It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 15:46

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# rate my issue essay

Author Message
Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2011, 08:02
“In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior, in other countries, there is little or no censorship.”

In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving reasons and/or examples to support your position.

The issue of government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs
is a controversial one. On the one hand. Some people support that government and some groups should be responsible for censoring the tv and radio program because it could help to create a harmonious society, on the other hand, others refute such opinion, they think that freedom speech and commercial value of TV and radio programs are priority. However, in the final analysis, I believe that government or any other group should be responsible for censor tv or radio programs.
One reason for my belief is that tv or radio programs censorship is good for young children. Some reports say that children spend twice as much time as adults on watching tv or listening radio programs. Without proper supervision on what programs young children watch, children are more likely go astray in some way. For example, if children watch too much violent tv program, he or she will become violent among others and become brutal and unreasonable which is bad for child’s development at early age.
Another reason for my belief is that censorship on tv or radio programs could prevent social turbulence. Every day we assimilate a lot of information that coming from tv or radio programs, if these information is distorted or perhaps lead some people to do bad things, for instance, committing a crime or robbing a bank, etc. Advertisement or information with such slight bad misleading behavior should be totally banned.
Perhaps the best reason is that every country has its own way of conducting supervision on tv or radio programs. It is obvious that for some countries they tend to open violence or sexual invasion on some condition while some countries don’t, for the countries who are unlikely want their citizen to be so democratic, we need government or any other groups to regulate some of commercial conduct, because it is not commercial value is priority, it is exactly people social value or moral value matters most
For all these reasons, I therefore believe that government or any other group should censor television or radio programs based on three reasons I stated, besides censorship on tv or radio program not only help us city become more peaceful but also bring more important education or knowledge to people in the society.

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: App Time
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: United States (PA)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2011, 10:50
Good effort.

Please find my comments inline. Of course these are just my thoughts on what I found difficult to understand.

Hope it helps.

tracyyahoo wrote:
The issue of government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs is a controversial one. On the one hand. Some people support that government and some groups should be responsible for censoring the tv and radio program because it could help to create a harmonious society, on the other hand, others refute such opinion, they think that freedom speech and commercial value of TV and radio programs are priority. However, in the final analysis, I believe that government or any other group should be responsible for censor tv or radio programs.

1. Minor - The period is not required for "On the one hand. Some...", it should be "On one hand, some..."
2. The second sentence is really long and difficult to follow through. Something simpler would have been better. e.g. "There are people on both sides of this debate. Some support government censoring the programming on TV and radio with the justification that it would help create a harmonious society whereas others refute the idea in favor of freedom of speech."
3. Minor - "However, in the final analysis..." makes it sound like you are reaching a conclusion right away. Personally, at this point I would suggest (not conclude) what you agree with and state the actual conclusion in the final passage. e.g. "However, there are several examples that justify the opinion that censorship by government is in fact the better approach."

tracyyahoo wrote:
One reason for my belief is that tv or radio programs censorship is good for young children. Some reports say that children spend twice as much time as adults on watching tv or listening radio programs. Without proper supervision on what programs young children watch, children are more likely go astray in some way. For example, if children watch too much violent tv program, he or she will become violent among others and become brutal and unreasonable which is bad for child’s development at early age.

1. Minor - There are some grammatical errors in the last sentence. e.g. "he or she will become violent among others" should probably be just "he or she will become violent"

tracyyahoo wrote:
Another reason for my belief is that censorship on tv or radio programs could prevent social turbulence. Every day we assimilate a lot of information that coming from tv or radio programs, if these information is distorted or perhaps lead some people to do bad things, for instance, committing a crime or robbing a bank, etc. Advertisement or information with such slight bad misleading behavior should be totally banned.

