Q. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
A.
Television certainly destroys friendships. Put a television between two people and fights happen. Friends of amicable nature cannot build relationships with background noise of any kind. If you are pulled in one direction, you cannot simply tug another direction without significant loss of power. Let's speculate for a few.
Television requires an in-depth sense of surroundings. You must assume what you're seeing is fake. Yet at the same time, your investment in the picture is surrender: you sense enjoyment and give yourself to it. If you aren't asked to surrender, then a medium flailing in front of you is easily parted with. With departures regularly from scheduling, a station would go under. Use this analogy with friends. Friendly programming shares these attributes. For example, if you had a friend who talked at you all the time, imagine the ad space that would take up were your friend an actual television. There would be ad space all the way to the moon if your friend just would shut up.
Friendships require a lasting attention. You cannot flip a friend to another friend if you don't like what they have on. You will be plastered to your seat, working on staying focused like in an exam, attached to what your friend pronounces. This your requirement. Attention to friends cannot be shared with a black box of plasma proportions. The newer televisions are objects of beauty we cannot resist. Weathered friends are beautiful but not objects, and are not designed to pull our visual attention in. There are few things less abysmal than a black and untouched television screen. If you want to see the future of interpersonal relationships in an era of mechanic broadcast expertise, look into the darkness of the flatscreen.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
TOEFL Essay - best boss qualities
Q. What are some important qualities of a good supervisor (boss)? Use specific details and examples to explain why these qualities are important.
A.
Most of us find ourselves working for many people during the course of our lives. During each day, we have many bosses. A boss is who you obey at any moment. Some people call their boss God, some people their wife or even their own children. Regardless of the boss target, every good boss shares qualities of being satisfying to work for and generous within reason.
Bosses worth working for are usually satisfying to work for too. In general, I want to work for someone who wants my work. If you're going to have people under you, your face and words must be expressive so that employees recognize their needs, and so that each project hits the target. For example, if you work to complete a project under deadline but the boss face is calm, too much of this doesn't motivate, and the air in the office is lackluster. No one rushes, and rush work only happens under the extreme vise of last minute throwing things together. This is not a good environment.
Bosses generous without reason are soon departed and their money is shortlived. A good boss then, is a person who gives and receives equally from their subordinates but not to the extent that work is negatively affected. I would tell you what this balance is, but I'm not a good boss so I wouldn't be an expert. Expert bosses are those who can walk this line. No employee benefits greater than with a boss whose generosity is focused and reality. Walking through the office garlanding the hallways with money and promotions is one side, while never advancing your office companions and instigating an atmosphere of fear and hatred with numerous betrayals for measly scraps is something else entirely. A boss must skirt this line.
A.
Most of us find ourselves working for many people during the course of our lives. During each day, we have many bosses. A boss is who you obey at any moment. Some people call their boss God, some people their wife or even their own children. Regardless of the boss target, every good boss shares qualities of being satisfying to work for and generous within reason.
Bosses worth working for are usually satisfying to work for too. In general, I want to work for someone who wants my work. If you're going to have people under you, your face and words must be expressive so that employees recognize their needs, and so that each project hits the target. For example, if you work to complete a project under deadline but the boss face is calm, too much of this doesn't motivate, and the air in the office is lackluster. No one rushes, and rush work only happens under the extreme vise of last minute throwing things together. This is not a good environment.
Bosses generous without reason are soon departed and their money is shortlived. A good boss then, is a person who gives and receives equally from their subordinates but not to the extent that work is negatively affected. I would tell you what this balance is, but I'm not a good boss so I wouldn't be an expert. Expert bosses are those who can walk this line. No employee benefits greater than with a boss whose generosity is focused and reality. Walking through the office garlanding the hallways with money and promotions is one side, while never advancing your office companions and instigating an atmosphere of fear and hatred with numerous betrayals for measly scraps is something else entirely. A boss must skirt this line.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
TOEFL Essay - small and big schools
Q. Some students prefer to attend a small university. Others prefer to attend a big university. Discuss the advantages of each. Then indicate which type of university you prefer? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.
A.
