danislava

Hey, guys. I just happen to have read something about this issue here in the forum. Someone was having similar misgivings about the reporting of the scores. When she called ETS, she said that they asked her WHICH of the two scores she would like to report. I do not know how authentic this information is, but I am certain that I read it within the testmagic forum. All the best, I take this back, guys. I just read the official guidelines from ETS. Check it out on http://www.gre.org/getscore.html#cumulative

Virendra, thanks for your reply and rating. I will keep your comments in mind.

Her stern attitude toward the child was complemented with plenty of________: A. love B. spite C. indifference D. malice E. ambivalence The interviewer was startled to hear the otherwise gracious author make the _______ remark: "My novels are too sophisticated for the American public." A. apt B. enigmatic C. lofty D. vacuous E. insightful A more admirable character would have been one who overcomes his ________ impulses and becomes good; rather than one who merely lacks the ________ to be bad. A. forbearing...patience B. ire...drama C. baser...intensity D. depraved...goodness E. evil...sophistication At the cutting edge of research, scientists are developing new sunscreens of both ________ and internal varieties. A. polar B. tropical C. territorial D. atmospheric E. regional The correct answers are 1. A (love), 2. B (enigmatic), 3. E (enigmatic), 4. B (tropical). Can anyone please explain why? Thanks in advance.

Definitely A and B.

I second that, Dipesh. I do not think it is E either. By elimination, it is either B or D, and I am leaning toward D. In a........society that worships efficiency, it is difficult for a sensitive and idealistic person to make the kinds of.............decisions that alone spell success as it is defined by such a society. A) bureaucratic.......edifying B) pragmatic.......hardheaded C) rational....well-intentioned D) competitive.......even-handed E) modern.......dysfunctional A society that wishes to be efficient is also competitive. That is why large monopolies were borken apart in the US. The second blank space should be filled by "even-handed" because "even-handed" is opposite of "sensitive and idealistic."

Hello, everyone. I answered the questions myself, and all but one of my answers correspond with those of dipesh. For number 3, I have the following: 3) When theories formerly considered to be----in their scientific objectivity are found instead to reflect a consistent observational and evaluative bias, then the presumed neutrality of science gives way to the recognition that categories of knowledge are human----. (A) disinterested.. constructions (B) callous.. errors © verifiable.. prejudices (D) convincing.. imperatives (E) unassailable.. fantasies I think that both "disinterested" and "verifiable" fit okay in the first blank space. Although since we are speaking of "objectivity" and later "bias," the word "disinterested" is probably a better choice. As far as the second blank space, the word "constructions" better fits the expression "categories of knowledge;" i.e., a person can construct categories of knowledge. I do not see that "prejudices" fits at all. Please let me know what you think. I may be totally misleading you. So, my answers go: 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6D The best of luck to you, Saraj!

I second that. The answer is definitely vulnerability.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Yes, according to my book, the answer is C. You gave very good explanations. Thank you. Take care all and thank you for responding.

Hi, everyone! I have a complex analogy--or so it seems to me-- and would appreciate any feedback. MODICUM : MASSIVE :: A. reticence : chivalrous B. contention : bulky C. rapture : disconsolate D. homage : assiduous E. apathy : mediocre So, what do you think? Thanks a lot!

BigDuke, Thanks for your reply and comments. I will take them into consideration. :)

