Writing Feedback / Should we have to always pay attention to the opinions from celebrities? [5]

There is a hotly debated issue over whether we have to listen to the opinions given by the celebrities, and this topic can also be approached by several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to support that we should trust those famous people because they are successful, while others seem to have the opposite ideas. After deeply pondering over this issue, I also develop my own perspective. I am in favor of the latter; that is, we do not have to always be aware of those famous people's opinions.

First, fame is not equal to truth. We should know how to judge the opinions from those famous people. There is a well-known advertisement: there is a good, delicious, healthy food called "Smart Cookies" which was endorsed by a famous actor by saying that eating this can be handsome or smart. Therefore, many fans are eager to eat that. Unfortunately, we found this product is poisonous. Shouldn't we be careful about that?

Moreover, our own opinions would not be worse than theirs and sometimes we have to insist them in mind. For instance, Kobe, a prestigious basketball player had said that he created a region where is only permitted to the extraordinary person like him can enter in. Whereas, we know that even though he is good at basketball and also has distinguished performance, he is a little bit like a braggadocio.

However, there must be some people saying that listening to the opinions from those famous people then they can become the same people as them. However, I just doubt that, can we be really like them if we listen to them, follow their pace, and learn their behaviors? Even if we can be more successful like those famous people, why do not we can just concern ourselves more and create our own style and value?

Based on the reasons mentioned above, we do not have to always pay attention to those opinions from celebrities. In other words, I think we have to learn to discern whether those opinions are good for us. It is not to say, of course, that the reasons supporting to other points of view are totally without merit. Nevertheless, I still firmly believe that my own sentiment is much stronger.

Writing Feedback / 'living in a higher pace is better' - TOEFL practice 59 [4]

TOPIC: Some people are always in a hurry to go places and get things done. Other people prefer to take their time and live life at a slower pace. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

There is a hotly debated issue over whether people have to live at a higher or lower pace, and this topic can also be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to be hurry to complete their tasks, while others seem to prefer the opposite position. After deeply pondering over this issue, I also develop my own perspective. I favor the former; that is, I prefer to live in a higher pace condition.

The first and foremost reason lies in the inevitable fact that we need to save time for accomplishing some important tasks, and a fitting example of which can be found in my experience of missing exam. I just failed to participate in the university entrance exam because I thought I had enough time for eating breakfast and transporting to the testing place; while I was stocked in a traffic jam and then missed the first test. Therefore, we can start to agree that we have to be eager in our lives.

Apart from the one I have mentioned above, another equally important aspect is keeping in high pace condition can prevent me from getting lazy. If I can avoid being a sluggish person, I can have a higher probability of fulfilling my dream successfully. For instance, I had spent more time on practicing playing piano so that I won a piano competition, defeating those spending less time on practicing. Hence, from this case we are capable of stating that keeping our pace higher is important.

Admittedly, on the other hand, there might be some people proclaiming that with a slower pace can enjoy their lives more because it is not necessary for them to notice the time control or acquire the fame of succeed. However, from my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying. I do not think that those people with slower pace losing the piano competition can be really happy. In contrast, it is really joyful for me that I can immerse in the joy of the victory and accomplishment.

Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I believe that living in a higher pace is better because the advantages of this are qualitatively greater than that of the opposite. In other words, I prefer to live in high pace. It is not to say, of course. that other points of view are totally without merit. Still, I am firmly convinced that the reasons I proposed in favor of my own sentiment are much more tenable and plausible.

Writing Feedback / 'working in an individual way and get the grades is better' - TOEFL [2]

Universities often require students to finish projects through teamwork and give each team ember the same score. Do you think this is good?
Give specific reasons and details to support your opinion.

There is a hotly debated issue over whether it is good for university students to complete some teamwork and get the same score as each other, and this topic can also be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to believe that this idea is great, while others seem to stand on the opposite position. After deeply pondering over this issue, I also develop my own perspective. I favor the latter; that is, I do not think it is good.

