4 month GRE blitz log

lzen5UID: 2216060

i am taking my first GRE in 4 month. start preapring now, hope its not too late. needs more practice. any suggestion is welcomed here!

lzen5UID: 2216060

"The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."

The speaker asserts that questioning authority is important for improving the well being of a society. I concede questioning authority is a good way to provide feedback to the regulatory bodies. However, I believe that questioning does not guarantee improvement. In addition, excessive questioning and disbelief may shake the foundation of a good society.

Questioning authority is an important way to alert the government something has gone wrong. The well being of a society is largely dependent on its policy makers, which is a select group of people. The policy or rules made by limited number of people may be biased as the society is made up of a large diversity of people from different backgrounds. Questioning the authority can bring the attention of the policy makers to the area that has been previous neglected during the decision making process, which can lead to the improvement of the social system and therefore the well being of a society.

Conversely, it is important to emphasize that questioning is not a positive attitude to resolve social flaws. Questioning is merely an alert to the regulatory bodies that the existence of imperfection in a society, however, ultimately, it is up to the government to take appropriate action to resolve the flaw. A better way to improve the society is by liaising with the authority and work together to resolve the issue.

Similarly, excessive questioning of authority may be detrimental to a society. Authorities are usually concerned with a “big picture”, which can not be foreseen by ordinary people. The authority have the responsibility to choose ultimately good for its people even that the decision may damage the benefits of some. An example of this would be parking fines. Parking fines are important to maintain fairness among drivers. In many countries, the parking surveillance system is under public pressure to “improve”, however, there is little room left to improve when a stupendous number of drivers have to share limited space. Questioning authority in this case is just to exacerbate the dissatisfaction of general public and contribute to social instability.

In conclusion, questioning authority can sometimes improve the well-being of a society as it is a good way to provide feedback to the authority. However, questioning does not always resolve the issue and overly questioning can only exacerbate the existing problem.

lzen5UID: 2216060

the last one took about an hour...i know it is over time, but i will get better at it as i go.

second was not going so well tho

here it is..

"Although, critics who write about the arts tend to deny the existence of any objective standards for evaluating works of art, they have a responsibility to establish standards by which works of art can be judged."

not too sure about this one … not an arty person, can someone explain?

lzen5UID: 2216060

42 minutes ...
freaked out when i see the issue, could have been better. a little bit embarassed because i did not really know what i was talking about . but anyhow

"Leisure time is becoming an increasingly rare commodity, largely because technology has failed to achieve its goal of improving our efficiency in our daily pursuits."


It has been a long time since leisure and achievement became a delicate paradox that everybody in the today’s society need to deal with. I tend to agree with the fact that leisure time has become rarer. However, I also believe the reduced leisure time is not solely due to the failure of technology to improve the efficiency of our life, but the abuse of technology.

Today’s society is pushing people to achieve while they can; leisure time is being taken for granted. The advance in understanding of all aspects of science occurred in the last twenty year has dramatically raised the bar of education and achievement. It now takes so much longer to produce a specialist in any given area as there is more to learn. For example, a micro-surgeon takes 18 years to train. The increased study time leads to rearrangement of lifestyle--Leisure time is becoming less and less important as many people choose achievement over leisure. People tend to think they would enjoy themselves more if they can achieve something early in the life.

In addition, the apparent decrease in leisure time contributed by technology is confounded by population growth. Increased population requires more coordinated sharing of limited resources that support the everyday application of technology between members of the society. This coordination is not always achieved, which gives an illusion that technology fails to improve the efficiency to the level that we want. For example, driving home during peak hour can take very long, but it is not the cars’ fault that everybody is using the road. It has been too much of a hype that technology can solve anything.   

