GRE Essay Prompts

Claim: Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may well be proven false in the future. Reason: Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate.

For Historically, yes Curiosity and questioning things is good Humans are fallible Against We all rely on facts which are presented before us with relevant explanations. If a piece of information is presented before us and there are enough proofs to make it viable then we are bound to accept it as a fact. Nowadays, we are fancy Too intense - things are in place to ensure accuracy or at least to try

A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.

For It determines a standard level which is required by every student to clear before he is able to take another academic step. Logical levels/steps Stable and universal learning pattern. Easy for students who move a lot Equal opportunity Against Schools should have certain liberty in choosing the format of courses it offers. Variable interests and abilities Curriculum should be molded so that they retain their interest in studies altogether.

The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyze the trends of its youth.

Our culture is our customs, beliefs and attitudes. For It is the young who exhibit their culture most typically. More active/expressive in society Against While the old are moderate in following their culture, which might be different from that of the youth, they are equally a part of the society. Old should not be ignored Totality A proper understanding of the society is done only when the cultures, customs, beliefs and attitudes of all the sections of a society are taken together.

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.

Politics is a game of power. Certain individuals are granted the power and authority to provide solutions to the existing conflicts in a society or an organization. One can come across politics in an organization or institution that has given its employees the empowerment to elect a group of people to govern their functioning and also resolve their conflicts. For Should represent the people Can rely on weighing all input based on credibility Prevent dictatorship Against Everyone may actually just end up dissatisfied The people who force common ground may not be educated Takes more time

The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.

Passion is clearly necessary for a truly great idea to take hold among a people—passion either on the part of the original thinker, the audience, or ideally both. The claim that the most lucrative subject matter for inspiring great ideas is "commonplace things" may seem initially to be counterintuitive. After all, aren't great ideas usually marked by their extraordinary character? While this is true, their extraordinary character is as often as not directly derived from their insight into things that had theretofore gone unquestioned. While great ideas certainly can arise through seemingly pure innovation... say, for example, Big Bang cosmology, which developed nearly all of its own scientific and philosophical precepts through its own process of formation, it is nevertheless equally true that such groundbreaking thought was, and is, still largely a reevaluation of previous assumptions to a radical degree... after all, the question of the ultimate nature of the universe, and man's place in it, has been central to human thought since the dawn of time. Commonplace things are, additionally, necessary as material for the generation of "the best ideas" since certainly the success among an audience must be considered in evaluating the significance and quality of an idea. The advent of Big Bang cosmology, which occurred in rudimentary form almost immediately upon Edwin Hubble's first observations at the Hooker telescope in California during the early 20th century, was the most significant advance in mankind's understanding of the universe in over 400 years. The seemingly simple fact that everything in the universe, on the very large scale, is moving away from everything else in fact betrays nearly all of our scientific knowledge of the origins and mechanics of the universe. This slight, one might even say commonplace, distortion of tint on a handful of photographic plates carried with it the greatest challenge to Man's general, often religiously reinforced, conception of the nature of the world to an extent not seen since the days of Galileo. Not even Charles Darwin's theory, though it created more of a stir than Big Bang cosmology, had such shattering implications for our conceptions of the nature of our reality. Yet it is not significant because it introduced the question of the nature of what lies beyond Man's grasp. A tremendous number of megalithic ruins, including the Pyramids both of Mexico and Egypt, Stonehenge, and others, indicate that this question has been foremost on humankind's collective mind since time immemorial. Big Bang cosmology is so incredibly significant in this line of reasoning exactly because of the degree to which it changed the direction of this generally held, constantly pondered, and very ancient train of thought. Additionally, there is a diachronic significance to the advent of Big Bang cosmology, which is that, disregarding limitations such as the quality of optical devices available and the state of theoretical math, it could have happened at any point in time. That is to say, all evidence points to roughly the same raw intellectual capacity for homo sapiens throughout our history, our progress has merely depended upon the degree of it that a person happens to inherit, a pace that has been increasing rapidly since the industrial revolution. Yet this discovery had to happen at a certain point in time or another—it cannot have been happening constantly or have never happened yet still be present—and this point in time does have its own significance. That significance is precisely the fact that the aforementioned advent must have occurred at precisely the point in time at which it truly could have occured—that is to say, it marks the point in our history when we had progressed sufficiently to begin examining, with remarkable substantiated acuity, the workings of the universe across distances that would take millions of human lifetimes to reach or to traverse. The point for the success of this advent must necessarily have been, additionally, the point at which the audience concerned was capable and prepared to accept such a radical line of reasoning. Both factors, a radical, passionate interpretation of the commonplace and the preparedness to accept such an interpretation, are necessary for the formulation of a truly great idea. If the passion is absent from an inquiry by the thinker or by the bulk of an audience, the idea will die out if it comes to fruition at all. If the material is not sufficiently commonplace to be considered by an informed audience of sufficient size, the same two hazards exist. Given these two factors, the idea must still be found palatable and interesting by the audience if it is to hope to gain a foothold and eventually establish itself in a significant fashion.

Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

1: In politics, complete forthrightness is a sign of vulnerability and naivety. In politics, a would-be leader has to withhold information to first gain and maintain political power (personal lives) Protect himself Protect nation: situations during a war when it is often necessary for the government to conceal the defense strategies and secrets from the public. Avoid public panic 2: Broadly speaking, in a democratic system, a political leader should not withhold any information from the public. Withholding info is slippery slope (Nixon kept Watergate stuff secret - bad) People must be aware of major policy decisions taken by the government related to the development of the country like education, health and other fields. The media and police should make sure that the leaders who are involved in scandalous activities be exposed to the public. The leaders like Hitler who lack forthrightness and maintain power by brute force must be abhorred.

Some people believe that scientific discoveries have given us a much better understanding of the world around us. Others believe that science has revealed to us that the world is infinitely more complex than we ever realized.

1: It is acquiring information and skills which help you to understand things around you in a better way. Things become more comprehensible and you gain confidence. Baby needs knowledge and discoveries -> mirrors scientific discoveries Without the knowledge of agriculture, we would not be able to produce food for ourselves; without the knowledge of iron, we would not be able to set up industries. Knowledge of human body and medicines helps us to keep fit and live a healthy life. Such things are basic to our life and life is incomprehensible without them. The biggest of inventions and discoveries have been possible only by indulging in them. If we retreat our steps for the fear of getting jumbled up in complexities, new inventions and discoveries would never be possible. 2: Knowledge leads to details, complexities and mysteries, but it is only with more efforts that new study comes to light. Unlimited things unknown to man. While it is important to gain knowledge, it is also important to keep your balance and not get lost in finding solutions to mysterious and complex situations.

Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.

1: Humans cannot survive without plants and animals Combat pollution, deforestation, natural calamities, and imbalance in food chain The very factors that harm animals and plants also harm humans. 2: Nonetheless, saying that saving these species should be focused upon at the cost of human effort, time and financial well-being is not reasonable. Other statement implies that the author holds solely humans responsible for the extinction of plant and animal species. It is more important to make constant and moderate efforts, rather than imposing severe restrictions that are short lived.

Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists because these will ensure a good life for the majority of that nation's people. Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is, in fact, the general welfare of all its people.

Development of all these aspects is equally important; any one underdeveloped aspect can qualify a society as uncivilized. 1: Scientific accomplishments are very important for any society and nation to develop. It is science that governs our lives and the more we exploit it, the more we benefit and advance. Not only do scientific accomplishments make our lives more comfortable, they make our nations stronger, more sought after and secure. 2: Our thoughts govern our actions and hence our actions are a reflection of our states of mind. Artistically bent people in a society are its true leaders. They express their minds through artistic creations like literature, paintings, music, poetry, dramatics etc and cast an influence over millions. An artistic creation is not bound by a civilization. Any great scientific development can be improved upon but art is complete. The worth of a civilization is known from its artistic background which is typical of the civilization, whereas scientific accomplishment is greatly influenced by other civilizations. Therefore, we can say that art is the true representation of a civilization.

Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models. Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.

For A society idolizes certain men and women as its heroes and heroines depending on what these people have done for the society. Against Irrespective of what they have done for the society, their characters cannot determine the character of the entire society as these people will have their own individual characteristics that cannot reflect the characters of all the people who are a part of that society. There may be some cases wherein people try to emulate their idols, but this does not mean that the entire society's character can be understood by studying the character of its heroes and heroines. Assuming some cultural heroes are just people the masses love, then some celebrities (actors) may be heroes. It would be wrong to assume that the society has the same character as it is an accepted fact that these people are liked for their values other than their characters. Therefore, it is not necessary that the entire society behaves in a manner similar to the people who are loved by the masses. Leader vs people: Even if they can see his true form after he has already been elected, a close examination of his character would reveal a character that would be far from that of the society that has chosen him. Character of a society and that of the people idolized by the society are not related -> Character of the heroes and heroines is not an indication of the character of the society that has chosen them.

