orangesun

Which schools are you applying to? What percentile are your scores, and please post your AWA score when you receive it. To me, the verbal scores seems quite low, although your quantitative score is excellent! It might be worth retaking. Perhaps you had a bad day that day, or you got unlucky with the questions, especially the first few that count the most. So yeah, if you have the chance to take it again, I would suggest brushing up on your verbal skills and retaking it.

Those scores are not that bad, although the quantitative score could be higher for engineering schools (since you're applying to one of the top 7). Your verbal score is decent as well. 5.0 is not bad, don't be discouraged by the percentile. They only come in .5 increments so there are only 2 numbers higher than yours so there are large percentage jumps between the scores. But 5.0 is good (above average), considering the average is around 4.0 or so. The risk involved in taking it again is that you might do worse. Even if you do not do worse, improving slightly does not make a big difference on the overall application. And there is always a chance you get the same score, furthering drawing attention to the scores which you were worried about in the first place. Thus, unless you are confident you can do significantly better next time (improving by 100 points or more on a section, or in your case, getting something higher than 5.0 on the AWA), I don't think you should retake them. However, if you have time to study and think you are able to improve your AWA scores significantly, then by all means go for it. Are you only worried about your AWA? If so, I really don't think a 5.0 should warrant a retake. Besides, I don't think engineering schools look too much at the AWA and Verbal Scores that much, as long as they are somewhat above average. I think if the rest of your application is strong (and from what you said about your references and work experience it seems that's the case) you shouldn't worry about it too much.

I don't remember the exact scores, but on the real tests the verbal scores (I didn't really do any math) were around 700, between 580 and 800. Several were around 650, 620, and 730. On the Kaplan I think around 780, PowerPrep 740 and 750, and around 650 in Arco.

There are two more years left until I am a senior (I am taking a year off this year to focus on research so in two years I will graduate). Also, I got my AWA score yesterday: 6.0. =) Of course, I'll still visit this forum from time to time although I have finished my GREs. Scores/Percentiles Q800 / 92% V760 / 99% AWA 6.0 / 96%

great score! congrats! :)

yup, practicing to take the gre, power prep, by ETS I just meant real practice tests and not imitations made by a prep company or anything

On the verbal section, the pattern is very much like the PowerPrep in terms of difficulty and format. At least on my test, the quantitative section was the same too, although I have heard that for some people the actual GRE quantitative questions are more difficult. I don't recall what is actually in Barron's list, but I'm sure there were a lot of words from there. No obscure words though.

