Search the Community

Thanks for viewing this post. It would help me a lot if you could rate my essay out of 6 and mention any scope for improvement :) PROMPT Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. RESPONSE Universities play a crucial role in shaping the personality of young adults and aid them to survive the ever-increasing competitive world. A student must thrive on being an all-rounder and maximize his breadth of knowledge across various fields apart from his study area. It is pivotal that students gain knowledge and skill across diverse fields and not restrict themselves to one's specialization/domain. A quick reflection on the work-life of an individual in the technology sector reveals how all fields are convoluted. A CEO of a start-up at silicon valley requires technical knowledge about the product/service their company offers and needs to be aware of how to market it. If it were not for Steve Jobs' creativity, soft skills, marketing strategy, and charismatic personality, Apple would not have become the first trillion-dollar company by stock value as it is today. It is only with a deep understanding of human anatomy and enzymes that researchers at Google's DeepMind created AlphaFold, a neural network to predict the 3D structure of proteins with unprecedented accuracy. How will researchers publish their work without literary knowledge? Hence, juxtaposing various fields and not looking at them as one unified entity is not a sound solution. There is a pithy saying that when one removes the barriers of keeping oneself restricted to a particular field, the only barrier left is one's imagination. Furthermore, humans' imagination runs wild. The evolution of TED is a perfect example in support of this. It brings to light how innovators and extraordinary speakers, adding up a bit of spice and variety to their field of study, change how the public views it. Taking interdisciplinary courses would aid students in honing their imagination and sense of innovation. It makes people realize the depth at which fields are interrelated. Let us take the blending of psychology with computer science as an example. While developing a social media platform like Instagram, various psychological questions pop up. Is it going to solve the user's problem? How to attract users to use this product? All the questions can be answered by doing research in interviews and surveys and analyzing the psychological traits of people. Receiving education in various fields will help students adapt to society more quickly. For instance, all citizens of a nation must evaluate the ability of presidential candidates and make a rational decision. Courses on economics and politics would help them analyze what changes these candidates can bring to education, infrastructure, healthcare, and diplomacy. One might argue that taking up a variety of courses outside one's field of study might qualify one's knowledge in his/her field, thereby violating the fundamentals of specializing at a university. Moreover, forcing students to take up unrelated courses acts as an extra burden and might pressure them. Such stress, undoubtedly, will lead to loss of focus and increase diversion. As a result, the university might be filled with unenthusiastic researchers and bored students. One way to tackle pressurizing the students is to make them aware of the courses that can dovetail with their specialization and let them make their choices, instead of having it as a requirement. To sum up, I agree that universities should let students take up various courses and explore other domains. This versatility will benefit the students in their research and career and help flourish society.

Please find my response to the issue topic essay below. Please guide me and give me feedback on where my essay stands. Please also point out the changes and improvements I need to work on. Topic : As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. My Response: As time passes and technology evolves people are becoming more dependent on technology for problem solving. I believe that this is compromising the ability of an individual to think and reason out. Technology pulls humans and the real world apart. It makes them lose confidence in themselves. People using calculators for small calculations is an example. Technology is changing and evolving with great pace. People intend to keep up with that pace and be updated. Mundane tasks are becoming automated. Technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence make suggestions that restricts the people to think or decide for themselves. It restricts them to take up a path that is different from what they were already on because such technologies make suggestions based on our their previous decisions. Such technologies do not allow people to think out of the box and to some extent lure them into taking up the road that is mostly travelled by them. Because the internet provide with all answers people have stopped thinking logically and brainstorming when it comes to problem solving. It is restricting the ability of an individual to make decisions based on self evaluation. They simply go for a solution that has the most positive reviews instead of coming up with a solution of their own. Technology is keeping people distant. As everything is possible if you have a device with internet connectivity no one bothers to visit their own relatives on holidays. Family meet ups have reduced because of video conferencing. Technology is not only affecting the critical thinking but also the emotional thinking of people. I understand that technology helps save a lot of time initially. If we use the time we saved using the various technology resources to use our own thought process to get to the same result, we would discover a lot more dos and don'ts. Hence in turn it will save use time later when the similar issue is encountered. So actually technology is not actually saving any time as shortcuts always get back at you later on the path. Additionally technology refrains us from using the full capacity of our brains. In conclusion I would like to restate my position that people relying on technology more, is deteriorating their ability to think for themselves and assess what is good or bad for them because of the above mentioned reasons.