Contrary to the statement, technology has improved the efficiency of people’s daily pursuit, therefore, allowing more leisure time. Advance in technology has provided enormous convenience in our daily life. Physical distance has been overcome by convenient public transport system and telecommunication technology. International travel for recreational purposes has become unprecedented popular. Spending days trying to get to the destination has become history.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that appropriate use of technology improve the sufficiency of our daily life, which give us more time for leisure in today’s society where leisure has been unprecedented precious.

dychUID: 2186643

Good usage of vocabulary.
Here is some suggestions to your 1st issure:

The speaker asserts that questioning authority is important for improving the well being of a society. I concede questioning authority is a good way to provide feedback to the regulatory(seems that the exact meaning of regulatory is not what your what to express, try established, existed) bodies. However, I believe that questioning does not guarantee improvement. In addition(the logic relationship should be furthermore), excessive questioning and disbelief may shake the foundation of a good society.

Questioning authority is an important way to alert the government something has gone wrong. The well being of a society is largely dependent on its policy makers, which is a select group of people. The policy or rules made(more advanced word such as constitute, institute, establish will be  better) by limited number of people may be biased as the society is made up of a large diversity of people from different backgrounds. Questioning the authority can bring the attention of the policy makers to the area that has been previous neglected during the decision making process, which can lead to the improvement of the social system and therefore the well being of a society.

Conversely, it is important to emphasize that questioning is not a positive(should be sth like incomplete, I think) attitude to resolve social flaws. Questioning is merely an alert to the regulatory bodies that the existence of imperfection in a society, however, ultimately, it is up to the government to take appropriate action to resolve the flaw. A better way to improve the society is by (no "by "here)liaising with the authority and work together to resolve the issue.

Similarly, excessive questioning of authority may be detrimental to a society. Authorities are usually concerned with a “big picture”, which can not be foreseen by ordinary people. The authority have the responsibility to choose ultimately good for its people even that the decision may damage the benefits of some. An example of this would be parking fines. Parking fines are important to maintain fairness among drivers. In many countries, the parking surveillance system is under public pressure to “improve”, however, there is little room left to improve when a stupendous number of drivers have to share limited space. Questioning authority in this case is just to exacerbate the dissatisfaction of general public and contribute to social instability. (good example)
In conclusion, questioning authority can sometimes improve the well-being of a society as it is a good way to provide feedback to the authority. However, questioning does not always resolve the issue and overly questioning can only exacerbate the existing(existed) problem.

calsunnyUID: 2163431

The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."

The speaker asserts that questioning authority is important for improving the well being of a society. I concede questioning authority is a good way to provide feedback to the regulatory bodies. However, I believe that questioning does not guarantee improvement. In addition, excessive questioning and disbelief may shake the foundation of a good society.

Questioning authority is an important way to alert the government something has gone wrong. The well being of a society is largely dependent on its policy makers, which is a select group of people. The policy or rules made by limited number of people may be biased as the society is made up of a large diversity of people from different backgrounds. Questioning the authority can bring the attention of the policy makers to the area that has been previous neglected during the decision making process, which can lead to the improvement of the social system and therefore the well being of a society.

Conversely, it is important to emphasize that questioning is not a positive attitude to resolve social flaws. Questioning is merely an alert to the regulatory bodies that the existence of imperfection in a society, however, ultimately, it is up to the government to take appropriate action to resolve the flaw. A better way to improve the society is by liaising with the authority and work together to resolve the issue.

Similarly, excessive questioning of authority may be detrimental to a society. Authorities are usually concerned with a “big picture”, which can not be foreseen by ordinary people. The authority have the responsibility to choose ultimately good for its people even that the decision may damage the benefits of some. An example of this would be parking fines. Parking fines are important to maintain fairness among drivers. In many countries, the parking surveillance system is under public pressure to “improve”, however, there is little room left to improve when a stupendous number of drivers have to share limited space. Questioning authority in this case is just to exacerbate the dissatisfaction of general public and contribute to social instability.

In conclusion, questioning authority can sometimes improve the well-being of a society as it is a good way to provide feedback to the authority. However, questioning does not always resolve the issue and overly questioning can only exacerbate the existing problem.

The theme is OK but some can be improved greatly if you pay attention to them a little bit such as:
1, The TS of B1, I think question may not means something wrong, may be be mistaken.
2,The example of B3, I do not think question parking fairs is excessive question due to the amout of fee.

3,Question may be a noun.also.