And still waiting for my writing score to come in (expecting around a 5.5). I'm glad it's finally over and I got it out of the way. Read on if you want to hear how I prepped for the test. Date taken June 9th, 2005 9:00 AM appointment The test At first, the guy at the testcenter misread the expiration date on my passport (he read Jun 7 2005 as Jun 7 2005) and informed me that it had recently expired. I hadn't checked the expiration date so I assumed that he was right, and just as I was phoning someone to ask her to get another form of identification, he realized his mistake and everything continued. We have to sign a form pledging not to reveal anything about the actual tests questions to any "person or entity". So the writing section came first, then verbal, then math. The writing went okay, although I just barely finished in the last few seconds before time ran out. Verbal was okay, one of the RC I received was pretty obscure, which is probably where I missed all my points. Math was straightforward, no tricks there. One thing that threw me off was getting two of those data/graphs sets instead of one, since these questions take me a little longer than the others to do. The testroom was very quiet and comfortable and they had earmuffs that block out any noise. Only one other girl was there taking the GRE that day, I think. You're not allowed to take any extraneous items into the testroom, not even pencils, which are provided by them. At the end of the test, I had an experimental verbal section, which they indicate is for researches purposes and your score will not be reported. It 45 minutes with 35 questions, and probably will reflect the form of the new GRE to be effective starting October 2006. Anyway, again I'm glad it's over with and I never have to worry about it again. Although, soon I will GRE Subject tests in math and physics to worry about :(. I will be applying to graduate school two years from now in electrical engineering =) But for now, no more GRE! Best of luck to anyone who takes the test in the future! Preparation Overall, to prepare for the exam, I did about 3 full weeks of intense (about 10 hours each day) studying up until my exam on June 9th. Also, last summer I had done some preparation, but it mostly light studying that involved just doing some practice tests if I had free time, and learning some new vocab. The total studying from last summer probably only amounts to one full week of intense studying. Books/Resources -PowerPrep (verbal lessons and practice tests) -Other Real tests (about 50 total. e.g., practicing to take the GRE. by real tests, I just meant real practice tests with questions that appeared on actual GREs administered by ETS as opposed to imitations made by a prep company or something) -Non-official materials: Kaplan (2 books, one for CAT GRE, one containing one practice test), Barrons, Princeton Review (WordSmart, Cracking the GRE), Arco (one on CAT GRE, one on MAT, although the second wasn't very helpful), some others as well -Other resources: Forums, such as TM, vocabulary lists online Math I didn't do any preparation for the math part contentwise, but I did do all all the practice tests (I believe there were 4 of them) in the Kaplan book, and the day before I took the GRE, I did one of the math tests on the PowerPrep 3.0 (I saved one of the PowerPrep tests for the day before the exam). Verbal For the verbal part, I mostly focused on improving my reading comprehension skills, since that was my major weakness, and memorizing some more words (although the vocabulary wasn't a big problem for me). I did about 10 LSAT practice tests (the RC part only), in addition to all the verbal questions in my practice books. Also I reviewed all the old vocabulary that I knew, and learned a lot of new words. To improve my vocabulary, I kept a vocabulary notebook and wrote down all the words I didn't know in every practice test I did or came across otherwise. I typed up a lot of vocabulary lists, ranging from 30-200 words, and memorized them in one sitting. I did this a little less than ten times, picking up about 500-1000 new words in these few weeks, my vocabulary was already relatively strong from before. I did a bunch of practice tests, verbal parts only. Probably over 60 in all, although I didn't do any of the reading sections from most of the older tests and some of the other tests I never got around to. Writing I spent about two or three full days preparing for the writing part. The only commercial resources I used was the Arco book and a Kaplan book on AWA essays for the GRE and GMAT. I also looked online on forums (including this one) to see some examples of essays that other people had written to get an idea of what to write about. Also, last summer I did read through some sample essays, and got a general idea of the argument section. I even worked through a bunch of analytical/logical reasoning from the old format problems to improve my argument skills. So anyway, during the three days I spent prepping for the writing part, for the first day or two, I focused on the argument part, and wrote about 5-10 practice essays. I tried reading through every argument and jotting down notes for each one but just didn't have time, since I was doing this with less than 3 days left until the exam. Then I spent a few hours reading through the issues (read over about 90% of them), wrote down some ideas for the topics I might have trouble with, and wrote one practice essay. Preparation tips For the verbal part, to improve RC and vocabulary, the best long-term strategy is, of course, to read. I would recommend New York Times (even the online version at nytimes.com. this can provide some ideas for the issue essay on the AWA and keep you an informed citizen as well), and I hear the New Yorker is also good and representative of the types of passages the GRE draws its questions from. However, if you're really tight on time, like I was, memorizing word lists is not a bad idea. Keep a vocabulary notebook, and write down all the words you don't know that you come across. To really make memorizing words worthwhile, it really helps to go back to words you came across earlier, otherwise you will end up forgetting the words you learned in a few days. You can also write the original context you found them in; for instance, I wrote the analogy or the antonym the word originally appeared in. Some people like to write the sentence they originally appeared in but that takes too long so I didn't do that. Start your preparation early, and be sure to occassionally review previous words. For the writing part, I would suggest becoming familiar with the topics and writing a few practice essays. Read through several of the sample essays in the Arco book - the author is a fantastic writer. Although knowledge beyond that of a normal person is not assumed for the writing part, it doesn't hurt to pick up some ideas for the issues from newspapers or the radio. Good luck!!

thanks for the reply. i think "double" is supposed to be "doubt" (i found this question online so it was probably just a typo), which would make more sense.

can someone please explain these bridge? MOTIVE : DEED :: double : question ELLIPSIS : WORD :: apostrophe : letter i know the motive of a deed is the reason for doing something, but what is a double?? i don't have the other answer choices.

The English novelist thackeray considered the cult of the criminal so dangerous that he criticised Dickens' oliver twist for making the characters in the theives kitchen so ... threatrening riveting conniving fearsome irritating the novelist criticized Dickens for depicting such a fascinating/enticing/ riveting character steep relax repulse plummet clarify parch (steep = to soak) recumbent well fortified standing up lacking flexibility constricted alarmed (recumbent = leaning/resting) gratuitous thankless warranted trying discreet spurious (gratuitious = freely given, unwarranted) Diversity is essential inspite of the fact that it ... a universal acceptance of a single doctrine underlies entails reserves precludes presupposed (diversity prevents the acceptance of a single doctrine) tender:acceptance publish:wisdom exhibit:inspection scrutinise:foresight authorise:approval declare:observation (X is to prepare for Y)

illumination is decorative lighting on a manuscript. frieze is something decorative on a wall

