u/Hav0c12

https://preview.redd.it/9miwvy52nfbh1.png?width=484&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6773d2a94e03895adcf40572ccecf6c48efef57

https://preview.redd.it/k8gmu8mgj7bh1.png?width=1231&format=png&auto=webp&s=6533022d982019db11e67ba159bbcba4f8d8cce0

https://preview.redd.it/nf65rohqn1bh1.png?width=1126&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3392eaae08931993e7491675acd467c24487769

Here is how I thought of it: Patients who stop taking antibiotics when symptoms subside are doing something they shouldn't do because they advance the drug resistance of that certain bacteria. So naturally I though oh they are doing something so harmful, it is harmful because something so basic something so benign even passes through. Like if I am writing how harmful is the thing that people are doing. I would write that it even spares the most childish easy going bacterias. Like why is the answer robust bruh. Ofcourse robust would be spared by an incomplete treatement, but if I am describing something like this I would assume it is going for something maximally negative which in this case would be that even the most benign bacteria passes through, bad.

https://preview.redd.it/1fzmlnsmtrah1.png?width=568&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a7bee6301545f804ef1020bbfedea976d171209

https://preview.redd.it/fd0y54potrah1.png?width=913&format=png&auto=webp&s=29fec55bfab5d1b49b89142244bdfb573d6d7d11

https://preview.redd.it/ougguu4csrah1.png?width=511&format=png&auto=webp&s=0f7522c98c6b25991a606c8caa0ad31b163aaa8e

The book marks answer C as correct. Which is obviously wrong, because in the paragraph it is said the stories share a common time. In the option it suggests that short story collections can take place in different times. Help me with this please.

https://preview.redd.it/2nua0mapjrah1.png?width=1348&format=png&auto=webp&s=5cff1887e94a73eeaeac5d9de5ff7e9959fad73f

I thought the answer should be something related to "friendly". So genial or amiable. I guess the "in fact" is throwing me off. It's like an expression people use like is your friendliness in fact friendly or .... . I get that there is a full stop at the end and if this were the intended meaning then there should be something else hence maybe this isn't the right answer. But if someone can help me I would be very grateful.

Should each body paragraph in GRE AWA Issue essays have one point or multiple?

Currently using this structure for Issue essays:

• Intro
• Body 1 (For)
• Body 2 (For)
• Body 3 (Counter + refutation)
• Conclusion

My problem is that when I limit a paragraph to one point only, I struggle to develop it enough to fill the paragraph; I run out of things to say pretty quickly. Would it make more sense to combine two related points into one paragraph and develop them together, even if it's slightly less focused? Can I have two not so related points, but both of them be a "For" point in a single paragraph?

Has anyone experimented with both approaches? What did graders seem to reward more; tight single-point paragraphs or denser multi-point ones?

Prompt:

Some people claim that a nation's government should preserve its wilderness areas in their natural state. Others argue that these areas should be developed for potential economic gain.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

Essay:

The issue at hand seems simple in hindsight. Wilderness areas look as if they are not providing any meaningful output for society. However, if we look closer we will find that these wilderness areas are not that unimportant as they seem. These areas are a habitat for a large variety of animals. Trees alone house multiple different species of bird. If we think of the insects, the snakes, the monkeys and so many other species in the animal kingdom we will find that they all rely on wilderness. Cutting the trees to develop areas for economic growth, would leave some of these poor animals stranded and no where to go. Others might migrate to someplace else, but the damage that would be done to a significant number of these animals would be unforgivable. Animals have the same right to this earth as us humans. We share this planet and we should live in harmony with them. In a hypothetical example a bird makes a nest in some tall and strong tree. She lays eggs in this tree. Without a worry in the world she goes out to hunt. When she returns, she finds the tree cut down to make room for some building. Here the bird itself can survive, like it can go someplace else, but the eggs they can't travel. Nor are construction workers so delicate as to check every tree first for animal life then cut it down. These are the kinds of losses the animal kingdom will experience. These losses would be unavoidable, if such a thing were to take place.

