dkellogg94

Hello! GRE on August 11th. I know these two essay weren't my best but I'm under a time crunch today. If someone could please give them a ballpark score I would appreciate it! I did not go back and edit so I know the grammar is probably not the best but any advice is helpful! Also, any advice on introductions for issue or argument tasks? I'm not sure if we can just jump into it or if rephrasing the prompt in any manner is preferred? Thank you. Issue Task "The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones" While this practice may be advantageous in some contexts, teaching should primarily aim to improve students or trainees abilities. If one focuses on praising positive actions but ignores negative actions, there is little room for improvement or learning from one’s mistakes or shortcomings. There should be a balance between praise and constructive criticism. If someone is only told about their successes and positive actions, they may not be aware of the negative actions they have committed. Whether this lack of awareness stems from ignorance or from blatant disregard of the effects of one’s actions, constructive criticism is a necessary tool in teaching. In addition to bringing things one needs to work on to light, focusing on negative actions in a constructive manner can lead to solving or limiting future negative actions. Instead, ignoring negative actions will rarely lead to any positive change. In fact, ignoring negative actions can lead one to believe that they are doing nothing wrong and reinforce these behaviors as acceptable. Finally, ignoring negative actions does not address the root of the problem. Teaching should center on the improvement of its students or disciples, which requires change on the students part. As stated, one cannot improve in regards to negative behavior unless these issues are addressed through constructive criticism. For example, when a police officer in training demonstrates negative behaviors, it is advantageous to tell them when their demeanor is counter-productive or contradictory to the code a police officer is expected to uphold. This can be easily fixed by speaking to the trainee and working together to figure out how to fix the negative actions for the future rather than ignoring these actions and hoping they stop. In the context of an elementary school classroom, praising positive actions supersedes addressing negative actions. However, schoolteachers know that they must address negative actions as well. Through anti-bullying programs, time-out chairs, and cooperative activities, down to the elementary school level it is advantageous to praise positive actions as well as work on addressing negative actions. The argument mentions one teaching method, which in theory sounds beneficial. In practice, however, it is disadvantageous. There are constructive ways to address negative actions while still focusing on positive actions, too. This manner of teaching, wherein negative actions are addressed, should be preferred over one where negative actions are simply ignored and reinforced. ARGUMENT TASK The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist "Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observaation that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own boilogical parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of island that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about theri biological parents than about other adults in the village. this research of mine proves that Dr. field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the ovservation--centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. the interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurte understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures." In order to assess the argument proposed by Dr. Karp, additional evidence is necessary to back up or refute his claims. The difference in methodology, along with possible differences among subjects and place or time could influence the validity of his argument. The data collected from the observations is compared with data collected from a interviews. However, we do not know whether the questions in the interview were framed a particular way, perhaps focusing on the child’s relationship with their parents or caregivers. Similarly, observations could have taken place in any setting in the village but we are not given this information. Dr. Karp’s claim that interviews assess child-rearing practices more accurately would be strengthened given evidence that the manner of observation and interview were both without biases and framing. If Dr. Karp’s grad students did frame their questions in a particular way and Dr. Field simply observed different settings, then the argument would be weakened. In addition, the interviews conducted by Dr. Karp’s team occur 20 years after the observations by Dr. Field. It is possible, although we cannot ascertain, that the new generation of children in Tertia are raised the same as the generation 20 years prior. If this evidence was provided, it would strengthen Dr. Karp’s claims. However, it is likely that the population and child-rearing practices changed over the last two decades and thus Dr. Karp’s observed differences may be a factor of time rather than fact. If time change can account for the observed differences, then Dr. Karp’s argument is weakened. Finally, Dr. Field conducted his observations on the island of Tertia, while Dr. Karp interviewed children on the “group of islands that includes Tertia”. While the islands may have similar cultural practices, Dr. Field’s study focused only on Tertia and thus Dr. Karp cannot compare one population to multiple populations in the same island grouping. Although, if Dr. Karp is basing his argument on the subset of interviews from Tertia alone, then the argument is strengthened. Only then can he assess changes in a particular island because he is comparing them to the same island’s culture in Dr. Field’s study. This argument lacks a number of important pieces of evidence, which can help to strengthen or weaken the validity of Dr. Karp’s claims. Discrepancies in time, place, and methodology may account for the difference in results between the two studies. So, additional information is required.