Please critique my outline, thanks! 57. Zorba The following appeared in a newsletter on nutrition and health. "Although the multimineral Zorba pill was designed as a simple dietary supplement, a study of first-time ulcer patients who took Zorba suggests that Zorba actually helps prevent ulcers. The study showed that only 25 percent of those ulcer patients who took Zorba under a doctor's direction developed new ulcers, compared to a 75 percent recurrence rate among ulcer patients who did not take Zorba. Clearly, then, Zorba will be highly effective in preventing recurrent ulcers and if health experts inform the general public of this fact, many first-time ulcers can be prevented as well." Conclusion : Zorba is effective in preventing ulcers, and if the public is informed first-time ulcers can be prevented Premises -A study suggests that Zorba helps prevent ulcers (25% of those who took Zorba developed ulcers, 75% recurrence rate who did not take Zorba) A.) Questionable study -sample size is unclear -medicine was taken under a doctor’s direction, unclear whether the dose was the same -other conditions of the two groups the same? -did patients take any other medicine at this time, unclear. Perhaps people who were taking Zorba felt they needed to supplement this with another medicine (i.e., confounding variables that may have led to the difference between control and experimental group), and it was another pill that accounted for the low recurrence rate -what was the severity of the ulcers? -the significance of the percentages is unclear. Assuming the study was valid, perhaps another medicine works even better, possibly curing all recurrences -representative of the entire population? B.) Perhaps the medicine was not the cause for the difference in the numbers -incorrectly attributes a lower recurrence rate, at least partly, to Zorba -Perhaps the improvement in recurrence rate was caused by other factors as well that only the group who took Zorba possessed. ulcers can be related to health/nutrition. Ulcer recurrence rate can vary within individuals, perhaps not related to amount of Zorba taken. E.g., supplemented intake of Zorba w/ other medicines, more motivated/careful to cure ulcers, people in the first group generally healthier to begin with, better health habits, etc. C.) Informing the public does not necessarily mean -even if the medicine is effective, does not mean that people will buy it (some people might not want to be treated or not concerned about their health, some might prefer other medicines, some people might be allergic, concern side-effects, economic differences between people) -even if they buy it, they need to follow the prescription, take it correctly, etc. -even if it is effective in preventing reoccurrence of it, the assumption that it is also effective to prevent first-time ulcers is groundless. First-time ulcers can have fundamentally different causes than recurrence of ulcers D.) Possibility of other medicines -unclear what the authority of these “health experts” are -not compared to other medicines, perhaps another medicine is more effective -side effects not mentioned, perhaps the side effects outweigh the benefits of the medicine. Perhaps the prevention of ulcers are only temporarily prevented

Please rate my logic, thanks! 58. The following appeared in an article from a popular newsmagazine. 58The following appeared in an article from a popular newsmagazine. "In 1888 a stone was unearthed in northern Wisconsin with an inscription in an old Scandinavian alphabet and bearing the date 1362. Scandinavians were not, however, exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century. Recent analysis proves, in fact, that the stone had been buried in the spot where it was found for no more than 100 years. Moreover, the community near the discovery site was home to a group of people who had formed a club to study medieval Scandinavian culture—a period that includes the fourteenth century. The stone, therefore, is not a genuine artifact of medieval Scandinavian culture inscribed in the fourteenth century but most likely a hoax perpetrated by the group." Conclusion - the stone found was probably a hoax Premises 1.) Scandinavians were not exploring or emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteenth century 2.) Recent analysis shows that the stone had been buried for less than 100 years. 3.) A group of people near the site had formed a club to study medieval Scandinavian culture A.) People other than Scandinavians brought the stone to the area -evidence presented is insufficient to prove that the stone had not existed since 1362 -the Scandinavians don't need to be emigrating or exploring Wisconsin for the stone to be created -perhaps they had been living for a while (so they were not considered immigrants in the US) and did not go on explorations, but still carved characters onto stone -possible that Scandinavians were actually exploring/emigrating to northern Wisconsin in the fourteen century but wasn't recorded -perhaps made by craftsmen who were not scandinavian but knew the written characters of Scandinavia -brought there by merchants from Scandinavia -evidence to show who brought the stone there B.) is the method used in the recent analysis reliable? -presents no evidence of reliability of the the recent analysis or the methods used -need further scientific analysis of the stone! C.) even if the recent analysis was reliable, there is no justification for a hoax and no justification for the conclusion -he assumes that the artifact is a hoax, and furthermore claims that it is perpetuated by the group of people near the site. -the fact that the stone had been buried less than 100 years cannot account for the possibility that it had actually existed in the 14th century but wasn't buried until recently. -e.g., it could have been previously owned by someone and not buried, displayed in a museum, lying on the floor but not buried, or it wasn't brought into Wisconsin until recently, Scandinavians left the stone in another part of the US, which got transferred to Wisconsin, etc. (many possibilities) -possible that ppl other than Scandinavians brought the stone to the area for cultural, educational reasons, etc. owned by someone, then after hundreds of years it was discarded, then covered by soils -someone from American journeyed to Scandinavia, and brought the stone back to Wisconsin, or somewhere else then eventually it got transferred to Wisconsin -evidence to show whether the stone is a hoax, or if it is an authentic stone but simply been moved over 100 years ago D.) granted that it is a hoax, it does not mean that it is perpetuated by the people near the group. -the author questionably equates a temporal relationship between the group and the artifact to a cause and effect relationship. -possible that it had been planted there by someone else -perhaps it wasn't planted, but some people from Scaninavia could have visited northern Wisconsin and brought the stone from their homeland, and left it on the floor -if it is a hoax, evidence to show who actually moved it -unless the author considers and elminates all other plausible causes of this, the argument is subject to criticism