Study major cities to understand most important characteristics of society

For All great civilizations have had a flourishing city. Learning centers/colleges/universities are typically in a city; understanding the intellectual output is key to understanding a society. Most jobs are contained within cities. High population Against Many societies have been agricultural; that society's customs, rituals can only be understood in the context of a rural backdrop. Even a modern society depends on agriculture to sustain it; to understand the important characteristics of a society, we need to understand the people who live in rural areas. Even smaller cities can help us understand a society, especially if the culture/values tend to be different in the smaller cities/more rural areas.

Claim: Colleges and universities should specify all required courses and eliminate elective courses in order to provide clear guidance for students. Reason: College students — like people in general — prefer to follow directions rather than make their own decisions.

For Avoid failure Simplicity for everyone involved Certainty Student represents the university Purpose of college-level studies is just to give academic and professional qualification or complete the education of a student, not personal development Against Confusion with too many options Restricting their options and making them follow a predefined path is not the solution. I believe that they should be encouraged to take the decision for themselves out of a variety of choices in front of them - options, pros and cons Will never be able to make decisions on his own. If we do not experience failure due to a wrong decision, we will never get a chance to correct ourselves. Student is grown up enough to take up the responsibility of deciding for himself. Each student is different and so are his or her interests. Make robots Slippery slope to too much control Unfair to force them to follow a career that they are not interested in. People in general don't even like to follow directions (submissive vs dominating) Purpose of college-level studies is not just to give academic and professional qualification or complete the education of a student. It is the responsibility of colleges to develop the personality of a student into a confident and independent person.

Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.

For Change and flexibility are required for growth Within a particular type of crime also, the situation might be different. Consider whether a person has made an offense deliberately, unintentionally, just for fun or for money. One child rule in China -> get rid of it after earthquake Laws have to keep pace with the changing times. As time has progressed and women have started asking for their rights, law has changed and now all the offspring have equal right to the family wealth. Rehabilitative There should be a scope of modifying the existing and fading laws to give way to the development of the society and justice to people. Against Fixed laws help the judges in determining whether a person is guilty or not. Punitive Bias risks

The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times.

For During the process of studying history, people do realize that they actually share much in common with their ancestors, in spite of various superficial differences (basic human nature) Still relied on communication somehow Same goals (transportation, communication) Humble Bravery, self-discipline, righteousness, fidelity to friends, family and nations, spirit of never giving up, pursuit of truth and beauty, altruism are still praised by people. Doctrines of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are different and incompatible to each other but the spirit of pursuing the truth has passed down from one to another. Against There is no illusion. It would be naive to say that the chief benefit of the study of history is to break down the illusion that people in one period of time are significantly different from people who lived at any other time in history. Pigeons vs internet communication Different means to accomplish tasks Doctrines of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are different and incompatible to each other Avoiding same mistakes may be more important (World War II) Chief benefit of studying history is not to break any illusion but to learn from the past and to avoid the mistakes done by people in the past.

Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.

For For instance, Columbus discovered a new continent, America, while he was on his route to find West Indies for trade. The discovery of very important drug, Penicillin that is one of the earliest antibiotic, by Fleming was also accidental. There are many other anthropological examples in the history where geologists stumbled upon important artifacts in quest to understand earth's structure. Against We cannot generalize that most discoveries are accidental. The author has given this statement based on some examples from the history, but this statement is overstated. In this statement, the author has given more importance to serendipity, which is not correct. Accidents occurred because resources/tech were not very advanced -> There were not many inventions, creations, and discoveries on purpose in those times. These days astronomers use more powerful telescopes to discover new planets and to know more about space. Scientists research look for the existing facts and data before applying the information to create a new thing. Most of these discoveries are made through a scientific approach. Inventions: Semiconductors, internal combustion engines cannot be treated as accidental discoveries. These are based upon the existing scientific principles. There might be some discoveries whose later effects are not foreseen, but that's not accidental. In these modern days, many companies are working in the business of creating or discovering new things to make our lives comfortable - must not give more credit to accident and chance than to the scientific approach

Claim: We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from those whose views contradict our own. Reason: Disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.