Hello! GRE on August 11th. I know these two essay weren't my best but I'm under a time crunch today. If someone could please give them a ballpark score I would appreciate it! I did not go back and edit so I know the grammar is probably not the best but any advice is helpful! Also, any advice on introductions for issue or argument tasks? I'm not sure if we can just jump into it or if rephrasing the prompt in any manner is preferred? Thank you. Issue Task "The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones" While this practice may be advantageous in some contexts, teaching should primarily aim to improve students or trainees abilities. If one focuses on praising positive actions but ignores negative actions, there is little room for improvement or learning from one’s mistakes or shortcomings. There should be a balance between praise and constructive criticism. If someone is only told about their successes and positive actions, they may not be aware of the negative actions they have committed. Whether this lack of awareness stems from ignorance or from blatant disregard of the effects of one’s actions, constructive criticism is a necessary tool in teaching. In addition to bringing things one needs to work on to light, focusing on negative actions in a constructive manner can lead to solving or limiting future negative actions. Instead, ignoring negative actions will rarely lead to any positive change. In fact, ignoring negative actions can lead one to believe that they are doing nothing wrong and reinforce these behaviors as acceptable. Finally, ignoring negative actions does not address the root of the problem. Teaching should center on the improvement of its students or disciples, which requires change on the students part. As stated, one cannot improve in regards to negative behavior unless these issues are addressed through constructive criticism. For example, when a police officer in training demonstrates negative behaviors, it is advantageous to tell them when their demeanor is counter-productive or contradictory to the code a police officer is expected to uphold. This can be easily fixed by speaking to the trainee and working together to figure out how to fix the negative actions for the future rather than ignoring these actions and hoping they stop. In the context of an elementary school classroom, praising positive actions supersedes addressing negative actions. However, schoolteachers know that they must address negative actions as well. Through anti-bullying programs, time-out chairs, and cooperative activities, down to the elementary school level it is advantageous to praise positive actions as well as work on addressing negative actions. The argument mentions one teaching method, which in theory sounds beneficial. In practice, however, it is disadvantageous. There are constructive ways to address negative actions while still focusing on positive actions, too. This manner of teaching, wherein negative actions are addressed, should be preferred over one where negative actions are simply ignored and reinforced. ARGUMENT TASK The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist "Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observaation that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own boilogical parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in the group of island that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about theri biological parents than about other adults in the village. this research of mine proves that Dr. field's conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the ovservation--centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. the interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurte understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures." In order to assess the argument proposed by Dr. Karp, additional evidence is necessary to back up or refute his claims. The difference in methodology, along with possible differences among subjects and place or time could influence the validity of his argument. The data collected from the observations is compared with data collected from a interviews. However, we do not know whether the questions in the interview were framed a particular way, perhaps focusing on the child’s relationship with their parents or caregivers. Similarly, observations could have taken place in any setting in the village but we are not given this information. Dr. Karp’s claim that interviews assess child-rearing practices more accurately would be strengthened given evidence that the manner of observation and interview were both without biases and framing. If Dr. Karp’s grad students did frame their questions in a particular way and Dr. Field simply observed different settings, then the argument would be weakened. In addition, the interviews conducted by Dr. Karp’s team occur 20 years after the observations by Dr. Field. It is possible, although we cannot ascertain, that the new generation of children in Tertia are raised the same as the generation 20 years prior. If this evidence was provided, it would strengthen Dr. Karp’s claims. However, it is likely that the population and child-rearing practices changed over the last two decades and thus Dr. Karp’s observed differences may be a factor of time rather than fact. If time change can account for the observed differences, then Dr. Karp’s argument is weakened. Finally, Dr. Field conducted his observations on the island of Tertia, while Dr. Karp interviewed children on the “group of islands that includes Tertia”. While the islands may have similar cultural practices, Dr. Field’s study focused only on Tertia and thus Dr. Karp cannot compare one population to multiple populations in the same island grouping. Although, if Dr. Karp is basing his argument on the subset of interviews from Tertia alone, then the argument is strengthened. Only then can he assess changes in a particular island because he is comparing them to the same island’s culture in Dr. Field’s study. This argument lacks a number of important pieces of evidence, which can help to strengthen or weaken the validity of Dr. Karp’s claims. Discrepancies in time, place, and methodology may account for the difference in results between the two studies. So, additional information is required.