Please critique my argument outline! 61. Eyleria The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria. "Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years." 1.) 1:5 ratio does not mean that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily. -this is an average, some regions have less than this ratio. it's possible that some schools don't even have computers. author overlooks gap between rural and urban regions. quite possible that in impoverished towns and villages, access to a computer is only a dream, not a daily routine as suggested by the article. -even in a school that has such a ratio, all students do not necessarily have access to use computers daily whenever they want to. for intsance, if every student wanted to use the computer at once, five may have to share. 2.) 1:7 ratio doesn't mean by the time they graduate they will be proficient -again, not necessarily every student will be able to access a computer -even assuming that this number is sufficient to afford a decent education, just having available computers doesn't assume proficiency -i.e., students must be motivated, time spent using computer is relevant, there must be educational things to do on the computer, willing to do the work, the curriculum must be effective. a lack of this support would undermine the author's argument. on the contrary, the author could strengthen his argument by showing that having a computer would necessarily lead to computer proficiency. 3.) there are many reasons to spend money on computers or other technology -even provided that the current 1:7 ratio is sufficient to ensure that students will be proficient in computer tech, this is not the only reason to spend money -author unfairly infers that technology will remain unchanged over time. absent evidence to support this highly unlikely inference, it is just as likely that computer technology can change in the next few years, will need to spend money to accomodate for this, pay for changes in curriculum, replace/repair computers, printers, upgrading hardware/software etc, to pay to upgrade skills -spending money for other technology is necessary, perhaps in engineering and areas outside of computer technology

