Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'issue argument'.
Found 5 results
Hi all! I'm taking the GRE pretty soon and would appreciate any feedback (and a grade) for my practice issue essay. Thank you in advance! Here's the question.... All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with these statements and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statements might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. And my response... I disagree with the statement that companies who listen more to their own employees would not need outside consultants. Although listening to one's own employees and hiring outside consultants are two different approaches to company betterment, they are not mutually exclusive, and one approach would not necessarily eliminate a need for the other. Companies generally hire outside consultants to increase profit by boosting overall efficiency. These outside consultants take a 'big picture' stance when viewing what the company should change. The suggestions from outside consultants are important because they come from an objective and knowledgeable source, and companies often need the advice of others who are not involved in the day-to-day aspects of the company itself. In addition to receiving suggestions from hired outside sources, companies should also be sure to listen to their employees. The human resources side of business is certainly important in its own way, and ensuring the satisfaction of employees helps to keep up productivity within the company. This intra-business, individual-focused approach to company efficiency is certainly one important aspect, but it is certainly not the only necessity to run a successful business. One example of this multi-pronged approach in action involves the National Institutes of Health (NIH). At the NIH, outside contractors are hired to evaluate the quality of data analysis, assess both ethical and practical aspects of research proposals, and even provide a quadrennial review of the use of funds for research and the related outcomes. In addition to all these quality controls and efficiency checks that are necessary to keep the research on-track and of the highest possible quality, there are ample opportunities for employees themselves to make suggestions and express their own opinions on how to improve both the research itself and the work environment generally. This truly holistic approach allows employees to be heard in addition to utilizing the expertise of objective outsiders to improve the company as much as possible. Because employees are involved in very specific tasks or research areas, it would not make sense to only rely on individual suggestions. Especially in such a large, diversified work environment, it is important to have some suggestions from consultants who know how to remain detached and to assess the overall efficiency of such a large-scale environment. In some cases, such as with small start-up businesses, it may be true that employee opinions are the only ones necessary to increase efficiency, especially if there is a smaller budget with which to work. Given the cost of hiring outside consultants, it is certainly true that some of these smaller businesses would not benefit enough from the advice to justify the hiring, and that in-house assessment of efficiency could provide high quality suggestions for improvement. In these cases, the original statement could hold true. However, it is often the case that a multi-pronged, multi-level approach involving both subjective inside and objective outside suggestions provide the best assortment of suggestions for how to increase a company's efficiency.
I know I need a little work in this area and I'd appreciate any feedback (and a grade) for my practice issue essay. Thank you in advance! Here's the question.... Claim: The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States. Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics will inevitably decline. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. And my response... I disagree with both the claim and the reasoning. It is true that social media has become more popular recently and is widely used. It may also be true that the quality of political discourse in this country has declined. However, despite the potential correlation of the two trends, claiming that the former caused the latter would require a leap in logic. The recent introduction and quick spread of social media into US culture has brought about many changes in the way people interact. It is easier than ever to keep in contact with friends and acquaintances far away, and updating everyone on oneself is as easy as the click of a button. In the blogosphere, anyone can post about virtually any subject. Googling a subject will turn up a plethora of opinion pieces, news articles, and (usually) a Wikipedia article or two. The potential to reach such a large audience through online publishing has widened the political discourse, both how many people are vocal and what is being discussed). This abundance of available opinions and the ability of people to share with one another and 'spread the word' has brought about the age of viral posts and cybernetworks of social movements. The development of this was observable in the online activity that took place after Hurricane Katrina. A multitude of posts and reposts about the horribly lagging (and lacking) emergency response brought together a group of bloggers with similarly appalled reactions. After recognizing their common beliefs about an injustice, they organized a minor movement in order to take action and bring the issue to the general public's attention. Through social media, this group was able to influence local, as well as some national, news reports, and the issues related to our domestic disaster relief were addressed by the responsible government agencies. The blogosphere in this case did not weaken the quality of political discourse, but may in fact have exposed an issue that could have (and may actually have) just been quickly explained away or covered up without being dealt with appropriately. It has not been proven that there is actually a decline in quality of political discourse. One might argue that there is sometime higher quality and more socially conscious discussion than in the past. However, assuming there is a decline in quality, many different factors could have caused it. The quality, as well as the scope, of political discussion is influenced by factors such as increased globalization and international affairs/conflicts, the economic state of the US, and political leadership, to name a few. Although social media has had an undeniable effect on the lives of Americans, it is difficult to parse out the relationship between such common aspects of daily life as political climate and social media presence. Although it is true that social media can be used to spread ignorant or unfactual 'issues' which may in turn make their way into the political discussion (e.g. the spread of the anti-vaccine movement), there are just as many important ideas being spread through the same virtual world. It is most necessary in this age to develop the skill to discern the 'junk' posts from the important ones, so that the ideas worth spreading do, in fact, circulate through social media.