Small universities these days have aggressive recruiting tactics. They pester you in the mail before high school is over. At the end of 11th grade I had a full mailbox. My mailbox was my communication with the outside universe, and yet, despite these interplanetary pledges of scholarships and financial aid, I found myself wanting the charm of big spaces and big faculties. I wanted immense faculty payrolls and the learning only a large university can promise. Both small and big schools provide their students with different exploration, and both offer a full range of disadvantages too, some of which I'll discuss. I will probably only have very small breath at the end with which to voice my preference. I assume dear readers understand.
Small schools have small school problems like money and athletics. Small schools have personalized business that each students gets down to, and the professors care about what they teach. However, tiny groups of academic institutions have little bargaining power because they have no money. They cannot put anything in their mouth and bark and expect the government to listen to their bite. As little recipients of money matters come their way, these small educational repositories intend to promote athletes but without money, cannot pull big names off of the big schools' minds. So now let's talk about big places of learning.
More populous universities receive money and athletes, but you become one in a large number. Each student is assigned a number, and this is your identification. No two are alike, and yet, in a pile of numbers, students find anonymity; they are allowed to flourish behind closed doors, and fulfill their research potential outside the confines of small walls small schools furnish. It's because of this last desire, that others might leave us alone to brandish, that it's the large schools where my preference lies.
A.
Small universities these days have aggressive recruiting tactics. They pester you in the mail before high school is over. At the end of 11th grade I had a full mailbox. My mailbox was my communication with the outside universe, and yet, despite these interplanetary pledges of scholarships and financial aid, I found myself wanting the charm of big spaces and big faculties. I wanted immense faculty payrolls and the learning only a large university can promise. Both small and big schools provide their students with different exploration, and both offer a full range of disadvantages too, some of which I'll discuss. I will probably only have very small breath at the end with which to voice my preference. I assume dear readers understand.
Small schools have small school problems like money and athletics. Small schools have personalized business that each students gets down to, and the professors care about what they teach. However, tiny groups of academic institutions have little bargaining power because they have no money. They cannot put anything in their mouth and bark and expect the government to listen to their bite. As little recipients of money matters come their way, these small educational repositories intend to promote athletes but without money, cannot pull big names off of the big schools' minds. So now let's talk about big places of learning.
More populous universities receive money and athletes, but you become one in a large number. Each student is assigned a number, and this is your identification. No two are alike, and yet, in a pile of numbers, students find anonymity; they are allowed to flourish behind closed doors, and fulfill their research potential outside the confines of small walls small schools furnish. It's because of this last desire, that others might leave us alone to brandish, that it's the large schools where my preference lies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
TOEFL Essay - which vice do you prize
Q. What is one example of a vice which is ultimately important to us? Use reasons and examples to support your response.
A.
We prize many negative traits: obstinacy and brutal honesty. But none is more widely acclaimed than greed, mainly because greed ensures prosperity and distinguishes us from monkeys.
When we need money, greed helps. If we weren't consumed by small greed, movement would be difficult. I'm greedy so I get a sandwich, because the vice gives a name to my stomach pains. It would decimate humanity if we were all immobile. Standing around, drinking small milk pint cartons. With cow faces and bleeding gums. We would only be waiting for the hammer to take us. We would need utter care. While a burgeoning industry sprang up around us, some nurse would need greed to help lift us from this gumming. And while ambition is our motive, greed our motor.
A car is made of enough greed that it moves. Planes move via greed. Even sporting events like the Olympics are traded for greed cloaked as an award. Those medals are dappled in the rapacity of a lawn dart. Greed matters to us. It moves us. Large pies do indeed exist. We move on them with cupidity at an angle saying “I want.” We only have access to pieces if we're greedy enough. Yes, hunger is a type of greed. And the small waist trumps the big waist this winter. Small waists quickly exit boats, moving ashore to feel hookah. TO have the first drop of greed must push in your favors. Once pushed and in the withholding position – we might call this instinctual response – but when we have insight to ask for certain dishes, this is the greed. The clams look good and you snag them. Animals make no requests, because greed doesn't exist in the stomach, but in our mouths.
A.
We prize many negative traits: obstinacy and brutal honesty. But none is more widely acclaimed than greed, mainly because greed ensures prosperity and distinguishes us from monkeys.
