastructure should not be deemed as secondary objectives when juxtaposed against the objective of a thriving economy. In conclusion, although cultural heritage contributes towards the economy through tourism, it would be too myopic to direct financial support based on this sole reason. Financial investments should be based on a rational analysis like estimating the return on investment. That being said, governments should be concerned with more than just financial returns; prolonged neglect of any region could cause civil struggles that defeat the nation's original purposes for prosperity in the long term.

Thank you Naveen for your comments on my essay. 1. I think having some time to proofread your essay for grammar would be helpful; I think the following sentences are missing an article ('a' / 'the'). 2. I am not sure, I read this as information leaks in the hands of careless government employees, which is grammatically correct but different emphasis as the below. Did you mean Information falls into the hands of sabotagers. 3. Introduction: You might want to consider a more varied style of writing to exhibit a good command of the language as that is one of the factors in scoring. I would suggest not using on [one hand.... on the other hand...] for nirvana vs. terrorist and then also using that structure again for Hiroshima vs. source of energy. 4. Conclusion: I would suggest breaking out the concluding remarks as a fresh paragraph for clarity. Hope this helps and good luck!

Thanks Naveen, great pointers. I'll head over to one of your essays. Hi guys, I think I have enough feedback on this essay. I'll post another one soon seeking review. Thank you.

Thanks Ciptasari, great pointers! :)

Hi, Thank you for vetting my essay, here are my comments. There are a few mistakes that I believe you would be able to spot if you have saved some time for checking. For example I'm concerned that might pull the marks down more than the benefits from having an additional paragraph for example. The concepts are well segmented in the paragraphs and I could follow your argument. I think that the paragraph regarding expensiveness could be strengthened and I wasn't really convinced by the supporting argument of comparing the price of research vs. the cost of cutting an album in this context. Maybe, adding a dimension of national involvement would help bolster the comparison; lack of defence budget may affect citizens lives as conscription becomes necessary for example. I'm not sure, for your reference to think about. Did you mean morale instead of moral? Overall a cogent essay, all the best for GRE in a couple of days time!

Thanks.

For a certain quantity of a gas, pressure P, volume V and temperature T are related according to the formula PV = kT, where k is a constant. Quantity A: The value of P if V = 20 and T = 32 Quantity B: The value of T if V = 10 and P = 78 Question: Is A larger? B larger? A = B? Or the relationship between A and B cannot be determined? The book's suggested solution: Quantity A: P(20) = k(32) P = 1.6k Quantity B: (78)(10) = k (T) T = 780 / k When k = 1, A (=1.6) When k = 100, A (=160) > B(=7.8) Thus it suggests that (D), the relationship between A and B cannot be determined. However I disagree. Since k is a constant, we can do simultaneous equations to solve for A and B. Eq (1): P = 1.6k Eq (2): PV = kT -> (78)(10) = (78/1.6)T T = 780 * 1.6 / 78 = 16 Quantity B = 16 k = 78/1.6 = 48.75 Eq(1): P = 1.6 * 48.75 = 78 Quantity A = 78 Hence Quantity A > Quantity B. The answer should be (A) Am I missing something?

Thanks Lambda, appreciate the review. Those are great pointers for improvement.

Enjoyed reading your essay, I think there are a couple of grammar mistakes, which you might want to revisit (I might be wrong). For instance, the development of the now fashionable field of precision medicine can be hampered by the concept of race It’s stressful to spend substantial amounts of time on something one does not like. The conclusion could be stronger, recapping the three positions presented, I recognised that is due to a lack of time. If this helps you, could you also have a look at my essay @ http://www.www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-issue/157841-seeking-peer-marking-vet-mine-ill-vet-yours.html Thank you.

explore? The students should be allowed to choose their classes so they can experience what classes pique their interest? I think there are three ideas discussed here: (1) Different pace for students with different abilities (2) Exposure to non-core subjects (3) Immersion programs that expose students to professional work. Thus, see if this is better for the opening paragraph to guide the reader: The issue states all students in a nation should study the same curriculum until they enter college, however, this is not the best course of action to develop our future professionals. A rigid curriculum does not accommodate students differing aptitudes for the various subjects, and a common curriculum makes it difficult for schools to pick the relevant electives or immersion programs that would be beneficial for the growth of the student. Could you please vet my response in return? http://www.www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-issue/157841-seeking-peer-marking-vet-mine-ill-vet-yours.html Thank you.

Not sure if "imposing" a better word. See if this arrangement of [argument, example, effect] is better? Pure math and science classes devoid the opportunity for students apply critical thinking found in history and social studies classes. For instance, the debated ethical decision for the US to drop the atomic bomb on hundreds of innocent civilians to stop a cruel and catastrophic war. This unbalanced development of the student causes one to lose his competitive edge as the critical thinking part of the brain is not being regularly exercised. Uniformity [noun] does not equal excelling [verb]? Uniformity [noun] does not equal excellence? I detect a change in position for this paragraph, maybe add a transitionary phrase like "on the other hand"? I couldn't understand the first phrase, what are you trying to express? Could you please also rate my essay at http://www.www.urch.com/forums/gre-analysis-issue/157841-seeking-peer-marking-vet-mine-ill-vet-yours.html#post1005261 Thank you.

Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own. Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. Debates and discussions have been an integral part of learning. It is almost impossible for someone to become very skilled in what he or she is doing without making mistakes along the way. That is how people learn best, through making mistakes and having someone else point out the mistake and then subsequently learning from it. The vacuity of counter argument fosters a false sense of confidence. Taken to an extreme, in the short story of "Emperor’s new clothes", the Emperor is ridiculed by people as he paraded naked down the streets: there were no counter arguments against the "fine" clothing, but everyone learnt that the Emperor is unwise and gullible. The lack of counter arguments in this case, removed the chance for the Emperor to refine his credulity. In this article, I would discuss three main points of how contradicting views help ourselves to learn, followed by presenting a caveat where I think disagreement can indeed inhibit learning. Disagreements point out errors in the argument. It is counter arguments that refines the argument, making it tenable. In an environment where the leaders are against counter arguments, it is hard for the organisation to flourish. Members of the group, each weighing the possibility of being outcasted by the dictatorial leader against the absence of recognition achieved through pointing out areas of improvement, would simply choose the safe path of remaining silence. All views from the top remain unchallenged and comments from the bottom are tainted with insincere flattery. This is when the organisation stops learning and start failing. Disagreements also expose areas that are not considered in the initial process. Wisdom from the crowd works because of diversity: differing perspectives are necessary to gain a rounded view of the subject. For instance, the establishment of democracy is a system that believes that the public is right. With a large number of voters, the voters as a whole are able to elect able candidates into the government for the achievement of the greater good in society. The stress that results from disagreement forces the individual to think more thoroughly about the process before making a conclusion. Through an embarrassment, serving as a lesson for the lack of conscientiousness, the individual learns something that is more valuable than the content of the argument itself. One learns soft skills that is lays solid foundation for future achievements: the humility and introspective perspective to challenge oneself and to learn from others. Admittedly, there are cases where the disagreement could cause so much distress to the individual that inhibits learning. Malevolent peers or teachers who vocalized the disagreement in a manner that is insulting or corrosive in tone may shift the entire focus away from learning and can get personal. Understandably, neither the teacher nor the student learn anything meaningful other than reinforcing the biases and predisposition held. In these cases, it is no longer beneficial for learning. In conclusion, it is too sweeping a statement to consider that disagreement can cause so much stress that learning is inhibited. There are valid proponents for the existence of disagreements, but one should be mindful of the tone in which the disagreement is delivered in, so that the discussion remain objective and not personal.