Thank you !

lzen5UID: 2216060

"Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts, who are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public."

Demoracy has sent politics under scrunity of the general public, while the most of the decisions made by politicians and goverments are sensible, some can instigate the fury of the public. The question araises should the general public “have a say” in the decision making process? I tend to agree with the statement, however, in some circumstances, I srongly support that general public should be involved in the policy making process.

The politicians are not always more infromed to make better choices. Politicians are a select few appointed by the general public to make decision for the long term well-being of the society. Politicians are appointed because their proposed policies are appealing to the general public, especially in those areas that have a visible impact on people’s daily life, for instance, certain healthcare scheme. However, this select group may not always understand the needs of the general public or the majority of the population, it is necessary keep them informed by inviting the general public to take part in the decision making process.   

However, members of the general public are, indeed, less informed than the politicians. Even with today’s democratic society, not all information is disclosed to the gerneral public for various reasons. The general public may have unnecessary misperception on some issues or fail to see the long term benefit of some policies. In these cases, politicians should make decision for the general public for the ultimate benefit of the society.   

Moreover, politicians are usually concerned with “bigger picture”. The decisions involving benefits always associate with the individual and socirty pradox, that is, the benefits of the society are established on the expense of the individuals. For example, interest rate rise, which is a nightmare for most home owners, is essential to maintain a steady growth of ecomony of a society. The members of the public do not always see the benefits of the society as a whole and tend to make decisions for the benefits of themselves’.
   
In sum, I think policay making should not be an exclusive club to politicians. Politicians can occasionally be biased, their decisions should be brought to public scrunity for further correction. However, the general public may fail to understand what is ultimately good for them and therefore, making the worng decision without the guidance of politicians. Therefore, I believe the public and politicains should be complemenary to each other in the decision making process.

lzen5UID: 2216060

"Rituals and ceremonies help define a culture. Without them, societies or groups of people have a diminished sense of who they are. " (page 114) 1hr

Today' world is awash with frequent international communication and multi-culturalism. Unlike the past, traditional rituals and ceremonies are becoming rarer. Some worried that diminishing heritage of these rituals and ceremonies may be detrimental to the cultural identity of a society. While I do foresee the rigour of such concern, it is unnecessary as such assertion is established on obfuscated assumptions that a culture never changes and a culture can be only maintained by its rituals and ceremonies.

Admittedly, rituals and ceremonies do contribute to the identity of a culture. Rituals and ceremonies reflect the essence of a culture.  Many cultures are characterised by its unique rituals and ceremonies, such as the baptism in Christianity. These rituals  and ceremonies are not only considered as vital legacies that needed to be carried on as a part of the culture, also they are important recognition and acknowledgement of the belief and value by the group of people who bear the culture.

However, cultures are evolving with the time and progression of the human civilisation. When look into the history, one may find that there was no culture that has endured hundreds of years without slight metamorphosis. A culture, along with its rituals and ceremonies, progresses with the change in the abundance of materials and change in the population. An example of this would be "American culture", the "American culture" has evolved from native Indian to British colonial, and eventually to today's modern American culture. This alternation of several entirely different cultures exhibits a frequent disruption on the local rituals and ceremonies. Yet, the strong sense of being an American lingers across the nation today.  

Moreover, cultural identities are not limited to its rituals and ceremonies. Rituals and ceremonies define merely one aspect of a culture. A culture can have many other ways to express its beliefs and value. For example, way of life, many Asian population has large families, which is an indication that they value their family time. The way of life will be passed down to the next generation as customs and help in shaping their beliefs.  

In sum, rituals and ceremonies are important for cultural identities. However, some rituals and ceremonies will eventually vanish as human civilisation progresses. This will not lead to identity confusion of the growing generation as the vitality of the culture will remain strong.

lzen5UID: 2216060

"Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident."

The speaker proposes that, based on hospital statistics, the investing in high quality protective gear and reflective equipment can reduce the risk of being severely injured. While the proposal seems attractive, its persuasiveness is severely compromised by many of its intrinsic flaws.