When we need money, greed helps. If we weren't consumed by small greed, movement would be difficult. I'm greedy so I get a sandwich, because the vice gives a name to my stomach pains. It would decimate humanity if we were all immobile. Standing around, drinking small milk pint cartons. With cow faces and bleeding gums. We would only be waiting for the hammer to take us. We would need utter care. While a burgeoning industry sprang up around us, some nurse would need greed to help lift us from this gumming. And while ambition is our motive, greed our motor.
A car is made of enough greed that it moves. Planes move via greed. Even sporting events like the Olympics are traded for greed cloaked as an award. Those medals are dappled in the rapacity of a lawn dart. Greed matters to us. It moves us. Large pies do indeed exist. We move on them with cupidity at an angle saying “I want.” We only have access to pieces if we're greedy enough. Yes, hunger is a type of greed. And the small waist trumps the big waist this winter. Small waists quickly exit boats, moving ashore to feel hookah. TO have the first drop of greed must push in your favors. Once pushed and in the withholding position – we might call this instinctual response – but when we have insight to ask for certain dishes, this is the greed. The clams look good and you snag them. Animals make no requests, because greed doesn't exist in the stomach, but in our mouths.
Monday, December 13, 2010
TOEFL Essay - Athletic salaries
Many avid sports section readers are not living in caves; they have seen the headlines about various entertainers and athletes who make extremely large-figure salaries. Some presume this is well-spent lucre, supporting these ludicrous payments. These payments must stop, because they stir up fear and inflate prices.
With so many other competing forms of distraction, it's honestly terrible business to pay so much for what another would do for free. Perhaps sports should be comprised of volunteers.
We act as if performers whose bellicose careers were media-made now demand playoffs from the media. The media made you, performer person. Spectacle is, needless to say, not true action, which is why entertainers and athletes should not receive such obscene amounts. When you get paid this obscenity, wondering if there's an end no longer matters. We assure increased cash payouts and the ad dollars return some of that outlay. No one owns the public; the public owns the performers. So why award the flash with millions when his or her replacement awaits. An endless parade ensures bystanders.
We can only shoot at each performer with so much junk. Some junk is blocked by technological advances. Privacy is greater, unfortunately, to aim and fire whatever surplus rumor we can't smile upon. Then, our entertainment refers to a monster. Devouring the rumor mill and the industry insiders, even good nature cannot do. As a performer, you must put out what a majority expect. Every person feels needs to occupy the earth's center. This apex is something of a mechanical bull. Without a firm leash on the functioning of how this mechanical beast bucks, the results go viral and the multitude's eyes pop out viewing fame. If such an entertainer were to lose interest or present themselves with an injury, the end.
[This is a rewrite of the first TOEFL essay I wrote for this project.]
With so many other competing forms of distraction, it's honestly terrible business to pay so much for what another would do for free. Perhaps sports should be comprised of volunteers.
We act as if performers whose bellicose careers were media-made now demand playoffs from the media. The media made you, performer person. Spectacle is, needless to say, not true action, which is why entertainers and athletes should not receive such obscene amounts. When you get paid this obscenity, wondering if there's an end no longer matters. We assure increased cash payouts and the ad dollars return some of that outlay. No one owns the public; the public owns the performers. So why award the flash with millions when his or her replacement awaits. An endless parade ensures bystanders.
We can only shoot at each performer with so much junk. Some junk is blocked by technological advances. Privacy is greater, unfortunately, to aim and fire whatever surplus rumor we can't smile upon. Then, our entertainment refers to a monster. Devouring the rumor mill and the industry insiders, even good nature cannot do. As a performer, you must put out what a majority expect. Every person feels needs to occupy the earth's center. This apex is something of a mechanical bull. Without a firm leash on the functioning of how this mechanical beast bucks, the results go viral and the multitude's eyes pop out viewing fame. If such an entertainer were to lose interest or present themselves with an injury, the end.
[This is a rewrite of the first TOEFL essay I wrote for this project.]
Saturday, December 11, 2010
TOEFL Essay - eating in or eating out (edited)
Q. Do you like eat out or eat at home? Compare both options and choose which you prefer.
A.