Apart from major subjects, minor courses are also important for proper education. Because it helps students to prepare themselves for future obstacle and leadership. Humanity courses will certainly benefit in the future. In upcoming days when these students are going to enter into their career life, they have to lead a team or a group of people. Without humanity courses they are unable to lead the team or group. Also, they have to work with various kind of people, without the help of humanity courses it is not possible to create a good relationship with them. Understanding the ambience of the work life is a key element for building a career. For example, mark jackerberg was a computer science student and jeff bejos was a business studies student. Now they own a company and work with a lot of people. Without the help of humanity courses, it is not possible to deal with their co-workers. But, as humanity courses is not major courses in science and business studies, Students sometime feel annoying to do this type of courses during their study period which can hamper their education. It's the duty of the teachers to persuade them to the importance of the humanities. There is an axiom that 'knowledge is power' and any knowledge is beneficial in real life in many ways. So, depriving a course is unintelligible.

#Issue "People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers." #Response Decisions are made in instances where outcomes rely on the choices we choose. Most of the decisions are not just based on mathematical logic of more or less rather emotional intelligence have to be tackle to make an outcome. Emotions do alter our decision making but getting to the conclusion on making of it based on your own emotions does not create a good decision. People doing such decision making knows that they have not used there rational ability of making logical outcome then try to show with justifying what benefits there decision is making from there view point. Suppose a police officer whose duty is to stop crime, one day he lost his house because of some calamity and lose his all saving, his all memories and become emotionally deprived. And after that instance on his duty he is been offered a bribe to ignore a criminal case in which victim killed someone intentionally, in that situation if he accepts the money because of his need at that time and was upset because of his loss. And without making any rational decision that the criminal victim can create more crimes in future, he accepts the money and latter when he is been asked why did he took this decision ? he explains that the victim was innocent as he killed somebody in his own protection because that other guy was going to kill him. So such decision was poor and bad. Emotional thinking is well necessary for making decisions but only to a certain extent. If a person is handicap that he is not having legs and there are many peoples who have dissablity in making motor functioning of there body parts. If govenment ignores them and does not create public infrastructure for feasiblity of such peoples because goenment wants to save money, then this will be very bad thing to do. Because those people are unfortunate there help is necessary. So govenment will built infrsatcure according to them also which will show rationality and emotionality of decision making at same time. So decisions should be made on keeping both the things in mind rational and emotional intelligence both are required in decision making.

"Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time." ------------------------- I agree that the author's statement, "Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time", holds true in most cases, with the qualifier that the situation currently is not as extreme as he(the author) is suggesting. The Earth revolves around the Sun is a basic fact about our planet which everyone knows today. However, this was not always the case. A few hundred years back, an anstronomer by the name of Galileo discovered this fact, at a time, when everyone thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. The notion that it could be anything but this was unthinkable. Galileo's findings went against the "wisdom" of that time, and the church made him retract his statement publicly. This serves to highlight that truths of today which we take for granted were not always so. When they were first discovered to be true, there was great hue and cry against them, as they went against the cherished ideals of that time. On a similar note, another common misconception about our planet was that it was flat. If you went too far in a particular direction, you ran the risk of falling off its edge. Before Columbus showed that it was indeed round, by sailing around the earth, no body believed in its veracity. His achievement was antithetical to the accepted wisdom of that time, and while the proof was irrefutable, it was indeed unsettling. History is testament to thousands of examples like these where the wisdom of today is compelely at odds with with the beliefs of a few years back. It is often said that change is the only thing in life which is constant. Yet, the human mind is surprisingly reluctant to change. It takes a great deal of effort to adapt to new ideas and change what you held dear. This is the reason why when you come up with new truths, it is not widely accepted immediately. People tend to view you as a heretic, holding your statements as mere heresay. Regardless, to contribute knowledge, one needs to be open to new ideas and analyze existing beliefs closely and see if they hold up under scrutiny. That being said, with recent advances in technology, and the commom man being much more versed in science, modern truths have started gaining acceptance much more easily. People are scientifically inclined and when presented with evidence, it is really hard to cling to older beliefs. The statement that important truths attack the accepted wisdom of the time, may have been true in an overwhelming number of cases historically, times are changing and in the modern world, people are very open to embrace new knowledge instead of being wary of it.

