Home Blog Page 2

Imagine that the government intends to build a new university. Would your town be a good place to build the university? Why, or why not? Compare the advantages with the disadvantages of having a new university in your town

0

Imagine that the government intends to build a new university. Would your town be a good place to build the university? Why, or why not? Compare the advantages with the disadvantages of having a new university in your town. Use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

Most communities probably would be eager to have a new university. My view is just the opposite. I would be reluctant to have a new university built in my community, for several reasons.

A university would attract thousands of students and faculty. The increased population would require municipal services. Someone must pay for those services through increased taxes. If the university’s property is tax-exempt. as it most likely would be, then local property owners would have to pay higher taxes.

Students would require housing. The demand for apartments would rise, and so would rents. Prices in general would rise as well, because students have money to spend, and local merchants would raise prices to take advantage of them. Local residents then would have a higher cost of living.

Student behavior is another problem. Students drink heavily. They can be destructive. They make a lot of noise. In short, they are not necessarily assets to a community. They might make their university a liability to that community.

Some people, such as landlords and merchants, would probably benefit from a new university. The rest of the community, however, would not. As for the “cultural opportunities” which a university provides, those same opportunities are available through other sources, such as cable television. In short, the community has little or nothing to gain from a new university, and much to lose.

Should children spend most of their time at play, or should they start going to school as early as possible? Compare these two choices

0

Should children spend most of their time at play, or should they start going to school as early as possible? Compare these two choices. Which do you support, and why? use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

Probably, it is never too early to point a very young child toward school studies. At the very least, one should provide an environment with books, music, and other influences that can predispose a child toward academic pursuits. This is informal education. With very young children, it may yield desirable results. Expecting a child to begin formal studies almost as soon as he or she can walk, however, is unrealistic. A child of that age simply cannot absorb the lessons.

For example, some ambitious parents say that their very young children need lessons at the earliest possible age Instead of being allowed to play. Those parents are forgetting that play is a very small child’s business. Through play, the child learns coordination and discovers countless things, from colors to animal behavior. From every session of play, a little child learns something. Play is the earliest form of education. Thus, education does begin at an early age, at the moment the child starts to play.

It is worth examining “child prodigies” who were spurred toward academic excellence from earliest childhood. Famed mathematician Norbert Wiener is a good example. He was a brilliant child but was never allowed to develop through interaction with other children – the emotional conditioning and social skills that other, less brilliant but more “playful children are allowed to acquire. Wiener grew up to be an academic wonder, but also an unhappy and maladjusted man. One has to admire him, but must pity him as well.

There comes a time, of course, when formal study must take the place of play. Life requires serious preparation, and at a certain age that preparation must begin. Early childhood, however, is not that age. A very young child has other, more fundamental lessons to learn: and play is the way to learn them.

Which way do you prefer to spend time: with a small number of close friends, or with many friends? Compare these two options

0

Which way do you prefer to spend time: with a small number of close friends, or with many friends? Compare these two options. Use specific reasons and examples your answer.

We all have fond memories of time spent with friends. As a rule, however, those memories involve small groups of friends, not large groups. The smaller the group of friends, the closer relationships and more exchanges one is likely to have with them. That is simply the nature of friendship. There is, in a sense, only so much friendship to go around. That is why a single solid friendship is worth a thousand of the superficial kind.

Close friendships are the most productive. History is full of examples of such friendships. British essayist Samuel Johnson was the close friend of James Boswell, who wrote a famous biography of Johnson. Without that particular friendship, the world would lack one of its great works of literature and biography. Isaac Newton’s friend Edmund Halley played a major role in the making of Newton’s great Principia Mathematica, and even proofread the galleys of Newton’s book for him. That famed work was thus a product of a close friendship.

In our own century, one of Albert Einstein’s close friends, a brilliant student of mathematics, helped Einstein master the difficult tensor calculus that Einstein used in developing his famous theory of relativity. In that case, a friendship helped to bring about one of the most important scientific developments of the 20th century.

It is good to have numerous friends, and it is enjoyable to be in the company of large numbers of friends at once. To be surrounded by a friendly crowd is a unique satisfaction. That pleasure is short-lived, however, because the crowd soon melts away, leaving one alone again. Moreover, a friendly crowd may turn indifferent or unfriendly in a moment, because the friendship in that case is very shallow and therefore impermanent. A single close friendship, by contrast, is more valuable than the cheers of a multitude, and lasts much longer.

 

Imagine that you have to move to another country. Do you think it is better to keep your own customs, or to adopt the new country’s customs? Why?

0

Imagine that you have to move to another country. Do you think it is better to keep your own customs, or to adopt the new country’s customs? Why? Compare these two options. Use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

In general, it is desirable for someone moving to another country to respect the customs of that country and try to practice them oneself, whenever doing so is consistent with one’s own convictions. This is only fair, because the newcomer is living in someone else’s home, so to speak, and is expected to follow the rules of the house while there. In certain parts of Asia, for example, it is considered polite to avoid sitting with one’s feet pointed toward another person. It may be considered uncouth to look directly at the person to whom one is talking.