For General attitude of people to dismiss the ideas of someone who has a contrary view. This makes a perfect environment for positive learning and we get influenced by the ideas of others. Arguments are stressful Against Great scope of learning from people who hold different views Scope of this type of learning is limited. Classroom example: If the students learn everything that the teacher teaches them without asking their doubts or questions, they become passive learners. On the other hand, if the students try to figure out the problem on their own, they will come up with doubts and questions. They might not agree with their teacher on a certain topic for which they can initiate a discussion. It is only in such a discussion that a real clarification of the topic comes out. This type of learning is detailed, effective and lasting. A new discovery or invention comes to light only when someone disagrees with the norms and tries to prove his point. It is only when someone refused to believe that earth is stationary and that Sun revolves around the earth that efforts were made to discover the truth. Disagreement surely causes stress if the criticism is taken in a negative way. Instead we should welcome criticism positively and try to learn from the ideas of others. Increase your knowledge manifold

If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.

For Goals are necessary for the growth of an individual and the development of the society Goals provide directions to people's actions and make their actions more purposeful. For example, independence war of India against British Empire. Usually wars are considered a serious loss to nations, however, this war was to eliminate the slavery in India and for setting true democracy in India. A worthy goal is a purpose that would benefit the entire humanity and the society. Against To say that any means taken to attain it is justifiable is not correct. Need balance It cannot be said that one can use any means to achieve his goal. Millionaire goal example: He cannot be allowed to rob a bank and say that his goal is now achieved and it is justifiable. In the absence of logical steps, a valuable goal loses its meaning. A personal goal should not be above the national or global cause.

Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.

For Good levels of prioritization but can be a slippery slope May not have a future if we don't solve current problems Against We all have been faced with a dilemma when we have to take a split-second decision and there is no time to think about what will happen in the future - innately factor in long-term impact Future conditions have to be taken into account more than the present conditions for the decisions taken to be effective and profitable in the long run. Car passing on hill example Example: Releasing new product requires study and prediction of market The decisions taken by the government determine the future of an entire nation and hence they have to be taken after due deliberation. Retirement In view of the above, it can be seen that the future conditions are far more important than the present conditions when it comes to taking a decision and this holds true for corporations, governments and individuals as well.

Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system. Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds.

For Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws, as moral behavior is something for which a person has to be responsible himself. It is a persons responsibility to judge his behavior and follow the rules formed for the welfare of the society. Internet Education, not punishment, would be more effective Against Water - limit it and hopefully change patterns Littering We need laws to protect ourselves and punish those who harm the society. Law helps in balancing the society to be more harmonious and peaceful. Although moral behavior cannot be legislated, thorough enforcement of a few laws can help to solve social problems to some extent. Laws teach people many things about moral behavior and force them to follow those rules. If everyone conforms to laws, it would be very easy for everyone to get rid of social problems. Strict punishment helps

In order for any work of art — for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song — to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

For Most of the folk art is understandable to the common people and benefit them in many ways. It is human nature that they learn from what they understand like fairy tales, films, music etc. Few people have interest in abstract or obscure art works. Common people do not understand classical music but when the same is presented in the form of songs or film music, it attracts them and gets famous. The more understandable the work is, the more popular it is with people and hence more is its value. Example of fairy tales by a Denmark novelist Andersen. He has used understandable and vivid interpretation, which has influenced generations of young children in the world and even shed light on adult world. Against Popularity and merit are two different things. Artwork should not be only for monetary gain and lucrative and entertaining purpose. Sometimes, even the most sensitive critics are not able to work out and evaluate the true and actual value of the art. Therefore, it is simply not possible for the general public to understand its value, who do not receive particular trainings and specialized knowledge. (was not understood initially but did have merit, which was clear later when it was understood) Van Gogh was a famous painter whose work was not acknowledged by people during his lifetime. He could sell only one of his paintings at a low price all over his career. However, decades later, people began to recognize the value of his paintings. Recently, two of his paintings have broken all records as they were sold at a price of 50 million dollars in an exhibition. People's opinion may or may not influence the price and popularity of a certain artwork but it cannot change its merit.

Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.