Hey all! I'ave written this respose to an issue essay on the topic:-" The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government,industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition." here's the essay- According to author's point of view the only way of engendering new and excelling leaders from the society is by instilling them with the quality of cooperarion rather than competition. But according to my perspective not only coperation but also competitive spirit is necessary for an individual to become an effective leader. If we turn the pages of history to have glimpse of the world renowned and effective leaders of all times we come across various names including Mahatma Gandhi,who faught for a noble cause and other's like Hitler and Chengis khan,and additionally being indian in origin, one important name that comes flashing on any news channel , every single hour Prime Minister Narendra Modi.All these leaders prove to be paragons when it comes to "LEADERSHIP". Firstly, taking the example of one of the most eminent leader of all times Mahatma Gandhi who was renowned for his adherence to "Ahimsa" yet he fought for the freedom of our country.Yes,the example does comply with the author's statement that Coperation is necessary , but had there been no competitive spirit ,would it ever be possible for the leader like of his to win the freedom from the British goverment. According to my views, it was his this spirit which empowered thousands of his followers,instigated them to fight against the british goverment, Coperative among themselves yet competitive with the opponent. Secondly, I believe our history, be it world or Indian,is overwhelmed with the paragons when it comes to leadership. Two most eminent rather tyrannical leaders of all times Hitler and Chenghis Khan , merely mentioning of their names leaves to sign of cooperation .For them there existed only two options whether it is their wish or no wish. Although there's was a reign of absolute monarch and yet they gained substantial number of followers , to fight aginst their opponents.Therefore it vividly proves that cooperation can not alone serve as a disposition for anyone to be leader. Thirdly, In order to prove the point in terms of what people can percieve at present rather that peeking into the past , is the example of Hon'ble Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He with his absolute mandate in parliamentary elections of Indian polity 2014 ,proved how indespensible are both the traits "cooperation" and "competition" for being an efficacious leader. He fought his opponents with an absolute competetive spirit which other wise would have been inconceivable if he didn't have one.Thus proved out to be an epitome of leadership. To sum up, I'd say that, Competing with the opponent and cooperating with your supporters is the major ingredient of any leader. Leader with only cooperative spirit would be like flower with out fragrance , because ultimately it is the fragrance of the flower which makes it suitable enough to be refined and converted into a scented perfume to serve thousands of people , looks though will attract the followers but smells is what which ultimately causes them to keep lingering around.

