Writing Answer Practice 4-12

Practice Test 4 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.  For timing yourself: <Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

 Reading Many environmentalists support the current system of laws that works to save all species that may become extinct. They claim that the current variety of organisms that exist on Earth must be preserved. This idea has long been held as our moral and practical responsibility, but this safeguarding of endangered species is unnatural and poses many drawbacks. First, many claim that the extinction of any animal will certainly lead to ecological disaster, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence clearly

demonstrates that in the evolutionary history of the Earth, extinctions have occurred several times, one well-known example of this being that of the dinosaur. Once the predominant organism, it too became extinct. This sudden relative destruction of biodiversity did not result in lasting harm to life on Earth, but in a natural emergence of different species. Also, with the advent of technologies such as genetic engineering scientists no longer depend on nature as a source of inspiration for medication. The need for the preservation of all species is often supported by the idea that each may prove to have some medicinal applications. The truth is that with genetic engineering, research scientists are more able to heal disease than they ever have been before. So, the natural lose of one species to extinction will not significantly harm the progress of medicine. Third, the huge cost of saving a species from extinction is often not justified. For example, the California Condor depended on the mammoth as a source of food. When the mammoth became extinct, the condor was naturally next to follow. But, instead, millions were spent to restore the dwindling condor population. Money that could have been spent on more urgent needs was instead spent on saving an animal that nature could no longer support. Transcript   Contrary to what the author of the article may believe, the extinction of endangered species should be prevented whenever possible since the loss of any species can pose some very real consequences. And even though the arguments in the passage may seem convincing, they can be easily dismissed. To begin, the author points to the dinosaur as an example of an extinction that led to no significant harm to life, but fails to mention that after the

loss of the dinosaur, there was a dramatic shift in the organisms that dominated the surface of the Earth. Since we currently dominate the Earth’s surface, if we wish to preserve the current ecosystem that maintains our own lives, then we must realize that the loss of even one species can alter our ecosystem enough to threaten our existence. Second, though genetic engineering is an important field of research, nature still plays a powerful role in medicine. The natural compounds found in different species, such as plants, compose about 40% of the prescription drugs available today. Yet, only asmall percentage of known plant species have been studied for their medicinal values, while we lose an estimated 100 species a day. Sadly, every time any species becomes extinct, scientists forever lose an opportunity to make a new medical discovery.   Last, saving species from extinction can offer significant economic advantages. Take the freshwater mussel. 43% of the freshwater mussel species in North America are in danger of becoming extinct or are already extinct. And yet, the remaining speciesform the basis of a thriving industry that maintains about 10,000 jobs and adds over 700 million dollars to the U.S. economy. Clearly, the remaining species, as with many others, deserves to be saved, if only for its financial benefits. Example notes 

  Example essay The article states that the safeguarding of endangered species poses many drawbacks and provides three reasons of support. However, the lecture claims that extinction should be prevented whenever possible and refutes each of the author’s reasons.

 First, the article argues that the extinction of a species will not lead to ecological disaster. The professor opposes this point by discussing the author’s example of the dinosaur. He states that the dinosaur’s extinction led to a shift of organisms that dominated the Earth. He then explains that since we currently dominate the Earth, we should save endangered species to preserve the current ecosystem that supports us. Second, the reading claims that medicine no longer depends on nature for inspiration because of genetic engineering. The professor refutes this point by saying that 40% of prescription drugs are composed of natural material from plants. Only a small percentage of plants have been studied for their medical applications and everyday one hundred species become extinct, so each extinction represents a lost opportunity for medical research. Third, the article posits that the huge cost of saving endangered species is not justified. The professor opposes this point by talking about the fresh water mussel. 43% of these organisms are or will become extinct, and those that are still prevalent support an industry that creates 10,000 jobs and adds 700 million dollars to the U.S. economy. According to the professor, these species along with many others deserve to be saved if only for economic reasons. Word count: 247 

Question 2 back to top

Question Some students prefer classes with open discussions between the professor and students and almost no lectures. Other students prefer classes with

lectures and almost no discussions. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Example notes 

 Example answer Education is important in our society. It often determines our level of success. Some people believe that the best education comes from classes that focus on discussions. Others disagree. In my view, courses should focus on lectures for two important reasons. First, lectures ensure that the most important material is learned. When you take classes that focus on discussion, a few students often talk the most. As a result, the class focuses on what they want and not as much as other students or the professor. For example, when I was in university, I took a class on the history of the Caribbean. This class was almost 100% discussion. There was one student who always asked questions and talked about her personal life. If this class were lecture based, students would

have been able to learn more about the Caribbean. Though this may be an extreme example, as you can clearly see, lectures create a stronger learning environment. Second, students still get to ask questions in lecture-based classes. During a lecture, a student can still raise her hand and ask a question or make a comment. For example, in university, I took a beginning chemistry class with about 150 students, maybe more. As you can imagine, this class was almost 100% lecture based. I noticed that a student would always ask a question or make a comment during the lecture. This created a very small, but useful discussion that other students could hear. This happened at least two or three times everyday and in my other lecture-based classes as well. This experience taught me that lecture-based classes are better. In sum, the most preferable classes are lecture based. Not only do students learn more but they also still have a chance to ask questions and make comments. We should all recognize the effectiveness of lecture-based courses. Word count: 306 

Practice Test 5 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an

intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.  For timing yourself: <Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

  Reading Standardized tests are exams given to students at the end of each academic year. The results are used to determine whether or not students move to the next grade level. As our society places more emphasis on education, many school districts, along with the federal government, are using standardized tests to ensure that students receive the best education possible, and we should support this. First, these tests are given statewide and nationwide, thereby setting a strong standard for all schools to follow. In order to advance, students are required to achieve a minimum score that shows they have acquired the basic, necessary skills of their level. Teachers must therefore emphasize the appropriate material or face the possibility that their students will not pass. This pressure nearly guarantees that students, regardless of environment or background, receive a standard, quality education. In addition, with these exams, schools become more accountable for the success of their students. By averaging the scores of students, the quality of education of different schools can be compared. With this information, state and federal governments can identify those schools with exceptional results and reward them accordingly as well as identify those performing poorly and offer the necessary aid or take other appropriate actions to help them improve.

