Существует 2 вида экзамена: General Test (общий тест) и Subject Test (предметный).
Graduate Record Examinations
(Экзамен по поверке знаний людей, поступающих в университет или аспирантур)
Общий тестThe General Test определяет уровень критического мышления, аналитического письма, а так же способности к устному обоснованию и количественному исчислению. Экзамен соответствует уровню
Приемная комиссия использует результаты тестов аспирантов, как дополнение к диплому и другим запрашиваемым документам.
GRE General TestОбщий тест GRE оценивает:
- способности устного рассуждения – к анализу и оценке письменного материала, синтезу полученной информации. А также способность проанализировать взаимосвязь между составными частями предложений, словами и понятиями.
- математические способности – понимание фундаментального понятия арифметики, алгебры, геометрии, анализа данных.
- способности аналитического письма - умение ясно и эффективно сформулировать сложные идеи, умение исследовать требования и поддержать их соответствующими примерами и доводами, а также умение управлять элементами стандартного письменного английского.
- способности критического мышления – умение вести логически обоснованные, последовательное рассуждения обсуждение.
- Биохимия, клеточная и молекулярная биология
- компьютерные науки
- литература и английский язык
|1. Вербальный раздел||30 вопросов||30 минут|
|2. Математический раздел||28 вопросов||45 минут|
|3. Аналитический раздел||2 письменных задания||90 минут|
Тест GRE (бумажный). Содержание и Структура.
|1. Вербальный раздел||2 секции (по 38 вопросов)||60 минут|
|2. Математический раздел||2 секции (по 30 вопросов)||60 минут|
|3. Аналитический раздел||2 письменных задания||75 минут|
Вербальное обоснование — Проверяется способность сдающего тест оценивать прочитанный материал и анализировать полученную информацию. Это наиболее сложная часть экзамена. Вам будут даны тексты с вопросами на понимание, а также задания: подобрать наилучший синоним из предложенных, найти антоним, заполнить предложения. Казалось бы просто. Но проблема в том, что даже Ваш уровень английского от В2 и выше, очень велика вероятность, что многие слова будут Вам просто незнакомы, т.к в эту секцию специально подбираются редко употребляемые слова, которые порой можно найти только в большом словаре. Как же можно сдать эту секцию? Самый верный и эффективный способ – это купить книгу GRE- verbal section (специально для подготовки к этой секции GRE) и просто выучить эти слова. Хотя эти слова и редки в обращении, но их объем ограничен, и вполне возможно, что на экзамене Вам встретятся знакомые слова.
Математическое обоснование— Разделы: арифметика (дроби, корни, проценты), алгебра (линейные уравнения, неравенства), геометрия (треугольники, многоугольники, трехмерные фигуры, круг, окружность), математическая статистика, анализ данных . В общем, математика не очень сложная: в объеме знаний за 9 классов школ + задачи по матстатистике.
Аналитическое письмо — Проверяется способность сдающего четко оценивать утверждения и давать соответствующие объяснения, приводить уместные объяснения, примеры, доводы.
Тест состоит из двух заданий. Первое относится к категории «Проблема» (Issue task), где нужно написать эссе, сочинение на одну из двух предложенных тем (45 мин). В принципе обычное сочинение, где Вы должны показать свое умение рассуждать, «философствовать». Часто встречающиеся темы: экология, отношение (или важность) истории, традиции и новации, идеализм-реализм….Проблема может возникнуть, если Вам встретятся незнакомые слова в теме.
Второе задание относится к категории «Аргументация» (Argument task). Вам будет дан небольшой отрывок, где автор из некоторых утверждений, исследований делает определенные выводы. Ваша задача проследить и описать, насколько эти выводы логичны и обоснованы, по возможности найти недостаток и придраться к нему (т.е не учтены такие-то факторы). К примеру, в тексте написано: Было проведено исследование. которое установило, что в домах, где не лифтов. люди более здоровые физически, у них реже возникают проблемы с сердцем ит.д. Автор делает вывод: значит надо убрать везде по возможности лифты, у людей не будет возможности на них ездить, все будут ходить пешком, и будут здоровы. В своем сочинение Вы должны написать. Хорошо, я согласен, что ходить каждый день по лестнице полезно. Но в проведенном исследовании не указано, где живут эти люди, может они живут рядом с лесом и потому более здоровые, не указан их возраст. Потом, если мы везде уберем лифты, не вызовет ли недовольство тех, у кого велосипеды, коляски для малышей, у инвалидов... И т.д. Чем больше найдете подобных причин не согласиться, тем лучше. В заключении: сама идея неплохая, но нужны дополнительные исследования, опросы.