Thank you for taking a look at my two essays.! Issue- "Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.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." Communication is a large part of how humans interact with each other. Relationships are formed through conversation and understanding of two individuals. However, how do two friends continue that relationship as the fork in the road leads to the companions leading lives elsewhere in the world? There have been techonological advances in devices such as the telephone where simple communication can be achieved when two friends are miles apart. Techonology has hit it's head on the nail where it has aimed to make our lives much more simpler. The days have past where the pony express had to deliver mail to and fro from two people. Information moved at a snails pace through a mailman on a stallion at that time. Urgent news could be days away compared to a quick dial of a phone number leading to immediate satisfaction. The revalation that is the telephone has made lives easier in all walks of life. Another way that technology has simplified lives is the ability to become organized through our cellular phones. A singular device that fits in your pocket has the ability to do numerous tasks. Imagine an office desk; what does it comprise of? A few things would be a computer, access to the internet, a telephone, and many other sationary needs. The advances in technology has given the ability of a cell phone to be an office desk in the palm of your hands. Almost anything and everything one can task themselves with at their cubicle, they could do on a bus. The ability to do so has caused whole companies to move onto cellular phones. An example would be a taxi application called Uber. One could hail a personal taxi to their very position because of the global positioning system inside their phone. That taxi can take you wherver you'd like and payment is easy, again, right through the phone application. A complete business is run on a cellular phone and because of this, lives are made simpler not having to worry about transportation. Although technology has made insane movements to make lives easier, there are possible repercussions. Let's take the cellular phone again as an example. There have been reports stating that cellphones have caused the young adult generation to become anti-social; hiding behind their bright handheld screens keeping themselves away from human contact in public. Before cellphones were able to pull videos and articles to read through the air, people were reading books and newspapers in the same situations. Communication in public settings is not completely necessary. That video or news article can be educational to that person learning from it. Remember that information is as quick to surface as it arises. Now I remember that many parents always teach that talking to strangers is something that is not pivitol. So, that cellular phone does not make our lives anymore complicated because it is enlightening the users through the applications that it's able to perform. Technology has revolutionized the way that lives are lived. It is something that will continue to evolve as time moves on. There are technologies being developed to correct the human desolation of the earth. A problem that has been developed as a result to technology. However, because of increasing new technologies we are able to right our wrongs and learn from our mistakes, thus leading us to live simpler lives. Argument - "SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's current headquarters. Moreover, Middleburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. SuperCorp's move to Corporateville has proved to be a better choice compared to Middlesburg in the eyes of the SuperCorp heads. As stated, the homeowners in Corporatevill state its superior. The people saying that Corporateville is a better place are the people already living in it. Just as anyone who is asked about their hometown will speak highly about it. Pride in cities are seen especially when asked about living situation or likeability. SuperCorp being a super corperation is a possible high income, white collared company. Employees that are taking a part in the survey would perfer a nicer neighborhood than to an urbanized area. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree in this statement. If someone's income is high, they will want to use that money to treat themselves to a better and safer life for them and their family. Being that the survey is only for the employees, only those that work at SuperCorp are able to respond to it. The employees working at a super corperation will be making a pretty penny when it comes to their position at SuperCorp. Therefore Corporateville will be favored over Middleburg. The names of these cities provides implications of status. Employees at SuperCorp will be happy to say that they are not of middle class, and are members of the one percents. These people would desire a city name, Corporateville, that reflects their status. Therefore, the employee survey issued to the high money making workers will provide answers stating that the move from Middlesburg to Corporateville will be favored. Assuming that a profitable company leaves an area, and moves to another, taxes are sure to rise wherever it goes. Because the higher the population in a city will allow the rise in maintinence and property taxes to deal with the influx of people. With this, it will be a sad day when said employees who have wanted to save money see that taxes rise because of their large successful company moving so an area where they have brought income to the area.

Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which youagree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position,be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could beused to challenge your position. People in generalhave always been uncannily curious about all things gossipy and scandalous. Thepublic has little time to engage in convoluted issues that don't directlyaffect them. So major iniquitous incidents can often go unnoticed due to lack of significant publicpressure. In contrast scandals have a way to bring these inconspicuousdebauchery into the forefront of our lives and into the limelight in a way thatfew other system can rival. While skimming through the morning newspaperor while injecting our daily dose of television we often can't help but feel atouch of schadenfreude when we come across a scandal linked with a majorcorporation or that famous celebrity. Consider the case of the famous NFL starturned murderer O.J. Simpson that turned the whole United States on its head.When he was convicted of the murders in the 90s the whole of America couldn'tget enough of it. Every news outlet, every TV channel ran stories depicting thecurrent scenario then and everyone was captivated by the unfolding drama. Whatit did was bring age-old social issues like racism and the loop-holes of thecriminal justice system to the glare of publicity that no other case hassucceeded to do before. This case forever changed the way we see racism that nospeaker or reformer would hardly ever be able to and all of this was possiblebecause of a scandal. Moving on from theOJ Simpson case to a more recent unravelling when the FIFA was finally indictedof mass corruption after years of allegation was successfully proved to betrue. Prior to this development few were versed with the information on FIFA'smulti-million dollar syphoning of sponsor funding into off-shore bank accountswith the sole purpose of paying just for the apartments of some senior FIFAofficials' cats! Now it'd be hard to imagine without such sumptuous informationmany people even bothering to care about what was going on behind the scenes.That trivial little information brought to light the magnitude of corruptionsimply due to the sheer weirdness of the findings and a lot of people gotinterested. But ironically a lot of FIFA reformers such as Luis Figo andPlatini had been very vocal about these corruption long before the scandal, butfew paid any heed to them. Scandals, althoughcan influence issues and unearth hidden injustices which escape the public eye,can sometimes also bring innocent victims in their crosshair. Many celebritiesand top officials have fallen prey to the innate human nature to believe anythingthat is sufficiently repeated. On the otherhand Fake scandals can havedisastrous repercussions. Climate change denialism and Anti-vaccine scandalshave rocked the scientific community and many are worried about theirdeleterious effect on environment and the health sector respectively. Scandalssuch as these pose a great threat as they tap into the gullibility of theuninformed general. Famous speakers orreformers such as Carl Sagan has brought enormous scientific information intothe public domain while those such as Malala Yousufzai has opened our eyes tothe deplorable state of women in some developing countries. It is inaccurate to say that reformers and speakerslack the ability to focus our attention on oft overlooked problems because theycan. But it is just as true that scandals can propel extremely pertinent issuesinto public limelight fairly quickly too and shed light on age-old problems ina new light, and also because we cannot just get enough of scandals.