 Finally, the results of these exams can be used to provide help to those students who need it most. Simply moving children into the next grade level because of age and not ability has long been a staple of most academic institutions. This social promotion needs to end. With these tests, promotion to the next level will be only for those students who pass and show the necessary ability to move forward while those who don’t pass will stay behind to receive more assistance. Transcript  

 There is a great deal of emphasis placed on education in our culture, but that has nothing to do with standardized tests and is no reason to use them. These exams are not tools to help students or schools, or anyone for that matter, improve. If anything, they inhibit progress, hurting schools and students alike. To begin, forcing schools to use these tests will push them all to teach the same things. But, teachers need the freedom to address the needs of their students and these tests don’t give instructors that freedom. They tell teachers what to teach without even knowing the learning styles or interests of the different students in the thousands of different schools in which these tests are given. Put simply, these tests take the power to teach away from trained educators. Second, students in underperforming schools will be punished whether they pass or not. You see; these tests are often used to determine how much funding schools receive. The better schools perform, the more aid they collect. However, no consideration is made for those schools in rough neighborhoods in which the poor performance of students is more a result

of the negative environment than the school itself. How are these students helped when instead of receiving more of the funding they need, this system gives them less? Third, students who don’t do well won’t be helped. Under this system, a few exams are created for hundreds of different schools with thousands of different students of differing backgrounds, learning styles, and test-taking skills. Yet, these tests determine if all of them will pass or fail. What if these students respond badly to pressure, feel ill, or test poorly? Will this system provide the kind of help these students need by failing them and keeping them in the same grade level? No.  Example notes 

  

Example essay The reading claims that using standardized tests will ensure that students receive the best education and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that these tests will inhibit

progress in schools and hurt students. She refutes each of the author’s reasons. First, the author posits that standardized tests will create a strong school standard. The professor counters this point by explaining that these tests will force teachers to teach the same things. These tests will be given to thousands of different schools with students of different learning styles and interests, so teachers need the independence these tests take away to teach effectively. Second, the article suggests that with these tests, schools will be more accountable for student success. The lecture opposes this point by saying that this will result in the unfair punishment of students in underperforming schools. Test scores will be used to determine the amount of funding that schools receive. Consequently, schools with students who perform poorly because of the negative environment around their school and not their school itself will not receive the money they need. Third, the reading asserts that these tests help schools identify and help students who need it. The professor refutes this point by stating that students who don’t pass these exams won’t be helped. Schools have students with different styles and skills. Also, some may feel pressure or ill during the test. She explains that if these students fail for these reasons, being forced to repeat the grade will not help them. Word count: 252 

Question 2 back to top

 Question 

Some people believe that the Earth is being harmed (damaged) by human activity. Others feel that human activity makes the Earth a better place to live. What is your opinion? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Example notes 

 Example answer Our planet is the most important part of our existence. Without the Earth, there is no humanity. Some people feel that human activity is damaging our precious planet. Others disagree. In my view, human activity has harmed the Earth more than it has helped for two important reasons. The first is pollution. Everyday we drive our cars to work and to other locations. These cars produce gas that damages the air. Everyday we use an enormous amount of plastic that damages our oceans. For example, I try to take responsible action, but 5 days a week I drive to work and put a large

amount of carbon dioxide into the air, which is warming our planet to an unhealthy amount. I drink water to be healthy, but use plastic water bottles. I recycle the plastic, but the plastic is made by companies that damage the environment in the process. I am just one person among billions who commits similar actions everyday. As you can see, human activity is harming our planet. Second, our activity puts all life in danger. Our desire to protect ourselves causes destruction across the planet. For example, during World War II, the nuclear bomb was invented and used to put an end to the war. Many countries built this weapon for protection against other nations that possess it. Though there is strong debate about whether this is right or wrong, this weapon when used can completely destroy our planet and when it was used has significantly damaged the environment. This clearly demonstrates that human activity has damaged the Earth and can, ultimately, completely destroy it. In sum, our actions do damage the Earth. Not only do we pollute our planet, but our activity also puts all life in danger. We should all work to limit our negative impact. Word count: 302

Practice Test 6 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our

answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.  For timing yourself: <Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

 Reading In 1587, the English sent a group of settlers to Roanoke to establish a colony in North America. After returning from a trip to Europe, the Governor of this settlement, John White, found that the entire English colony had disappeared. This disappearance has been the subject of great debate. But, it is no longer a mystery; we now know that the settlers did not disappear but instead relocated to the Island of Croatoa. First, when White returned he found the word “Croatoa” carved onto a piece of wood. The governor had told the colonists that if they encountered any trouble while he was away, to leave a message indicating where they had gone. This sign indicates that the settlers did not disappear mysteriously but rather relocated to the Croatoan Island. Unfortunately, White’s ship was damaged during his return, so he could not travel to the island to check if the settlers were there. Second, many English artifacts have been found on Croatoa supporting the idea that the settlers from Roanoke simply relocated to the island. Specifically, a ring was found on the Croatoan Island that can be directly linked back to an Englishman. The only way that this ring could have made

its way to the island was if it was brought there by one of the English settlers from Roanoke during their relocation. Third, when search parties finally arrived on the Croatoan Island to look for the Roanoke settlers, they did not find any but did find that the indigenous inhabitants possessed European characteristics. They had light hair and blue eyes, traits not associated with the natives of North America. The peoples of Croatoa could only have attained these characteristics through intermarriage with the English settlers from Roanoke, providing more conclusive evidence that they relocated to Croatoa. Transcript  The disappearance of the Roanoke settlers has been a mystery for over four centuries. Many theories have been proposed as solutions to this puzzle but none proves beyond any doubt what happened exactly. And, though the author would have you believe otherwise, it is still a mystery. The points made in the article are weak and can be easily dismissed. To begin, the idea that they left a sign implying that they resettled in Croatoa makes no sense. Before the governor left, he instructed the settlers to go towards the interior of the country if they ran into any trouble. There was more food and safety there than any other nearby location. Croatoa Island lied in the opposite direction, closer to shore. No intelligent investigator of the disappearance would ever believe that the settlers would go against their governor’s orders for a less advantageous location. Second, the idea that artifacts from England have surfaced on the island of Croatoa in no way proves that the Roanoke colony resettled there. The ring mentioned in the article, along with other English trinkets, could have made its way onto the Croatoan Island through trade. It was not uncommon for

English travelers to trade some of their belongings for food and other necessities with the Croatoans during harsh conditions. Finally, the European characteristics of light hair and blue eyes could have easily come from Croatoan intermarriage with Englishmen other than those from the Roanoke colony. The first expedition that arrived on the Croatoan Island after the disappearance in 1587 didn’t arrive until 100 years later, and the English sent a large number of settlers within that time to establish a foothold in North America. These European characteristics could have come from any one of those groups, not just the one from Roanoke. 