Это реальный пример задания, довольно простой, чаще бывают немного сложнее.
Оба варианта теста (и печатный и компьютеризированный) оцениваются по 600-бальной шкале (от 200 до 800). Но, если в бумажном варианте Вы можете просто пропустить непонятный вопрос и вернуться к нему после, в компьютеризированном следующий вопрос появится только после того как Вы ответите на предыдущий. Компьютер адаптирует степень сложности вопросов к уровню подготовки тестируемого. Тест обычно начинается вопросов средней сложности. Если Вы отвечаете правильно, то следующие вопросы будут сложнее, а это значит, что за них Вы сможете получить большее количество баллов. И наоборот, делаете ошибку в первом тесте-задании, следующие вопросы будут легче, но и баллов за них будет меньше. Следует также учесть, что задания разных типов не объединены в группы, а идут в разнобой. Поэтому за вопрос в начале раздела Вы можете получить 40-50 баллов, а за вопрос в конце – 10-20. Чтобы получить высокий балл за вербальную секцию, достаточно правильно ответить на 80% вопросов, т.е на первые 24 вопроса.
Вы получите итоговую оценку по общему тесту (General Test) отдельно по каждому из трех разделов, даже если Вы не ответили на все вопросы. Если вы не ответили ни на один вопрос раздела, будет выведен результат «NS» (No Score). Оценка зависит от количества вопросов, на которые были даны правильные ответы и от типа их сложности.
Вербальное обоснование оценивается по шкале 200-800, с разбивкой в 10 баллов. Математическое обоснование оценивается по шкале 200-800, с разбивкой в 10 баллов. Аналитическое письмо оценивается по шкале 0-6, с разбивкой в пол-балла.
ПОДГОТОВКА К ЭКЗАМЕНУРекомендуемая продолжительность стандартной программы обучение составляет от 30 академических часов, однако количество часов может быть изменено в зависимости от начального уровня подготовки слушателей. Минимальная продолжительность занятия 2 академических часа.
Наша школа предлагает индивидуальный и групповой курс подготовки к экзамену. Кроме этого в нашей школе перед экзаменом Вы можете сдать пробный экзамен.
ГДЕ МОЖНО СДАТЬ ЭКЗАМЕНПрием международного экзамена GRE на территории РФ осуществляет Американский центр по образованию и тестированию.
Subject Tests. (Предметный тест GRE)Предметные тесты GRE на данный момент проводятся по 8 дисциплинам:
Биохимия, клеточная и молекулярная биология
Во время выполнения теста Вы отмечаете ответы на специальном поле вопросника, где Ваш результат подсчитывается автоматически.
Общее время тестирования — 2 часа 50 минут
ПРИМЕРЫ ОБЩЕГО ТЕСТА – General Test (С ОТВЕТАМИ И ПОЯСНЕНИЯМИ)Verbal Section
Antonyms measure your
• ability to reason from a given concept to its opposite
Each question below consists of a word printed in capital letters followed by ﬁve lettered words or phrases. Choose the lettered word or phrase that is most nearly opposite in meaning to the word in capital letters. Since some of the questions require you to distinguish ﬁne shades of meaning, be sure to consider all the choices before deciding which one is best.
Strategies for Answering
• Remember that antonyms are generally conﬁned to nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
• Look for the word that is most nearly opposite to the given word.
• Try to deﬁne words precisely.
• Make up a sentence using the given word to help establish its meaning.
• Look for possible second meanings before choosing an answer.
• Use your knowledge of preﬁxes and sufﬁxes to help deﬁne words you don’t know.
The best answer is (A). Diffuse means to permit or cause to spread out; only (A) presents an idea that is
in any way opposite to diffuse.
Analogies measure your ability to recognize
• relationships among words and concepts they represent
• parallel relationships
In each of the following questions, a related pair of words or phrases is followed by ﬁve lettered pairs of words or phrases. Select the lettered pair that best expresses a relationship similar to that expressed in the original pair.
COLOR : SPECTRUM :
(A) tone : scale
(B) sound : waves
(C) verse : poem
(D) dimension : space
(E) cell : organism
Strategies for Answering
• Establish a relationship between the given pair before reading the answer choices.