1. Minor - There several grammatical errors in this paragraph e.g. "information that coming from", "these information".
2. I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it is not clear. The second sentence is in desperate need of rewriting

tracyyahoo wrote:
Perhaps the best reason is that every country has its own way of conducting supervision on tv or radio programs. It is obvious that for some countries they tend to open violence or sexual invasion on some condition while some countries don’t, for the countries who are unlikely want their citizen to be so democratic, we need government or any other groups to regulate some of commercial conduct, because it is not commercial value is priority, it is exactly people social value or moral value matters most

1. I'm not really sure I get the point you are trying to make here.

tracyyahoo wrote:
For all these reasons, I therefore believe that government or any other group should censor television or radio programs based on three reasons I stated, besides censorship on tv or radio program not only help us city become more peaceful but also bring more important education or knowledge to people in the society.

1. You should split this paragraph in multiple sentences.
_________________

My GMAT Story: tale-of-a-first-timer

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 06:39
how may rates will you give?

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 06:47
How many rates will you give me?

heregoesnothing wrote:
Good effort.

Please find my comments inline. Of course these are just my thoughts on what I found difficult to understand.

Hope it helps.

tracyyahoo wrote:
The issue of government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs is a controversial one. On the one hand. Some people support that government and some groups should be responsible for censoring the tv and radio program because it could help to create a harmonious society, on the other hand, others refute such opinion, they think that freedom speech and commercial value of TV and radio programs are priority. However, in the final analysis, I believe that government or any other group should be responsible for censor tv or radio programs.

1. Minor - The period is not required for "On the one hand. Some...", it should be "On one hand, some..."
2. The second sentence is really long and difficult to follow through. Something simpler would have been better. e.g. "There are people on both sides of this debate. Some support government censoring the programming on TV and radio with the justification that it would help create a harmonious society whereas others refute the idea in favor of freedom of speech."
3. Minor - "However, in the final analysis..." makes it sound like you are reaching a conclusion right away. Personally, at this point I would suggest (not conclude) what you agree with and state the actual conclusion in the final passage. e.g. "However, there are several examples that justify the opinion that censorship by government is in fact the better approach."

tracyyahoo wrote:
One reason for my belief is that tv or radio programs censorship is good for young children. Some reports say that children spend twice as much time as adults on watching tv or listening radio programs. Without proper supervision on what programs young children watch, children are more likely go astray in some way. For example, if children watch too much violent tv program, he or she will become violent among others and become brutal and unreasonable which is bad for child’s development at early age.

1. Minor - There are some grammatical errors in the last sentence. e.g. "he or she will become violent among others" should probably be just "he or she will become violent"

tracyyahoo wrote:
Another reason for my belief is that censorship on tv or radio programs could prevent social turbulence. Every day we assimilate a lot of information that coming from tv or radio programs, if these information is distorted or perhaps lead some people to do bad things, for instance, committing a crime or robbing a bank, etc. Advertisement or information with such slight bad misleading behavior should be totally banned.

1. Minor - There several grammatical errors in this paragraph e.g. "information that coming from", "these information".
2. I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it is not clear. The second sentence is in desperate need of rewriting

tracyyahoo wrote:
Perhaps the best reason is that every country has its own way of conducting supervision on tv or radio programs. It is obvious that for some countries they tend to open violence or sexual invasion on some condition while some countries don’t, for the countries who are unlikely want their citizen to be so democratic, we need government or any other groups to regulate some of commercial conduct, because it is not commercial value is priority, it is exactly people social value or moral value matters most

1. I'm not really sure I get the point you are trying to make here.

tracyyahoo wrote:
For all these reasons, I therefore believe that government or any other group should censor television or radio programs based on three reasons I stated, besides censorship on tv or radio program not only help us city become more peaceful but also bring more important education or knowledge to people in the society.

1. You should split this paragraph in multiple sentences.

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: App Time
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: United States (PA)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 07:44
tracyyahoo wrote:
how may rates will you give?

I would say around 2-3. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I am no expert
_________________

My GMAT Story: tale-of-a-first-timer

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 07:53
1) I rectify my issue, pls give some comments on this one and see whether it is better now?

(2) Do you have some advice to improve on AWA writting? Should I recite all the passages occured in GMAT tests?

Following is my correct issue essay, pls give some comments, thank you!