 Example notes 

 Example essay The reading states that the Roanoke, a historic English colony, didn’t disappear, but instead relocated to the Island of Croatoa and provides three reasons of support. In contrast, the professor states that the

disappearance is still a mystery and counters each of the author’s reasons. First, the article claims that when the governor of the colony returned from a trip, he found that the colony disappeared and a piece of wood with the word “Croatoa” it. This explains the relocation.However, the professor says that this doesn’t make any sense. The governor told the colony to move to the interior of the land if there was trouble before he left. Croatoa was in the opposite direction, so the colony wouldn’t oppose their governor for a less advantageous location. Second, the author states that many English artifacts found on Croatoa show that the Roanoke relocated there. However, the professor says that this proves nothing. The artifacts, such as the ring mentioned in the article, could have arrived through trade. It was normal for English travelers to trade their belongings for food and other items during harsh conditions. Third, the reading explains that a search party that arrived in Croatoa didn’t find the Roanoke there but found local inhabitants with European characteristics, which could only occur through intermarriage with the Roanoke. The professor opposes this by explaining that intermarriage could have occurred with other Englishmen other than those from Roanoke. The search party didn’t arrive until 100 years after the disappearance, so within that time, many different settlers could have been responsible for this. Word count: 262 

Question 2 back to top

 

Question Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is better to use printed material such as books and articles to do research than it is to use the internet. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Example notes 

 Example answer Research is an important part of education. In order to learn, we must be able to find relevant and useful information. Some people believe that the Internet provides the best resource for research.Others disagree. In my view, no source is more powerful for good research than printed material such as books and articles for two key reasons. First, printed material is much more trustworthy. No source is perfect, but books, magazines, and other similar articles are reviewed by an editor before they are published. Anyone can publish a website at any time for any

reason and this person or group can easily hide their identity. However, publishers have to be careful because their reputation is connected with the book. For example, when I was in university I had to do research for a presentation in my physical chemistry class. This presentation demanded a lot of research. My partner and I had to explain a difficult concept to our class. We spent a lot of time online researching. We found a lot of websites that just copied one another and explained things unclearly and sometimes inaccurately. Many people were just trying to develop sites to sell something through this research. The best material online came from sites that copied printed material. Rather than use those sites, we went to the library and found the original articles and many more. Universities we could trust backed the research. This experience taught me that printed material still represents the best source for serious research. Second, there is much more information available through printed material. We hear everyday that there’s so much data online, but this amount still doesn’t compare to the amount found in books, articles, and magazines. For example, the library that our university had was 11 stories tall. It was filled with books. When I needed to learn about an author for an English assignment, I could find dozens of books on the subject. Each book had hundreds of pages. These books were written by author’s who dedicated every page to exactly the author I was researching. If I looked for similar information online, the only data I found was a few pages on the author’s history or some of his books. It did not compare to the thousands of pages of material available to me in the library. I remember there was a chapter dedicated to a short story he wrote. I couldn’t even find a copy of this short story online because he wasn’t a popular author. As you can see, the Internet cannot compare to printed material in terms of information available. In sum, books, magazines, and articles are the best sources of research. Not only is the information in these items more

trustworthy, but they also offer an enormous amount of information compared to the Internet. Though the Internet may become the best source of research in the future, today, we should alldraw most of our research from printed material. Word count: 494 

Practice Test 7 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.  For timing yourself: <Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

 Reading The 20th century saw the use of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil as the predominant sources of energy for our society. But, with their use have come a number of serious problems, such as their limited availability and the question of global warming. Nuclear energy must be seen as the solution, as the next logical step in the evolution of energy production.

 First, the fuel that powers nuclear power plants is cheap compared to the fossil fuels we currently use to supply most of our energy needs. Because it exists in such abundant supplies, a unit of fuel used in nuclear power plants costs about 7 dollars. This unit produces the same amount of energy as 84 dollars of oil or 29 dollars of gas. The potential savings to consumers is enormous. Second, despite what some may believe, the process of creating nuclear energy is relatively safe. Though production involves large amounts of dangerous radiation, nuclear power plants incorporate an array of measures to ensure that this radiation is contained and poses no danger to the public. Elaborate equipment is used throughout nuclear plants to monitor and control all processes. Furthermore, this machinery will shut down under any abnormal circumstances to prevent a catastrophe. Third, the hazardous radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants can be effectively managed. Fuel reprocessing is one measure often employed. This process takes the waste produced in plants and reuses it. It draws out 25% more energy from the original fuel source and reduces the amount of high-level waste, the most radioactive and therefore dangerous, by 80%. Consequently, the remaining waste possesses much less radioactivity and is even easier to dispose of. Transcript  The idea that nuclear power will solve our energy problems is premature. The possible advantages of nuclear energy are well known. But, the article provides points that aren’t well thought out. 

First, nuclear energy is not cheap. Building a nuclear power plant takes far more time and expertise than building a plant that processes fossil fuels. This means more money must be spent to build the plant. Also, legislation in most countries requires companies operating power plants to help fund state and county governments’ emergency response plans to protect the public in the event of a nuclear accident. These are significant costs beyond those of simply acquiring the unit of fuel. Second, accidents still happen. Even though current safety systems will likely prevent accidents from becoming catastrophic, they can still have devastating effects. For example, the famous nuclear accident on the Three Mile Island PWR in Pennsylvania released only a small amount of radiation, yielding no significant threat to the public. But, the financial damage was huge: it cost over 1 billion dollars to fix the harm done to the plant; and, the psychological stress placed on the public was, in some instances, severe. Third, nuclear waste is not easy to manage. Fuel reprocessing does help reduce high-level waste, but during reprocessing, plutonium-239, a material that can be used to make nuclear weapons, is produced. The danger of theft of this material for weaponry poses a real danger to society. Also, some high-level waste still remains after reprocessing. This waste must be stored deep underground in a location that will remain safe and stable for hundreds of years, a very difficult task. Additionally, even when appropriate locations are found, citizens and political groups often stop these sites from being used through legal action. Example notes 