The first reason lies in the inevitable fact that one of the most important purpose for university students is learning to be an independent person. The independent person has higher likelihood to succeed in the future, and a fitting example of which can be found from my uncle who was graduated from UCLA. He said that he always do project by himself in order to avoid wasting time on socialize with friends. Owing to the faith that people should get the grades belonging to them to show their value, he is unwilling to do some teamwork and share the same grade. And now, he is a boss of a prestigious company. Therefore, we can start to agree that doing some works alone is good.

Apart from the one I have mentioned above, another equally crucible aspect is it is not reasonable to give the same grade to all the members of one group. For instance, I had been a leader of a team doing a project in my university. Without exaggeration, actually, I completed the all tasks myself lacking of any aids from my teammates. And we just get the same scores. It is really not fair to me as a diligent student to get equal scores to those lazy partners. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that students must obtain their grade by evaluating of their efforts.

Admittedly, on the other hand, there must be some dissidents proclaiming that it is not only conducive for the students to do teamwork in university, but also plausible for them to get the same grade, because they can learn how to cooperate with people. However, from my very limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying. As my own experience explained, I had done a project in a team, while I did not learn any concept of collaboration from it. In contrast, I only learned how to survive in a isolated predicament and endure sharing my valuable scores to other sluggish people.

Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I believe that working in an individual way and get the grades they deserved would be better because the advantages of this are qualitatively greater than that of the opposite. In other words, it is not good for those students to get the same grades in the same team. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I am firmly convinced that the reasons I proposed in favor of my sentiment is much more tenable and cogent.

BTW: personal question( I spent 39 mins without proofreading. I just wonder how to express an example well with just a few sentences. I think I spent lots of time on examples. Is the 4th paragraph optional?)

Writing Feedback / 'More convincing' -TOEFL whether face-to-face communication is better [2]

49. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Face-to-face communication is better than other types of communication, such as letters, email, or telephone calls. Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

There is a hotly debated issue over whether face-to-face communication is better than other kinds of communication, and this topic can also be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to believe that communication in person is the best way of expression, while others seem to stand on the opposite position. After deeply pondering over this issue, I also develop my own perspective. I favor the former; that is, I agree that face-to-face communication is better.

The first and foremost reason lies in the inevitable fact that communicating in person can be more convincing. Sometimes, face-to face communication can lead us to convince or complain someone successfully, and a fitting example can be found from my uncle. He once complained a service of a restaurant. Without exaggeration, he directly went to the boss and told the boss that something wrong occurred on the meal--a fly concealed in it. Afterward, my uncle acquired a new service thanks to face-to face communication. If he just wrote something to complain on the website or by telephone, I do not think this problem would be thought important. Therefore, we can commence to agree that communicating with someone in person is the best way.

Apart from the one I have mentioned above, another equally crucible aspect is that it is easy to be deceived without face-to face communication. For instance, I had received some harmful words on facebook from my best friend, Eric. He said that I was totally failed in building a good friendship and he did not want to be one of my friends anymore. I just shocked and did not know what happened. Finally, I realized that his facebook account was stolen. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that it is important to talk to people face-to-face.

Admittedly, on the other hand, there might be some dissidents proclaiming that communication by letters, email, or telephone can enable them to talk without scruple, which is also one of the most important parts in communication. However, from my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying. It is conceivable that before we talk, it is necessary for us to be imprudent about our words. Talking without scruple is not the indispensable part in communication; in contrast, it is usually detrimental to us.

Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I prefer to express my opinion in person because the advantages of this are qualitatively greater than that of the opposite. In other words, I think the best way of communication is by means of face-to-face. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I am firmly convinced that the reasons I proposed in favor of my own sentiment are much more tenable and cogent.

Writing Feedback / 'Successful people do something new or take risks' - TOEFL [2]

Successful people do something new or take risks rather than only doing something they know how to do well. AGREE OR DISAGREE.