In all these cases, a person who has arrived to live in a particular society is expected to observe such customs. Violating them is usually not a crime, but to ignore them is nonetheless considered insensitive, if not actually insulting.

Where religion is involved, this principle takes on a new dimension. Is it reasonable to compel a believer in a certain religion to ignore or alter the exercise of that religion in order to comply with local custom? Most people would say no. To take a hypothetical example, imagine that man’s particular religion forbids him to eat cheese on Tuesdays. If he travels to a country where that religious custom is not observed, should the people in that country compel him to eat cheese on Tuesdays merely because they have no scruples against doing so? That probably would be unreasonable.

There are exceptions, then, to the general rule of showing respect for local customs. There are occasions when “the customs of the country,” as the expression goes, do not necessarily apply to a visitor or new resident. Still, honoring local customs is a reasonable expectation, at least where it does not violate certain beliefs.

Is it better to learn about life through your own experience, or through advice from friends and family? Compare the advantages of these two options, and which would you prefer?

0

Is it better to learn about life through your own experience, or through advice from friends and family? Compare the advantages of these two options, and which would you prefer? Use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

Family and friends certainly have much of value to say about life. One’s parents have been through the crises of childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood and can provide children with much-needed guidance. We may not always follow the advice parents offer, but it is usually worth considering regardless.

The same principle applies to friends’ advice. A level-headed friend can be a tremendous source of useful counsel. In his famous essay The Crack-up,” American author Scott Fitzgerald acknowledged his profound debt to a certain friend. Fitzgerald said that when facing a difficult situation, he asked himself what that particular man would do.

Of course, listening to the advice of parents and friends has risks and limitations. Our parents’ advice is based on their experiences years or even decades ago. That advice may no longer be useful, because society and its institutions have changed tremendously since then. In similar fashion, advice from friends should never be accepted uncritically, because it may be based on knowledge and experience very different from one’s own. Sometimes advice from friends, though well-meant, actually may be dangerous. Unless a friend is a professional financial advisor, for example, it is probably inadvisable to follow his or her advice on where to invest one’s money.

Nonetheless, advice from family and friends can be priceless, because it distills the hard-won experience of others into a few words and principles that can save a lot of time, effort, and difficulty. One’s own personal experience is certainly essential for learning, but others’ advice can help to make that experience much less painful and more productive.

Imagine that you must travel 40 miles (64 Km) from your home to another place. Compare various kinds of transportation could you use, and which would you select?

0

Imagine that you must travel 40 miles (64 Km) from your home to another place. Compare various kinds of transportation could you use, and which would you select? Use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

A journey of 64 km is a moderate distance. An automobile lets one make the trip at a time of one’s own choosing, and a bus is inexpensive. For maximum comfort and value for money, however, a train is probably best.

Trains are convenient and reliable. Many cities and towns are connected by railways either long-distance passenger trains that make intermediate stops, or commuter rail lines that link central cities with suburbs. As a rule, the trains are reliable. Barring unforeseen difficulties, they depart on time and arrive on time. Probably, a train stops at or reasonably near any destination one might need to reach.

Also, traveling by train minimizes stress. Travel by car is one of the most stressful activities one can perform. Driving requires close attention and leaves one nervous and tired at the end of the journey. There is a constant. danger of collisions and other accidents. Even if scenery along the route is beautiful, one can scarcely enjoy it, because one’s attention is always focused on the road. A train, on the other hand, has no such drawbacks. It lets one sit back and relax during a trip, and enjoy the view. Someone else has the responsibility of driving.

Trains have a good safety record and are more comfortable than buses, their marginally higher price. Trains also offer much greater comfort than buses. Many trains have food and beverage service, so that there is an opportunity for meals on the train. One can make telephone calls from trains. There are even wall outlets where one can plug in a laptop computer. The train, then, offers a unique combination of comfort, convenience, and reliability, and is the best choice for a 64-km journey.

 

Students at a university may choose to live in dormitories on campus, and in apartments in town. Compare the advantages of each plan. Which do think is better?

0

Students at a university may choose to live in dormitories on campus, and in apartments in town. Compare the advantages of each plan. Which do think is better? Use specific reasons to support your opinion.

On-campus student housing – that is, a dormitory – has certain advantages over apartments. The dormitory is inexpensive and may contain almost everything students need, from laundry facilities to a cafeteria. Nonetheless, student housing also has so many drawbacks that an apartment in the community is probably the better place to live.

For example, disadvantages of dormitory life include noise, overcrowding, and lack of privacy. In such a situation, where some students play stereos loudly. get drunk often, and show no respect for others’ property, it is difficult to study or even sleep. Moreover, small differences between students may become magnified into major quarrels and sometimes lead to violence. There is a temptation to steal others’ belongings. A student with unpopular views or unpleasant mannerisms may find himself harassed and even injured. There are also moments when one simply must be alone, for study or whatever other reason; and in a dormitory setting, solitude can be difficult to arrange.

