Sunday, November 28, 2010

TOEFL Essay - big companies want to build factories in your town

Q. Somebody wants to build a big factory in your town. Do you support or oppose this plan?

If somebody were to come along wanting to construct a large workplace in my hamlet, I would suggest to them that the more the merrier, but also that it depends what their workplace will bring to my township.

Buildings populate my village's surface. Wherever a surfeit of ground exists, an enterprising young person is always present with plans and a clipboard, just anxious to map out the territory and change its geography. I wouldn't build walls between myself and this person. Instead, what can we do in our power to welcome them? I would participate in every step of the planning process, and it would be in this way my voice would be audible. As an actively participating newcomer, whose voice would big business most likely adhere to? The one or the many? A committee of concerned citizens comprised of townspeople often speeds up construction.

What is happening in the workshops and on the tables? What is there contained? Even adults need to satisfy their mouth curiosity under their noses. If we ask a question, an answer put silence back into our faces. Companies that offer tours to fascinated locals provide valuable feedback. A business tailors its operations to suggestions based on the demographics of its flagship. Telling us about what truly will transpire within those walls is not a privacy issue. Good narrative might leave questions, but workplaces must force meaning. Those in the uncertainty business debate this. A factory is no person without privacy, because factories do not possess consciousness, and employ no cover to hide the workings underneath. In a workplace, all is shown so that the quickest solution can be discovered. The more clothing, the longer the fix of any issue that a factory might face. Therefore, as long as we know what rests inside our buildings, a full welcome is respectable.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

TOEFL Essay - are parents the best teachers?

Q. Are parents the best teachers? Why or why not?

Parents aren't often certified to do the job of parenting. Teachers are certified to do the job of teaching. However, classrooms are established to teach only during certain hours. Parenting fills in the blanks around the clock. I will discuss the parental argument: Learning best occurs in the most voluntary moments and parental boundary is limitless.

While teachers go to school and learn methods to control and educate, parents learn control through uncontrollable urges of children. This school lasts throughout childhood growth. Mothers and fathers are witnesses to every moment of childhood discovery. This is not an aspect of educational life we reproduce to become a teacher. In a classroom, students learn facts, but at home, children become sons and daughters who learn interaction and feelings. They aren't guarded as they are standing in front of strangers in an inhospitable building that resembles a prison. Going outside at home isn't signified by ringing bells or buzzers, you just quickly inform mom and dad. There is no chain of command that becomes a hurdle.

Parental boundaries are limitless, and what children learn, priceless. When a parent wants to teach a child a lesson, there's no regularly scheduled class time used as a receptacle for so much lesson. We do not rely on a didactic mention that “now is the time we learn how to flush the toilet.” The toilet lesson is simply done and over with, and the space between the lesson and learning is insignificant. The lesson rests in the exchange and the broader understanding in the parent and child eyes. Sharing the same DNA almost allows for non-verbal communication, which is only slightly possible after months of classroom teacher. The bonds between parents and their children aren't likely reproduced, no matter how many certificates the person standing in front of your child has earned.

Monday, November 22, 2010

TOEFL Essay - reading and writing as diminished essentials

Q. Is reading and writing more important than it was in the past? Use reasons and examples to support your response.

Civilization sparked, and humans started off writing on the walls of wherever they lived. This communication is no longer socially accepted. However, the form of expression was basic and conveyed meanings of battles, hunts and daily life. Today, both reading and writing have diminished, and yet their importance grows. Our reliance on technology and our consumer selves necessitate a strengthened hone of reading and writing.

In an era alive with the Internet, commands are pressed by keys. Since we process these commands by tapping, when we go somewhere we need to type. Writing goals are to communicate our whims to our computers. The most economically we express ourselves, faster computers are possible. Communications break down between user and computer when the writing suffers. I cannot express myself to my computer if the words don't come easily. If I place a withering embargo of communication between my computer and I, then work grinds to a halt. Surrounded by computers, the need for writing is no longer ambivalent. Our need is no longer patient and biding. It is an aggressive need, like a printer with its ream.

Writing isn't the only task in demand. Reading is also an essential task. We navigate multiple pages of text each day. Not knowing how to read is knowing madness. All products jump out at us and declare to us that they are our new favorites. Little is known about which is actually a special addition to our lives unless we can read them well. Consumers must be motivated and informed. Proceed to the purchase area. There, an educated consumer body performs well under the rigors of the market. Markets respect people who learn about their complex histories, and reading exempts participants from the mockery and remorse in the area of purchase.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

TOEFL Essay - The past teaches us nothing

Q. Some people say we need to focus on the future and ignore the past. Others think the past holds valuable knowledge for our progress. Which opinion do you agree with? Why? Include reasons and examples to support your response.

