Sign in to follow this  

Grade my GRE Essays?

Recommended Posts

hi could someone or multiple people give feedback on my recent gre practice essays; it would be much appreciated. as an fyi i turned off the spell check so things might get a bit sloppy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts.

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.


            Educators should not only teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. If educators were to follow this recommendation not only would learning be diminished within the class, but outside of the class as well. Although the recommendation attempts to present a recommendation which protects the structure of education, learning by atpyical means and not straightforward conventions can solidfy learning material.


            Educators should note, learning facts without previous understanding or notions of a topic can be very beneficial to learning. Take for example, studying waves in physics. A student might be able to observe that with a quicker rate of sliding a rope on the ground the troupes of a wave are higher and the period of a wave, smaller than compared to a rope swung not so quickly on the ground. Students therefore, learn to identify quicker rates with higher yields and shorter cycles; an idea that can help students learn the information after or during a presentation of facts. What occurs during a future lecture therefore, is a solid reassurance of the trends an object of study might undergo, and therefore a more deeper understanding of the material and facts.


            Indeed, engaging with facts before discussion stimulates educational curiousity and demonstrates a deeper knowledge of material already presented as factual. For example, if a student were to practice studying Fibbanica squences after just learning counting principals and patterns the student would learn new material and be challenged in different mannors. A new type of challenge can stimulate a students brian in ways different than simply reviewing a topic then learning the facts. Clearly, there is a great benefit in the learning process for students to learn facts without prior understanding of topics or ideas. In the example given learning the Fibbanica squence in fact, can review core concepts learned prior to studying recurrsion squences.


            If educators were to only teach in one way, that is study the idea of a topic, or trends and concepts before a fact, indeed, the learning process and potential for a student may be hampered. Since learning facts without prior knowledge requires a new and deeper engagment with material denying an educator the opportunity to encourage educational curiousity discourages students from seeking new educational opportunities and understandings. Furthermore, if an educator only teaches the facts, of that which is discussed in abstract notions, the amount a student can learn is drastically reduced from a student whose educator is eager to teach facts aside from that already mentioned.


            To encourage educational vigor and spiritedness educators should not teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. Doing so would short students of the amount they could learn and discourage educational venturism. Indeed, learning facts, perhaps in an abstract sense, before studying ideas, such as a period or troupe, can lead to a strong foundation for future ideas, concepts and indeed, facts.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Moreover, the majority of families in Bay City are two-income families, and a nationwide study has shown that such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals than they did a decade ago but at the same time express more concern about healthful eating. Therefore, the new Captain Seafood restaurant that specializes in seafood should be quite popular and profitable.

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


            The foundation for the argument presented is weak. Indeed, some of the statistical findings or reports immediately contradict one another, such as; the idea that seafood dishes are going up in consumption, yet household eating rates are dropping, and yet there are no main seafood resturantes in Bay City. In order to evaluate if a new Captian Seafood restaurant would do well in Bay City surveys of public opinion and an understanding of public dietary preferences are needed.


            The first statistic of the argument should not be a statistic and in fact, should give numbers in order to illustrate a point. The first statisticcites that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City have gone up percent, however, the starting point of the statistic is not mentioned. Therefore, consumption of seafood could have gone up from an origin of 1 or 0, over the past five years which means either not gone up or relavtively little. Indeed, perhaps instead of citing a proportion, the statistic should give numbers instead, so audiences have a clear understanding of the real growth of seafood consumption. Presenting numbers would be more trustable and hollistic.


            In regards to the arguments following the mentioning of a national survey, the national survey may not apply to Bay City; therefore, the author’s following arguments may be missleading or incorrect. There is no date or details concerning the nationwide study. Perhaps the survey is old or misconstrune. Indeed, the statement, “such families eat significantly fewer home-cooked meals….but at the same time express more concern about healthful eating,” seems contradictory in logic. Futhermore, whether or not the survey applies to Bay City is not mentioned. A local sturvey of Bay City is required in order to determine if residents are eatting out more. A more local survey would indeed, be more enlightening to the success of a new seafood restaurant.


            Finally, the question of if residents would go to a specfic seafood restaurant is up for debate; meaning the entire argument made by the author cocerning the success of a new resturante rests on shaky grounds. Assuming the previous statistics are correct and apply to Bay City, whether or not the residents of Bay City find seafood healthly and whether or not a specfic seafood restaurante would do well is unanwsered. If the residents of Bay City do care more about healthly food, knowing if seafood is a healthly food or if the people of Bay City consider seafood to be healthly is important. There could also be missed underlying assumptions critical to understanding future predictions on the dietary preferences and habits of Bay City; for example, are many within the population allergic to fish? Knowing dietary preferences of Bay City is important for making future predictions concerning the success of a restaurante. Furthermore, knowing whether or not the people of Bay City would go to a specfic restaurante is unknown. More information about the restaurante needs to be presented and surveyed for responses amoung the population. For example, questions such as; is the restaurante close to most residents, or is the restaurante clean and attractive are important to ask. There are many more questions to ask before assuming the people of Bay City would go to a specific restaurante.


            Clearly, the argument presented is not well developed. Although the author means well by presenting both local and national survey information, unfortnately not knowing any information regarding the survey collection process hampers the authors arguments. Indeed, the author also leaves critical questions left unanwsered; such as whether or not the people have a preference for a new seafood restaurante. Without more surveys among the general populace of Bay City the evidence and the conculsions of the author seem inncorrect.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this