Search the Community

Dear Friends and GRE Experts, I am preparing for GRE and this is my 6th attempt to write a GRE essay (different topics each time). This is an issue topic given on official GRE website. I would request you to have a look on the essay and grade it upon convenience and availability of time. Thank You. Sincerely, NickyGRE. Actual GRE Issue Prompt: As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In this issue, the author presents a very interesting present-world scenario in which the ease of technology engenders concern of lack of natural human capability of thinking and logical rasoning. Although there are few possible exceptions to the issue presented, I agree with the statement in general. The supportive examples are described in following paragraphs. As an analogy, industrial revolution took place in around 1850. The work of human workers and human labour was delegated to machines. The majority of hand-woven cloths were gradually started being made by automated machines and as a result, the human skills and proficiency in woving clothes got deteriorated. Today, despite the fact that some clothes are still woven by hand, it is really hard to find a skillful worker in that profession. Same holds true for manufacturing pottery, writing books with calligraphy and so on and so forth. Similarly, the 20th and 21st centuries witnessed some break-through technological innovations, starting right from the invention of first computer, the 'Eniac'. Today, the computers are used just not to solve complex mathematical and astronomical problems, but also to simulate human brain and its thinking process. In past two decades, the cutting edge developmment in the field of artifical intelligence and machine learning has proved that the days are not far away when computers, just like every other business they are employed into, would also think on behalf of their creators or mankind in general. Computers would employ logical reasoning and arrive to a conclusion for every given problem they would encounter. This of course, will have a detrimental effect on humans as humans would prefer more and more intellectual burden to be given to the computers and they (humans), instead of taking any iniciative to apply their own brains, would simply live a dull life. However, there is one unavoidable compulsion that stays even after unbelievable technological innovations is that, there is always a demand for the creator himself. In other words, there is always someone required to develop these technologies, to innovate new and more complex arithmetic algorithms that can be dumped into computers and to remove possible errors in algorithms already fed into them. This would also give lucrative professional scope to possible computer engineers given that most of other humans will tend to avoid such intellectual burden. Hence, this field of developing new technology to make computers think more logically would indeed demand more intellectual contribution from humans and in that way, it would prevent the situation that entire humankind gets badly affected by lack of the ability to think. In conclusion, except for such few exceptions, as people rely more and more on technological innovations to solve their daily problems and think on their behalf, the ability of humans will gradually deteriorate in general. We, as a responsible and aware individuals, must act consciously to indulge overselves into bare minimum intellectual tasks to avoid such scenario at individual level. Above is response typed in actual test conditions: 487 words

People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. People who make decisions based on emotion and use logic afterward to justify those decisions are poor decision makers. This statement holds true because justifying an action to yourself is much easier once the action has already been taken. Once you have already acted, you have a bias towards justifying the action instead of thinking through the action logically and considering both sides. Justifying an action to yourself isn't difficult. There are many ethics scenarios where this comes into play. For example, you steal a snack from work because you're hungry and you don't have too much extra money. You initially make the decision based on a feeling - you're hungry. This emotional action, once completed, is easy to justify. You buy things from your workplace all the time, and they get plenty of your money. You're working for them, after all, and they'll never notice on measly snack missing. You don't have much money, and those corporations have tons of it. There are many lines of reasoning that could be used to justify such a thoughtless, hastily made decision. But, the reality is that you could very well lose your job over such a decision. If you had really and sincerely stopped to consider both sides, logically, before you had taken the snack, you may have come up with some very compelling counterpoints. Your job is your main source of income, is one snack worth losing it? You, like most people, have a moral stance firmly against stealing. Is this case really different? Or were you simply using your emotions to make a decision that wasn't all that wise, after all? This defines the heart of the problem with justifying a decision after it is made - you are much more inclined to try to think about what was right with what you did than what was wrong with it. You have forfeited the chance to make a decision based completely on the rational consideration of options and consequences. Another scene where the statement rings true is this: someone at school, or work, is taunting you. They're making you very upset, and they don't seem to care. In your anger, you swing at them and hit them. After the decision has been made, reasons for it are easy enough to find. The person was taunting you and didn't care about your feelings. You were quite upset with them and it seemed a blow was the only way to get them to stop. But, again, when examined too closely, the logic falls apart. The reasons are valid enough, but if logic were used from the beginning, some very strong cons of striking are present. You could be punished at your school or workplace for fighting, and likely you will be. You could have chosen to walk away, or ignore the person, or report them to a supervisor. When thinking logically, there are many choices that could, and should, have been made before striking someone, and yet it is also easy to justify a blow once that act has been committed. You could argue that those who decide based on emotions are still using logic in their justifications, and this would be a correct assumption. The issue with this is not that they are not using logic, rather it is that their logic is inherently flawed. There is an unignorable bias that is present when justifying an action that you have already taken rather than thinking the through a course of action you are yet to take. You are always inclined to find the best, most logical reasoning to explain an action you took out of emotion, rather than finding the logical reasons you should not have done it. When you use logic in decision making before the decision has been made, it gives a chance to consider both sides equally, without the overwhelming presence of bias to justify an action already done. Those who respond to situations with emotion and only later justify these responses using rational thinking are poor decision makers because using logic after a decision has already been reached creates and unmistakable bias towards logic favoring your decision. Scenarios in which this rings true are many, and the best thing for you to do would be to use logic before arriving at a decision - to try to put your emotions aside for a time and logically think through your options and consequences. This is the first GRE essay I've ever written and I want to see where you might think I'm at. Thanks!!

I have a 165Q , 157V and 3.0 on AWA in my GRE. The awa score is depressing, especially so as i was sure i would hit a 4.5. My toefl score is 117. In view of this, how bad is my awa going to pull me down? I have good research experience in theoretical computer science and am hoping to get into one of the top 20 for the same. Is that too ambitious? I need all the advice i can get guys. Thank you.