For Otherwise, these talents are likely to remain undeveloped, which would be a loss/waste to society. This statement rightly states that if children with special talents get training at an early stage, then they can do wonders in their respective fields. Give them the right direction. Sometimes, gifted children do not have means to develop their talents. Hence, it is the society or government's duty to nurture their talents. List what they need access to (art, science, sports) If one gets the facilities to grow then he might prove a prodigy for the society. There should be special schools where students at the same level should be admitted and special training should be provided to them. In a free academic atmosphere, students will feel motivated, a sense of competition will be there, and it will constantly stimulate him or her to advance in the specific areas of his interest. This facility cannot be provided by common schools. Against Could lead to neglecting mediocre children Slippery slope could lead to forcing kids to strengthen their talents, even if they don't want to Discrimination (economic and social disparity) Cocky gifted kids who get special treatment Misuse of talents

People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.

For Taking chances and risks are more likely to bring in failure and huge losses. Percentage of people having succeeded in life as a result of taking risks is far less as that compared to those people who have achieved success in life as a result of well-planned ventures. As you start rising in life and you start expanding your business, the feasibility of taking a risk reduces considerably as there is a lot at stake. No cushion to take risks early in career -> may never be able to establish self A well-planned move which has been arrived at after due deliberation and calculation of the after-effects can assure you success in all realms of life. There are cases where you may see people who have achieved success by taking a risk but you may never have even heard of the thousands of people who have got lost into oblivion due to the risks that they took which led to their failure in life. Against It is the fear of failure that prevents people from taking decisions without proper planning. They could have afforded to take risks when they were just starting their careers, as they were not risking any significant amount of capital (easy to take risks early in career because nothing to lose) More cushion to take risks later in career

Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.

For Teenagers Dangerous Internet is more damaging than it is helpful as has been proven by the high frequency of cyber-crimes throughout the world. Personal info - hackers Viruses Distracted by media and entertainment Slippery slope Too dependent on the user/student to optimize the experience Less exercise Too much information available on the internet can cause information overload and can prove unproductive. Personal connection to teacher is invaluable Against Major resource for improving your knowledge and your career prospects. Could learn more perspectives on the internet Computer technology can provide large amount of information very rapidly To say that because of this information, people are less likely than ever to think deeply or originally is wrong. People can share theirs ideas and opinions with the people on the other side of the Earth through online message boards. They can develop new thoughts through dialogue in ways that is not possible without an electronic information system. Hence, there is no point getting worried with so much information. If the service of an experienced teacher is unavailable in a school then recorded lectures can be helpful to the students. Innovations of any kind have always been helpful to mankind. Speed Real world has tech More efficient, creative and productive.

Claim: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. Reason: It is inappropriate — and, perhaps, even cruel — to use public resources to fund the arts when people's basic needs are not being met.

For The betterment of a society is seen when people in it are living a satisfying and happy life, there is no hunger and poverty amongst people and everyone has a decent job and is self-sufficient. Welfare work like creating jobs, providing food and education for all etc are extremely important to bring up a society. People are the building blocks of a society. It is only when the people are living a happy life that a society can progress. For poor people art has no meaning. If they continue to rot and suffer in the society, there will be no use of spending huge amounts of money on such things and it will be the failure of the government. Against The development of the society is also seen in its progress, development of industries and technical know-how, improvement in the art and culture and being internationally active and strong. Use of public resources should not be restricted to one area but must support all around development and welfare. How much money (taxes) and where it should be used is the big decision. While a common man is a representative of the society's domestic success, art and culture is a representation of its success in preserving its rich heritage and gaining international recognition for the same. Sufficient money should be allocated for welfare work along with giving due consideration to other fields like art, and this cannot be termed as 'cruel'. The success of the administration is in bringing harmony in the society where so many classes of people coexist.

Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive. Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.

For There is no doubt that major cities are the principal force when constructing a healthy country and their development directly reflects the development of the country. Major cities primarily generate a nation's cultural traditions and makes it famous in the world. The cultural traditions are the backbone of a nation and they should be preserved. Against Preserving cultures should not be the single reason to develop major cities. This is not only for preservation of nation's culture but also for the reason of developing the whole society. It is actually towns and villages where cultural traditions originate and are preserved and any government that pays attention to its cultural traditions should neither neglect nor ignore those places. However, as it is a major financial and shopping hub, it attracts people from all over the world and it is a great source of revenue for the government. Hence, the government of China has to patronize it to maintain its importance. The government of a country has to take care of both the sides to keep balance in society. To counter major cities, the rural places should not be ignored. However, major cities and rural areas should get equal attention from the governments.