I started doing the Magoosh study plan and I'm planning on taking my GRE sometime in August. These are practices I did by timing myself. First one is an issue task and second is argument task. If you could please review and grade them honestly! I got a bit sidetracked and ran out of time (my main weakness) so I haven't had the chance to proofread but I wanted to post them as is. Thank you!! Issue Task The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves. 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. Modernization comes in waves, each time bringing new ideas and solutions to society. While this is a common pattern throughout human history, recent generations show exponential increases in the pace of living. Technology, such as the Internet, has surpassed its preliminary stages as a new invention and become a necessary tool and addiction for living in our constantly moving modern society. As a result, the rapid pace of life characteristic of modern-day society robs individuals of human interaction and enjoyment of life. As society progresses, we rely more and more on machines and technology to make our lives more efficient. A commuter rushing to work can check their cell phone for information on the quickest bus or train route to get there on time. When a bus does not arrive on schedule, a city dweller will fervently refresh their bus tracker app, cursing technology for the delay. Although they seldom ask a bus station worker or a fellow commuter about the reliability of these applications. Human interaction has been replaced with reliance on technology which tells us everything we need to know. Most information we need can be found online within seconds. From bank balances to the ailment we are suffering from, there is an app we can rely on and which will provide that information more readily than a human being, such as a bank teller or a doctor. The fast-paced lives we live promote efficiency at the cost of cutting out extraneous human interactions and replacing them with computerized results. Our lives move so quickly that we find ourselves constantly moving. From one commitment to another, the same technology which helps us save time also encourages us to pack activity into every moment of our waking hours. Wielding a bus tracker, the city dweller has a few minutes to order coffee at Starbucks — paying with an app stored on their cell phone — before speedwalking to the bus stop. This can be very stressful. Any hiccup, whether it be a delay with the bus, malfunctioning coffee payment app, or human error from walking too slowly, can result in a catastrophe. By over-scheduling our daily lives, we set ourselves up for added stress and anxiety. The very technology we rely on to keep us grounded in this fast-paced world fails us time and again, because it cannot accommodate for the random events that occur in the real world. The unpredicability of our worlds cannot be accounted for with technology and so we begin to dread the unknown. We are set up to fail when we rely on technology which cannot account for these deviations. On the other hand, progress results from moving quickly and with purpose. As the pace of living increases, we are required to invent solutions to regulate our world. Creativity is a necessary by product of a rapid paced lifestyle. If society never progressed, there would be no need for bus tracking applications. The buses would arrive at random, commuters would wait, and be fired for being inevitabily late. Companies would have consistent turnover and be more focused on maintaining a workforce than inventing new ideas and promoting their existing workers. The rapid pace of life leads to a multitude of problems, involving added stress and the neglect of human interaction among our daily lives. Although the increasing pace of life comes with progress, we cannot allow progress to dominate over the value of the human experience. As a result, the rapid pace of life causes more problems in our society than it solves. Argument Task A recently issued twenty-year study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia investigated the possible therapeutic effect of consuming salicylates. Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, food-processing companies also add salicylates to foods as preservatives. The twenty-year study found a correlation between the rise in the commercial use of salicylates and a steady decline in the average number of headaches reported by study participants. At the time when the study concluded, food-processing companies had just discovered that salicylates can also be used as flavor additives for foods, and, as a result, many companies plan to do so. Based on these study results, some health experts predict that residents of Mentia will suffer even fewer headaches in the future. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction. The reduction in headaches among a population of residents from Mentia is attributed to the increased consumption of salicylate during the previous twenty years. The author of the argument cites the study wherein they based these claims as support. However, the validity of this argument is questionable, given the existence of a few major assumptions. While the conclusion of this argument may be true, there are a few changes which may strengthen its logical progression. We cannot state that the consumption of salicylates caused the reduction of headaches for residents of Mentia because the study is correlational. There may be another factor influencing the rate of headaches experienced by participants in this study. Perhaps the participants in the study experience an abnormally high incidence of headaches as compared to the general population. Thus, the study sample is not representative. One way to remedy this issue is for the researchers to use a comparison control group for the duration of the study, evaluating the incidence of headaches among those participants as compared to the participants consuming salicylates. Then they can affirm that salicylate consumption leads to a reduction in headaches. Given that the study began twenty years ago, it may be that age is a factor in experiencing headaches. The original study population was twenty years older at the end of the study than at the beginning. Younger people may experience headaches more frequently, depending on the various stressors in their lives. After retirement, for example, an individual has more time to relax and do enjoyable things. The author should provide information on the typical pattern of headaches throughout the lifetime as well as the age of the participants in the study. If headaches generally double in frequency each year after age 50 and the study evaluated participants from 50 to 70 years old, then it is likely that the observed changes in headaches are independent of participants’ ages. In that case, this information further supports the argument. Finally, the argument does not explain how any of the variables were measured in the study. Nor do they explain the sample of residents of Mentia. The vague description of the study weakens its plausability because the author does not describe anything more than the results. If the researchers chose participants of all ages, required them to consume a certain amount of salicylates and log their headaches daily, then we know that the study is both representative and uses quantitative and qualitative measure. This information supports the argument because it shows that the study follows certain scientific guidelines. However, if the researchers asked participants to ballpark the number of headaches they experienced over the last twenty years and did not evaluate individual changes in salicylate consumption, then their claims lack validity. The argument relies on a few major assumptions, which bring the validity of these claims into question. To improve the logical flow of the argument, the author must add a more detailed account of the specifics of the study. In addition, the author assumes that correlation leads to causation. While it may be true that the correlation between salicylate consumption and the reduction in headaches is a cause and effect relationship, we cannot know this for sure without employing certain scientific measures. Finally, the study is twenty years old and it may be that the conditions in Mentia have changed since then. For this reason, the argument has many flaws which should be addressed to strengthen its conclusion.