Search the Community

[h=4]Argument Task Prompt:[/h]The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville: "Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down significantly." The argument to initiate a ban on mobile phones, for pedestrian, is based on numerous assumptions. Not only the council ought to ban mobile phone usage with no hard evidence, also there isn't any valid source mentioned from where the following figures have been accumulated. The idea of the problems faced by children, to not being visible to pedestrian is unnecessary related to the usage of mobile phones. The assumption is that children walks in a firm manner as like a adult. Another problem associated is that the children are tend not be seen because of their height, this is a fallacious argument. The author doesn't feel the need to give us a figure of about how many children usually walk on the sidewalks. Bumping into a child, is that a 1 case in week or it;s a daily situation. Another argument claiming, ban on mobile phones in the Middletown doesn't provide enough evidence, it assumes the complaints were touching sky before. The author rather provides an obscure anecdote, that the complainants are null after the ban. The assumption is that ban on mobile phones, irrelevant of what was the figures before the ban or it's just the same case. Author provides another anecdote of about how the reports of sidewalks crime are significantly decreased. The assumptions are that earlier the pedestrian traffic was humongous and couldn't be controlled. The author heightens the need to ban without some factual data. Anecdotal evidence is provided to the reader that just the ban was sufficient to control this variable, however it could have been due to police support. Also, the other possible variables are ignored and assumed these arguments would be sufficient. The urge to ban mobile phones for pedestrians, through this precis is filled with assumptions and anecdotal evidence. Another variables should also be considered to examine its effects on the situation.

[TABLE=width: 1071] [TR] [TD=class: rightBottom] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: right]Hi, I am preparing for my TOEFL exam, particularly focusing on writing part 2 right now. I you can please give me feed back on my response, I will appreciate it a lot. Thank. Prompt: Television advertising directed towards young children (age two to five) should be allowed Response: In today’s world where television industry has flourished by leaps and bound, television has become an important part of our lives, even children take keep interest in TV. This is the reason advertisement via television is essential in every marketing campaign. However when it comes to children of age two to five, if you ask people whether television advertising directed toward children of this age group should be allowed or not some might say there is no need for it or even that it is not in interest of children. My opinion is contrary to this, I think that TV commercials for children should be allowed as they can useful in several ways. First, TV commercials can be informative and children can learn a lot from them. Kids these days spend a lot of time on TV and are influenced by characters and shows telecasted on TV. An ethic TV commercial that emphasizes on good habits along with promoting their product in fun way, may be by singing a catchy jingle, can help kids to pick up that good habit in a fun way. For example, a simple TV commercial of Anti-bacterial soap puts a lot of stress on washing hands before every meal. I remember my niece was got into the habit of washing hands before every meal through one of such advertisement. So in this way TV Ads can be good for kids. Secondly, now more than ever we see a lot of TV channels popping up that are specific to for kids of certain age group. Kids learn a lot from the shows on these channels, for example, their communication skill can improve, and they can learn art and craft activities. In order for these channels to sustain, they need sponsors and most of the sponsorships come from brands who want to advertise their products. I think that to keep things interesting and in benefit of children these channels should only show commercials specific for targeted age group of children. For instance, imagine how odd it will be to show an ad of adult products on kid’s channel, parents will probably unsubscribe that channel resulting in loss for channel. But if the kid’s TV are paired with Ads for kids as well it will be in interest of both parties, Kids and Kid TV channels. Finally, some people might argue that certain TV commercials can have negative impact on kids, for example make them materialistic and pester their parents to buy new stuff all the time or pick a bad habit, therefore such commercials should be banned. However I think that banning or disallowing these Ads all together is not the solution because chances of kid getting wrong influence from some kid’s show are equal as from kids TV commercial. All good TV channels have content control team that analyses the material to be on-aired they must also regulate the content of TV commercials shown for kids. This might seem like extra work, but in long run it will pay out, as more parents will opt for channels with kid friendly advertisement. In conclusion, I can safely say that after content control, TV advertisement that is directed towards young children should be allowed as they can be informative and fun and also in helpful in sustaining kid’s TV channels. [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: rightBottom] +1 Kudos [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Question: It is better for children to choose jobs that are similar to their parents job than to choose jobs that are very different from their parents jobs. Each person need to have job to continues his life either physical or psychological. Thus, every one must make decision for choosing job in some part of his life. Some people think that children should have same job as their parent While others people think conversely. The both groups have their reasons. It is wise that children select jobs that are different from parents job in the most cases. dissimilar jobs can help children, parents, and society. mainly, everyone has his own nature. In narrow condition, the nature of a child is not same with his parent. The features of one has directly relation with performance of job. Therefore the performance of a child in a job is not equal with the performance of his parent in same job. So if children want to have high performance, they must have dissimilar job. Moreover, parents usually want that their children have more success than their own self. Consequently they evaluate their child at all situation. Indeed one thing that all parent have high sensivity is their child's job. if their child has same a job, probably their mind is more busy with evaluating how their child do their job for two reasons. first reason is that they thing same job is equal success and not upper position. the second reason is that they completely now the job, so they can compare their self with their child easily. Last but not least, society need different job in different time. In during time, some jobs make useless and some job make useful. For example, horse keeper was a normal job and a lot of people work in this field; nowadays thinking for having this job is funny. therefore changing new job for child is reasonable. also some job are harmful for society. So it is wise that children select another job such as killer. To wrap it up, in the most position, difference job between parents and children is useful. Human nature, parent's expectation, and society condition make it necessity.