Please give me feedback on the logic of my argument, you don't need to comment on anything else, as this would be the most helpful for me. i.e., does what I say logically make sense, and do I effectively address all the fallacies? 60. Glenntown Pets The following appeared in the health section of Glenntown's local newspaper. "Several national medical studies suggest that older people who have pets tend to enjoy better health than those who do not have pets: those who have pets have lower rates of high blood pressure and arthritis. It seems clear that having to care for an animal promotes good health for the older person. Therefore, Glenntown should establish a program to give a small pet such as a dog or cat to all of its citizens who are over the age of 65. This will help to insure that our senior citizens enjoy good health and have fewer medical bills." This argument concludes that Glenntown should establish a program to give its senior citizens small pets to ensure good health. To support his conclusion the author cites a national study suggesting that older people with pets are healthier than those without pets. He further claims that keeping pets will lead to fewer medical bills. At first glance the author's recommendation seems to be a reasonable recommendation since common sense indicates that owning a pet would lead to more physical activity and promote good health. However, a close examination of the argument reveals that the conclusion is fundamentally flawed and it ignores certain assumptions. The national medical studies themselves are problematic in several respects. First, the age group of the "older people" is not specified, and it is unclear whether this refers to citizens over the age of 65 for which the recommendation is given. Moreover, a person's health is determined by more than just high blood pressure and arthritis, which, in the article, are the only two indicators used to gauge health. The study does not specify what type of pets owned by the people in the study. If they referred to large pets such as a horse or large dog, the author's recommendation to give citizens small pets would be less valid. In addition, the author relies on the unfounded assumption that people with lower rates of high blood pressure and arthritis are healthier than those with higher rates of these two diseases. However, this is not necessarily true, and it is entirely possible that a people who do not have high blood pressure or arthritis suffer from other severe health problems, such as cancer, anemia, bronchitis, or other health problems. The sample size, and how the study was conducted, is unclear. It is entirely possible that this study is too narrow to be widely representative; there is simply not enough information to determine the applicability of the study - the larger the sample size, the more representative the study. Without ruling out the foregoing possibilities and showing that the study is representative, the author's line of reasoning remains questionable. Furthermore, the author assumes that the good health of the people in the study is attributable, at least partly, to the ownership of pets. Yet the correlation amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the better health is caused by other factors as well that appeared only in people who own pets but not in other people. For instance, perhaps people who own pets are the people who possess a healthy lifestyle, making them more likely to exercise and have good health. He also fails to consider the possibility that owning pets led to good health, but through a third factor. For instance, perhaps owning pets tends to relieve stress, and it is reduction in stress that leads to a lower incidence of high blood pressure and arthritis. Thus, an indirect factor could have led to better health, a possibility to readily dismissed by the author. The writer clearly needs to establish the causality between owning pets and good health in order to make his argument more persuasive. Granted that owning small pets leads to better health, the author must demonstrate that the program will be successful and lead to fewer medical bills. Simply giving a dog or a cat to a senior citizen who does not care about his or her health, for example, would be utterly useless. Some pets may carry troubles with them, such as spread diseases, cause chaos in the house, and do other things that could cause intense stress to the citizen, exacerbating any health problems and even cause the owner to develop high blood pressure. Therefore, it is clear that giving a pet to someone does not automatically mean their health will improve, especially if the person was not even motivated to improve his own health in the first place. Admittedly, if people's health improves as a result of owning pets, some of their medical bills may go down. However, the author fails to consider the possibility that new health problems may arise, and the decrease in medical costs for themselves could be offset by an increase in the medical bills for the pets. Owning pets could very well increase health related problems. For instance, if a person has an allergy to cats, owning a cat could lead to large medical bills to treat allergies. Pets can also transmit other deadly diseases to humans, and if the family consists of several people, medical costs would be further compounded rather than reduced. In fact, all pets will incur some medical costs themselves, such as those for routine checkups, rabies shots, and so on. They can be costly to maintain, as the owner may need to spend a large amount of money on food, toys, cages, and so on. Clearly, the author could strengthen his argument by presenting a more convincing case that the program will be successful, perhaps by documenting the medical costs. Finally, the author fails to consider that there are other ways to achieve good health, such as a well-balanced diet, apt exercise, and healthy lifestyle habits. In fact, a good health is achieved by a combination of these and other methods, which may include the benefits of owning a pet. Because the author does not rule out these alternatives, the soundness of his argument is undermined. In summary, the argument presented in the newspaper is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that people of Glenntown should be given small pets to promote better health does little to prove that conclusion, since it does not address the assumptions raised above. As already explained, the argument can be strengthened by establishing the causality between owning pets and good health, showing that the study is representative, presenting evidence that the program will be effective, and ruling out alternatives to achieve the same goal.

Your essay is very well organized, I would give it a 6.0. The introduction and conclusion are probably longer than necessary, and on the real test you probably won't have the time to write such a long essay. I noticed you ask a lot of rhetorical questions, which is not a bad thing.