The issue of government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs is always a controversial one. On one hand, some people believe that government or some groups should be responsible for censoring tv or radio programs with justification that it would help to create a harmonious society, on the other hand, some refute such idea in favor of free speech and commercial value of tv or radio programs. However in final analysis, following are several examples that justify the opinion censorship by government is in fact the better approach.

One reason for my belief is that tv or radio program censorship is good for younger generations' mental development. Reports say that children spend twice as much time as adults on watching tv or listening to radio programs during their spare time. Without proper supervision on what programs children watch, children are more likely to go astray in certain way. For example, if children are too much exposed to violent tv programs, he or she will have higher probabilities of committing crimes or robbing a bank, etc.

Another reason for my belief is that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to society. Censorship on tv or radio programs could prevent such social chaos or disorder. For instances, shanghai currently rapped up its 2010 expo event which highlights city makes life better. People are trying to create a peaceful environment nowadays, therefore if too much side effect information or advertisement happen around us, you could probably imagine what kind of our lives will become, what kind of city will be like. The only consequence is that we will be inflicted from those tv or radio programs which generate offensive languages and obscene regardless of moral principles.

Thirdly, although the right of free speech is intrinsic to democracy and necessary to its own survival, the interests served by restricting obscenity in the broadcast media are, on balance, more important to the survival of a country. With rapid global economic growth, one nation with strong and good reputation of foreign affairs and quality of its citizen will get higher attention from other countries and easy to develop itself. Thanks to government or other groups censoring on tv or radio programs.

For all these reason, I therefore believe that government or any other groups should hold total obligation on television or radio programs based on above three statements. Censorship on tv or radio programs not only help us to create more harmonious city but also bring us spiritual wealth and rich social knowledge.

heregoesnothing wrote:
Good effort.

Please find my comments inline. Of course these are just my thoughts on what I found difficult to understand.

Hope it helps.

tracyyahoo wrote:
The issue of government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs is a controversial one. On the one hand. Some people support that government and some groups should be responsible for censoring the tv and radio program because it could help to create a harmonious society, on the other hand, others refute such opinion, they think that freedom speech and commercial value of TV and radio programs are priority. However, in the final analysis, I believe that government or any other group should be responsible for censor tv or radio programs.

1. Minor - The period is not required for "On the one hand. Some...", it should be "On one hand, some..."
2. The second sentence is really long and difficult to follow through. Something simpler would have been better. e.g. "There are people on both sides of this debate. Some support government censoring the programming on TV and radio with the justification that it would help create a harmonious society whereas others refute the idea in favor of freedom of speech."
3. Minor - "However, in the final analysis..." makes it sound like you are reaching a conclusion right away. Personally, at this point I would suggest (not conclude) what you agree with and state the actual conclusion in the final passage. e.g. "However, there are several examples that justify the opinion that censorship by government is in fact the better approach."

tracyyahoo wrote:
One reason for my belief is that tv or radio programs censorship is good for young children. Some reports say that children spend twice as much time as adults on watching tv or listening radio programs. Without proper supervision on what programs young children watch, children are more likely go astray in some way. For example, if children watch too much violent tv program, he or she will become violent among others and become brutal and unreasonable which is bad for child’s development at early age.

1. Minor - There are some grammatical errors in the last sentence. e.g. "he or she will become violent among others" should probably be just "he or she will become violent"

tracyyahoo wrote:
Another reason for my belief is that censorship on tv or radio programs could prevent social turbulence. Every day we assimilate a lot of information that coming from tv or radio programs, if these information is distorted or perhaps lead some people to do bad things, for instance, committing a crime or robbing a bank, etc. Advertisement or information with such slight bad misleading behavior should be totally banned.