First and foremost, the hospital statistics are by no means indicative of the severity of the majority of the accidents. When an accident involves admitting to hospital, the level of damage is presumably large. This can certainly contribute to the apparent level of seriousness of the situation. Those who wear protective gear are equally prone to accidents. However, the damage caused by accidents is likely to be reduced so admission to hospital becomes unnecessary. Therefore, the hospital statistics reflecting high percentage of accidents due to not wearing protective gear is highly inaccurate and biased.

In addition, there is no evidence suggesting by wearing high quality protective gear is more likely to reduce to risk of injury comparing to wearing "ordinary quality" protective gears. The argument lacks of solid evidence to support that the quality of the protective gear wore was related to the risk of injury. It seems that wearing protective gear may provide protection to some extent. But it is not clear whether this level of protection is proportional to the quality of protective gear. From this point of view, the conclusion does not stand either.

Furthermore, by spending more on protective gear does not guarantee protection. It is a personal choice to wear protective gear. Some people prefer not wearing as it takes away the spontaneity of skating. Because people may choose not to wear protective equipment even they have it, buying more protective gears is in doubt to reduce the risk of injuries. On a minor point, the statistic did not show whether these injury were the result of owning, but not wearing, or simply not owning protective gear. So readers are not able to distinguish whether buying more gear is going to have an effect.

In conclusion, I remain doubtful on the effect of buying more high quality protective gear in preventing injury. The apparent rigour is unconvincing without further information to substantiate its arguments. The evidence presented does not support the conclusion, which seriously compromised the persuasiveness of this proposal.

koochenUID: 2112859

"The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority."

The speaker asserts that questioning authority is important for improving the well being of a society.（The speaker asserts that more people question the authority, the better a society will be.我会这么写，我的理解题目不是要问是否重要，而是暗示，人们对当局的质问越多，越能使当局去解决问题，而有益于社会，可能过偏激了！呵呵！）I concede questioning authority is a good way to provide feedback to the regulatory bodies. However, I believe that questioning does not guarantee improvement. In addition, excessive questioning and disbelief may shake the foundation of a good society.

Questioning authority is an important way to alert the government something has gone wrong. The well being of a society is largely dependent on its policy makers, which is a select group of people. The policy or rules made (constituted/established) by limited number of people may be biased as the society is made up of a large diversity of people from different backgrounds. (people of diverse background) Questioning the authority can bring the attention of the policy makers to the area (arouse the policy makers’ attention to the area) that has been previous neglected during the decision making process, which can lead to the improvement of the social system and therefore the well being of a society.

Conversely, it is important to emphasize that questioning is not a positive attitude to resolve social flaws. (correct social flaws/resolve social problems.) Questioning is merely an alert to the regulatory bodies that the existence of imperfection in a society (是谁的同位语？是regulatory bodies吗？如果是这样，那就翻成质问仅仅是对于制定规则机构，即社会上不健全的一些现象（存在）的一种警示。制定规则的机构与社会上不健全的现象之间等同吗？), however, ultimately, it is up to the government to take appropriate actions to resolve the flaw. A better way to improve the society is by liaising with the authority and working together to resolve the issue. （resolve，improve反复出现，可用其他词替换deal with/settle/eliminate, improvement/amelioration）

Similarly, excessive questioning of (excessively questioning 这里questioning应该是作为动名词形式吧？ of 没有意义了) authority may be detrimental to a society. Authorities are usually concerned with (be concerned with表示参与，干预，与。。相关/be concerned about 忧虑，关注，挂念 这句话是表示什么意思在这里) a “big picture”, which can not be foreseen by ordinary people. The authority have the responsibility to choose ultimately good for its people even that the decision may damage the benefits of some. An example of this would be parking fines. Parking fines are important to maintain fairness among drivers. In many countries, the parking surveillance system is under public pressure to “improve”, however, there is little room left to improve when a stupendous number of drivers have to share limited space. Questioning authority in this case is just to exacerbate the dissatisfaction of general public and contribute to social instability. （例子不太实际，难让人信服。）
In conclusion, questioning authority can sometimes improve the well-being of a society as it is a good way to provide feedback to the authority. However, questioning does not always resolve the issue and overly questioning can only exacerbate the existing problems.


