zhunter

In the meantime I've done another one: Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society. In the first years of school, every student should improve his knowledge studying on the same national curriculum in order to achieve the same basis. I am in total agreement with his statement. Every nation should identify and provide the same starting basis in the same subjects all over the country. In my opinion, before entering at the college, every student must have a general knowledge about the fundamental areas, like math, the specific country language, english, computer basics, general sciences and civil duty. This is a very important requirement which every one must have, in order to have solid basics. If every country is able to provide this kind of education, all people will have many possibilities for their futures. For instance, I remember my grandfather that told me "ah! if I hd studied... How many thing I would had done!". In particular, he did not study when he was young, because his family did not have money to pay the primary school and, at this epoch, the primary school was not compulsory. I have cited this specific episode, in order to clarify my position: everyone should have a solid knowledge, based on specific programs and scheduled chosen by the school all over the country. In that way, everyone will have a good educational program and solid basis for his future. A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. This television station decided to to spend much time on the national news, decreasing the time devoted on local news and also on weather information, for reasons that are not specified in the text. The consequence of that rescheduled time was an increasing of complaints about the weather and the local news. Furthermore, the station loose local businesses advertisment. However, in this part the manager forget to specify if the rescheduled time had some benefits on the whole viewers number. For instance, if the whole number of spectators were increased, then the complaints of local people, could have been ignored if the goal of the reschedule was the increase of viewers. The same reasoning could be done about the second part of the memorandum, where the manager was talking about the local advertising. On the other hand, if the whole number number of viewers were not increased significantly, or if the goal was not that mentioned before, then it is clear that the station should restore such time to weather and local news, in order to get success with local spectators and with local advertisement.

Thanks for the reply, could you give me some advice? especially for the argument task...

I reported here my two first writing essays of a GRE simulations, thanks you in advacce! Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society. Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above. The foundation of a good society is an imperative for a good world. Our society is based on how we chose to live, on our actions and on our behaviour, and all these things are the result of our education. So that, from my point of view, everything starts from the educational system. Of course, for education system I mean not only the compulsory school, but also the education that our parents and our family give to us. Overall, there are two types of education: the first is based on morality and the second on the logical reasoning. In my opinion, the better approach to achieve a good educational system is to use both approaches. First of all, in some situations morality allows us to make the "right" decision without a logical approach and without knowing rules and laws. It is something that resides somewhere inside ourselves and it is built by our education. On the other hand, people which are grown up in very different places, experienced different morality and different choices. This is a very important point, where the logical reasoning should give help. It is known that different people, which were born in different world areas, experienced the same behaviour in particular occasions, using the logic. If our brain is trained to react in a systematic, logical and mathematical way, it should give the right answer where the morality could fail.The astronauts, for instance, should reasoning in a logical way to face off problems in space. That is something that morality cannot do. To sum up, I think that a good and solid education should be built on a strong logical reasoning, but always starting from a good morality. And the issue topic: A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. 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 these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. The statement is referred to a recall of pet food by the same company that produce it. The reaction was done after various signs of illnesses experienced by animals which ate this food. In my opinion, if the illness were experienced by all pets, it is certainly a food problem. Despite the company did not find any chemical anomaly on some food samples, there must be a problem elsewhere. Maybe the samples used are not significantly of the whole recalled pet food, or the anomaly was hidden or not considered by this kind of chemical analysis. On the other hand, in the statement is not specified how many animals experienced health troubles. In fact, if the company did not find anomalies, maybe the percentage of pets which had some sort of illness were not enough to create a warning on the quality of the food. At the same time, I think that is always suspicious when a company decides to retire an amount of millions pounds of food from the marked. This always creates a bad opinion on the company.