 Example essay The reading claims that nuclear energy should be seen as the next logical step in the evolution of energy production and provides three reasons of

support. However, the professor states thatthis idea is premature and refutes each of the author’s reasons. First, the article states that the fuel for nuclear energy is cheap compared to that of fossil fuels. The professor opposes this point by stating that nuclear power plants take far more time and expertise to build, which results in much higher costs. Also, legislation often requires companies that own nuclear plants to fund emergency response plans in case there is a nuclear accident. These factors add significantly to the cost of nuclear energy. Second, the reading says that the process of creating nuclear energy is safe. The professor refutes this point by providing an example of a nuclear power plant, PWR, in Pennsylvania that had an accident. Though only a harmless amount of radiation was released, the damage to the plant required 1 billion dollars to fix, and the psychological stress that the community suffered was severe. Third, the article posits that waste can be effectively managed. However, the professor explains that during reprocessing, which lowers high-level waste, plutonium 239 is produced, a component of nuclear weapons. This material, if stolen, poses a significant threat to society. Also, remaining high-level waste must be buried in stable locations that are difficult to find for hundreds of years, and once they are found, citizens often protest their use. Word count: 249 

Question 2 back to top

 Question

 Neighbors are the people who live near us. In your opinion, what are the qualities of a good neighbor? Use specific details and examples in your answer. Example notes 

 Example answer The people who live near us can impact our lives significantly. We encounter them on almost a daily basis, so it’s important to have good neighbors. Accordingly, what qualities make ideal neighbors?  In my view, they should possess two very important qualities. The first is respect for others. Most difficulties between neighbors come from a basic lack of respect. If your neighbor respects you, then he will not do many of the things that may bother you. For example, I used to live in a two-story apartment complex. I lived on the second story and my downstairs

neighbor had no respect for others. He would have parties at night when most people were trying to sleep. He was also very messy. He left his trash outside of his door and over time it was difficult to walk past his apartment because there was no space. If he had had respect for others, he wouldn’t have been so inconsiderate and such a bad neighbor. The second quality is friendliness. With a friendly neighbor, it’s easy to develop a good relationship and that positive relationship can make living in your home much more enjoyable. For instance, I remember that when I was in elementary school, my parents would always talk with my neighbors. They would often come over for dinner and bring food. I would often have fun playing games with their kids while our parents talked. If our neighbors weren’t friendly, then we wouldn’t have had such a good experience living in that home. In sum, few people can affect you as much as your neighbors, so it’s important to live next to good neighbors, which are always respectful and friendly people. Living near these kinds of people will definitely improve your quality of life at home and we should all try to develop these qualities ourselves. Word count: 305

Practice Test 8 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our

answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself.  For timing yourself: <Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

 Reading In most developed nations, high school is a part of every student’s life. During this time, students are faced with the burdensome task of mastering their essential subject material, getting ready to enter the work force or university, and dealing with their day-to-day school life. Educators, students, and professionals envision school uniforms as an excellent means of reducing these stresses and difficulties of students. First, the families of students will benefit significantly by saving on the cost of clothing. A few uniforms are much more affordable than the many different pairs of clothing that a child needs everyday to attend school. Clothing, especially the more fashionable styles, tends to be quite an expensive burden that most parents feel forced to bear because of the desire to help their young children feel comfortable and socially accepted in school. A second major advantage lies in the elimination of unnecessary distractions. Children often spend large parts of their day worrying about what to wear to look good in order to find acceptance in school. They spend this time not only to look good but also to avoid the ridicule that they might receive if they don’t dress trendy enough. By removing this pointless waste

of time, students can spend more energy and effort focusing on important issues such as their studies. Finally, a mandatory uniform policy will develop a sense of community within the school. Psychologically, seeing your fellow students wearing the same clothing as you offers a way to feel more closely connected. Because each student wears the same clothing regardless of income level or ability, uniforms keep students, at least with respect to appearance, on an equal level. This removes clothing as a factor that might serve to fracture the students into different groups. Transcript  

  The author’s point about the difficulties that students face in high school is true. But, besides that there’s not much to his argument about how school uniforms can help. They are not the answer and do not provide the kinds of benefits outlined in the passage. There’s a lot the author hasn’t considered. For one, parents will still spend large amounts of money on clothing. Uniforms have to be purchased too; they aren’t given out for free and parents often have to purchase these uniforms at specialty stores, which can be expensive. And, do you expect these kids to wear their uniforms when they go out with friends or out on the weekends? No. Ultimately, parents will still buy just as many pairs of trendy clothes as before. Second, uniforms won’t eliminate the distraction mentioned by the author. Students use clothes as a way to emphasize what they consider their attractive features and de-emphasize their less attractive features. By forcing students to wear uniforms, the diversion of deciding what to wear will simply be replaced by the distraction of wondering how they look and

how other students think they look. They’ll obsess over how they can alter or modify their uniforms to, again, look the way they want to. The last point is probably the least responsible. Forcing students to wear a uniform is no way to build community. Students don’t just choose clothing to try to fit in but to communicate their individuality. Taking that opportunity away will only serve to push students into conformity, which suffocates creativity, independence, and self-expression. School is meant to foster, . . . to promote, a student’s sense of self. Uniforms run counter to this and for that alone should be avoided. Example notes 

 Example essay The reading states that school uniforms are an excellent means of reducing the stress and difficulties of students in school and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that school

uniforms should not be considered for use in schools and she refutes each of the author’s reasons. First, the article posits that uniforms will help families save significantly on the cost of clothing. The lecture refutes this point by explaining that uniforms must still be purchased and that they are often found in expensive specialty stores. Furthermore, she explains that students won’t wear these uniforms out with friends or on the weekends, so parents will have to buy as many as clothes as without the uniforms. Second, the author asserts that uniforms will eliminate student distractions with clothing. The professor counters this by telling us that students use clothes to emphasize their attractive features and not emphasize their unattractive features. So, with uniforms, this distraction will be replaced by their wondering how they look and how they can change their uniforms to make them look the way they want. Third, the reading claims that uniforms will develop a sense of community in the schools in which they are used. In opposition, the professor states that this idea is irresponsible. She explains thatstudents use clothing to communicate their individuality. Uniforms will push students to conform, destroying creativity and reducing their sense of self. For that alone, the professor claims uniforms should be avoided. Word count: 245 