As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. The past two decades have seen an upsurge in technological advancements in almost every sphere of human undertakings. Not only have we developed gadgets that can monitor our homes while we are busy at work, but also robots almost as capable as human beings in a number of physical tasks in our factories. With every challenge in life, humanity has sought novel techniques and machinery to best address them. Contrary to the statement posited, it would be erroneous to simply conclude that such incredible advances in technology have reduced the human capacity to think for themselves. First, machines do not build themselves, but are established by the ingenuity of human minds after long and vigorous trials to ensure safety and efficiency. Moreover, the ability to develop commonplace gadgets as phones, comprise of thorough consumer market research, addressing particular needs and preferences; activities that need high levels of discernment to be able to live up to expectations. In addition to this, most technologies such as biomedical machinery are highly dynamic, needing constant upgrade to more efficiently address contemporary problems. Specialized institutions have therefore been established to train students towards such careers. Most students such as those in coveted institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology have been diligently trained to develop market oriented gadgets solving real-life problems. It is common knowledge that admission to the aforementioned institute is reserved for exemplary and talented students. Last and most importantly, most machines in use do not operate themselves. A code is developed by a human being that when applied, enables the machine to function. To exemplify this, think of a fancy computer with a sophisticated operating system whose developer promises a performance that outshines all other extant computers. The very basic step of booting this computer, mining for the exact data or task that one would like to perform reifies the notion of its robustness. If the user has no idea how to use it, it could as well be a couch. However, in retrospect, repetitive engagement in simple and complex tasks kept our minds guile, able to do quick mind calculations when need arose and solve quick problems. This kind of dynamism might not be as abundant as before. With responsible use of technology, we might benefit further in terms of thinking complexity as long as we are careful not to be over-dependent.

Hi guys this is my first time writing an issue essay.I would like a feedback on the same. TOPIC People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making. 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. RESPONSE: There are a number of factors that decide what path in life people choose to take. These factors do not lie in their hands and are largely decided by a sequence of actions taken by their ancestors. Or they might just choose to go with the crowd and do what others do. Nowhere do the majority of people exercise their freedom or creativity in thinking how to live their lives. One of the most common expressions an Indian parent would use is:’Look at your cousin, he made it into a top engineering college’. What these parent means to imbibe into their child’s mind is that he/she should strive hard and compete with the rest of the country to get into some of the best educational institutions. Every kid who finishes his 10th grade in India is thrown into a crazy grind to start preparing for a life of an engineer. Children are never at crossroads to decide what they mean to do going ahead in their life. They are just cajoled and manipulated into thinking that engineering is the only career choice that is apt for them. To bring out another point that bolsters my stand I would like to take the example of countries that are ruled by dictators even in a progressive 21st century. These are States where the ruler, a king or a dictator, assumes complete control of all the wings of democracy and is the supreme authority in deciding the peoples franchises and rights. The force that gives them this power is generally related to the strong roots and beliefs in religious orthodox views. These despots are never elected by the people. The common masses are never allowed to express opposition and are quailed by suppression through threat and force. What have the people done in order to receive this kind of treatment? A final point to buttress my stand is that of the havoc that plays out whenever there is a natural disaster or a sudden outbreak of a deadly diseases such as the plague. In the sixteenth century when the mass majority of England was riddled with the obnoxious and vitreolic disease plague there was nobody to blame. It wasn’t any deliberate action that set off the spree of deaths. It was blamed as an act of God. God is said to be a supernatural force that is way mightier and much more powerful than mankind. To sum up I conclude that , yes, there are certain actions that lie within the control of mankind and decide the course of actions such as our decision to use harmful sources of energy with deleterious consequences. But these consequences are not something any living being is going to face. It’s the future generations that will the pay the price for our choices.And yet again it was forces outside their control that will decide their fate.