Educational institutions have responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed

For goal is to succeed reasonable view because it isn't too rigid with open-ended definition of "responsibility" and "success" one of those tools is support and advice about what to pursue students represent their schools Against goal should just be to provide tools - let student decide what to do with the tools slippery slope to too much control

Learning is primarily a matter of personal discipline; students cannot be motivated by school or college alone.

Home is the first school of a child. Without these institutions, our society would have a different shape all together. For Schools and colleges are responsible for his educational and professional growth. While education is a continuous process and is a personal matter, I believe that schools or colleges have an equally important role. Education is a non-stop and continuous process. This means that it does not begin only after one joins school or come to an end with the end of school or college. Learning comes from his various experiences in day-to-day life. It is through this education, that comes with experience, that we learn about our environment and the world. It is completely in the hands of a person to educate himself as much as he wants Against schools and colleges are the bodies responsible to make a society educated. All their activities are centered on developing the child into a well-balanced personality by imparting knowledge of different fields. School and college a person attends have a great impact on his life and future. Actual career is not possible at a personal level. Without schools and colleges, our society would not have been as civilized and educated as it is today.

Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.

Successful leaders are those who make more number of correct decisions than the wrong ones, irrespective of whether these decisions were an outcome of a compromise or persuasion of their principles. Therefore, the decision making strategy for political leaders is a blend of yielding to public opinion and sticking to their principles in varying proportions. 1: A political leader can opt for a compromise when the issue being addressed is not very critical or when the results of the compromise could lead to major benefits for the country. Being unnecessarily rigid may lead to damage that cannot be undone. During World War II, Adolf Hitler refused to let his soldiers abandon positions as he believed that soldiers should never retreat. However, later it was realized that if he had allowed withdrawing at critical times, and then counterattacking, he could have been more successful. 2: Leader may be more educated Winston Churchill's uncompromising resolve during World War II was eventually justified.

The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.

The recommendation presents a view that I would agree is successful most of the time, but one that I cannot fully support due to the "all or nothing" impression it gives. Certainly as an educator I agree fully that the best way to elicit positive response from students is to make use of students' positive energy and then encourage actions that you would like to see repeated. It is human nature that we all want to be accepted and achieve on some level, and when people in authority provide feedback that we have done something well, the drive to repeat the action that was praised is bound to be particularly strong. This blanket statement would obviously pay dividends in situations in which a teacher desires to have students repeat particular behaviors. For example, if an educator is attempting to teach students proper classroom etiquette, it would be appropriate to openly praise a student who raises his or her hand when wishing to speak or address the class. In such cases, the teacher may also help shape positive behaviors by ignoring a student who is trying to interject without approval from the teacher. In fact, the decision to ignore students who are exhibiting inappropriate behaviors of this type could work very well in this situation, as the stakes are not very high and the intended outcome can likely be achieved by such a method. However, it is important to note here that this tactic would only be effective in such a "low-stakes" situation, as when a student speaks without raising her hand first. As we will discuss below, ignoring a student who hits another student, or engages in more serious misbehaviors, would not be effective or prudent. To expand on this point, it is important for teachers to be careful when working with the second half of this statement, only ignoring negative actions that are not serious. Take for instance a student who is misbehaving just by chatting with a fellow classmate. This student might not be presenting much of a problem and may be simply seeking attention. Ignoring the student might, in fact, be the best solution. Now assume the negative action is the improper administering of chemicals in a science experiment or the bullying of a fellow student. To ignore these negative actions would be absurd and negligent. Now you are allowing a problem to persist, one that could potentially lead to much bigger and more dangerous issues. In a more serious situation, addressing the negative actions quickly and properly could stop the problem it in its tracks. It is for reasons like this that I do not advocate the idea that a teacher can be successful by simply ignoring negative actions. I do, however, greatly support the idea that the central focus of teaching should be to build on and encourage positive actions. However, the author's all-encompasing statement leaves too many negative possibilities for the classroom. Perhaps a better way to phrase this statement would be to say, "The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones that are not debilitating to class efficiency or the safety of any individual". Thus, in the original statement, there are indeed some good intentions, and there could be a lot of merit in adopting its basic principles. Data proves that positive support can substantially increase motivation and desire in students and contribute to positive achievements. In fact, most studies of teaching efficacy indicate that praising positive actions and ignoring negative ones can create a more stable and efficient classroom. It needs to be stressed, however, that this tool is only effective at certain levels of misbehavior. As mentioned above, when the behavior is precipitated by feelings of revenge, power or total self-worthlessness, this methodology will likely not work. It is likely to be very successful, however, when the drive behind the misbehavior is simple attention seeking. In many of these instances, if the teacher demonstrates clearly that inappropriate behavior does not result in the gaining of attention, students are more likely to seek attention by behaving properly. Should the student choose this path, then the ignoring has worked and when the positive behavior is exhibited, then the teacher can utilize the first part of the theory and support or praise this behavior. Now it is much more likely to be repeated. If the student does not choose this path and instead elects to raise the actions to a higher level that presents a more serious issue, then ignorance alone cannot work and other methods must be employed. In conclusion, one can appreciate the credo expressed in this instance, but surely we all can see the potential error of following it through to the extreme.