Question 2 back to top

 Question 

Should governments spend more money on improving roads and highways, or should governments spend more money on improving public transportation (buses, trains, subways)? Why? Use specific reasons and details to develop your essay. Example notes 

 Example answer National government has a powerful impact on our lives. The government is responsible for education, defense, and even transportation. Everyday millions of dollars in tax revenue are invested in transportation projects. Some people believe that the government should invest a majority of that money on improving roads and highways. Others disagree. In my view, public transportation represents the best investment for two main reasons. The first is health. Cars are a significant source of pollution. They emit poisonous gases that harm not only our health but also our entire ecosystem. For example, many of my friends run to stay healthy and some

of them subscribe to a running magazine. This magazine published an article a few weeks ago about the dangers of running on the street. Surprisingly, the article didn’t focus on car accidents and poor drivers but on pollution. It stated that running in streets with heavy traffic could actually prove more harmful than helpful since runners breathe at an accelerated rate and streets with busy traffic are saturated with the poisonous exhaust of so many cars. Consequently, runners take in a larger than normal amount of those pollutants. This is just one organism in our ecosystem that is being negatively affected. With a serious investment in public transportation, fewer people will drive and we can begin to limit the harm done to our environment and our health. As you can see, more investment in public transportation is best. The second reason is convenience. Most public transportation systems do not receive enough funding. Governments don’t invest heavily enough so the system tends to be very inconvenient and out-of-date. Few buses result in poor service and the buses are often old and uncomfortable. Not only do buses suffer from lack of investment but all other forms of public transportation such as trains and subways do as well.For instance, when I was in high school, I took summer school at a school located around 15 miles from my house, a long distance to walk. I didn’t have a car, so I took a bus. In the morning, the bus would usually be on time, but after school, in the afternoon, buses would run late and be overcrowded because there weren’t enough to meet the demand. Also, these buses were old, dirty, and often marked with graffiti. That’s one of the main reasons why I bought a car. If public transportation were better, it would have been more convenient than driving my own car. I wouldn’t have had to spend my money; I would have been able to study on the way to and from school; and I would have enjoyed the experience of a nice comfortable ride. This experience taught me that public transportation seriously needs more funding. 

In conclusion, it’s government’s responsibility to ensure that our health is protected. It’s also essential for a government to work to improve the quality of life of its citizens. Those are the key reasons why more money should be invested in public transportation than on roads and highways. Such an investment will improve the lives of the average taxpayer and we should all support it. Word count: 503 

Practice Test 9 Review back to top

 Remember to compare your notes to ours. Are they similar? If not, do the question again taking notes again until they do look similar so that you have a good set of notes to speak from. Remember to compare your recording to ours. Are they similar? If not, try to record again. When you do this, take your time to understand how our answers come directly from our notes and we explain them simply and clearly. That's exactly what you want to do. Again, this is to make you an intelligent TOEFL-test-taking-machine. Feel comfortable and smooth as you practice. Don't put too much pressure on yourself. 

  For timing yourself: Stopwatch 

Question 1 back to top

 Reading Hydropower dams are massive concrete walls placed inside rivers or streams to hold back water. Holes in the dam allow controlled amounts of

water to pass through and as it moves through these holes, it passes through a machine, which converts that movement into electricity. Dams are incredible engineering marvels that represent one of the most beneficial and effective forms of electricity creation today. First, dams positively impact the environment. Once constructed, these massive walls hold back tremendous amounts of water, forming artificial lakes. These lakes produce not only a wonderful habitat for fish but also a beautiful recreation area for local citizens, which serves to help the local population stay aware and respectful of nature. Additionally, through irrigation, these lakes bring to life millions of acres of ground that would otherwise lie barren. Second, the power generated from a dam produces no harmful pollutants. This is in direct contrast to the dominant source of electricity production today—coal power plants, which are the leading cause of smog, acid rain, and air pollution. One large dam generates roughly the same amount of electricity as a typical coal plant. Consequently, dams, by replacing these plants, eliminate, among several other toxic pollutants, an average of 3.7 million tons of the global warming gas carbon dioxide per year. Third, dams create no financial burden for the community. Because dams generate electricity and provide irrigation water for local agricultural concerns, they provide two means of bringing in revenue for owners. Combined, this revenue more than covers the significant expenses incurred during operation of the dam, resulting in significant profits. For example, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington produces approximately 15 billion in revenue per year and requires only 5.7 billion in operating costs. Transcript  

The truth is that more research and development is necessary before we can cast dams with the same kind of positive light the author does. And though they present a good source of renewable energy, the construction of dams, along with their general use, poses many drawbacks that the author doesn’t address in the article. First, the environment does suffer. During the construction of dams, water must be diverted to allow workers to build this massive structure within the rivers path. This presents significant problems for migrating fish, which often lose their way and die. Once the dam is finished and the water returns to its natural path, it flows much slower than it once did. This hurts the reproductive ability of fish that require the presence of fast moving water to lay their eggs. Second, dams do, in fact, contribute to pollution. The artificial lakes that dams create periodically flood surrounding land. And, when flooded, the dense vegetation found on this land dies. This dead organic material rots over time, during this process methane is released. And, we all know methane is a global warming gas. Don’t forget either that plants remove carbon dioxide, another global warming gas, from the atmosphere. So, not only do dams cause the release of these gases, but they also destroy the plants that remove them. Last, the community often does suffer financially. As I stated, dams create enormous artificial lakes that flood the surrounding land. This means that local residents whose property would either be permanently or periodically flooded by it must be relocated. This is not cheap. And coupled with the huge cost of a dam’s construction, most dams are economically unfeasible without government aid, which comes in the form of local tax dollars. Example notes 

 Example essay The article states that dams are a beneficial and effective way to generate electricity and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that dams present many drawbacksand refutes each of the author’s reasons.