Animals would not be the only ones that would suffer. Human beings have this natural affinity towards nature. Nature brings peace into ones life. Nature helps calm us down. Sometimes the most beautiful and scenic places lie in these "wilderness" areas. Some hidden waterfall, deep within the forrest. We can guage how much humans love nature by looking at religions that venerate nature to a God-like diety. Franz Kafka used to roam around in the woods to wind down, and he sometimes got his best ideas through those walks in the woods. If we flatten these wilderness areas we will lose our natural escape. We will lose our vice that helps us get through hard times. We will lose something that helped us connect ourselves to the earth and the universe itself. Personally, I lived near this area from which a wilderness area was about half a mile away. Whenever I was tired, no matter the time of day, I would go there to wind down. Just sit in the forrest and let everything in. If I was not feeling the best, I would do the same thing. So if we lose these areas, we would be at a major loss. Because we won't have a place to vent. Somewhere to go to when you need to let it all out. Their aren't any good alternatives for this either. A public park won't give you that satisfaction.

Although others might argue that, these wilderness areas are not that important. People might choose to pick the greater benefit of humanity rather then just some people going there to wind down. The wood from the area can be sold for economic benefit. On the area itself buildings can be constructed for economic gain.

Taking it all in, I think there is a middle way. Either cut down some and build on the other, or be more creative. Like make a zoo along these wilderness areas. The profits from the zoo will go to the goverment. Although the best course of action in my opinion is still to keep these areas intact, but if times called for extreme measure one can settle on a positive middel ground for everyone.

Prompt:

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

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

In an era of democracy, questioning the authority is like a human right. The picture that comes up in ones head when they hear the word politician has a more negative connotation than positive. When we hear politician we think cunning, corrput and fraud. If these very politicians become more accessible, more accountable maybe we can paint that picture in a more positive way. Picture this, A countrys leader is about to declare a war with a neighbouring country. In scenario one, he is not answerable to anyone. The leader does as he pleases. In scenario two, he is answerable to the public, the people of this very town are proponents of a transparent leadership. They want answers, they want the why to every decision. In scenario two the leader cannot help but be more cautious, because if he knows that he will be questioned by his people he would be more weary of his actions. He would likely be less corrupt as every decision is reviewed by the general public. This transparency would be the breeding grounds for democracy. People will have insights into every decision, and they would be more informed. People will be more satisfied if the decisions made are transparent rather then opaque without their voices being heard.

On a completely different note, human fallaibility. It has been seen over and again in history that once a human gets power, wealth and fame he tends to change. Being elected in an authorotative position comes with all these. Even if a leader is elected into a authorotative position by majority decision. After some time in the office he might change for the worse. Who the people thought they elected and the actual man or woman in the office now, might not even be the same person anymore. To keep this phenomenon in check one must question authority. Even if you agreed with his politics, his vision in his campagining, you need to keep a check if he is doing what he promised. In a hypothethical situation lets say a man who is passionate to serve his people gets elected into office, by popular vote. He is loved by his people and he loves his people, to the extent that the people trust him blindly, they don't question what he does, they know whatever hes got in his mind is probably for the betterment of his people. He starts off well, he introduces projects, he fulfills promises, but somewhere down the line maybe he gets a choice to approve a project which might fall just short of the safety standards but he gets a cut out of it. This new project it might just work and the public will never know, but this is just the start a crack that just keeps on growing. If he is not questioned he will make decisions in secrecy which he knows he is not answerable for. In contrast if his people regardless of their confidence in him just questioned him to keep them updated, the story might be quite different. He would be held accountable for every decision.

What if the questioning bothers the leadership? Being a leader, someone in the position of authority. It is a stressful and difficult job. Maybe he might fall short on his dutities becaue he has to waste his time and energy for every press conference. Maybe the constant nagging cause hinderence to his decision making ability. Although this might be true in some scenarios we should be better safe than sorry. It is true that the leadership might not like being questioned but it is a job requirement that they signed up for. The benefits outweighs the problems.

Taking it all into consideration, I believe that the general public should question its authority. For the betterment of society a accountable goverment is the best form of goverment. Even if this questionting might not allow the leadership to perform its best,

https://preview.redd.it/8fajn22g528h1.png?width=619&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ca0a3f772a551764c0d9fc9281f473b0ce0e71b

Prompt:

Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

We are fundamentally asking the wrong question. Formal education or being home schooled shouldn't have a very strong relationship with our minds and spirits being free or restrained. Our minds become "free" or we become creative when we are given the right environment to grow, to make mistakes and learn on our own pace. The right question is does formal education provide the best environment for this? The answer sadly is, no. In formal education, like sheep, all students have to grow through the same curriculm in the same time window of 6-8 months. This model assumes that all the children have the same pacing for learning. Which is not true, some people like myself have a difficult time catching up. I remember my school as more about me trying my best to catch up to the class, rather than explore my interests in depth. School for me did not provide an environment that let me do what I needed to do in order to grow. I like many other children had always had the impending doom of the grade sheet hanging over my head. This never allowed me to have time do other things that I loved doing, things that felt like they were meant for me like art. I remember painting in the summer holidays, and those were the most freeing experiences of my life. I was truly myself, creative jucies flowing through every iota of my existence. Hence formal education for me was nothing but a burden to my mind. An obstacle I needed to overcome in order to get into my free and creative state.

Unfortunately that is not the only thing formal educaiton gets wrong. The critical flaw with formal education is, up until a certain grade school (or high school) you are not free to pick your subjects. Everyone has to go through a fixed curriculm. The problem with this is quite obvious. If both Tesla and Picasso were enrolled in the same school studying under the same curriculm, neither one of them would excel in their respective fields. We wouldn't have Tesla or Picasso but just another electrical engineer and some street artist. In order to excel one must be free and in order to be free one be in charge of their own destiny. One should be allowed to carve their own path. The problem that the same curriculm has is, there are going to be alot of different subjects and naturally one wouldn't like them all ofcourse. So the pupil will have to sit through courses/classes against their own will. Wasting their time but more importantly losing their spirits to do other work they love. They lose their spirits or lose momentumn because they might think they are not good enough if they perform not so well in one subject that isn't even related to what they are actually meant to do.

Is there a better way then? Formal education is the way it is because of some constraints. I do concede that it is easy to say in theory to cater to each child induvidually. Give them time and give them resources to grow on their own pace on their own choice of subjects. However this is quite difficult in practice. This is probably why schools are designed the way they are. Multiple different subjects for people to explore and apply themselves in. Different extra curricular activites like sports to keep the spirits up. The formal education system has been iterated over and changed by plently of intellegient people.

Taking it all into consideration. It would be a blasphemous to say formal education "frees" the mind. In the same breath it would be completely unjustified to say it doesn't try to. This is a very complex issue but in a hypothetical world with

Prompt:

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

I whole heartedly disagree with this statement. I believe as we aquire more knowledge we become more sensible and capable, hence increasing our comprehensive abilities, not decreasing them.

Knowledge is a very complex landscape. The thing that makes it even remotely digestible, is how interconnected it is. The people who come up with revolutionary ideas are often polymaths. They excel in multiple fields, when they expand their horizons they often find the solution to one problem in one discipline, from another discipline. Like Leonardo Da Vinci used science in his art. When creating the painting called "the perfect man" he used rules from geometry in math to create proportions of a "perfect" man. This works because if one has a very narrow vision they only try to find the solutions of their field from their field they might hit a roadblock but if they try something out of the box they might find that some clever solution lies out there. All this happens because of an out of the box approach a fundamentally different point of view that one brings to the problem that one cannot have thought of from within the box. Diversity in knowledge is very important, some roadblocks occur because some problems require skills from other disciplines which if you do not posses you cannot progress forward like a stock trader who didn't study math hard enough, he cannot produce equations he might need in a more complex analysis of stock.

Even if we don't take the more expansive option, we can still make great progress on a narrow but an in-depth view of a particular field. Take compute science for example one might learn about a path finding algorithim once in his first year. Then when he goes into his second year he might face the same algorithim but in an applied setting like networks. This time he gets a better understanding just because of the depths he has gone to in his field. His understanding of the constraints of the networking algorithim helped explain to him the seemingly complex and mysterious nature of path finding algorithims. When one commits to a field he researches and passionately learns, he finds that the newer topics build ontop of older topics which reinforces both sets of topics just because of the more rigirous application of the older topic and the repetition of the older topic.

However it is true the deeper one goes into a field it gets more tricky. By the fourth year of a computer science degree one will see maths he never even thought of in his wildest dreams. The deeper you go the topics become more challenging as the topics you are dealing with are more recent the more in depth you go. The more recent they are means they haven't been worked on as much as the older topics. Hence its solutions are quite messy and difficult. However beyond the maths beyond the complexity if one learns fundamental skills and has a passion for learning he always shines through as Richard fyneman was asked can a layman become a great physicsts like you and he replies yes he can. He said only through hardwork he has achieved what he has achieved and anyone can do it.