Some people believe that our ever-increasing use of technology significantly reduces our opportunities for human interaction. Other people believe that technology provides us with new and better ways to communicate and connect with one another.

The statement linking technology negatively with free thinking plays on recent human experience over the past century. Surely there has been no time in history where the lived lives of people have changed more dramatically. A quick reflection on a typical day reveals how technology has revolutionized the world. Most people commute to work in an automobile that runs on an internal combustion engine. During the workday, chances are high that the employee will interact with a computer that processes information on silicon bridges that are .09 microns wide. Upon leaving home, family members will be reached through wireless networks that utilize satellites orbiting the earth. Each of these common occurrences could have been inconceivable at the turn of the 19th century. The statement attempts to bridge these dramatic changes to a reduction in the ability for humans to think for themselves. The assumption is that an increased reliance on technology negates the need for people to think creatively to solve previous quandaries. Looking back at the introduction, one could argue that without a car, computer, or mobile phone, the hypothetical worker would need to find alternate methods of transport, information processing and communication. Technology short circuits this thinking by making the problems obsolete. However, this reliance on technology does not necessarily preclude the creativity that marks the human species. The prior examples reveal that technology allows for convenience. The car, computer and phone all release additional time for people to live more efficiently. This efficiency does not preclude the need for humans to think for themselves. In fact, technology frees humanity to not only tackle new problems, but may itself create new issues that did not exist without technology. For example, the proliferation of automobiles has introduced a need for fuel conservation on a global scale. With increasing energy demands from emerging markets, global warming becomes a concern inconceivable to the horse-and-buggy generation. Likewise dependence on oil has created nation-states that are not dependent on taxation, allowing ruling parties to oppress minority groups such as women. Solutions to these complex problems require the unfettered imaginations of maverick scientists and politicians. In contrast to the statement, we can even see how technology frees the human imagination. Consider how the digital revolution and the advent of the internet has allowed for an unprecedented exchange of ideas. WebMD, a popular internet portal for medical information, permits patients to self research symptoms for a more informed doctor visit. This exercise opens pathways of thinking that were previously closed off to the medical layman. With increased interdisciplinary interactions, inspiration can arrive from the most surprising corners. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the architects of the UN Millenium Development Goals, based his ideas on emergency care triage techniques. The unlikely marriage of economics and medicine has healed tense, hyperinflation environments from South America to Eastern Europe. This last example provides the most hope in how technology actually provides hope to the future of humanity. By increasing our reliance on technology, impossible goals can now be achieved. Consider how the late 20th century witnessed the complete elimination of smallpox. This disease had ravaged the human race since prehistorical days, and yet with the technology of vaccines, free thinking humans dared to imagine a world free of smallpox. Using technology, battle plans were drawn out, and smallpox was systematically targeted and eradicated. Technology will always mark the human experience, from the discovery of fire to the implementation of nanotechnology. Given the history of the human race, there will be no limit to the number of problems, both new and old, for us to tackle. There is no need to retreat to a Luddite attitude to new things, but rather embrace a hopeful posture to the possibilities that technology provides for new avenues of human imagination.