Hi! Could you please give me some feedback to this argument essay? I am interested in comments about the overall aspects of my essay. Did I mention all the important logical fallacies, and did I draw any incorrect conclusions? Thanks so much! 59. Sunspots The following appeared in an article in the health section of a newspaper. "According to the available medical records, the six worst worldwide flu epidemics during the past 300 years occurred in 1729, 1830, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 1977. These were all years with heavy sunspot activity—that is, years when the Earth received significantly more solar energy than in normal years. People at particular risk for the flu should therefore avoid prolonged exposure to the Sun." This argument concludes that based on a correlation between flu epidemics in several years and the heavy sunspot activity in those years that the former is attributable, at least partly, to the latter. He further claims people who are at risk of developing the flu should avoid prolonged exposure to the sun. At first glance the author's suggestions seems to be a reasonable recommendation for preventing the flu. However, a close examination of the argument reveals that the conclusion is not entirely convincing and ignores certain crucial assumptions. To begin with, the most crucial flaw is that the writer attributes the cause of the flu epidemic to heavy sunspot activity. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps the flu is caused by other factors as well that occurred much more in these years than in other years. For instance, perhaps in those years people had abnormally bad hygiene, causing them to get sick more than in other years. The living environment and availability of medical facilities cannot be ruled out as possible causes either. It is also entirely possible that the increased sunspot activity indirectly caused the flu epidemic, not through sun exposure, but, rather, through a third factor. For instance, perhaps the sunspot activity caused a change in the physical conditions on the earth, atmospheric changes, or even insect behavior. For instance, it is entirely possible that a change in insect behavior explains the increased flu epidemic, especially if there was an increased tendency of insects to transmit the flu disease in those years. Thus, an indirect result from the sunspot activity could have led to a worldwide flu epidemic, a possibility too quickly dismissed by the author. Thus, the writer clearly needs to establish the causality between the flu and the sunspot activity to make his argument more convincing. Additionally, granted that the sunspot activity causes flu epidemics and that the worst flu epidemics did take place in those six years, the author relies on the assumption that increased sunspot activity automatically means more sun exposure. No matter how much energy from the sun is coming in to the earth, to a large degree people actively control the amount of time exposed to the sun. It is even possible that in those years the flu became an epidemic because people deliberately avoided exposure to the sun, especially if people anticipated incorrectly that less sunlight means less risk of flu. Furthermore, the medical records themselves may be problematic in several respects. For instance, the accuracy of these records is questionable, since it is possible that in the 1700's and 1800's records of flu outbreaks and sunspot activity were incomplete and not available in every country. Even with the aid of technology in recent years, recent records may not be reliable, since any data recorded by human beings are subject to error. In choosing the years with the worst flu epidemics, the author needs some way to decide which flu epidemic is worst than another - is this determined by the number of people who become affected by the disease, or determined by the severity of the symptoms of the disease? In any case, there could be many undocumented cases of even worse flu epidemics, especially those in poor countries where traceable medical records are unlikely. Only six points are analyzed, and may be too narrow to be widely representative. Without presenting more evidence about the accuracy of the data, the author cannot expect me to blindly accept their veracity. Finally, the author relies on the line of reasoning that people at risk for the flu are the same people who would get the flu. However, the study provides no indication that these are the same groups of people - the statistics only consider people who have already developed the flu. He does not define the meaning of "prolonged" or indicate exactly how much exposure would put someone at risk of developing the flu. Therefore, to strengthen his line of reasoning, the author should define terms such as prolonged exposure more clearly. In conclusion, the argument presented in the article of the newspaper is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that people at risk of developing the flu should avoid exposure to the sun does little to prove that conclusion, does it does not address the assumptions raised above. As already mentioned, the argument could have been strengthened by establishing the causality between the flu and sunspot activity, demonstrating that more energy from the sun means more sun exposure, ascertain the accuracy of the medical records, and define certain terms more clearly. Until then, the speaker's recommendation cannot be justified.