In conclusion I feel like more knowlege often leads to better understanding of a wide varity of topics. Things start to connect with each other this positive reinforcement derives the urge to do even better. There might be roadblocks and difficult times due to their being too much on your plate but if one persits through they can reach their desired location.

This is such a weird question. I have shortlisted A and B but now I am stuck. Like B makes the most sense to me because they have to think the FAA would approve of their idea to even propose that idea in the first place. Point A is just straight weird. Like please help and explain, thank you!

I boiled the choices down to B and C. I cannot decide between them though. Like B does effect the price of the chocolate like if the customers won't be willing then the price won't increase, at least it will be less \"certain\". On the other hand for C (the correct answer) even if we do get to know that the prices have decreased we don't know the magnitude of that decrease and if that is enough to offset the increase of the cacao thingy. Like both parts are kind of shaky how do you decide between them.

https://preview.redd.it/ipetul7ut87h1.png?width=1473&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b139ebeeb0db6d2c5e39b0c14ace8f55ea00b27

https://preview.redd.it/sz0h2ktit87h1.png?width=1119&format=png&auto=webp&s=4098178858f7bd732e48a1a3fb5b8857dfd5530e

Prompt:

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

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

I believe having contrasting point of views in any fruitful discussion is not an option but a necessity.

A human only has a finite thinking capacity. In other words, you can't think of everything. If you delve deep into one idea, it is diffcult to step back from that idea and consider other positions. This is because when we consider several position and we choose to explore one particular position a bit more in depth we have already eliminated all other possibilities. The thing that is wrong about this approach is, there are so many ideas a human being cannot think about all of them in an adequately indepth way. A human only looks at the surface of a particular idea and decides based of that. Now if we change the scenario to include multiple human beings, testing different ideas and debating on it, we would have a better outlook on the situation. For such a dicussion to be useful, each induvidual must bring a contrasting point of view. This is because if they all worked on the same idea or similar ideas then we would have the same problem that we set out to solve. They must have different often contrasting ideas for each position to get a better understanding of a problem. An event that supports this is from the life of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), when he received the news that Makkan forces are set to attack Madinah he called on all his companions to have a group discussion on this matter. The Prophet wanted to fight them outside but his companion opposed this view and said to fight them inside. The Prophet agreed after listening to his reasons for why it would be better to fight them inside. His decision was ultimately right they won this battle and saved the city. The solution came forth all because of a productive discussion with contrasting points of views.

Humans are also fallaible creatures. They often make mistakes without realizing it and when the realize it, it's often too late or never. When people have productive discussion, intellectually honest discussion, with opposing views they can actually recitfy their mistakes. When we have debates with opposing views we have to present a logical reason to defend our position. Often times when one defends his position he himself spots the error in his line of reasoning or someone from the opposing camp rectifies his mistake.

It is important to note that this might not always be the case. Sometimes, people with revolutionary ideas are brought down. Not because their ideas are wrong but because they dont match the values or opinions of the majority. The thing about revolutionary ideas is, people think they are stupid until they actually make them work. As revolutionary idaes take a really different approach to solving problems that might look like incorrect to a not so capable listener. This can be detrimental in the sense that some people who were correct in their idea might be brought down incorrectly and we might lose that innovative idea. However people who poses great intellect, the same people who often come up with revolutionary ideas, have the self beleif and the ability to reason through all the doubt cast by others and shine through. People like galileo were shunned for their ideas, prosecuted but he believed in himself and his ideas and his reasoning to overcome all that.

I would say that in all possible situations a produc

Prompt:

The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

I agree with the statement, that the human mind will always be superior to machines.

Machine knowlegde has a very intricate relation to human knowledge. To tackle this question we first need to understand the fundamentals of machine intellegience. Artifical intelligence, chat-bots like ChatGPT and others are all built upon existing human knowledge. They need copious amounts of data only to mimic human capabilities. Hence an argument could be made that how can something that is built upon human knowledge supersede human knowledge. It is illogical to think that the student would champion over the master. It is difficult to compare an abstract capability like intellegience, but we can logically place a fundamental barrier at the intellegience level that machine intellegience can reach. That barrier is how far human knowlegde has reached, as the machine needs an example some data point to learn and if that doesnt exist it cannot do much. Hence we can conclude machine knowledge has a fundamental limit.