Hello all :) Here's my issue essay response of one of the mock test which I've been giving lately. Would be grateful if anyone could analyze it and provide some incisive feedback. :) The issue at hand: Mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter. However, the overall effect has been positive: while people are less able to focus on one thing, they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through large quantities of information and find what’s important. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons or examples that could be used to challenge your position. My response: The given issue addresses the effect of mass media and internet on the common mass. It alleges that these two medium have resulted in people's attention span getting abridged. It further suggests that the arrant effect is positive as people have developed an enhanced ability to sort through large quantities of information and find what’s important. Nonetheless, I find myself in apposition to what has been stated in the issue. Firstly, I do believe that mass media and the internet have caused people's attention span to shorten. Mass media and the internet are two major and indefinite sources of information. There are many germane, as well as immaterial information available. It is of my opinion that this vastness has left a negative impact on the stake holders. Since it is a human tendency to get lured to superfluous data, they are prone to checking it out without completing their analysis of the current one. However, I find myself incapable of assimilating the fact that the overall effect has been positive. The claim raises a moot point that people have developed an enhanced ability to sort out large quantities of data according to one's need. However, I believe that this can be deceiving. Since the use of mass media and internet has made many people impetuous, their decisions cannot be relied upon. It is quite possible that many people sort out this data just by reading the title of the article. As we all know, a book cannot be judged from it's cover. Thus, one needs to skim through the topic in order to classify a certain topic as "not important". Another reason, why I believe that these two mediums renders the overall effect negative is because of the "mass media get-along" effect. It crudely means that people sometimes tend to follow the mass and thus, fail to distinguish their interests from others. For instance, an article about the recent Android Google Wear is being reiterated on the two platforms. Many people re-sharing it, or tweeting about it may make an ornithologist to not sort it out. However, that information is not of utter importance to an ornithologist, whose field of study is botany and birds. Recapitulating the ideas expressed in the above paraphrases, I certainly believe that excessive exposure to mass media and the internet overall has a negative effect on the mass. Thus, I don't feel it is becoming to justify that mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter.

Hi everybody, this is the first 30min practice I've done for the Analyze an Issue part of the GRE, so any feedback at all would be sincerely appreciated :) Topic: Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. We are all familiar with the adage "knowledge is power," and formal education, although oftentimes perceived as the bane of a student's existence, gives students the tools to expand their minds. The regimented style of formal education may seem on the surface to be stifling to freeing the mind. Studying each subject for a set number of hours, sitting for mandatory examinations, and being compelled to work on assignments after school all appear to be an unfavorable environment to mental growth. However, by requiring students to study in a variety of different subjects, formal education opens the doors for students to think broadly and critically in scope. Although sitting in a desk for eight hours a day may seem physically constraining, formal education can help nuture students' creativity and thirst for knowledge. It is a requirement of most schools that students take classes in a variety of subjects: sciences, including social science, language arts, foreign languages, to name a few. Although the institution of requirements may seem restraining in nature, by compelling students to study a plethora of topics schools expose students to many different concepts that they may not have seen before. In this fashion, schools introduce students to many different subjects and expand the minds. Formal education also involves a great deal of work outside of class by assigning homework. Although this practice is unfavorable with the majority of students, regimented practice helps students become more skillful in a topic. Once a student has acheived a base knowledge in a topic, they can take the initiative to explore beyond the basics and into new areas. The nation's greatest researchers were not able to question old schools of thought or think of new hypotheses without first having a solid knowledge of the basics. Galileo would not have been able to challenge Copernicus's invalid idea that the sun traveled around the earth had he not first been educated in the subject of astrology. By mandating that students gain knowledge in various subjects , formal education fosters critical thinking, a skill that is unattainable to the ignorant. This is not to say that formal education is the only possible method of producing inquisitive, critical-thinking individuals. There are many successful autodidates who reached prowess in their respectable fields without ascribing to formal education. The author Jorge Luis Borges, phycisist Michael Farraday, and painter and occassional engineer Leonardo Da Vinci are all good examples that formal education is not necessary to be successful in your field. However this is not a viable option for everyone. Not everyone can take the intitiative to pick up a task or a profession on their own, or has the resources to do this. The likelihood of a twelve-year-old dropping out of school and pushing themselves until they attain the position of a world class chemist is very slim. Thus, formal education allows every student an equal chance to shine.