1. Minor - There several grammatical errors in this paragraph e.g. "information that coming from", "these information".
2. I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it is not clear. The second sentence is in desperate need of rewriting

tracyyahoo wrote:
Perhaps the best reason is that every country has its own way of conducting supervision on tv or radio programs. It is obvious that for some countries they tend to open violence or sexual invasion on some condition while some countries don’t, for the countries who are unlikely want their citizen to be so democratic, we need government or any other groups to regulate some of commercial conduct, because it is not commercial value is priority, it is exactly people social value or moral value matters most

1. I'm not really sure I get the point you are trying to make here.

tracyyahoo wrote:
For all these reasons, I therefore believe that government or any other group should censor television or radio programs based on three reasons I stated, besides censorship on tv or radio program not only help us city become more peaceful but also bring more important education or knowledge to people in the society.

1. You should split this paragraph in multiple sentences.

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: App Time
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: United States (PA)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 10:10
It is much better now! Your passages are much easier to comprehend. I get the points you are trying to make. I see shorter, more effective sentences.

I would easily give it somewhere between 3.5-4.5.

Keep practicing!
_________________

My GMAT Story: tale-of-a-first-timer

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2011, 07:32
Hi, here is my another issue essay I wrote for pratice. Pls help to rate and give some advice. thank you.

It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations or reading.

Different people have different views due to their own respective angles. On the one hand, as is well known and has often been advocated that individual nations should make independently sacrifices to conserve energy. On the other hand, others probably insist that International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we want to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations. We do not have to look very far to see the valid standpoint of this matter. In the final analysis, I am prone to hold the position that both individual nations and international leadership or worldwide cooperation are essential to protect energy resources. My conclusion which is based on the subsequent grouds and considerations.

One reason for my belief is that individual nations should hold the responsibility of protecting world’s energy resources. History has it that too much oil exploit and envoirnment damage casuse people to suffer in life. Under this circumstance, it is obvious that individual nations should take an active action on protecting energy not only for their countries but also for the whole mankind. It is wise to acknowledge that this idea, although suffer from some obvious drawbacks, nourish some merits primary because the implicit rationale behind the speaker’s assertion according with common sense and our everday experience as human being, hence is fundamentally indisputable.

Another equivalently crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that individual nations are suppose to lead such energy conservation campaign which calls for everybody to discipline himself, it is essential for individual nation to make independently sacrifice to conserve energy resources. For example, if we spend out all the energy in some day, then what else can we use replace energy resources? If we don’t pay much attention to our envoirnment protection, who knows when might be our end of world? If we don’t self examine constantly, who to blame when critical moment occurs – high oil prices and tremendous oil leakage in middle east or incident of gulf of mexico. So as far as I am concerned, individual nations should make sacrifice to the world energy conservation which is a sagacous action.

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions that individual nations couldn’t afford do this by themselves. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that individual nations can drop off their obligation to world energy protection. As a matter of fact, these cases are not common and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When the advantages and disadcantage are carefully weighed, more striking conclusion is obvious that both individual nations and International leadership and worldwide cooperation should work together to solve this energy protection problem. It is also the hot issue in G20 summit when president obama highlights that we should all put our best endevor to protect our world’s energy resouces which means that both individual nations and international leadership work together hand in hand to protect world’s energy resources for future generations.
Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we will find out that advantage of cooperation of both individual nations and international leadership to protect world’s energy outweights those of individual nations to do it alone. Therefore from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that choosing both individual and worldwide cooperation protect energy resources benefit all and create happy ending as we all wish for.

heregoesnothing wrote:
It is much better now! Your passages are much easier to comprehend. I get the points you are trying to make. I see shorter, more effective sentences.

I would easily give it somewhere between 3.5-4.5.

Keep practicing!

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2011, 07:15
Pls help to grade my another essay

Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A “ flat ” organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.

Discuss the extent to which agree or disagree with opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and / or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Different people have different views due to their own respective angles. On the one hand, as is well known and has often been advocated Corporation and other business should try to eliminate many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. Noting that a “flat” organization structure is more likely to encourage collegially and cooperation among employees.. On the other hand, others probably refute such idea. We do not have to look very far to see the valid standpoint of this matter. In the final analysis, I am prone to hold the position that corporations and other business shoudn’t try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades. A “vertical” organization should be suggested. My conclusion which is based on the subsequent grounds and considerations.