 First, the author claims that dams help to improve the local environment. In contrast, the professor states that dams make the environment suffer. When they are built, water must be diverted. As a result, fish that migrate through the area often lose their way and die. Also, when the dam is finished and the water’s path is restored, it moves more slowly. This hurts fish that need fast moving water to lay their eggs. Second, the reading asserts that dams release no harmful pollutants during operation. The lecture refutes this point by stating that dams create artificial lakes and that these lakes flood the area around the dam. The plants in the flooded land, therefore, die. This eliminates plants that remove the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the air. Also, as these plants decay, they release methane, which is another greenhouse gas. Third, the author explains that dams create no financial burden for communities. The professor counters this by explaining that the enormous artificial lakes dams create flood the local area, so residents who are affected by this flooding must be relocated. This is not cheap. This, in addition to the cost of construction, makes dams so expensive that they require local tax dollars as aid in order to be built. Word count: 247 

Question 2 back to top

 Question Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Boys and girls should attend separate schools. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

 Example notes 

 Example answer School is an important part of our lives. Most countries require young people to attend by law because it’s so important. Some people believe that the best schools are either all boy schools or all girl schools while others disagree. In my view, coeducational schools provide the strongest learning environments for two important reasons. First, children need to understand how to develop relationships with the opposite sex. School is where children learn to interact with others. If they only interact with children of the same gender, they will face difficulties in their future lives. For example, I went to coeducational schools for my whole life. This was a great experience for me because it taught me how to be comfortable with women. My history teachers often made us work in groups to write research papers. Working with each other closely eliminated any feeling of discomfort. I wouldn’t see working with another

boy or a girl differently. They were my equals and I interacted with them easily. Now, as an adult, I feel that this has helped me not only in my personal relationships but in my work relationships as well. Through this, I know that coeducational schools are essential, especially for young children. Second, coeducational schools create more diversity in the classroom. Everyone has different ways of thinking. It is easy to understand that men and women may not see the same issue the same way. Each gender develops its own unique and valuable perspective. For instance, when I was in university, I took an introductory philosophy class. The book we used was actually very interesting. It was divided into twenty chapters and each chapter asked an important question of philosophy. Then, several essays from different authors were presented. The last essay was always that of a feminist or female philosopher. These essays introduced powerful ideas that were different from the other essays, which were largely written by men. From this I learned that coeducational schools create the essential diversity that all schools should have. In sum, students should attend coeducational schools. Not only do they help students develop a mature way to look at the opposite sex but they also create the kind of diversity that is necessary in all classrooms. Though some students may require a different kind of school for different reasons, all students should attend a coeducational school for at least some time. Word count: 397 Test 10 Review

Question 1 back to top

 Reading

 Every organism possesses genes. These genes provide the organism with its natural characteristics. The number of apples a tree will produce can be considered a result of its genetic makeup. With new technologies, researchers have been able to alter the genes of certain food crops to impart on them more beneficial and profitable characteristics. This genetic modification offers a number of benefits. First, through genetic modification, researchers can produce better crops with attributes that would take centuries to produce in any other way. This speed is an incredible benefit for our society and farmers. The current species of wheat grown in most farms produces very high yields. This is a result of centuries of selective breeding by farmers. Researchers can today achieve the same result in decades through genetic modification. Also, genetically modified foods are safe. These foods must pass through extensive testing. In the United States, they must be tested for nine years before they can be released. One important form of testing that occurs during this time is peer review. In this form of testing, scientists across the world evaluate and test research by duplicating it to ensure accuracy and truth; and, research has shown again and again that genetically modified foods pose no major health risks to consumers. Finally, genetic modification creates crops that underdeveloped countries can use to alleviate food shortage and avoid famine. Some modifications have rendered plants more able to survive with less water. These crops can prove especially helpful in underdeveloped countries where water shortage is common. The added benefit of solving food shortage problems without the need of significant loans provides another advantage for developing countries. Without the reliance on foreign aid to solve this important issue, these nations’ economies can develop without the burden of heavy loan payments.

 Transcript  The issue of genetic modification is not as clear as the author claims. Genetic modification of food may provide some benefits but it also presents some major drawbacks. First, genetic modification doesn’t necessarily produce the kinds of improvements one might expect. In nature, genetic changes take place over hundreds of years, regardless of whether or not farmers help nature along through selective breeding. The end product is a genetic mix tested over large spans of time in a variety of environmental conditions. However advanced our science may be, researchers cannot simply change an organism’s genes and believe that the end product will be better than or even as stable as that produced by nature. Second, the safety of genetically modified foods is still a question. The author claims that peer review helps to ensure the accuracy and truth of research stating these kinds of foods are safe. But the companies that modify foods rarely publish any of their results. They are unwilling to share their research for fear that their competitors may copy their products and innovations. Without published results, the scientific community has no ability to review them. This makes testing through peer review largely non-existent and therefore, current research on the subject questionable. Third, genetic modification will not do much to solve the problems in developing countries. For one, even if crops produced higher yields with less water, food shortage and famines would still exist since developing nations lack the infrastructure to distribute the food to the individuals that need it most. Also, the economies of these countries rely on the revenue generated from selling crops that command the highest prices on the open

market; often times, these high selling crops are not the staple food crops that the society needs to avoid food shortage and famine. Example notes 

 Example essay 

The article claims that genetic modification of foods offers a number of benefits and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that there are major drawbacks to genetic modification and refutes each of the author’s reasons. First, the reading posits that genetic modification produces better crops faster than nature can. The professor refutes this point by explaining that genetic changes take hundreds of years in nature. As a result, the crops are tested over large spans of time in a variety of conditions. He states thatresearchers shouldn’t believe that they can genetically modify a crop and produce a better or more stable crop than nature. Second, the article states that peer review proves that genetically modified foods are safe. However, the professor says that companies rarely publish their results because they fear that their competitors will copy them. Without published results, scientists can’t review them. Consequently, peer review is largely non-existent and the claim that these foods are safe should be questioned. Third, the reading asserts that genetically modified crops can help underdeveloped countries alleviate food shortages and avoid famines. The professor counters this point by stating that even if these crops could produce high yields, these countries lack the infrastructure to distribute them to the people that need them the most. Also, these countries grow crops that they can sell for the most amount of money to support their economies, and these crops are often not the crops that the society needs to avoid famine. Word count: 249 

Question 2 back to top

 Question In general, people are living longer now. Discuss the causes of this phenomenon. Use specific reasons and details to develop your essay. Example notes 