Here is my essay, could you please give me some feedback? -I didn't do this under time pressure, since this is the first essay I wrote and I was writing this more for practice to get familiar with the questions than for speed. I took my time with this and took over an hour. -Have I mentioned all the important logical fallacies? -I feel like I was being wordy at times - what can I cut out without decreasing the overall effect of the essay? -I used some "template" transition phrases that might seem stiff and repetitive, but of course there will be more sentence variety with more practice. -I have organized my paragraphs by addressing each major assumption. Is this okay? Should paragraphs 3 and 4 be combined into one? Thanks! 63. Stanley Park When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: the recordings showed an average of only 50 cars per day. In contrast, tiny Carlton Park in the heart of the business district is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday. An obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides ample seating. Thus, if Stanley Park is ever to be as popular with our citizens as is Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide more benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing. Conclusion: Stanley Park should provide more benches for people to socialize in order to become more popular Premise That the number of cars in the parking lot as shown in the video cameras has decreased Carlton Park, is more popular, and notes that this park provides more ample seating Assumptions Stanley Park popularity is declining Carlton Park is heavier used than Stanley park Carlton Park is more popular than Stanley Park because of more seats Providing more seats would lead to more visitors This argument's conclusion is that Stanley Park should provide more benches for people to socialize in order to become more popular. To justify this conclusion the argument points out that the number of cars in the parking lot as shown in the video cameras has decreased. Also, the argument points out that another park, Carlton Park, is more popular, and notes that this park provides more ample seating. However, the conclusion is not entirely logically convincing, since it ignores certain crucial assumptions. To begin with, the author relies on the questionable assumptions that the popularity of Stanley Park is declining and that Carlton Park is more heavily used than Stanley Park; the unsoundness of these assumptions are revealed when one closely analyzes the data presented. For instance, he presents no perspective for the statistics such as the averages in past months, or exactly how much the number of cars shown in the recordings have dropped, possibilities that could indicate that the data presented was simply an anomaly. For instance, it is entirely possible that in past months, the number of cars shown was quite high. Furthermore, he fails to take into account the fact that the number of cars visible in a video camera screen does not necessarily equal the number of people, as some people travel by foot, scooters, bikes, or motorcycle, and the number of people carried by a single car varies, and for this reason, this number cannot be compared with the number of people in Carlton Park. Without knowing more about the study, it cannot be ruled out that there were actually more cars in the parking lot than that shown on the screen. This could occur, for example, of the video camera does not capture the full range of the parking lot, or if some cars are hidden behind others and thus would not be "shown" on the screen. Even if the number of cars equaled the number of people, it is always a possibility that this number does not indicate the number of people actually visiting the park, especially if people tend to use the parking lot of the park even when they do not intend to go into the park. The comparison of the statistics is also questionable - in Stanley Park, weekends are included when calculating the average number of cars per day while in Carlton Park weekends are not included. The strength of the argument would be greatlyly increases if the author could demonstrate that Stanley Park was becoming less popular and that Carlton Park is currently more popular than Stanley Park. As it stands, the data presented seems statistically unreliable and lends no credible support to the author's conclusion. In addition, granted that Carlton Park is more popular than Stanley Park, the argument assumes that Carlton Park is more popular than Stanley Park because of more seats, and fails to account for other possible causes of the trends in Stanley Park. Perhaps the number of visitors has declined due to a recently built factory around the park that has contributed to atmospheric and noise pollution. It is also entirely possible that a change in the preferences of the people in each has changed. Perhaps the people who used to visit Stanley Park simply have lost interest in the park for unclear reasons, or have shifted their interest to another park, such as Carlton. The popularity of Carlton Park could be due to of its location rather than ample seating, since after all it is, unlike Stanley Park, located in the heart of a business district. It is entirely possible that its location is an extremely convenient one, one that will lead people to visit frequently, for instance after shopping in at the supermarkets on the weekends. Unlike Carlton Park, Stanley Park also possesses a history of being once a popular park, a factor that could have accounted for the difference in popularity, especially if people now have a preference of new parks over old parks. Since Stanley Park is also the largest park, a change in people's tastes for smaller parks could be a cause for a difference in popularity of the two parks. The author could make his argument more convincing by presenting evidence that Carlton Park is more popular because of the seats. However, as it is presented here, because the difference in popularity may have nothing to do with the amount of seating provided, the argument remains unconvincing without ruling out these possibilities. Moreover, the argument relies on what might be a false analogies between Stanley and Carlton Park. Granted that the increase in Carlton Park is the result of ample seating, will the policy be effective when applied to Stanley Park? In order for Carlton Park to serve as a model that Stanley should emulate, the author assumes that all relevant circumstances involving the two parks are essentially the same. However, this assumption is clearly unwarranted for several reasons. For example, as previously described, Stanley Park is not located in the heart of a business district as Carlton Park is, and perhaps the demographic trends in the two areas are quite different as well. These trends could determine the preferences of people for parks, the likelyhood of people to visit the park, and in turn, the popularity of the park. Even if Stanley and Carlton Park were comparable, which the author has yet to demonstrate, no evidence is offered that providing more benches would lead to more socialization. If the popularity of Stanley Park had decreased due to pollution, for example, it is unlikely that merely adding more seats would attract more visitors to the park, much less socialize. Since every park has distinctive features that attracts visitors, instead of simply imitating Carl Park in one respect that may prove to be a failed investment, it should examine carefully the features that make that park attractive and improve on that. The overall strength of the argument could be dramatically strengthened by providing support that an investment on more benches would benefit Stanley Park's popularity, and until then author cannot convince me on the productivity ofspending money on more seats. In summary, the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that more seats would increase the popularity of Stanley Park does little to prove that conclusion, since it does not address the assumptions raised above. As already mentioned, the argumented could have been strengthened by showing that the popularity of Stanley Park is indeed decreasing and that it is less than that of Carlton Park, the reason for this difference in popularity is in the number of seats, and that providing more seats would lead to more visitors.

I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on the GRE Bible (from grebible.com, not the Big Book). The only interest I have in it is in the sample essays to the AWA part. Are these sample models of good essays to each question?