This is issue 38. I would appreciate your comments and would love for you to post your essay on the same topic. All the best, "In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books." Can people learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books? Some would agree and aver that reading books is no longer society’s primary source of knowledge. Nonetheless, while watching television is less time-consuming, reading continues to have important advantages to watching television. Namely, reading books remains the sole source of knowledge that contains the greatest amount and variety of information, inspires people’s imaginations, and helps people develop important skills. Although some people believe that individuals can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books, this is not necessarily so. If individuals read resourceful books, as opposed to commixes and other types of junk literature, they are bound to learn much more than from watching television. For one, books contain a greater amount of knowledge than television channels and films do. Humanity has amassed information for centuries, and it is impossible for television to reproduce this knowledge in a few decades. To compliment this great amount of information, books contain the largest variety of topics. From ancient religious writings to recent Pulitzer-winning novels, a decent library has it. What is more, recent sociological and scientific studies are published in prestigious magazines and books rather than produced on DVDs. Not only can people access information in books that is not produced on television, but also reading such information inspires the imagination. Hardly anyone could disagree that individuals use their imaginations much more when they read than when they watch TV. To illustrate, authors leave much subtlety in their works; thus the final “picture” is created by people’s individual interpretations of the books they read. In contrast, viewers’ picture is dependent upon the interpretation of the film director, not leaving much to the imaginations of the viewers. In effect, a society that is solely exposed to television can easily lose its originality and cease to produce great artists, novelists, and film directors whose imaginations play a key role in their successfulness. Originality would not be the sole loss of a society that is void of reading. When individuals immerse themselves into literature, they develop important skills, such as analytical reasoning, vocabulary building, and a feel for grammar usage. Because most television shows and films are crammed with slang and improper grammar usage, reading books can exclusively develop these skills in individuals. Good analytical and communication skills are important to the development of well-rounded individuals and are key during each phase of life—from early childhood, through college, and employment. To sum up, reading meaningful literature can play a key role to individuals’ successfulness throughout their lives. Through developing people’s imaginations, as well as communication and analytical skills, and offering a large pool of information, reading books is far more advantageous to individual development than watching television is. Although reading is more time-consuming, individuals should not be afraid to invest their time and energy to this activity as they can clearly benefit from it in the long run.

Saumitra, I happen to have written an essay on the same topic, so I will post it here. Components of the media, be they television programs or contemporary novels, reflect the values of the society by which they were produced rather than creating values that were unfamiliar to or opposite of a society's. This is demonstrated on both sides of the television channels and novels: the program's maker, a show's director or a book's author, and its receiver, a show's audience or a book's reader. The media are composed of people who are part of and not detached from their societies. Authors, directors, musicians and journalists are ingrained with the values of the societies to which they belong. Thus, when writing books or performing music, they project values that are already established in a society rather than creating new ones. This is done not only to reflect the media's values but also to appeal to an audience's values. For instance, news stations in the U.S. South tend to present the issues of the day in a conservative manner in order to appeal to the political bent of Southerners. On the other hand, much of the press in the Northeast produces liberal articles that more closely resemble the values of people who inhabit the region. Is the media's objective to satisfy the tastes of its audience? Certainly. Few Southerners would read "The Economist" while FOX Channel is not on the favorites' list of Northeasterners. Thus, societies seek the media that reflect their values rather than project new ones on them. This is also the media's incentive: to reflect the values of a society; if they did otherwise, the media would risk losing their audiences. In contrast, the media create, rather than reflect, values when books, films or music are distributed among societies that are foreign to the media's source. Examples of American values being spread abroad through these means are plentiful. One such example is in societies in the Pacific--namely on the Fiji Islands--that once had values that put heavy-set women on a pedestal. Sociologists have found that since U.S. films "invaded" these formerly closed societies, their values began to change, and soon thin females were valued so much that many young girls became anorexic in trying to achieve this new, foreign standard. Nonetheless, U.S. films in the Pacific are only one of several media and thus have limited influence on societies' values. Overall, although some instances of the media creating values in societies exist, the predominant trend is that the media reflect the values that are already establieshed in societies. This trend is sparked by socities' desire only to expose themselves to media that reflect their values rather than media that create values deviating from the audience's. The media responds to this need by projecting values that are acceptable to societies.

Illusionz, Thanks for the reply and the helpful remarks. You are correct about the examples or lack of such. :p I should have written at least one more paragraph with some concrete examples in it. Thank you once again.