We don't want to think about the things we did last night. Dwelling on these activities will bring us little joy, no job and even lesser skills for the future. Therefore, I don't believe that the past holds valuable knowledge in most areas, but especially not for our purposes and not for our love.

Some are rumored to have discovered their life's purpose in twenty minutes. This is an advertisement. No one honestly counts to determine whether we have an idea about magnetism that controls us. I face north to determine what other directions are. I spit in the field, the ergonomic dusk brooms together my senses, but each time the river is a different one we step into. There is no exact river of our math, which I ended up failing due to my spacial incomprehension difficulties. Search engine usefulness is based on hard work, not on repeat of like searches until our mouths tire from calling in the copse. Even a soup with the same ingredients is as diverse as a kettle is uniform. No purpose exists in a world where the reaction to alike stimuli will produce different offspring.

Our love is part of our nature, and we cannot figure it out. Cloudy destinies are seen in the ball of crystal, and the future decides early to leave us behind in the station wagon. See you in one hundred years, relic. My love in the past was just as worthwhile as my current love. I have incorrectly gauged at times, but the past teaches me little on how to love. Loving strengthens as our pasts catch up to us, but the object of love transfers from a big stuffed bear to human subjects. Our past love, from object to now subject, is of little importance to the present. If I analyze the objects of my past affection, I would be stuck loving something inanimate.

Friday, November 19, 2010

TOEFL Essay - technological changes sway the world in positive fashion

Q. How has technology changed our way of life? Do you see this change as positive or negative.

Technology is like the bricks that aren't tactile. You can't join them together, you can't throw them, they don't hold heat. But technology has built things for us and certainly builds inside us. It's in these inner changes, or these capacities to instigate change in our weaker urges, where technology saves us.

A saving grace comes from distraction. We no longer pine. Pining, an important movement of the romantic era which was dragged on well into the late 20th century and culminating in grunge, spawned pop music. When we like someone, we need a target if those warm feelings are left untended. We pretend we are inside of the song. The song becomes a glove that squeezes us in some pretty comfortable ways. However, the song never fulfills the desire, which is why we like the glove to squeeze repeatedly. Once the desire is fulfilled, we remove the glove. Pining is thus defined as a prolonged tolerance for thinking upkeep based on our dislike embodied in an unhealthy and harmful person.

Another bricked change in ourselves achieved without mortar has been a removal of bad influences. With distractions, bad influences aren't around for very long. These icons are smashed, and removed, because other icons must stand in their spots. Placed to warrant responses, the icon must be foremost in our mind. The icon is a body double for an insane longing. Made real, our hands would toss the person to the moon our rejoicing would never stop. You could not stand the eternal stare of a real virgin.

Finally, everything is recorded, so the same preaching mouths come around, and they are obligated to be smarter than in the past. These new mouths must convince us they do more than drink; they must think of new ways to pronounce the same boring warnings.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

TOEFL Essay - You would change one thing about your country

Q. If you could change one thing about your country, what would it be and why would you change it? Include reasons and examples to support your response.

No one is entirely happy with their mother country. Mine suffers from unfortunate problems. What is shocking is that we no longer have solutions. Questions pile up, yet other countries still mistakenly look to us.

In light of our descent into oblivion – relying not on smarts, but instead on might – we view applying the hammer to objects as the road to resolution. But striking to join together differs from striking to smash a whole. Smarts may come from military or civilian sectors, but they must be smarts, not might. Manufacturing used to be big here, and this symbolized a deeper creed in US life: you can build something that will fix a problem. When we stop building projects, constructive approaches to problems are dismissed. Instead, we flourish hammers and wrecking balls from derricks. If we smash what bothers us, we become demolitions and still no answers.

Questions are piling up, and their piling doesn't diminish with further wrecking. If I destroy a wall here, the issues as to why the wall went up in the first place don't fade. If I build a wall, what I am forced to acknowledge is the reason that the wall was a solution. Walls are veritable solutions, but they prompt us. Walls light the fire under us and get us asking the right questions. The wall cannot provide an answer. Captivity only provides questions. Why am I held in here? Kept out? Only when we build answers instead of walls do we fix.

Follow the leader often results in following the evil leader with wrong problem solving techniques. When the US was increasing, our friends increased. Who doesn't want to sit with or near the problem solver? These friends still look to our example, but now we're the one making water and throwing up all over ourselves. This is not an example to follow. Especially when there are mouths to feed.