FOIBLE : FAULT A.perjury : testimony B.reputation : disrepute C.vagary : notion D.feud : hostility E.quibble : objection X is a minor Y MILL : GRAIN A.loom : cloth B.bazaar : wares C.factory : furniture D.hospital : medicine E.forge : metal X is a place to process Y INDISTINGUISHABLE : CONFOUND A. exceptional : overlook B. impregnable : attack C. ostentatious : consume D. equivalent : interchange E. occluded : reveal two things X can be Yed SCRIBBLE : WRITE A. limp : walk B. draw : print C. mumble : talk D. float : swim E say : sing X is to Y incoherently SEDATIVE : PACIFY A.scalpel : cauterize B.analgesic : discomfit C.surgery : operate D.antiseptic : sterilize E.stimulant : induce X is used to AUTHORATIVE : ACCEPTANCE A.conspicuous : attention B.nebulous : validation C.congruous : appropriation D.maudlin : passion E.tangible : substance Something X almost always leads to Y ALACRITY : PROMPT A.acumen : shrewd B.sentiment : thoughtful C.intuition : impulsive X is characterized by Y UNDERSCORE : EMPHASIS A.eradicate : destruction B.stigmatize : confrontation C.quantify : assessment D.brand : ownership E.log : record X is used to indicate Y FLAMBOYANT A.competent B.independent C.aloof D.subdued E.unafraid flamboyant = showy; aloof = shy TEETOTLALISM A.jingoism B.proclivity C.intemperance D.intolerance E.liberalism teetotalism = abstaining from alcohol intemperance = drinking excessively DESPOTIC : TYRANNY A.authoritarian : superiority B.skillful : celebrity C.generous : liberality D.suspect : illegality E.peaceful : benevolence something X is characterized by Y SAP A.fortify B.alleviate C.lend credence D.hold fast E.draw out sap = drain in energy fortify = strengthen FIRM : IRONCLAD A.bruised : broken B.polished : shining C.smart : brilliant D.hard : stiff E.jovial : merry Y = extremely X QUAFF : SIFF A. bolt : run B. punch : hit C. gnaw : nibble D. trudge : plod E. stride : mince (do you mean "sip", not "siff"? quaff = drink greedily. sip = drink lightly; stride = huge steps. mince = small steps)

CUMULONIMBUS : CLOUD :: grasshopper : insect rainbow : shower twilight : dusk omnibus : road bough : tree I don't think this is a real ETS question. But what would be the answer?

here are my explanations 1. FURLONG : MILE :: (A) quart : meter (B) grain : minim © centimeter : inch (D) second : hour (E) gram : liter subunit : unit (in the same measurement system) furlong = 1/8th of a mile 2. AUCTIONEER : BIDDER :: (A) merchant : shopper (B) peddler : wholesaler © tenant : renter (D) judge : defendant (E) conductor : composer seller : buyer 3. DANCE : CHOREOGRAPHY :: (A) rhythm : time (B) building : blueprint © picture : frame (D) skeleton : bone (E) mathematics : equation Y is the "layout" for X 4. CONTENTIOUS : QUARRELS :: (A) apprehensive : phobias (B) guilty : punishments © puerile : ambitions (D) litigious : lawsuits (E) mendacious : felonies X means tending to get involved in Y 5. STYLISHNESS : FOPPERY :: (A) finery : modishness (B) detail : complexity © frugality : stinginess (D) healthiness : hardiness (E) frailty : flimsiness Y is being excessively X with a negative connotation Foppery is being excessively concerned with appearance (usually refers to a man). 6. HARBINGER : EVENT :: (A) prologue : narrative (B) prophet : prediction © envoy : delegation (D) inception : beginning (E) operation : recovery X precedes Y 7. BALLISTICS : PROJECTILES :: (A) aesthetics : impressions (B) numismatics : coins © geography : continents (D) forensics : opponents (E) hydraulics : liquids X is the study of the motion of Y 8. PORRINGER : BOWL :: (A) terra-cotta : vase (B) stiletto : dagger © pinnacle : spire (D) caning : chair (E) gravy : boat X is a type of Y 9. MEDLEY : MELODIES :: (A) bibliography : books (B) index : data © museum : paintings (D) anthology : poems (E) bank : investment X is a mixture/collection of different Y

What is BB? I thought it was the Big Book but these questions aren't in there. Are these real ETS questions?

WORSHIP : SACRIFICE A.generation : pyre B.burial : mortuary C.weapon : centurion D.massacre : invasion E.prediction : augury Y is a "superstitious" version of X