Evaluate Issue Essay - Scandals are useful..
MahamFRajput posted a topic in GRE Analysis of an IssueScandals 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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In order to divert our attention towards problem, a scandles is needed. In addition, it also promote knowledge about related issues/problems. It is evident from history that scandles have succeed in bringing one's attention towards problem because of the hype it catches through media. In general our society loves to gossip around, scandles give them a chance to do so. For the same reason, it usually gets more air-time on television - promotes the awareness - which diverts one's attention towards it. Along with that, the related challenges also gets highlighted. Which often leads to the revealation of many hidden or untold stories. Scandles, apart from creating awareness, also encourages other society members to refrain themselve from get involved in promoting such problems. Due to excessive media involvement, the relevant authorities are also challenged - or made answerable - in more powerful way than usual. On the other hand, the scandles are promoted on the cost of one's reputation. If the accused person is not culprit(or guilty) then, such promotion can harms one's reputation and personality. Scandles in our society does gets limelight, because of media hype and societies love for gossips. So, they are useful in bringing one's attention on problem in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.
Please rate my Analysis an Issue Task
vivek2014 posted a topic in GRE Analysis of an IssueQuestion :As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.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. Answer : I disagree with above mentioned issue since I believe inventions are the root cause which lead to our evolution otherwise we would have been in Stone Age for the rest of time . Over period , inventions have evolved us and with our inventions we have reached till Moon as well as explored our galaxy. For justifying let us take an example of steam engine. This wonderful invention have connected us with different parts of world and we helped us in reaching shorter span of time. And if inventions , were stopped , we would not have invented aerial transport such as aeroplane invented by Wright Brothers . In short , over period of time our needs have led to many inventions without which our life would have been incomplete . Imagine a life without telephone , television how would an efficient communication happen without such inventions. Contrary , inventions have also disturbed our human thinking in some manner, that I will confess. Such as usage of calculators in such a manner that one would not do simple calculations that people of previous generation could do easily. But these defects are minimal and could be controlled with our will and our dedication. But if inventions would have ruined our thinking , than there might have been extremely chaotic , unruly world. In fact over the years , inventions have taught us and we have learned and improved , with eager of making human world more efficient , intelligent and productive.
Evaluate Mine and I'll Evaluate Yours!
conscientious posted a topic in GRE Analysis of an IssueGovernments should offer college and university education free of charge to all students. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Governments have a responsibility to invest in the education of the population for the benefit of the population. However, it is not necessary nor even a good identity to cover the entire cost of post-secondary education. As in Canada, governments do well to subsidize college and university education to a reasonable portion of the cost. To begin with, relying entirely on government funding is likely to reduce the finances of the schools. Without raising taxes, government budgets everywhere are already very tight without room for a huge additional expense. This means less money to compete with other countries for quantity and quality of professors, courses, and facilities. What good is a free education if the education is sub-par at best? When subsidized by the government, schools have obligation both toward supporting government interests of societal benefit, as well as the capitalistic drive to compete and profit, which drives performance and innovation. Furthermore, the huge additional expense to the government will surely take away from other more universally rewarding beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the investment does not benefit all citizens directly. Many people are not interested nor suited for post-secondary education. Taking away from infrastructure and military, for instance, doesn’t help people without children at post-secondary age who have to put up with the potholes and reduced security. If anything, the free aspect will attract many more students who are not committed or just not a good fit for university or college. This will detract from the serious students. Instead, subsidy tempers the obstacle of cost to make it more reasonable, while still maintaining a cost that acts, in a way, as a test of a student’s dedication. That said, some countries have implemented free post-secondary schooling. Education, after all, is a clear contributor to a country’s economy and GDP. Taking away the barrier of cost allows equal access to all. It is a matter of tradeoff. The United States has some of the most expensive schools, but they are also some of the world’s best schools. When a resource is made accessible to more people through government funding, something has to give, whether it be other services we rely on like infrastructure or the quality of the resource itself, or both. Government certainly has a strong relationship with the country’s schools. That is why most government’s fund elementary and secondary school. But should that extend to post-secondary? It would come at significant cost to the quality of the school as well as the other government services losing funding to compensate. As such, it is a more appropriate approach to subsidize post-secondary education rather than funding it completely. We need higher level thinkers and doers developed by higher level education. Beyond our physical health, our personal and societal quality of life depends on mental aptitude.