• Consider relationships of kind, size, spatial contiguity, or degree.
• Read all of the options. If more than one seems correct, try to state the relationship more precisely.
• Check to see that you haven’t overlooked a possible second meaning for one of the words.
• Never decide on the best answer without reading all of the answer choices.
The relationship between color and spectrum is not merely that of part to whole, in which case (E) or even (C) might be defended as correct. A spectrum is made up of a progressive, graduated series of colors, as a scale is of a progressive, graduated sequence of tones. Thus, (A) is the correct answer choice. In this instance, the best answer must be selected from a group of fairly close choices.
Sentence completions measure your ability to recognize words or phrases that both logically and stylistically complete the meaning of a sentence.
Each sentence below has one or two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted.
Beneath the sentence are ﬁve lettered words or sets of words. Choose the word or set of words for each
blank that best ﬁts the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
Early ________ of hearing loss is ________ by the fact that the other senses are able to compensate for
moderate amounts of loss, so that people frequently do not know that their hearing is imperfect.
(A) discovery . . indicated
(B) development . . prevented
(C) detection . . complicated
(D) treatment . . facilitated
(E) incidence . . corrected
Strategies for Answering
• Read the incomplete sentence carefully.
• Look for key words or phrases.
• Complete the blank(s) with your own words; see if any options are like yours.
• Pay attention to grammatical cues.
• If there are two blanks, be sure that both parts of your answer choice ﬁ t logically and stylistically
into the sentence.
• After choosing an answer, read the sentence through again to see if it makes sense.
The statement that the other senses compensate for partial loss of hearing indicates that the hearing
loss is not prevented or corrected; therefore, choices (B) and (E) can be eliminated. Furthermore, the
ability to compensate for hearing loss certainly does not facilitate the early treatment (D) or the early
discovery (A) of hearing loss. It is reasonable, how-ever, that early detection of hearing loss is complicated by the ability to compensate for it.
The best answer is (C).
Reading Comprehension Questions
Reading comprehension questions measure your ability to
• read with understanding, insight, and discrimination
• analyze a written passage from several perspectives
Passages are taken from the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
The passage is followed by questions based on its content. After reading the passage, choose the best answer to each question. Answer all questions following the passage on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
(1) Picture-taking is a technique both for annexing the
(2) objective world and for expressing the singular self.
(3) Photographs depict objective realities that already exist,
(4) though only the camera can disclose them. And they
(5) depict an individual photographer’s temperament, dis-
(6) covering itself through the camera’s cropping of reality.
(7)That is, photography has two antithetical ideals: in the
(8)first, photography is about the world, and the photogra-
(9)pher is a mere observer who counts for little; but in the
(11)second, photography is the instrument of intrepid,
(12)questing subjectivity and the photographer is all.
(13)These conflicting ideals arise from a fundamental
(14)uneasiness on the part of both photographers and view-
(15)ers of photographs toward the aggressive component in
(16)“taking” a picture. Accordingly, the ideal of a photogra-
(17)pher as observer is attractive because it implicitly denies
(18)that picture-taking is an aggressive act. The issue, of
(19)course, is not so clear-cut. What photographers do can-
(20)not be characterized as simply predatory or as simply,
(21)and essentially, benevolent. As a consequence, one ideal of
(22)picture-taking or the other is always being rediscovered
(25)An important result of the coexistence of these two
(26)ideals is a recurrent ambivalence toward photography’s
(27)means. Whatever the claims that photography might
(28)make to be a form of personal expression on a par with
(29)painting, its originality is inextricably linked to the pow-
(30)ers of a machine. The steady growth of these powers has
(31)made possible the extraordinary informativeness and
(32)imaginative formal beauty of many photographs, like
(33)Harold Edgerton’s high-speed photographs of a bullet
(34)hitting its target or of the swirls and eddies of a tennis
(35)stroke. But as cameras become more sophisticated, more
(36)automated, some photographers are tempted to disarm
(37)themselves or to suggest that they are not really armed,
(38)preferring to submit themselves to the limits imposed by
(39)premodern camera technology because a cruder, less
(40)high-powered machine is thought to give more interest-
(41)ing or emotive results, to leave more room for creative
(42)accident. For example, it has been virtually a point of
(43)honor for many photographers, including Walker Evans
(44)and Cartier-Bresson, to refuse to use modern equipment.
