-
Mystery Machine
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:19 am
- Location: India
Eric, Erin, Andrea(grockit_andrea),VP_Jim,Stuart Kovinsky, Request you to please review my essays and gimme some pointers. Mismanaged my schedule, taking GMAT in 2 days. Guys, pls help me out.
Thanks in advance......
Analysis of issue:--
The best teachers are those whose classes include a large amount of discussion between teachers and students.
Analyse the above topic, whether you agree/disagree etc. etc.
Answer:--
Many people feel that the best teachers follow a highly interactive methodology in teaching, helping their students to participate more in the class and leading to better learning. On the other hand, it is not entirely untruthful to say that a large amount of discussion in the class can lead to a casual atmosphere, distracting the students and resulting in inferior learning among the students. In this discussion, I shall present arguments favoring the former statement and refuting the latter statement.
The fact that- the more the no. of one's senses participating, the more steeper the learning curve gets, is a widely known and proven one. When a student indulges in discussions, more of his senses take part in the experience than the usual sense of sight used in the orthodox methods of teaching. It leads to a greater amount of learning in the students.
The fact mentioned above has been proven scientifically, time and again. For example, In a recent research done jointly by the physcology and human resource departments of University of Southern California, two groups of students, each having students with same Intelligence Quotient, were taught by same teacher using different methodologies. In one class, he followed the interactive approach, encouraging his students to participate more and more and in the other, he followed the orthodox approach of passing facts to the students without any sort of discussion. On being tested on the same material taught in the two classes, the students of the first class performed significantly better than those of the second class. This example strongly points to the fact that students gain more in a class where a discussion based approach is followed.
It is the duty of a teacher to try to make the students learn more and more. If a teacher enables better learning in the students, by using well researched and proven methods of teaching, and improving his teaching methodology by learning from different sources and his own experiences, then he can acceptably be called a very good teacher. On the other hand, a teacher who doesn't continuously try to improve his teaching methodologies, has lesser concerns for his students' learning, doesn't qualify to be called a good teacher.
Moreover, apart from imparting knowledge, a teacher is also responsible in helping in development of the thought process of his students, an equally important factor in education. In a discussion based environment, a student not only learns, by asking questions, but also develops his thought process by thinking through and asking questions about the things being taught. So, it can be said that a good teacher is one who encourages his students to participate more and more in the class by following discussion based approach.
Some people might argue that a discussion based approach leads to a casual atmosphere in the class resulting in lesser learning among students and so, it should not be practiced by a good teacher. But this argument is flawed. To say that students should be encouraged to discuss in the class doesn't mean that the discussion should become a casual one. A good teacher encourages his students to interact but never lets it to become a casual one.
For all these reasons, I believe that the best teachers are those whose classes include a large amount of discussion between teachers and students.
------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT:--
The following appeared as part of an article in a local newspaper.
Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the US for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say it is because its product lacks the exceptional loud noise made by the motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than American made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and ads typically have voice-overs or rock music than engine roar on the sound track.
ANLYSE THE ARGUMENT
Answer:--
The argument concludes that there should be some other reason for the foreign motorcycle, copied from an indigenous motorcycle X, being unpopular than its original, than just the difference in the noise produced. The author supports his decision by saying that foreign cars are also much more quieter than indigenous cars but still manage to sell as well as the indigenous ones. The author further supports his claim by saying that the television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness and have voice-overs or rock music than engine roar on the sound track. These alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the conclusion that the copied motorcycle sells less because of some other reason than its quieter sound and it certainly does not provide good support or proof for the conclusion.
Most conspicuously, the argument wrongly compares motorcycles to cars. Most of the people do not buy a motorcycle, unlike a car, as a utility. For this reason, most people buy motorcycles with high sound, powerful engines or good looks and other reason which are fairly not the usual reasons for choosing a vehicle. A classic example of this fact is the highly popular Harley Davidson motorcycle. The USP of these motorcycles is not fuel efficiency or cheap maintenance but powerful engines, loud noise and to a certain extent, the legacy of the brand. So, it is evident that the argument is flawed in comparing cars to motorcycles which, as described, is not justified. Instead, the author should have compared with other motorcycles coming under the same category. Second, the author specifically says that there must be some other explanation to why the copied motorcycle sells less, than its quieter sound. In doing so, the author unnecessarily looks for other explanations while refuting the one that, as described above, seems most plausible one.
Third, the comparison of foreign cars to a copied foreign motorcycle is illogical. The author never addresses the fact that, may be, people are not preferring to buy the copied motorcycle because it is a copied version and this automatically associates some amount of unreliability with the motorcycle. Nobody wants to take a copied motorcycle when they can buy the original.
Also, the author illogically assumes that the advertisement of motorcycle X is bound to show the strongest point of the motorcycle, without looking at the marketing strategies of the company. It can be the case where the company already has a considerable customer base, because of the motorcycle X's unique sound, and now wants to advertise more unnoticeable features in the advertisement to widen its customer base. The argument would have been more logical if the author would have addressed this issue by providing insights to the company advertising policy indicating what it wanted to achieve by these advertisements.
Furthermore, the author fails to mention the impact of the advertisements on the sales of motorcycle X. It cannot be determined as such that the features marketed in the advertisements actually have an impact on people and does the sales increase? If not, then it would be clear that these features are not the ones which are looked for by the customers in motorcycle X. If these details would have been added, then the argument would have been a stronger one.
Because the argument fails to address several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Thanks in advance......