One reason for my relief is that a “vertical” organization originates high productivity and yields huge profits and causes lively workplace. History has it that the global 500 listed companies’s organizations’ structures are all vertical and in their websites, many profiles and annual income lists of top executives and manging directors are totally reflected for admiraion. Those little corporations who want to grow bigger and stronger should follow this business strategy creates a more clear and fair ranks and salaries systems among their employees. Under this situation, it is sagacious that corporation and other business become successful eventually. It is wise to acknowledge that this idea, although suffer from some obvious drawbacks, nourish some merits primarily because the implicit rational behind the speaker’s assertion according with common sense and our everday experience as human beings, hence is fundamentally indisputable.

Another equivalently crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that eliminate ranks and salaries grades among employees will discourage employees’ willingness and confidence of fulfilling certain some tasks. For example, the personal value of employees will be decreased. The company’s environment will become more bureaucratic and political. People will be unwilling to help each other. Work become unchallenging. Companies become unprofitable and face many upcoming financial problems, etc. So, as far as I am concerned, Corporations and other businesses shouldn’t try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise.

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions elimination of ranks and salary grades would promote some good results. Nonetheless, this alone does not produce a sufficient support to advocate that a “flat” organization structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees. As a matter of fact, these cases are not common and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When the advantage and disadvantage are carefully examined, more striking conclusion is obvious that corporation shouldn’t eliminate ranks and salary grade among employess because ambiguous corportaion sturctures are more likely to go bankrupcy, corporate managers may probably avoid responsibities heavy duties in every day work and talented employeed are wasted.

Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we will find out that advantage of putting ranks and salaries as prior meansurement for judging employees’ value and company’s success outweigh eliminating those ranks and salaries grades among employees. Therefore from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that orporations and other businesses shouldn’t try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A “ vertical ” organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees which is rather a wise decision.

heregoesnothing wrote:
tracyyahoo wrote:
how may rates will you give?

I would say around 2-3. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I am no expert

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Insurance)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2011, 04:07
According to me.Its fairly a good one to support your viewpoint. However, I feel there can be improvement in the way of Grammar- The most critical element . Appropriate usage of grammar can really make a lot of difference. Also I suggest you to refer to 800 score awa guide,an excellent one to get the strategies to tackle the AWA section. All the best!

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2011, 08:44
(1) Would pls help me to correct the place where you think is inapproriate.

(2) Could you give a rate on following two essaies. One is AI another is AA.

“Since science and technology are becoming more aid more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teaching science; and technology and less to teaching the arts and humanities.

Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with opinion stated above. Support your vies with reasons and/ or examplies from your own experience, observations, or reading.

Different people have different views due to their own respective angles. On the one hand, as is well known and has often advocated since science and technology are becoming more aid more essential to modern society, schools should devote more time to teach science, and technology and less to teach the arts and humanities. On the other hand, others probably refute such idea. We do not have to look very far to see the valid standpoint of this matter. In the final analysis, I am prone to hold the position that school should both teach science, technology and arts, humanities to students. My conclusion which is based on the subsequent grounds and considerations.

One reason for my belief is that school shouldn’t abandon arts and humanities classes. Histories has it that arts and humanities will stimulate the development of children’s mental, physical health. Being an artist and humanist are very noble and prosperious in the future. Under this situation, it is obvious that school shouldn’t solely focus on teach students science and techology, all the subjects should be balanced. It is wise to acknowledge that this idea, althoght suffer from some obvious drawbacks nourish some merits primarily because the implicit rational behind the speaker’s assertion accoding with common sense and our everday experience as human beings, hence is fundamental indisputable.

Another equivalently crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that the combination of arts and science will originate more creativity for mankind. For example, let take look at business world --- Google. Google is a company enjoys high reputation of high tech knowledge and science ideaology. The company’s annual gross profits exceed over 1 billion dollars for successive several years. Why do they become so successful? They use arts on science to produce something people never experience before. Let take another look at history, history plays essential part of our everyday life. In the business world, in the academic field or even social life we cannot ignore history, so humanities is very important, it is a subject related to history, math and even all typies other sujects. So as far as I am concerned, putting arts and humanities back to class is a sagacious action.