 Example answer Change is a powerful part of our existence. It is the base that helps us progress. One positive change that affects us all is that people are living longer now. Many factors led to this incredible fact. The first is that our health care system constantly improves. Engineers study current technology and how it can better our health. Scientists research diseases and create medicines to cure them. Administrators work on ways to deliver better health care to people all over the world. For instance, in my history class, I learned that in early medicine, doctors

didn’t clean their tools well. As a result, many patients wouldn’t survive even the smallest surgery because of infection. Soon after the surgery they would become fatally ill. Doctors then learned, through experience and research, that by cleaning their tools and using more sanitary methods, patients would survive long after their surgery. Now, people are living much longer than they would be able to before. This taught me that, we have improved health care to thank for our longer lives. The second is that people take better care of themselves now than they did in the past. For instance, centuries ago people focused on survival. They had to ensure that they had the basics to survive: food, clothes, and shelter. Over time, our quality of life improved dramatically. People began to work and were able to attain the basics of life easily. They didn’t have to grow their own food, make their own clothes, or build their own shelters. They could buy these items easily in markets. In time, governments forced companies to reduce working hours and people began to enjoy more free time while having all of the basics for survival. With this free time, people focused much of that time and their energy on keeping themselves healthy. Nowadays, when people don’t work, they go to the gym, play sports, cook better, and overall take better care of themselves. Research shows that these changes in lifestyle have a dramatic effect on people’s lifespan. In conclusion, many factors contribute to our longer lifespan, but few increased it as much as the improvements in our health care system and the increased focus that we have on our bodies. We should expect this to continue and I’m sure that we’ll soon find ourselves pushing our lifespan to lengths that we never imagined. Word count: 395

 Test 11 Review

Question 1 back to top

 Reading

 

Businesses often need to hire new managers or executives to fill vacancies that result from someone leaving the company or from its expansion. They can choose either to promote an employee from within the company or to hire a new employee from the outside. Though the decision to hire externally or internally may pose difficulties to some, bringing in someone from outside the corporation offers many advantages. Perhaps the most important is that individuals from outside the company bring new ideas and perspectives. Internal employees that have spent years within the company often find it difficult to do things differently from what they’ve been taught. By not being ingrained in the corporate culture, an external hire looks at company policy and procedures with an open mind. This kind of fresh analysis can lead to cheaper, more efficient ways of doing business. Second, the cost of hiring is significantly reduced. Internal hires are promoted into their new positions and require training on how to perform their new jobs and responsibilities. Hiring externally, on the other hand, permits companies to employ only those individuals who already possess the necessary skills, allowing the company to save not only on training expenses but also on the cost of reduced productivity that results when an employee is in training. Another important consideration lies in avoiding unnecessary conflicts that may hurt the ability of a company to function well. Managerial and executive positions don’t become available often, so when an opportunity does arise, most employees compete fiercely for the position. If a corporation hires internally, it may lead to feelings of frustration and anger

in the employees that weren’t hired, creating a potentially hostile environment that the newly promoted employee will find difficult to manage. If a company hires externally, this can be avoided altogether. Transcript  Deciding whether to hire externally or internally demands serious consideration and many companies choose not to allot the appropriate time to the decision. Instead, they blindly follow the author’s recommendation for the points made in the article. But, a careful look reveals many drawbacks to hiring externally. In fact, companies may hurt their businesses by doing so. First, outsiders do not always bring great new ideas. One major restaurant hired externally for “fresh” ideas. And, unaware of the corporate culture, its new hire changed to a cheaper meat supplier that kept prices low by using chemicals and hormones on its livestock. When customers learned this, a dramatic decrease in business resulted. You see, this external hire didn’t know what every employee had grown to learn: customers were loyal to the restaurant because it never used such unnaturally treated products. The second point about reducing costs is misguided. An external hire requires time to establish a positive relationship with his new coworkers and to adjust to the new corporate culture. This can result in a few weeks to a few months in lost productivity, just as much time as it takes to train an internal employee. Additionally, unlike the internal employee who has already adapted to company culture, the external hire may never fully adjust, forcing the company to go through the expense of hiring a replacement. 

Third, hiring externally will only serve to frustrate and anger employees. It is true that managerial and executive positions rarely surface. So, how would hiring an outsider help these employees feel better? If anything, they will feel more frustrated knowing that they were never even given an opportunity to try for these vacancies, which may create negative feelings towards the external hire. This could lead to a very difficult environment for her to manage efficiently in, seriously hurting the company. Example notes 

 Example answer The reading states that companies should hire externally and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that hiring externally instead of internally poses many drawbacksand refutes each of the author’s reasons.

 First, the article asserts that an external hire will add positive new ideas and perspectives. In contrast, the professor states that external hires don’t bring in great new ideas. He says that a major restaurant hired externally and that this employee decided to change to a cheaper meat supplier to save money. This resulted in a large loss of business because the meat supplier used chemicals to treat the meat, which customers didn’t like that. Second, the reading posits that it will reduce the cost of hiring by eliminating training. The professor says that this is misguided. He explains that external hires need time to create a positive relationship with employees. This can take weeks or months. This time will result in reduced productivity, which may cost the company the same as training. Also, external hires may never adjust, so the company will have to spend money to hire someone else. Third, the author states that hiring externally will reduce conflict among employees who may fight for job openings. The professor refutes this point by explaining that employees will become very frustrated since they will not be given an opportunity to apply for rare management positions. Furthermore, this might make them angry with the external employee, which will create a difficult environment for him to manage in. Word count: 251 

Question 2 back to top

 Question 

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Children should begin learning a foreign language as soon as they start school. Use specific reasons and examples to support your position. Example notes 