Uchicago, First of all, good work. I have a few minor comments. I may be wrong, but it seems that you are jumping into the introduction too fast. It doesn't sound bad at all, yet perhaps you could ease in a bit as far as the first sentence goes. Could you begin with something more general? It seems like you are starting with your thesis. Can you change the order of the second and third paragraphs. The first sentence of the third paragraph seems odd (However, even the argument that predicts drug sales to be constant may be flawed.) If you switch the paragraphs, the essay would flow better. You could start your third (formerly second) paragraph with something like, "Nonetheless, if the estimates of Medicine, Inc. were correct,... This would provide for a wonderful connection between paragraphs. Although your third main point is excellent, it is not entirely connected to the rest of the essay. The discussion of prices came unexpectedly, and perhaps you'd like to start the paragraph with an introductionry statement that would ease in this new topic. Other than that, good work. :tup: Your language is forceful and precise, and the GRE evaluators are looking for exactly that! Good luck!

Foreverloves, First of all, good work. I have a few minor comments, if you would take them into consideration. The first one regards the last sentence in your second paragraph (It is through their hard work that these theories come into being and finally change the world.) You can omit the latter part of the sentence--finally change the world--because it is not related to what you are writing about. More, since you will not elaborate on it, it leaves the reader waiting for an explanation. You give excellent examples as far as science and engeneering. [clap] The ones about computers and mobile phones are perfect! As far as the social sciences, how about the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s? You could compare the actions of Soviet leader Khrushchev, who easily complicated the relations by the two superpowers. By sending his ships, loaded with nuclear weapons, to Cuba, he risked starting a nuclear war. On the other side of the Pacific, it took much greater effort to "uncomplicate" things and get relations back to normality. For nearly two weeks, J.F. Keenedy and his administration analyzed again and again their every move as one wrong step could mean nuclear obliteration. (You could elaborate on his courage, etc.) So, this is an example from history, with an emphasis on political relations between countries: it takes no effort to complicate relations but it is much harder to simplify them and bring them back to normality. Well, I hope that helps! Good luck!

He_hels, I have one comment. In your third paragraph (the one that begins "Secondly,...), your second sentence does not logically follow from the topic sentence, e.g. the first sentence of the paragraph. Secondly, the argument assumes that banning such organizations will bring down their operations completely. It is very well possible that such organizations operate illegally. I know that once you see an issue or an argument topic, the ideas start flowing out indisriminately. Nonetheless, try to gather your thoughts and have your sentences follow one another logically. Other than that, good work. All the best!

BigDuke, I read through several of the essays and your comments. You seem to be an excelent evaluator, and I would appreciate it if you could tell me where I stand. Thanks in advance. "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial." A myriad of people opposes the funding of research which bears controversial results. As taxpayers, people should certainly have a voice in deciding upon the allocation of their money; yet these persons should think again before condemning research they deem unworthy. Results that seem controversial at first may help humanity in the long run. Society is seldom aware of the long-term consequences of recently published, controversial research. The seemingly negative applications of an innovation may in fact turn to be useful to a society. A prime example is the exploration of atomic energy. Perhaps the most controversial product of scientific research, the atom bomb horrified the world when dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The public exploded against the controversial research that brought about this new creation. Nonetheless, as devastating as the atom bomb was to Japan, its research also brought about the use of atomic energy in our daily lives. After all, numerous nations have become dependent on atomic energy as their cardinal source of energy--a positive effect of what was at first controversial research. What is more, society should not support research that brings about solely predictable and applicable results. That is, results from scientific research that solely contribute to the vast pool of knowledge and do not have any immediate real-life applications should not be condemned or denied funding. Such research results may be controversial and seem as a mere waist of money; however, its results may prove useful in later studies or inspire research that brings about results which better human life. After all, how many groundbreaking innovations were made overnight without relying on any previous research that once seemed unuseful and thus controversial? As a rule, science relies on knowledge that has been amassed for centuries. To summarize, research is a good investment of taxpayers' money even when it seems controversial. As the long-term implications of any scientific study are not clear right away, people cannot adequately judge the significance of research. Thus societies should continue funding research even when it seems controversial--its fruitfulness may one day be recognized.

aks1232001, I agree with Illusionz's comments. I have one more thing to add. Throughout the essay, you speak of the importance of the team without ever explaining yourself. In the conclusion you state, "indeed the work of the team cannot be ignored"; yet you ignore it throughout the essay. Your main points regarded the importance of the individual. So, either explore the importance of the team or take it out of the essay altogether. Your English is very good. You just need to work on the structure a bit. I hope this helps! :)

Hey, quaintyoyo! Thank you for the advice. I did think that the essay was a bit short in itself, so expanding the arguments would fix that. Thanks for the advice.