Eating out and eating at home, both fine options. In fact, often mixable and you're able to fine dine in the comfort of your own dwelling area. I prefer eating at home because of the profit of chewing at your leisure, and the solitude a fine meal provides.
When you're on death row, you're given a last meal. This meal isn't out in the open; guards present this meal in a caged room, to you, fine dining criminal of the West, with any request you wish. When the zoo turns to fiddling and spectacles, you are paraded before double-sided glass. Most criminals know what I know: that you eat better and with a depth that eating in public doesn't provide. Rats and bugs, I reign over how much rodents and insects penetrate public ingredients. Restaurants, those places of communal elbow rubbing, cheap uniforms and snapping guests. I found these additions to my soup at different times. Now, at home, you fill the room with leisurely bites.
A solitude within your home engulfs your activities. I'm alone and the afternoon is to my back; I cannot hold true to the passing of time, and only a weight reminds. Heavy, deaf and quaking, this chance to eat at home. No longer to be seen, but to thrive on one's own. Eating in your home allows you to hunker down and enjoy your own time with food. There's nothing to look forward to paying the bill, and without service, waiters cannot be angry. You are your own chef, waiter and jury. Solitude is a welcome change from most cities, and your thoughts are at peace. You choose this meal with its own solitude, this is not another loneliness. You and the food, welcome to devour piecemeal.
A.
Eating out and eating at home, both fine options. In fact, often mixable and you're able to fine dine in the comfort of your own dwelling area. I prefer eating at home because of the profit of chewing at your leisure, and the solitude a fine meal provides.
When you're on death row, you're given a last meal. This meal isn't out in the open; guards present this meal in a caged room, to you, fine dining criminal of the West, with any request you wish. When the zoo turns to fiddling and spectacles, you are paraded before double-sided glass. Most criminals know what I know: that you eat better and with a depth that eating in public doesn't provide. Rats and bugs, I reign over how much rodents and insects penetrate public ingredients. Restaurants, those places of communal elbow rubbing, cheap uniforms and snapping guests. I found these additions to my soup at different times. Now, at home, you fill the room with leisurely bites.
A solitude within your home engulfs your activities. I'm alone and the afternoon is to my back; I cannot hold true to the passing of time, and only a weight reminds. Heavy, deaf and quaking, this chance to eat at home. No longer to be seen, but to thrive on one's own. Eating in your home allows you to hunker down and enjoy your own time with food. There's nothing to look forward to paying the bill, and without service, waiters cannot be angry. You are your own chef, waiter and jury. Solitude is a welcome change from most cities, and your thoughts are at peace. You choose this meal with its own solitude, this is not another loneliness. You and the food, welcome to devour piecemeal.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
TOEFL Essay - luck has something to do with success
Q. Agree or disagree: Success has nothing to do with luck. Use reasons and examples.
A.
We succeed in the open, in the dark, in the autumn. There are no bounds that hold us if we are in a successful mold. Luck is just another small forte. If you have talent then luck has nothing to do with skill, and since skill has no name in success, luck will suit you with success. In fact, the reverie of missing a bus is only accrued luck when we recollect. If there is no reflection, success will raise your hair.
We view luck as offshoot. Its branches are suitable tendrils and foundling. The myth of children features prominently into the prime time of unattainable classmates. These are no passing whims, and often this luck is seen as inhabiting the most minimal conversing. From it's cold outside, to you should artificially inseminate for the highest chance of when we incur fertility. So when you hold the dice you use luck to explain gravity and friction, but these have much to do with success from a physical vantage. If I select a job and the job stops on me, I cannot blame friction. The rub is what appears as much more an agent of some repercussion.
If we cannot blame frictions, then the earth signals a disguised paddy. This tort is a large slice of why rebellions occur over food. Comestibles are not what you'd consider likely substitute rations for discourse or progress, but realty says what's different. In fact, you can't eat what bleeds, or bleed eats. Food conflicts over the course of our century will hinder international as well as internal relationships. Conflicts over nutrition have little to do with success and more to do with luck of fortuitous geopolitical positioning and resource dispersal. In some cases, the greater population of political scientists ensures the greater a region's luck. Why? This damning creation has roles for each body to inhabit, and some people are just better at finding bacon. Politics recovers ham.
A.