 Example answer Speaking another language is very important in our society today. Whether you go on vacation or apply for a job, a second language is essential. Because of this, some people believe that children should begin learning a foreign language as soon as they start school. Others disagree. In my view,doing so would be a huge waste of time for both the student and teacher for two important reasons. First, children are too young to choose a language to learn. When you are a child, you don’t know about the world. As a result, the foreign language you learn is chosen for you and you may not want to learn that

language. For example, when I was in high school, my school required me to take a foreign language. I really didn’t know what to choose because I had no idea what language would really be useful, so I decided to study French. However, after graduating and learning a little more about my future and goals, I realized that a different language, such as Chinese or Japanese, would have been more useful for me. As a high school student, I wasn’t able to make the smart choice. Accordingly, I don’t believe a young child will be able to. This experience taught me that learning a foreign language at such a young age is not such a great idea. Second, you won’t develop a complete understanding of the language. Sometimes instructors are students of the language and not native speakers. Also, the students you learn with are not experienced with the language. Consequently, you learn slowly and often inaccurately. For example, a coworker decided to study Korean after graduating from University. Instead of learning in a school, he decided to work in Korea. He applied for several different positions and was able to find a job. After two years, he returned and speaks Korean well. I don’t believe he would have the same skill if he had studied in a school because in the country native speakers of the language surrounded him. I also know students who have studied a second language only in school, and their ability does not compare to his. As you can see,learning a second language in school is not effective; it is far better to travel abroad where that language is spoken. In conclusion, speaking a second language is important, but starting to learn one as soon as you enter school is not. Not only are children too young to choose the right language but they also won’t develop a complete understanding of it if they are. We should all work to open our minds and learn more but in the most effective ways possible. Word count: 450 Test 12 Review

Question 1 back to top

 Reading 

 

Over the last few decades, there has been a warming trend across the globe. Many view this perceived pattern of increasing temperatures as unnatural and a result of the surge in carbon emissions produced by industrialized nations. Though some may debate the possible causes, one fact is certain: we are experiencing a global warming. The evidence for this is clear.  First, data from sophisticated instruments across the globe indicate a warming trend. Throughout the world, thermometers from weather stations on the surface of the Earth take readings of the temperature. These instruments have kept detailed records of temperature changes for over a century. The average of the temperatures recorded by all of these instruments plotted over time indicates that there is a general warming occuring across the globe.  Also, secondary evidence points to rising temperatures. For one, scientists have reported an alarming rate of breaks in the ice shelves of Antartica. Specifically, a recent break of a reportedly 53 mile long and 40 mile wide iceberg. This unusually high number of icebergs calved from Antarctica in recent years has prompted many to see the reality of global warming, since excessive warming would cause the ice in Antartica to become weak and break as it has.  

Third, impartial, unbiased organizations such as respected newspapers and international organizations have considered the evidence and accepted as fact the idea that there is a warming trend. For example, major newspapers published part of a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) climate report expressing grave concern over global warming. The report states that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years and that computer models predict an astounding 10-degree increase in the next 100 years with severe consequences for life on Earth. Transcript  It’s true that warming trends can exist, but it’s wrong to take the evidence presented in the reading and assume that it indicates that one exists today. There is no conclusive proof that will lead an unbiased observer to believe that global temperatures are rising. We just don’t know.  To begin, yes; it’s true that if you take all of the surface thermometers across the planet and average them, you will see that over the last century temperatures have risen. But, and I must emphasize this point, not all thermometer readings should be trusted. Many weather stations are not well-maintained, monitored, or controlled. If only those that are well-maintained, specifically those in the U.S. and Europe, are used, and all of the less reliable are eliminated, no warming trend can be seen after 1979. Global data from weather satellites also point to absence of a warming trend.  The point made about secondary evidence is also flawed. Again, it is true that a large number of icebergs are breaking away from Antartica. However, the article fails to mention that there is evidence of both warming

AND cooling trends in Antartica. Also, we can’t assume that the number of icebergs that are breaking are breaking because of rising temperatures. The nature of the breaks indicates that the cause could be unnatural and non-warming related. What is needed is more studies and more time to determine the true cause of the breaks.  The third point is probably the most irresponsible. These impartial, respectable sources have not weighed the evidence carefully. In fact, the UNEP report mentioned in the article was published by newspapers before the report was even evaluated; it was an uncritically accepted story. Newspapers published the alarming report before anyone had a chance to examine it to sell papers, not inform the public. Example notes 

 Example answer The article claims that we are currently experiencing global warming and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor states that there is no conclusive proof of global warming and refutes each of the author’s reasons.  

First, the reading explains that instruments across the globe indicate a warming trend. The professor opposes this point by saying that this is true, but that not all of the weather stations with these instruments should be trusted. Some are not well maintained. He says that if only the temperature readings from the weather stations that are well maintained are used, specifically those in the U.S. and Europe, no global warming trend exists after 1979.  Second, the article posits that secondary evidence points to rising temperatures. However, the professor explains that this reason is flawed. It is true, as the article mentioned, that icebergs are breaking in Antarctica, but both warming and cooling trends exist in the area. Also, the nature of the iceberg breaks is unnatural and may not be a result of warming. To know for certain, more time and research is necessary.  Third, the reading says that unbiased organizations have considered the evidence and accepted global warming as a fact. However, the professor states that this point is irresponsible. He explains thatnewspapers have not weighed the evidence carefully and that the UNEP report mentioned in the article was published before it was evaluated. He claims that newspapers published the article to sell papers and not to inform the public.  Word count: 249 

Question 2 back to top

 Question

 

Some people say that computers have made life easier and more convenient. Other people say that computers have made life more complex and stressful. What is your opinion? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Example notes 

 Example answer Technology has a significant effect on our lives. We find technology everywhere and cannot avoid its influence. One very important technology is computers. Some people believe that they have made life easier and more convenient while others disagree. In my view, computers have created a better quality of life for many reasons.  The first reason is that computers have improved the quality of many other products. Companies use computers to build products that work more

efficiently and effectively. For example, today, most cars possess small computers that help improve their safety and therefore, improve their quality. My car has a small computer that can determine if the car is out of control. If it is, the computer will take action and alter the speed of the tires so that it will regain control. Cars represent just one example of how computers have positively impacted our lives.  The second reason is that computers provide a way for us to get important information. Through the Internet, the personal computer has become one of the most popular and convenient sources of important information. For example, a friend of mine felt really sick a few months ago. She had a bad stomachache and it was late at night. I didn’t have access to a doctor, so I researched information on how to help soothe a bad stomach online. I found that soft foods such as rice could help. With this information, I was able to help my friend feel better. This experience taught me that computers can help us significantly.  In sum, computers benefit our lives by making it easier and more convenient. Not only have they improved so many things that we use everyday, but they also give us a simple way to gather important information quickly. Computers have revolutionized our lives and we should all support their continued development and use.  Word count: 309 

Read more: https://www.notefull.com/myaccount.php?w=10&productid=121&pgID=3972#ixzz1xse1tzhp

Read more: https://www.notefull.com/myaccount.php?w=10&productid=121&pgID=3971#ixzz1xsdfZkeu