Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan analisis atas paragraf argumentatif sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
According to a recent report from our marketing department, fewer people attended movies produced by Silver Screen during the past year than in any other year. And yet the percentage of generally favorable comments by movie reviewers about specific Silver Screen movies actually increased during this period. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers; so the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Silver Screen should therefore spend more of its budget next year on reaching the public through advertising and less on producing new movies.
The conclusion is that the contents of the review are not reaching enough of the prospective reviewers. Unfortunately, this conclusion is prematurely drawn.
The data of people attended movies is compared with the percentage of generally favorable reviews. This is the only but determining flaw here. The reason is that amount of something can be compared only with other amount, while percentage of something from some amount can be compared only with other percentage from some amount. Comparing amount with percentage, without mentioning the total amount, is just like comparing apple and orange to find out which one more salty is.
The percentage of generally favorable reviews might increase, but it does not automatically mean that the amount of favorable reviewers increased too. In addition, the reason that people did not attend the movies might really that they considered Silver Screen's movies unattractive.
Silver Screen really should consider doing approach that is more direct. Rather than theorize that people did not aware of their "good quality" movies, they should do survey to people other than those attended the movies. They should ask directly whether people knew their movies or not.
Senin, 13 Oktober 2008
Acclaimed Academy
Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan analisis atas paragraf argumentatif sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
It is concluded that the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education. Let us see the arguments.
First, the university mentions the reputation of its instructors', which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. Well, yes, more researches and published papers mean better reputation. However, not all instructors there have good reputation since the university mentions only certain faculty members whose reputation is good. Therefore, the university may claims as one of the best only if it has considerable amount of faculty members whose extensive research and publishing record are recognized worldwide, or if the reputation of those some faculty members really has impact on improving the quality of education at the university.
Second, some faculty members are considered leaders in their fields since, for example, many of the faculty members from English department are regularly invited to teach in other countries. Mentioning this is not enough. The university really should mention why those other countries regularly invited faculty members from English department. Who knows that those countries just require accessible teachers regardless of the quality of the teachers?
Third, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. This is good but which physicist does not want to be a candidate of Nobel Prize? There are so many variables that enable those two graduates to go to become candidates for the Nobel Prize, and some might not be related to the university. About physics, the university may claim as one of the best only if physics communities consider so, not by mentioning what the two graduates going to do.
Fourth, 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Unfortunately, the university, again, does not mention what kind of employment the graduated students get. Who knows that the employment has nothing to do with the education they received at university? The university may claim as one of the best by mentioning the easiness of its graduates to get employment only if the education the graduates received really helps them to get employment.
There are many works the University of Claria has to do here.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields. For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries. Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
It is concluded that the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education. Let us see the arguments.
First, the university mentions the reputation of its instructors', which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members. Well, yes, more researches and published papers mean better reputation. However, not all instructors there have good reputation since the university mentions only certain faculty members whose reputation is good. Therefore, the university may claims as one of the best only if it has considerable amount of faculty members whose extensive research and publishing record are recognized worldwide, or if the reputation of those some faculty members really has impact on improving the quality of education at the university.
Second, some faculty members are considered leaders in their fields since, for example, many of the faculty members from English department are regularly invited to teach in other countries. Mentioning this is not enough. The university really should mention why those other countries regularly invited faculty members from English department. Who knows that those countries just require accessible teachers regardless of the quality of the teachers?
Third, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics. This is good but which physicist does not want to be a candidate of Nobel Prize? There are so many variables that enable those two graduates to go to become candidates for the Nobel Prize, and some might not be related to the university. About physics, the university may claim as one of the best only if physics communities consider so, not by mentioning what the two graduates going to do.
Fourth, 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating. Unfortunately, the university, again, does not mention what kind of employment the graduated students get. Who knows that the employment has nothing to do with the education they received at university? The university may claim as one of the best by mentioning the easiness of its graduates to get employment only if the education the graduates received really helps them to get employment.
There are many works the University of Claria has to do here.
Indulgent to Injury
Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan analisis atas paragraf argumentatif sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
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 conclusion is that by investing in high-quality equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. This conclusion is related to the outcome of an accident, which is being severely injured. This conclusion has nothing to do with accident prevention. Thus, I will not discuss accident prevention, just the outcome of accident.