Monday, November 15, 2010

TOEFL Essay - I would change things about education

Q. If you could change one aspect of the public school/schools you attended, what would you change, how would you change it, and why? Use reasons and examples to support your response.

Education is a tricky subject. As with figuring out anything, many variables involved in the deep process. Students emerge from schools at the end of the day and it's easy to forget that they belong to a community housed within several fortifications, cafes and playgrounds. I would change a few things about my school's construction and the administrative hierarchy.

Schools are built much like prisons. We are interested in keeping children and their noises, their dramas as well as their affinities, inside and locked away. A brighter school with less restraints would improve matters for children. They would not feel the cold gray sky behind the gratings on the windows, would not lunch in the same linoleum room like those dentists use to calmly wash out patients' mouths, would not sing on a stage so lofty that the smallest squeak cannot be heard. We silence the children, and we assume they behave better this way. However, when children are unleashed they destroy property. This is because they hold their emotions so pent up. Generous little beings are not captivated by the dull school surroundings. Gym balls will bounce with resounding joy if only we update the facilities which school our children.

School administrations refuge in lonely temperance behind desks which expose children early to alienation of processes. How many times will they see desk housing a person? Fresh new faces entice all guests to share the most important information with the desk's occupant, and in the quickest manner. Imagine what fresh faces enliven the office environs, while increasing productivity. To this end, all school admins and educators who are entrenched should be alternated every 5 years. A bargaining period is born of this, during which time admins would prove their worth. However, teachers are accustomed to unstable living situations already. Administrators and office dregs should share in this renewal.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

TOEFL Essay - Childhood years are important

Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? A person's childhood years (0-12) are the most important years in a person's life. Use specific reasons and examples to support your response.

Some of us are receptive to new ideas at every waking moment; others resist new ideas but still manage to learn. How? We often learn on our own, autodidacts ingesting information we can get down. Children acquire data and skills, and many consider the ages from birth to twelve as our entire education. I agree because new resources bombard us and we appear to want to be taught more then.

Our youngest years fulfill us in ways we fully appreciate years later. This is human. For example, I now know that traveling with an ex while they are an ex of yours is not a tremendous idea, especially if you shoulder their travel expenses. Very likely, you will not see this money again. I would have only been fooled once, or perhaps not fooled, if I had been burned as a child. I would not again place my hand where flames could lick it. If I had learned these lessons when I was a young child, I would have avoided Europe altogether to not suffer from it. Children are too weak to fight a full-scale bombardment, and in acquiescence let wrongs wash over them.

Adults assume children are taught more during our childhoods. When we start exhibiting teenage faces and attitudes, when we start looking scary as our bodies pull and stretch, it's during this breakaway that adults know that learning time is over. An oil-covered face is the milestone that means that we are no longer a sponge. Adults cannot change attitudes by grabbing onto these oils because they are worthless. You should only talk at worthless oils, and refuse to extract them. Rekindle peaceful interactions when both parties are ready. Hence, when our faces have readiness written all over them, we await input. Adults and the world are just more easy informing us. I'm sure this biologically correlates to our evolutionary paths.

Friday, November 05, 2010

TOEFL Essay - Exercise might work, but so does studying

Q. Some people say that physical exercise should be a required part of every school day. Other people believe that students should spend the whole school day on academic studies. Which opinion on do you agree with?

A balanced mind is usually one that knows a good many fields. The wider our knowledge, the more capable we grow. If you recite diverse lots of facts and figures, others envy you. You are also the regent of your class. I believe that schools should focus on academics, not allowing physical prowess during school hours, for several reasons.

First, schools must reduce school hours but allow for playtime. There are times to party, and times to study. Partying is part of our lives, and those who do it well are known for it. However, there's a time and a place for everything party goods. If we reduce our work hours, we join parties better. But there should be difficulty in our lives. We should implore ourselves for hours at a time. Only then will we devote ourselves to a balanced life, to figuring the proper techniques of how to pull off partying. Then, when the school hours recede, we are better applied to the compartment that each section is reserved for. For example, if you don't know how to play, you better learn; if you don't know how to study, you better practice and get good.

Studies show that students develop across a broad variety of spectrum, gradually easing into variegated positions. These participants do so with ease and are more productive individuals. Down the road we produce a full live with remunerative interests. In other words, our interests give us back things to talk about and thanks. You are thanked by yourself for productivity. If we deny play from our competing namesakes, or our children, then what we're actually doing is denying being productive. Do we want our children to not be productive? How about do we want traditional families to practice nontraditional family envy: studying?