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

We as humans always try to stick to our viewpoint and rarely admit that we are wrong. For Such a discussion enables everyone participating in the discussion to address the issue from the perspective of the others. Voting solves problems - majority rule Best represent true society Satisfy most people Against Rare to make progress in the right direction when the participants of a discussion do not see eye to eye with each other on the issue being discussed. Waste of time The discussion can progress further only if all members agree on a common method and then only can the other details be worked out.

Some people argue that successful leaders in government, industry, or other fields must be highly competitive. Other people claim that in order to be successful, a leader must be willing and able to cooperate with others.

Whenever people argue that history is a worthless subject or that there is nothing to be gained by just "memorizing a bunch of stupid names and dates," I simply hold my tongue and smile to myself. What I'm thinking is that, as cliche as it sounds, you do learn a great deal from history (and woe to those who fail to learn those lessons). It is remarkable to think of the number of circumstances and situations in which even the most rudimentary knowledge of history will turn out to be invaluable. Take, for example, the issue at hand here. Is it better for society to instill in future leaders a sense of competition or cooperation? Those who have not examined leaders throughout time and across a number of fi elds might not have the ability to provide a thorough and convincing answer to this question, in spite of the fact that it is crucial to the future functioning of our society. Looking closely at the question of leadership and how it has worked in the past, I would have to agree that the best way to prepare young people for leadership roles is to instill in them a sense of cooperation. Let us look first at those leaders who have defined themselves based on their competitiveness. Although at first glance it may appear that a leader must have a competitive edge in order to gain and then maintain a leadership position, I will make two points on this subject. First, the desire to compete is an inherent part of human nature; that is, it is not something that needs to be "instilled" in young people. Is there anyone who does not compete in some way or another every single day? You try to do better than others in your school work or at the office, or you just try to do better than yourself in some way, to push yourself. When societies instill competitiveness in their leaders, it only leads to trouble. The most blatant example in this case is Adolf Hitler, who took competition to the very extreme, trying to prove that his race and his country were superior to all. We do not, however, need to look that far to find less extreme examples (i.e., Hitler is not the extreme example that disproves the rule). The recent economic meltdown was caused in no large part by the leaders of American banks and financial institutions who were obsessed with competing for the almighty dollar. Tiger Woods, the ultimate competitor in recent golfing history and in many ways a leader who brought the sport of golf to an entirely new level, destroyed his personal life (and perhaps his career ˉˉ still yet to be determined) by his overreaching sense that he could accomplish anything, whether winning majors or sleeping with as many women as possible. His history of competitiveness is well documented; his father pushed him from a very early age to be the ultimate competitor. It served him well in some respects, but it also proved to be detrimental and ultimately quite destructive. Leaders who value cooperation, on the other hand, have historically been less prone to these overreaching, destructive tendencies. A good case in point would be Abraham Lincoln. Now, I am sure at this point you are thinking that Lincoln, who served as President during the Civil War and who refused to compromise with the South or allow secession, could not possibly be my model of cooperation! Think, however, of the way Lincoln structured his Cabinet. He did not want a group of "yes men" who would agree with every word he said, but instead he picked people who were more likely to disagree with his ideas. And he respected their input, which allowed him to keep the government together in the North during a very tumultuous period (to say the least). My point in choosing the Lincoln example is that competitiveness and conflict may play better to the masses and be more likely to be recorded in the history books, but it was his cooperative nature that allowed him to govern effectively. Imagine if the CEO of a large company were never able to compromise and insisted that every single thing be done in exactly her way. Very quickly she would lose the very people that a company needs in order to survive, people with new ideas, people ready to make great advances. Without the ability to work constructively with those who have conflicting ideas, a leader will never be able to strike deals, reach consensus, or keep an enterprise on track. Even if you are the biggest fi sh in the pond, it is difficult to force your will on others forever; eventually a bigger fish comes along (or the smaller fi sh team up against you!). In the end, it seems most critical for society to instill in young people a sense of cooperation. In part this is true because we seem to come by our competitive side more naturally, but cooperation is more often something we struggle to learn (just think of kids on the playground). And although competitive victory is more showy, more often than not the real details of leadership come down to the ability to work with other people, to compromise and cooperate. Getting to be President of the United States or the managing director of a corporation might require you to win some battles, but once you are there you will need diplomacy and people-skills. Those can be difficult to learn, but if you do not have them, you are likely to be a short-lived leader.

Some people believe that competition for high grades motivates students to excel in the classroom. Others believe that such competition seriously limits the quality of real learning.

no