There is a hotly debated issue over whether successful people usually take risk or try new things, and the topic can be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to believe that to be successful, they should do something they are unfamiliar with, while others seem to stand on the opposite place. After deeply pondering over this issue, I develop my own perspective as well. I favor the latter; that is, successful people still do things they already know.

The first and foremost reason lies in an inevitable fact that to be successful, we all try to reduce the risk we might encounter. The lower the factors making us fail we have, the higher probability to success we own. Consider a circumstance in which one person is rich because he knows a lot of knowledge of investment. He can focus on certain companies which he thinks is worth it to invest, and then just waits for the not so high but constant income. He does not have to invest some dangerous companies to get higher profit which might lead him to bankrupt in a short time. Therefore, we can commence to agree that successful people do not have to try new things or take risks.

Moreover, another equally crucial aspect is that It depends on the capability of one to decide whether he can succeed or not. At least, a successful person should be able to dismantle the hurdles prohibiting him to success. For instance, the sports stars do not have to take some drugs to win a game or show their extraordinary skills. The same reason why they succeed is that they all have the predominated abilities in sports realm. In contrast, those athletes try to have distinctive performance by taking risks of taking drugs are failed to succeed. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that it is not necessary for successful people to take risks.

Admittedly, on the other hands, there might be some dissidents proclaiming that doing something new is necessary for people to success because they can become different from others, which is also a widely accepted idea for success. However, according to my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying owing to its imprudence. Try something new can indeed make people become special, while it does not mean successful.

Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I believe that doing what we already known can still leads us to succeed because the advantages of this are relatively greater than that of the opposite. In other words, reducing risks and enhancing individual's capability is the most important path to success. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I am firmly convinced that the reasons I have proposed in favor of my own sentiment are much more tenable and cogent.

Writing Feedback / 'improving facilities is the best way' - toefl [2]

TOPIC agree or disagree? Universities spend money on improving facilities (labs and general requirements) better than hiring famous teachers.

There is a hotly debated issue over whether universities should spend money on improving facilities is more than hiring famous teachers, and this topic can be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. Some people tend to prefer that schools should invest in renewing facilities, while other seem to believe that famous teachers is more conducive to students. After deeply pondering over this issue, I develop my own perspective as well. I favor the former; that is, I prefer to spend money on improving facilities.

The first and foremost reason lies in an inevitable fact that the more advanced facilities we have, the more chances we can increase our knowledge. For example, library is a good place for students to study or research. They can concentrate on the subjects with a tranquil ambience; also, there are a lot of references for students to utilize. With this convenient and versatile facility, students can improve their learning condition. Therefore, we can commence to agree that certain facilities are beneficial to students.

Moreover, another equally crucial aspect is that students are not always staying in classrooms. They have numerous activities in school. Consider a circumstance in which a student who is a member of jazz ensemble in their school. He must need a better auditorium for him to have an extraordinary performance. With this distinguished performance, the student would acquire an unforgettable and valuable experience burring deeply in his mind. Hence, from this case, we are capable of stating that students would prefer school to spending on improving facilities.

Admittedly, on the other hand, there might be some people proclaiming that schools should spend money on hiring prestigious teachers because they can impart their students well. However, according to my limited understanding, I just doubt the credibility of that saying owing to its imprudence. A student is good or not do not depend on whether he has a good teacher but is decided by his effort on study. It is useless to hire a super famous teacher to teach those who behaviors as sluggards.

Based on the reasons demonstrate above, I believe that improving facilities is the best way for school because the advantages of this are relatively greater than that of the other. In other words, students can procure more advantages from better facilities. It is not to say, of course, that other points of view are completely without merit. Still, I an firmly convinced that the reasons I have proposed in favor of my sentiment are much more tenable and cogent.

Question: when we write agree or disagree in the issue, can I use consent/assent/concur to replace "agree"; and use dissent/reject//discord to replace "disagree"?