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions teaching science and technology will help the world grow faster and stronger. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that abandonce of arts and humanities is imperative. As matter of fact these cases are not common and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When the advantage and disadvantage are carefully examined, more striking conclsion is obivious that arts and humanities are related to science and techonology, today’s world cannot survive with talents who don’t possess art and humanities knowledge.
Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we will find out that advantage of arts and humanities should be taught in class while science and techonology also taught in class outweigh less teach arts and humnanities in class. There from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that choosing balanced arts and humanities taught in clas is a rather wise decision.

The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.

“As evidence in movies increase, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority votes.”

Discuss how well reasoned, etc.

The conclusion of this argument is that crime rates increase in our cites and our legislators are not concerned about problems since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority votes. For one thing , the author reasons the due to movies increases. For example, the author reasons that we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

To begin with, the author assume that there are relevance between movies increase and rise of crime waves in our cities. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is possible that social secruity system collapsed lead to more crimes or violent and obscene tv or radio programs lead to such situation. Hence, without weighing and then eliminating these and other possible causal explanations contributing to the long term trend endorsed in the argument, the author can not solely attribute more crimes waves to movies increase while convincing us of the suspect conclusion.

In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out the above-mentioned factors, tries in vain to justify the argument. To better his argument, the arguer needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning. In assessing whether movies increase and legislation bill can succeed by following crime waves upsurge and censorship of movies or limitation of persons over 21 years ago age. I would recommend, from a business points of view, the research on busines feasibility encompassing the factors discussed above will instrumental in minimizing any potential risks.

chandu4gmat wrote:
According to me.Its fairly a good one to support your viewpoint. However, I feel there can be improvement in the way of Grammar- The most critical element . Appropriate usage of grammar can really make a lot of difference. Also I suggest you to refer to 800 score awa guide,an excellent one to get the strategies to tackle the AWA section. All the best!

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Insurance)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2011, 01:27
tracy,

Find the places where structure could have been better.
1)On the one hand
2)Should be responsible for censor tv or radio programs.
3)One reason for my belief is that tv or radio programs censorship is good for young: I think- One reason for my belief that censorship of tv or radio programs is good- is better.
4)Every day we assimilate a lot of information that coming from tv or radio
5)if these information is distorted
6)for the countries who are unlikely want their citizen to be so democratic
7)not only help us city become more peaceful

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 13 Nov 2009
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: General Management (Insurance)
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2011, 01:32
Tracy,
As mentioned previously, your essay is fair to present your view point. But concentrate on structure. I think you should evaluate your essay after taking a break so that you would know the pitfalls.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Manager
Status: Single
Joined: 05 Jun 2011
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Location: Shanghai China
Re: rate my issue essay [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2011, 06:57
What you mentioned I think they are just minor flaws. Pls give a rates on following AI & AA.
The following appeared in an ad for a book titled How to write a screenplay for a movie.

“Writers who want to succeed should try to write film screenplays rather than books, since the average film tends to make greater profits than does even best-selling book. It is true that some books are also made into films. However, our nation’s film producers are more likely to produce movies based on original screenplays than to produce films based on book, because in recent years the films have sold the most tickets have usually been based on original! Screenplays!

Discuss how well reasoned….,etc.

The conclusion of this argument is that writes who want to succeed should try to write film screenplays rather than books and our nation’s film producers are more likely to produce movies based on orginal screenplay than to produce films based on books. The author employs several lines of reasoning to reach this conclusion. For one thing, the author reasons that since average films tends to make greater profits than does even best-selling book. For example, the author reasons that in recent years the films have sold the most tickets have usually been based on original screenplays. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons.