文章首段简练精辟地摆明了自己的观点。
1．民众的质问会使当局警觉某些方面出了问题。
2．相反，这种质问并不是一种积极解决问题的方式。
3．过多的质问会产生不良的效果。

思路非常清晰！顶一下！

lzen5UID: 2216060

very good advice...thanks a bunch...

lzen5UID: 2216060

"Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident."

The speaker proposes that, based on hospital statistics, the investing in high quality protective gear and reflective equipment can reduce the risk of being severely injured. While the proposal seems attractive, its persuasiveness in severely compromised by many of its intrinsic flaws.

First and foremost, the hospital statistics are by no means indicative of the severity of the majority of the accidents. When an accident involves admitting to hosipital, the level of damage is presumably large. This can certainly contribute to the apparent level of seriousness of the situation. Those who wear protective gear are equally prone to accidents. However, the damage caused by accidents is likely to be reduced so admission to hospital becomes unnecessary. Therefore, the hospital statistics reflecting high percentage of accidents due to not wearing protective gear is highly inaccurate and biased.

In addition, there is no evidence suggesting by wearing high quality protective gear is more likely to reduce to risk of injury comparing to wearing "ordinary quality" protective gears. The argument lacks of solid evidence to support that the quality of the protective gear wore was related to the risk of injury. It seems that wearing protective gear may provide protection to some extent. But it is not clear whether this level of protection is proportional to the quality of protective gear. From this point of view, the conclusion does not stand either.

Futhermore, by spending more on protective gear does not garentee protection. It is a personal choice to wear protective gear. Some people prefer not wearing as it takes away the sponteinty of skating. Becasue people may choose not to wear protective equipment even they have it, buying more protective gears is in vail to reduce the risk of injuries. On a minor point, the statistic did not show whether these injury were the result of owning, but not wearing, or simply not owning protective gear. So readers are not able to distinguish whether buying more gear is going to have an effect.

In conclusion, I remain doubtful on the effect of buying more high quality protective gear in preventing injury. The apparent rigour is unconvincing without further information to substantiate its arguments. The evidence presented does not support the conclusion, which seriouly comprimed the persuasiveness of this proposal.

lzen5UID: 2216060

The following appeared in an advertisement for United Motors trucks:
"Last year the local television-news program In Focus reported in its annual car-and-truck safety survey that over the course of the last ten years United Motors vehicles were involved in at least thirty percent fewer fatal accidents to drivers than vehicles built by any other single manufacturer. Now United is developing a one-of-a-kind computerized crash warning system for all its trucks. Clearly, anyone concerned with safety who is in the market for a new truck this year should buy a United Motors truck."

The advertisement suggests that united truck is the choice when it comes to safety on roads. While this suggestion seems well supported by some evidence, its persuasiveness is severely compromised by many of its intrinsic flaws.

Fisrt and foremost, survey over the past ten years does not reflect the safety of the United Motors (UM) vechicle at present and in the future. The past history of UM trucks is certainly an acknowledgement of its safety.  However,the technology in car manufacturing is developing rapidly. It is not logical to predict the safety of UV truck based on the past history. It is possible other manufacturers have developed new stradegies to improve the safety of thier trucks in recent years. But the effect such change may not be represented by the survey as the survey did not give the variation of the fatal incidents by year.

In addition, the survey does not substantiate that UM trucks are safer compared to other trucks. The survey's suggestion that fatal accidents involving UM trucks are signifcantly lower is not valid concerning truck buyers, becasue this data is from the overall accidents of all vehicles on the road. Such lower percentage can be caused by the safety of other UM vehicles, for example, UM coupe.

Lastly, the UM is improving the safety of its products does not offer an reason who people should choose UM over other brand. Such state is irrelavent in describing the safety of UM product. Also, it conveys a message that UM truck is not entirely safe at this stage, but it will be in the future.

In sum, I find this advertisment unconvincing. More information should be preovided to allow viewer to better assess the safety of UM trucker subjective. More relavant evidence should be introduced to support its conclusion.