I wonder if it is okay to use personal "I" in the essays. It is prohibitive in college wrting, so I wonder how it is on the test. What do you think, guys?

Hey! This is the first issue topic from the pool of question. Please share your thoughts and evaluations. I would greatly appreaciate it. Thanks! "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial." A myriad of people opposes the funding of research which bears controversial results. As taxpayers, people should certainly have a voice in deciding upon the allocation of their money; yet these persons should think again before condemning research they deem unworthy. Results that seem controversial at first may help humanity in the long run. Society is seldom aware of the long-term consequences of recently published, controversial research. The seemingly negative applications of an innovation may in fact turn to be useful to a society. A prime example is the exploration of atomic energy. Perhaps the most controversial product of scientific research, the atom bomb horrified the world when dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The public exploded against the controversial research that brought about this new creation. Nonetheless, as devastating as the atom bomb was to Japan, its research also brought about the use of atomic energy in our daily lives. After all, numerous nations have become dependent on atomic energy as their cardinal source of energy--a positive effect of what was at first controversial research. What is more, society should not support research that brings about solely predictable and applicable results. That is, results from scientific research that solely contribute to the vast pool of knowledge and do not have any real-life applications should not be condemned or denied funding. Such research results may be controversial and seem as a mere waist of money; however, their results may prove useful in later studies or inspire research that brings about results which better human life. After all, how many groundbreaking innovations were made overnight without relying on any previous research that once seemed unuseful and thus controversial? As a rule, science relies on knowledge that has been amassed for centuries. To summarize, research is a good investment of taxpayers' money even when it seems controversial. As the long-term implications of any scientific study are not clear right away, people cannot adequately judge the significance of research. Thus societies should continue funding research even when it seems controversial--its fruitfulness may one day be recognized.

Hey! This is the first issue topic from the pool of question. Please share your thoughts and evaluations. I would greatly appreaciate it. Thanks! "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial." A myriad of people opposes the funding of research which bears controversial results. As taxpayers, people should certainly have a voice in deciding upon the allocation of their money; yet these persons should think again before condemning research they deem unworthy. Results that seem controversial at first may help humanity in the long run. Society is seldom aware of the long-term consequences of recently published, controversial research. The seemingly negative applications of an innovation may in fact turn to be useful to a society. A prime example is the exploration of atomic energy. Perhaps the most controversial product of scientific research, the atom bomb horrified the world when dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The public exploded against the controversial research that brought about this new creation. Nonetheless, as devastating as the atom bomb was to Japan, its research also brought about the use of atomic energy in our daily lives. After all, numerous nations have become dependent on atomic energy as their cardinal source of energy--a positive effect of what was at first controversial research. What is more, society should not support research that brings about solely predictable and applicable results. That is, results from scientific research that solely contribute to the vast pool of knowledge and do not have any real-life applications should not be condemned or denied funding. Such research results may be controversial and seem as a mere waist of money; however, their results may prove useful in later studies or inspire research that brings about results which better human life. After all, how many groundbreaking innovations were made overnight without relying on any previous research that once seemed unuseful and thus controversial? As a rule, science relies on knowledge that has been amassed for centuries. To summarize, research is a good investment of taxpayers' money even when it seems controversial. As the long-term implications of any scientific study are not clear right away, people cannot adequately judge the significance of research. Thus societies should continue funding research even when it seems controversial--its fruitfulness may one day be recognized.