Analysis of issue:--
The best teachers are those whose classes include a large amount of discussion between teachers and students.
Analyse the above topic, whether you agree/disagree etc. etc.
Answer:--
Many people feel that the best teachers follow a highly interactive methodology in teaching, helping their students to participate more in the class and leading to better learning. On the other hand, it is not entirely untruthful to say that a large amount of discussion in the class can lead to a casual atmosphere, distracting the students and resulting in inferior learning among the students. In this discussion, I shall present arguments favoring the former statement and refuting the latter statement.
The fact that- the more the no. of one's senses participating, the more steeper the learning curve gets, is a widely known and proven one. When a student indulges in discussions, more of his senses take part in the experience than the usual sense of sight used in the orthodox methods of teaching. It leads to a greater amount of learning in the students.
The fact mentioned above has been proven scientifically, time and again. For example, In a recent research done jointly by the physcology and human resource departments of University of Southern California, two groups of students, each having students with same Intelligence Quotient, were taught by same teacher using different methodologies. In one class, he followed the interactive approach, encouraging his students to participate more and more and in the other, he followed the orthodox approach of passing facts to the students without any sort of discussion. On being tested on the same material taught in the two classes, the students of the first class performed significantly better than those of the second class. This example strongly points to the fact that students gain more in a class where a discussion based approach is followed.
It is the duty of a teacher to try to make the students learn more and more. If a teacher enables better learning in the students, by using well researched and proven methods of teaching, and improving his teaching methodology by learning from different sources and his own experiences, then he can acceptably be called a very good teacher. On the other hand, a teacher who doesn't continuously try to improve his teaching methodologies, has lesser concerns for his students' learning, doesn't qualify to be called a good teacher.
Moreover, apart from imparting knowledge, a teacher is also responsible in helping in development of the thought process of his students, an equally important factor in education. In a discussion based environment, a student not only learns, by asking questions, but also develops his thought process by thinking through and asking questions about the things being taught. So, it can be said that a good teacher is one who encourages his students to participate more and more in the class by following discussion based approach.
Some people might argue that a discussion based approach leads to a casual atmosphere in the class resulting in lesser learning among students and so, it should not be practiced by a good teacher. But this argument is flawed. To say that students should be encouraged to discuss in the class doesn't mean that the discussion should become a casual one. A good teacher encourages his students to interact but never lets it to become a casual one.
For all these reasons, I believe that the best teachers are those whose classes include a large amount of discussion between teachers and students.
------------------------------------------------
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT:--
The following appeared as part of an article in a local newspaper.
Motorcycle X has been manufactured in the US for over 70 years. Although one foreign company has copied the motorcycle and is selling it for less, the company has failed to attract motorcycle X customers - some say it is because its product lacks the exceptional loud noise made by the motorcycle X. But there must be some other explanation. After all, foreign cars tend to be quieter than American made cars, but they sell at least as well. Also, television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness, and ads typically have voice-overs or rock music than engine roar on the sound track.
ANLYSE THE ARGUMENT
Answer:--
The argument concludes that there should be some other reason for the foreign motorcycle, copied from an indigenous motorcycle X, being unpopular than its original, than just the difference in the noise produced. The author supports his decision by saying that foreign cars are also much more quieter than indigenous cars but still manage to sell as well as the indigenous ones. The author further supports his claim by saying that the television advertisements for motorcycle X highlight its durability and sleek lines, not its noisiness and have voice-overs or rock music than engine roar on the sound track. These alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the conclusion that the copied motorcycle sells less because of some other reason than its quieter sound and it certainly does not provide good support or proof for the conclusion.
Most conspicuously, the argument wrongly compares motorcycles to cars. Most of the people do not buy a motorcycle, unlike a car, as a utility. For this reason, most people buy motorcycles with high sound, powerful engines or good looks and other reason which are fairly not the usual reasons for choosing a vehicle. A classic example of this fact is the highly popular Harley Davidson motorcycle. The USP of these motorcycles is not fuel efficiency or cheap maintenance but powerful engines, loud noise and to a certain extent, the legacy of the brand. So, it is evident that the argument is flawed in comparing cars to motorcycles which, as described, is not justified. Instead, the author should have compared with other motorcycles coming under the same category. Second, the author specifically says that there must be some other explanation to why the copied motorcycle sells less, than its quieter sound. In doing so, the author unnecessarily looks for other explanations while refuting the one that, as described above, seems most plausible one.
Third, the comparison of foreign cars to a copied foreign motorcycle is illogical. The author never addresses the fact that, may be, people are not preferring to buy the copied motorcycle because it is a copied version and this automatically associates some amount of unreliability with the motorcycle. Nobody wants to take a copied motorcycle when they can buy the original.
Also, the author illogically assumes that the advertisement of motorcycle X is bound to show the strongest point of the motorcycle, without looking at the marketing strategies of the company. It can be the case where the company already has a considerable customer base, because of the motorcycle X's unique sound, and now wants to advertise more unnoticeable features in the advertisement to widen its customer base. The argument would have been more logical if the author would have addressed this issue by providing insights to the company advertising policy indicating what it wanted to achieve by these advertisements.
Furthermore, the author fails to mention the impact of the advertisements on the sales of motorcycle X. It cannot be determined as such that the features marketed in the advertisements actually have an impact on people and does the sales increase? If not, then it would be clear that these features are not the ones which are looked for by the customers in motorcycle X. If these details would have been added, then the argument would have been a stronger one.
Because the argument fails to address several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