To begin with, the author assumes that there are relevance between movies and books. This assumption is clearly mistaken. It is also possible that book selling are more profitable than movies and screenplays. Movies and books are two different subjects which should be defined in seperate category. As matter of fact, making movies tend to earn more money than writing books, but it is untrue that write film screenplays rather than books will succeed. For example, some of high tech movies like “spider man”, “x-man”, or even “transformers” which is our favorite movies enjoy high rates of attendence in cinema copied from comic books. If the author can give some substantial evidence to prove his view otherwise it is obvious that films making based on books can also make great profits. Hence, without weighing and then eliminating these and other possible causal explanations contributing to the long term trend endorsed in the argument, the author can not solely attribute films make more profits than books to people should write film screenplays rather than books while convincing us of the suspect conclusion.

Secondly, the author claims that because in recent years the films have sold the most tickets have usually been based on original screenplays so our nation;s film producer are more likely to produce movies based on original screenplays than to produce films based on books. But he fails to support this argument because that screenplay has nothing to with book, Althogh films made on screenplay become sensational periodically, it doesn’t mean it will last long. In addition, films made on books also tend to make great profits as I mentioned earilier. The succuss of films is not simply based what films are about, there are also some other element influence the films, for example, the cost of film, means whether the producer put enough money to make the film, if the cost is high, there will be more high tech scene, famous actors or actresses, great film promotion before the film’s opening, these all are accounted to the success of the film.
In conclusion, the arguer, by leaving out the above-mentioned factors, tries in vain to justify the argument. To better his argument, the arguer needs more data and analysis to smooth out all the wrinkles in the line of reasoning. In assessing whether films writing on screenplay rather than books can succeed by following films based on screenplay tend to make great profits than books. I would recommend from a business point of view, the research on business feasibility encompassing the factors discussed aboved will instrumental in minimizing any potential risk.

“ If the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society.”

From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/ Or example from your own experience, observation, or reading.

Nowadays, there is a controversial issue about if the primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money, then conflict is inevitable when the corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society. Depending on experiences, beliefs, and emtional concern, we may find that some people opinion that company’s priority should be making more money instead of serving socity. While others have an opposite attitude. In fact, I agree that corporation not only is to make money but also is to acknowledge a duty to serve society. My view will be substantiated by the following discussion.

First of all, the most important reason for my viws is that company should be responsible for serving society and country. To illustrate this, there is an appropriate example that is very persuasive GE, P&G, Wal-Mart and JP Morgen, these top 10 companies are commited to create better envoirnment for our society. They are powerful, persistent and ambitious in their specific field. But they are also putting serving the society as priority. Beucase companies are connected to the society, so they have the obligation to serve the society, in adverse, they will also get good return. Under this situation, it is obvious that corporation must also acknowledge a duty to serve society.

Another equivalently crucial ground that would have to be presented to develop my viewpoint is that as matter of fact primary duty and concern of a corporation is to make money while also acknowledge a duty to serve society. For example, if a company is totally indifferent about its society, it is inevitable that this company will fail eventually or if a company refuse to reimburse victims whom suffered from their daily work, company should be responsible for paying their employee. So as far as I am concerned, Making money while serving society is sagacious action.

Thirdly, it is probably true that in certain conditions company fails to acknowledge a duty to serve society. Nonetheless, this alone does not generate a sufficient support to advocate that company shouldn’t be responsible for serving the society. As matter of fact, these cases are not common and hence too weak to boost this conclusion. When the advantages and disadvantages are carefully examined, more striking conclusion is obvious that even those successful companies who serving the society enjoy high reputation, high profits and quick growth. Companies rely on society and society rely on companies. These two things are interconnected.

Consequently, if all the factors above are considered, we will find out that advantage of company serve the society while making money outweight company don’t serve company solely making more money. Therefore from what we have discussed, we may safely come to conclusion that choose The former one is rather wise decision.

chandu4gmat wrote:
Tracy,
As mentioned previously, your essay is fair to present your view point. But concentrate on structure. I think you should evaluate your essay after taking a break so that you would know the pitfalls.

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

Re: rate my issue essay   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2011, 06:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by