Unfortunately, the conclusion is not well reasoned. There is only one major flaw here, that is the statistics data used.
Regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents, 75 percent of those were not wearing any protective equipment or light-reflecting material. Well, it means that they did not wear proper equipment and that is all. In addition, it tells nothing about the reason of the accidents. In the end, there is no information about their injury from the accidents at all. Meanwhile, what we want to know is the correlation between equipment and injury from accidents. Hence, we cannot draw any conclusion regarding the potential of equipment, whether it is high or low quality, to reduce the risk of injury.
To improve the passage, instead of using statistics data, they really should consider approaches that are more direct. First, they should find what make high-quality equipment is potentially better than the low-quality ones. Second, they should test both kinds of equipment on, since accident test on human is unethical, dummies, just like car safety test. Only by doing these two simple-but-to-the-point steps they can conclude whether investing in high-quality equipment will reduce the risk of injury or not.
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 conclusion is that by investing in high-quality equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. This conclusion is related to the outcome of an accident, which is being severely injured. This conclusion has nothing to do with accident prevention. Thus, I will not discuss accident prevention, just the outcome of accident.
Unfortunately, the conclusion is not well reasoned. There is only one major flaw here, that is the statistics data used.
Regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents, 75 percent of those were not wearing any protective equipment or light-reflecting material. Well, it means that they did not wear proper equipment and that is all. In addition, it tells nothing about the reason of the accidents. In the end, there is no information about their injury from the accidents at all. Meanwhile, what we want to know is the correlation between equipment and injury from accidents. Hence, we cannot draw any conclusion regarding the potential of equipment, whether it is high or low quality, to reduce the risk of injury.
To improve the passage, instead of using statistics data, they really should consider approaches that are more direct. First, they should find what make high-quality equipment is potentially better than the low-quality ones. Second, they should test both kinds of equipment on, since accident test on human is unethical, dummies, just like car safety test. Only by doing these two simple-but-to-the-point steps they can conclude whether investing in high-quality equipment will reduce the risk of injury or not.
Generally Special
Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan tanggapan atas topik sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists - people who can provide broad perspectives.
In learning, there are two kinds of approach. The first is extensive approach, while the second is intensive approach.
By doing extensive approach, we gather knowledge as broad as possible. Not only the main topic we learn about, but also we may learn other topics related to the main topic. This approach enables us to view a problem as a whole, while being aware of other issues around the problem. In other words, this approach enables us to realize the relation of many things to a particular problem. People who do this approach are called generalists.
Meanwhile, by doing intensive approach, we gather knowledge as deep as possible. The topics we learn about should not go too far from the main topic, if not should never go from it. This approach enables us to know the exact nature of a particular problem, often accompanied with realization of the solution for the problem. In other words, this approach gives us the tools required to solve a particular problem, as long as the topic does not go too far from the subject learned. People who do this approach are called specialists.
In astronomy, for example, one might want to learn astrophysics, or physics that is applied to stellar study. He/she might pick a particular field; let us say it is x-ray astronomy. With consistent effort, he/she might be able to explain the nature of numerous x-ray sources in the observable universe. However, that astrophysicist might not be aware of the distribution of all kinds of matter since not all matter is strong x-ray source. A cosmologist might be able to gather data from x-ray, optical, and radio astrophysicists to explain the global nature of our universe. Meanwhile, he/she might not be able to explain the diverse nature of planet since he/she did not take specialized lessons on planetary system. Indeed, in astronomy, the field I learn, synergy between generalists and specialists is required.
Some say that specialists are highly overrated. Well, I do not see such a view in my society. Suffering illness, for example, people might go to generalist doctor to find out what happen. When generic treatment does not work, that generalist doctor will redirect the sufferer to specialist. The specialist then will pinpoint the problem and treat the sufferer with more direct, special methods if necessary. This is how it works in my society; both generalists and specialists have their own role.
In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists - people who can provide broad perspectives.
In learning, there are two kinds of approach. The first is extensive approach, while the second is intensive approach.
By doing extensive approach, we gather knowledge as broad as possible. Not only the main topic we learn about, but also we may learn other topics related to the main topic. This approach enables us to view a problem as a whole, while being aware of other issues around the problem. In other words, this approach enables us to realize the relation of many things to a particular problem. People who do this approach are called generalists.