Machines learn from loads of datapoints by recognizing pattern. Some more creative human endavours like art are not based on patterns. Machines are known to have a difficult time with more creative things. As humans we don't know the source of creativitiy but it is safe to say such an ability or such a knowledge is only possed by humans, because no machine has ever created an original creative masterpiece in any artistic domain. Machine art can be summarised as copying and pasting things with a little bit of finnease, nothing more nothing less. Human art on the other hand, human creativity is much more rich, original and complex due to human intellegience to inculcate their own opinions their own knowledge of the world around them into their art, something that the machine struggles with.

It would be unwise to disregard the machines completely. Sam Altman the creator of one of the most popular Chat-bots ChatGPT said that his intention with ChatGPT was to create a human like assistant. We need to keep this in mind maybe because the goal was never to create something superhuman, maybe it was to crete something that would help humans, a tool. What would be the true unrestricted power of the Machine? It is difficult to say but machines have achieved some things that humans would have taken millions of years to do. Some tasks in Biology, specifically in genetics, as in genetics there are a vast amount of possiblilities simply impossible for a human to go through. In this rapidly developing field with every new iteration blurring the line between the human and the machine even further, it is difficult to say if humans can maintain this superiority.

Considering everything, I would say at this point in time humans are indeed superior to Machines in terms of knowledge, but it is diffcult to say how long can we maintain this edge. I would agree that up until now we are where we are because the creators of Machine intellegience intended it to be a helper a tool. If they intended it to be something beyond human it would be diffcult to say.

Prompt:

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.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Essay:

I am of the opinion that yes many of the important discoveres were indeed accidental.

It is really important to understand the word "discovery" in this context. It means to find something or uncover something, it is inherently a new thing, something the general public has not seen yet. As soon as we understand this it becomes easier to argue this position. If something by definition doesn't even exist yet not even as a hypothesis, how will someone look for it/work on it intentionally? That does not make any sense. Scientific discovery happens because of someone who is deeply interested in the field and is someone who's very observent. If such a person is exposed to a concept or a thing even accidentally they subconsiously start to find explanations to why that particular thing happened. Take Newton for example, sure he did not just discover Gravity only on the basis of the falling Apple, he was working on planets and why they move in orbits. But this event did trigger a subconcious thought that led to Newton discovering Gravity. This seemingly accidental event led to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time.

Now one might argue that for discoveries more complex in nature. Like Einsteins theory of relativity it simply is not possible for something accidental to be the cause of it. As firstly that accident has to be of astronomical rarety meaning mathematically impossible, second it might not even be possible, Einsteins thought experiment that led him to discover the theory of relativity was that he wondered how it would feel if he rode alongside a beam of light, it involved him being in a train going at light speed. We know now that it is impossible for things to go 100% lightspeed hence this experiement wouldnt even be possible and Einstein would never have discovered relativity. Points like these present a good counter argument and they do push oneself to re-evaluate your position. I think sure some accidents are just not possible for the relevant person to observe and then discover. But I dont think we need brilliant minds need to have a very specific a very detailed scenario through which they discover something life changing. If some event, some accident can push them towards the right answer that is enough to lead them to make huge discoveries. Hypothetically lets say Einstein didnt just imagine the two trains going at lightspeed, maybe he was on a vehical and some other vehical rode alongside his vehical at the same speed, to him it would feel like that vehical is stationary that observation would sow the seed of a discovery as great as if not the same as the theory of relativity.

After considering each side thoroughly I think I would stick to my position that important discoveries often times come through accidental events. By the very definition of discovery one cannot know of it beforehand there must have been something that led him to that accidental or not. We live in a limited world but everything magnificent is a byproduct of our observation and thorough understanding of this world.

I am preparing for the revised GRE and I wanted to check whether Manhattan 5lb 3rd edition is still worth using for verbal, especially Reading Comprehension.

My assumption was that the revised GRE is basically the same as the old GRE, except for the removal of the Argument Essay, so I planned to skip that part and use the rest of the book for practice.

But after taking a practice test, I noticed the RC passages in 5lb felt longer than the ones on the actual test. That made me wonder whether the book is still a good resource or whether it might misrepresent the current exam.

For people who have used it recently: is the book still useful for RC and general verbal prep, or should I move to ETS materials sooner?