I am not sure whether their might be some subtle differences between these words.

Writing Feedback / the same national curriculum until college; real world is rarely black and white [2]

This is my fist try...need some help and advice. 5/27 is the date to fight with GRE QQ Thanks!

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

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or
disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the
position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe
specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or
would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your
position.
----------------------
Determining whether students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college could be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. According to the statement, it seems to be somewhat a pithy aphorism full of wisdom and meditation at the first glance, but further reflection leads me to the discordant position.

The first and foremost reason lies in a facet people have to ponder over that every students has his or her owned personality and interest. Some students might be more enthusiastic in society, while others might be more zealous to science. If a nation require all of the students to learn the same thing-the same national curriculum-the country would probably limit students' development of their interest. For example, if a nation reduces the science experiment time in order to increase more time for national curriculum, many students would lose their chance to contact with science, and then stop to be a person who has tended to be a scientist since they were young, and the number of students in major of science in college would decrease. Therefore, under this circumstance, I do not agree with this recommendation.

Admittedly, to some extent, the claim has its own advantages. If all of one nation's students learn the same information of the nation, it is easier for the country to manage its compatriots. Because all the students learn the same things, their ethnic ideology will be more compatible. Nevertheless, the peremptory statement ignores the materials of the national curriculum. When we take the materials-the contents, historical description, value of the nation-into account, an abundance of flaws of the assertion emerges. For instance, once some students found that the government deceive them by amending some truth of history in order to enhance their national recognition, these students would start to suspect whether the nation is good or not. As a result, we cannot make a conclusion until we solve these omitted variables.

To sum up, rational people know that things in the real world are rarely black and white but usually involve shades of gray. Based on the reasons demonstrated above, I do not assent to the statement that all of the students have to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. It is not to say, of course, that the recommendation is completely without credibility. Still, I am firmly convinced that broader scrutiny is needed to reinforce the validity of this statement.

Writing Feedback / GRE- 'Scandals can be useful'? Do they focus our attention on problems better ? [2]

TOPIC: Scandals-whether in politics, academia, or other areas-can be useful. They focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."

Determining whether scandals are useful can be approached from several different angles due to its complexity. It seems that the claim is like a pithy aphorism full of wisdom and meditation; however, further scrutiny leads me to the discordant position.

The first and foremost reason lies in a facet people have to envisage that scandals usually distort the truth which we should originally know. For example, there are so many scandals around celebrities, such as some president's sex scandal or some singer's drug addiction. It is hard to discern whether the information we receive is truth or rumor. Sometimes, social media contrive some fake scandals to attract people in order to enhance their profits. Under this circumstance, scandal is not so much a useful tool to focus our attention as a detrimental trickster.

Moreover, another equally crucial aspect is that speakers or reformers can still focus our attention on problems in ways that scandals could not. Because the scandals usually proffer us superficial news lacking merits for us to concentrating on, people might tend to advert to those speech or ideas expressed from well-known speakers or reformers. For instance, When Kim-North Korea's leader-claims to attack South Korea, people all over the world will focus on it; while if the mass media make up some scandals predicting Kim's policy and dispersing scandals of fear, seldom really care. Hence, I do not believe that scandals are truly useful.

Admittedly, to some extent, scandals have their own merits. They can provide us with much information hiding in every corner hard to reveal. But I do not think the advantages of this are greater than those of getting useful information from speakers or reformers.

To sum up, rational people know things in really world are rarely black and white but usually involve shades of gray. Based on the analysis demonstrated above, I do not assent to the claim that scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in an effective way. It is not to say, of course, that the claim is completely without credibility. Still, I am firmly convinced that a broader or even more comprehensive scrutiny is indispensable before I can entirely believe the claim.

-------------
I hope someone can give me a hand and amend my essay into a better way.
If you can, picking my flaws and advise me how to reverse it. thanks!