Meanwhile, by doing intensive approach, we gather knowledge as deep as possible. The topics we learn about should not go too far from the main topic, if not should never go from it. This approach enables us to know the exact nature of a particular problem, often accompanied with realization of the solution for the problem. In other words, this approach gives us the tools required to solve a particular problem, as long as the topic does not go too far from the subject learned. People who do this approach are called specialists.
In astronomy, for example, one might want to learn astrophysics, or physics that is applied to stellar study. He/she might pick a particular field; let us say it is x-ray astronomy. With consistent effort, he/she might be able to explain the nature of numerous x-ray sources in the observable universe. However, that astrophysicist might not be aware of the distribution of all kinds of matter since not all matter is strong x-ray source. A cosmologist might be able to gather data from x-ray, optical, and radio astrophysicists to explain the global nature of our universe. Meanwhile, he/she might not be able to explain the diverse nature of planet since he/she did not take specialized lessons on planetary system. Indeed, in astronomy, the field I learn, synergy between generalists and specialists is required.
Some say that specialists are highly overrated. Well, I do not see such a view in my society. Suffering illness, for example, people might go to generalist doctor to find out what happen. When generic treatment does not work, that generalist doctor will redirect the sufferer to specialist. The specialist then will pinpoint the problem and treat the sufferer with more direct, special methods if necessary. This is how it works in my society; both generalists and specialists have their own role.
Inventing Innovation
Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan tanggapan atas topik sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.
I believe that best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things. Let us talk about the commonplace things first.
Let us see how our thought works. Initially, there is a fact, or object. It is this fact that we will think about. Next, information about the fact is received by sense organs. Then, the information is processed in our brain. Finally, this information is combined with initial knowledge, which we might get, for example, from teachers or parents. The product of thinking is conclusion about the fact we are thinking about.
In common term, we call best ideas innovations, or act of starting something new or for the first time. Indeed, innovation is something that does not exist before, but remember that thinking process requires initial knowledge. This requirement of initial knowledge shows that innovation, or best idea, always follows commonplace things.
Of course, the measure of commonness varies from one to others. Claude Monet, for example, did innovate by inventing impressionism painting-style, a style that, compared to previous styles, is strikingly far-out. However, this feat could be achieved only after he had been used to painting, a common field for him. Friedrich August Kakule von Stradonitz invented the ring structure of benzene, a structure that previously was not realized to exist in chemical structure. Just to add the "uncommonness" of the invention, it is said that he invented the structure from the appearance of snake swallowing its own tail in his dream. "Uncommon" method to invent, yes, it is, but after all, he had been struggling to find the structure of benzene, which implies that he was familiar with the field of chemistry. Hence, the variation of the measure of commonness does not falsify the conclusion that best idea always follows commonplace things.
Now, let us see the passionate interest in commonplace things. The role of the passion is to stimulate thinking process. Casual interest will not suffice this requirement of stimulation. Velcro, for example, was indeed invented after accidental encounter with seeds attached to trousers, but the idea to make a new mechanism to fasten clothing can only arise from passionate interest. Instead of stimulating innovation of Velcro, casual interest would just make the inventor to rid the attached seeds.
The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.
I believe that best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things. Let us talk about the commonplace things first.
Let us see how our thought works. Initially, there is a fact, or object. It is this fact that we will think about. Next, information about the fact is received by sense organs. Then, the information is processed in our brain. Finally, this information is combined with initial knowledge, which we might get, for example, from teachers or parents. The product of thinking is conclusion about the fact we are thinking about.
In common term, we call best ideas innovations, or act of starting something new or for the first time. Indeed, innovation is something that does not exist before, but remember that thinking process requires initial knowledge. This requirement of initial knowledge shows that innovation, or best idea, always follows commonplace things.
Of course, the measure of commonness varies from one to others. Claude Monet, for example, did innovate by inventing impressionism painting-style, a style that, compared to previous styles, is strikingly far-out. However, this feat could be achieved only after he had been used to painting, a common field for him. Friedrich August Kakule von Stradonitz invented the ring structure of benzene, a structure that previously was not realized to exist in chemical structure. Just to add the "uncommonness" of the invention, it is said that he invented the structure from the appearance of snake swallowing its own tail in his dream. "Uncommon" method to invent, yes, it is, but after all, he had been struggling to find the structure of benzene, which implies that he was familiar with the field of chemistry. Hence, the variation of the measure of commonness does not falsify the conclusion that best idea always follows commonplace things.