For all these reasons, an apartment is better than a dormitory. The apartment may be more expensive, but it also offers the individual more control over his or her personal environment. One can have silence or music, as one wishes; keep late hours without disturbing anyone: sleep without disturbance; and be reasonably secure against thievery. Studying is easier in the privacy of one’s apartment than in a crowded, noisy dormitory, and if one desires company, then it is a simple matter to invite friends to the apartment for a visit.

Although one may have to pay more for an apartment than for a dormitory room, the advantages of apartment living more than outweigh the additional cost. Given a choice between a dormitory and a decent apartment, the apartment is almost always the better option.

Which group do you think contributes more of value to society: artist or scientists? Compare the contributions of each group.

0

Which group do you think contributes more of value to society: artist or scientists? Compare the contributions of each group. Use specific examples and reasons to explain your answer.

Although society honors the scientist with respect and (to some extent) high social prestige, society appears to reserve its greatest immediate, monetary rewards for artists – specifically, those who produce entertainment with the widest possible appeal and therefore the greatest potential for corporate profit. Artists who create such worlds are rewarded with wealth, fame, and influence beyond the most extravagant dreams of scientists.

Here is a case in point. About 50 years ago, a British astrophysicist named Fred Hoyle promulgated a “steady state” model of the universe, directly opposed to the “big bang” model in which the universe was thought to have originated with the explosion of a great primordial block of matter. Hoyle’s steady-state universe was a much quieter and less dramatic place, creating new parts just fast enough to replace its worn-out components.

Eventually Hoyle’s model was proven basically wrong, but parts of it contributed greatly to astrophysics and cosmology, and Hoyle was knighted. Hoyle himself, however, remained practically unknown to the public as a whole. About this same time. a British singer named Julie Andrews became one of the most famous entertainers in history, while a British author of romance novels (an “artist,” in a very loosely defined sense of the word) became both renowned and rich for her writings. The scientist did basically more important work, while the artists received greater tangible rewards.

It is ironic, then, that from a long-term perspective, the scientist may come out ahead of the artist. The artist’s work may go out of fashion and be forgotten, whereas the scientist’s work is more enduring. Do we remember who was the greatest actor in Sir Isaac Newton’s London? No: but we remember Newton.

 

There is a saying, “Not all knowledge is found in book” Compare and contrast knowledge acquired from books with knowledge acquired from experience.

0

There is a saying, “Not all knowledge is found in book. ” Compare and contrast knowledge acquired from books with knowledge acquired from experience. Which do you consider more important, and why?

Knowledge acquired from books is important. Applying that knowledge, however, is something very different merely acquiring it. For information to have any practical importance, it must be applied somehow. What we call “experience” is largely the application of what we have learned. Therefore, experience is at least as important as study, if not more so.

A book, for example, may tell us how to build a house, sail a boat, or repair a car. The next step is to put that knowledge into practice that is, to learn a task by actually performing it. This practical knowledge, commonly called “know-how,” is the essential step between knowing something and truly mastering it. Without know-how, all the collected information in the world is useless. With appropriate know-how, and only then, knowledge becomes a practical tool.

To use another example, know-how is to “book learning” as the hand is to the brain. The brain contains great amounts of information but relies on the hand to carry out specific tasks. Neither the brain nor the hand can build a wall by itself. Only together can the brain, providing information and directing operations, and the hand, placing bricks and applying mortar, construct the wall.

Of course, no one should underestimate the importance of learning contained in texts. Without such knowledge, we would be in a sad condition. indeed, for we would have to approach every task and problem anew, every time, lacking the guidance that written instructions provide. “Book learning saves us that effort but still is only a beginning. Applying learning in a real world setting is the next, and probably more important, step in education.

Motion pictures reveal much about the countries where they were made. What can you learn about a county by watching its motion pictures?

0

Motion pictures reveal much about the countries where they were made. What can you learn about a county by watching its motion pictures? Use specific examples to explain your answer.

Movies tell us much about the countries where they were made. Let us look at three examples: Japan, Hong Kong, and the United States.

First, the Japanese see themselves as kind, soft-hearted people in a cruel world. Their movies reflect this self-image. The typical Japanese movie involves a well-meaning, trusting person who wanders into unfamiliar territory and is treated badly. The ending may be happy or sad, but the message remains the same: we are a misunderstood, persecuted people.

Second, Hong Kong movies have fantastic stories. A single swordsman may confront an entire army and win. The message is: China can take on the world. One Chinese is worth a thousand of his enemies. Although Hong Kong cinema is full of violence, it is highly stylized violence, unlikely to be copied in real life. Also, Hong Kong movies have a strong moral element – a noble hero versus an evil villain.

Third, violence in U.S. movies is different. It is both crude and cruel, and could indeed be copied in real life. U.S. movies also may have no “hero” and “villain,” but instead two equally vicious enemies. The “hero is whoever kills the other first. Brutality, cruelty, and amorality in American films, some would say, reflect the character of American society.

In conclusion, one could extend this list. French and Italian movies are full of romance. Russian movies tend to be serious and formalistic. case, however, movies are characteristic of the countries where they are made. A Russian could not have made Star Wars, nor could a French. director have made Kurosawa’s Rashomon. To a large extent, nationality shapes cinema