We succeed in the open, in the dark, in the autumn. There are no bounds that hold us if we are in a successful mold. Luck is just another small forte. If you have talent then luck has nothing to do with skill, and since skill has no name in success, luck will suit you with success. In fact, the reverie of missing a bus is only accrued luck when we recollect. If there is no reflection, success will raise your hair.
We view luck as offshoot. Its branches are suitable tendrils and foundling. The myth of children features prominently into the prime time of unattainable classmates. These are no passing whims, and often this luck is seen as inhabiting the most minimal conversing. From it's cold outside, to you should artificially inseminate for the highest chance of when we incur fertility. So when you hold the dice you use luck to explain gravity and friction, but these have much to do with success from a physical vantage. If I select a job and the job stops on me, I cannot blame friction. The rub is what appears as much more an agent of some repercussion.
If we cannot blame frictions, then the earth signals a disguised paddy. This tort is a large slice of why rebellions occur over food. Comestibles are not what you'd consider likely substitute rations for discourse or progress, but realty says what's different. In fact, you can't eat what bleeds, or bleed eats. Food conflicts over the course of our century will hinder international as well as internal relationships. Conflicts over nutrition have little to do with success and more to do with luck of fortuitous geopolitical positioning and resource dispersal. In some cases, the greater population of political scientists ensures the greater a region's luck. Why? This damning creation has roles for each body to inhabit, and some people are just better at finding bacon. Politics recovers ham.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
TOEFL Essay - We must stick to the truth
Q. Agree or disagree: we should always tell the truth. Use reasons and examples to support your response.
A.
There are radical truth-tellers among us, and ponderous experts are left wondering if those intrepid adherents to this hallowed credo should walk free, or live to regret it. It's preferable to always stick to the truth, however, in spite of how many threats you get, because it is revolutionary and it defeats secret mentalities.
There is a revolution emergency from truth and telling it. In the ages before light came about, many corners and aspects of life were left to our disadvantage. Many subject areas lack knowledge, and lead to inaccurate explanations of phenomena. Explanations in roundabout tongues are inefficient. If you create gods before an understanding of the universe, those gods also lack universal comprehension. The gods only know as much as you, as you are a go-between.
Life has gotten complicated, so secrets become dangerous trips for which we are practically unprepared. When considered, the truth isn't just one lane, but a superhighway, and runs us over. Finally resolving who says what renews our faith in already stressed infrastructures. The truth should remain grounded, however: it is not about individuals, or one nation, but about setting. The environment where truth is discovered sets a lot of damning free. What we now see is the opposite. At the height of the aughts, our society has been thrown into the midst of a secret mentality. Policy relies on hiding objects that don't need to be hidden because even the obvious substances can be used against us. Such rampant dismissals of truth lead other nations and communities to believe in our puppet ignorance. We are not the masters of some other planet, nor are we owned. A firm resolution to stick to truth would reveal that we're certainly intelligent.
A.
There are radical truth-tellers among us, and ponderous experts are left wondering if those intrepid adherents to this hallowed credo should walk free, or live to regret it. It's preferable to always stick to the truth, however, in spite of how many threats you get, because it is revolutionary and it defeats secret mentalities.
There is a revolution emergency from truth and telling it. In the ages before light came about, many corners and aspects of life were left to our disadvantage. Many subject areas lack knowledge, and lead to inaccurate explanations of phenomena. Explanations in roundabout tongues are inefficient. If you create gods before an understanding of the universe, those gods also lack universal comprehension. The gods only know as much as you, as you are a go-between.
Life has gotten complicated, so secrets become dangerous trips for which we are practically unprepared. When considered, the truth isn't just one lane, but a superhighway, and runs us over. Finally resolving who says what renews our faith in already stressed infrastructures. The truth should remain grounded, however: it is not about individuals, or one nation, but about setting. The environment where truth is discovered sets a lot of damning free. What we now see is the opposite. At the height of the aughts, our society has been thrown into the midst of a secret mentality. Policy relies on hiding objects that don't need to be hidden because even the obvious substances can be used against us. Such rampant dismissals of truth lead other nations and communities to believe in our puppet ignorance. We are not the masters of some other planet, nor are we owned. A firm resolution to stick to truth would reveal that we're certainly intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)