Now, let us see the passionate interest in commonplace things. The role of the passion is to stimulate thinking process. Casual interest will not suffice this requirement of stimulation. Velcro, for example, was indeed invented after accidental encounter with seeds attached to trousers, but the idea to make a new mechanism to fasten clothing can only arise from passionate interest. Instead of stimulating innovation of Velcro, casual interest would just make the inventor to rid the attached seeds.
Predetermined Pedagogy
Tulisan ini merupakan latihan saya untuk menghadapi ujian GRE. Isinya merupakan tanggapan atas topik sampel yang diberikan oleh ETS, penyelenggara ujian GRE.
It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them.
Well, in general, I agree with the statement. However, I must make some points clear.
There are two kinds of subjects; those are technical subjects and moral subjects. In technical subjects, we are taught many methods to survive in this world. This kind of subject encompasses subjects related to science and technology. Meanwhile, in moral subjects, we are taught many concepts of right and wrong. Example of this kind of subject is citizenship lesson.
Moral subjects are always influenced by mores in society. Therefore, it is obvious that curriculum of moral subjects should be made by policy makers, or government. In the other hand, technical subjects are universal knowledge. Science and technology are free from values. Well, yes, the applications of science and technology always become subject of moral values, but the science and technology themselves are not bound by moral values.
In general, as I have stated, I agree that curriculum should be made by educators, or policy maker in the case of moral subjects. This is because students, or those who want to be educated, have no initial knowledge about what will be learned. This is true for most, if not all, of students. Without initial knowledge, students will never move. This is why curriculum made by educators, or policy makers, is important. Its main role is to tell students what they will learn.
Although I absolutely agree that curriculum should be made by educators, or policy makers, I also need to mention the way the subjects presented to students. It is true that educators should "give" curriculum to students, but they should do so while developing students' potential. Educators should not merely stuff students with learning materials, but instead they should give many, so many stimuli to trigger students' curiosity and creative thinking. By this, educating activity will be an active one.
As for the students, their duty, obviously, is to study. This is because they have no initial knowledge about the subject they learn. They might be able, and should be given chance to, expand their knowledge, but this can happen only after initial knowledge has been given.
It is unfortunate that today's educators place so much emphasis on finding out what students want to include in the curriculum and then giving it to them. It is the educators' duty to determine the curriculum and the students' duty to study what is presented to them.
Well, in general, I agree with the statement. However, I must make some points clear.
There are two kinds of subjects; those are technical subjects and moral subjects. In technical subjects, we are taught many methods to survive in this world. This kind of subject encompasses subjects related to science and technology. Meanwhile, in moral subjects, we are taught many concepts of right and wrong. Example of this kind of subject is citizenship lesson.
Moral subjects are always influenced by mores in society. Therefore, it is obvious that curriculum of moral subjects should be made by policy makers, or government. In the other hand, technical subjects are universal knowledge. Science and technology are free from values. Well, yes, the applications of science and technology always become subject of moral values, but the science and technology themselves are not bound by moral values.
In general, as I have stated, I agree that curriculum should be made by educators, or policy maker in the case of moral subjects. This is because students, or those who want to be educated, have no initial knowledge about what will be learned. This is true for most, if not all, of students. Without initial knowledge, students will never move. This is why curriculum made by educators, or policy makers, is important. Its main role is to tell students what they will learn.
Although I absolutely agree that curriculum should be made by educators, or policy makers, I also need to mention the way the subjects presented to students. It is true that educators should "give" curriculum to students, but they should do so while developing students' potential. Educators should not merely stuff students with learning materials, but instead they should give many, so many stimuli to trigger students' curiosity and creative thinking. By this, educating activity will be an active one.
As for the students, their duty, obviously, is to study. This is because they have no initial knowledge about the subject they learn. They might be able, and should be given chance to, expand their knowledge, but this can happen only after initial knowledge has been given.
Langganan:
Entri (Atom)