(45)These photographers have come to doubt the value of the
(46)camera as an instrument of “fast seeing.” Cartier-Bresson,
(47)in fact, claims that the modern camera may see too fast.
(48)This ambivalence toward photographic means deter-
(49)mines trends in taste. The cult of the future (of faster and
(50)faster seeing) alternates over time with the wish to return
(51)to a purer past — when images had a handmade quality.
(52)This nostalgia for some pristine state of the photographic
(53)enterprise is currently widespread and underlies the
(54)present-day enthusiasm for daguerreotypes and the work
(55)of forgotten nineteenth-century provincial photographers.
(56)Photographers and viewers of photographs, it seems, need
(57)periodically to resist their own knowingness.
According to the passage, the two antithetical ideals of photography differ primarily in the
(A) value that each places on the beauty of the ﬁnished product
(B) emphasis that each places on the emotional impact of the ﬁnished product
(C) degree of technical knowledge that each requires of the photographer
(D) extent of the power that each requires of the photographer’s equipment
(E) way in which each deﬁnes the role of the photographer
Strategies for Answering
• Read the passage closely, then proceed to the questions. or Skim the passage, then reread the passage closely as you answer the questions. You may want to try it both ways with sample questions to see what works best for you.
• Answer questions based on the content of the passage.
• Separate main ideas from supporting ideas.
• Separate the author’s own ideas from information being presented.
• Ask yourself...
– What is this about?
– What are the key points?
– How does the main idea relate to other ideas in the passage?
– What words deﬁ ne relationships among ideas?
The best answer to this question is (E). Photography’s two ideals are presented in lines 7–11. The main emphasis in the description of these two ideals is on the relationship of the photographer to the enterprise of photography, with the photographer described in the one as a passive observer and in the other as an active questioner. (E) identiﬁes this key feature in the description of the two ideals—the way in which each ideal conceives or deﬁnes the role of the photographer in photography. (A) through (D) present aspects of photography that are mentioned in the passage, but none of these choices represents a primary difference between the two ideals of photography.
Analytical Writing Section
Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views.
“In our time, specialists of all kinds are highly overrated. We need more generalists—people who can provide broad perspectives.”
Strategies for this Topic
This claim raises several related questions:
What does it mean to be a generalist or a specialist, and what value do they have for society?
Does society actually need more generalists, and are specialists, in fact, “highly overrated”?
There are several basic positions you could take on this issue: Yes, society needs more generalists and places too high a value on specialists.
No, the opposite is true. Or, it depends on various factors.
Or: both groups are important in today’s culture; neither is overvalued.
Your analysis might draw examples from a particular society or country, from one or more areas
of society, or from various situations. It might focus on the role of generalists and specialists in relation to communications, transportation, politics, information, or technology. Any of these approaches is valid, as long as you use relevant reasons and examples to support your position.
Before you stake out a position, take a few moments to reread the claim. To analyze it, consider
questions such as these:
• What are the main differences between specialists and generalists? What are the strong points of each?
• Do these differences always hold in various professions or situations? Could there be some specialists, for example, who also need to have very broad knowledge and general abilities to perform their work well?
• How do generalists and specialists function in your ﬁeld?
• What value do you think society places on specialists and generalists? Are specialists
overvalued in some situations, and not in others?
• Does society really need more generalists than it has? If so, what needs would they serve?
Now you can organize your thoughts into two groups:
• Reasons and examples to support the claim
• Reasons and examples to support an opposing point of view
If you ﬁnd one view clearly more persuasive than the other, consider developing an argument from that perspective. As you build your argument, keep in mind the other points, which you could argue against.
If both groups have compelling points, consider developing a position supporting, not the stated claim, but a more limited or more complex claim. Then you can use reasons and examples from both sides to justify your position.
Essay Response* – Score 6
In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement, both positive and negative effects among persons in Western society call for a balance in which there are both specialists and generalists. Specialists are necessary in order to allow society as a whole to properly and usefully assimilate the masses of new information and knowledge that have come out of research and have been widely disseminated through mass global media. As the head of Pharmacology at my university once said (and I paraphrase): “I can only research what I do because there are so many who have come before me to whom I can turn for basic knowledge. It is only because of each of the narrowly focussed individuals at each step that a full and true understanding of the complexities of life can be had. Each person can only hold enough knowledge to add one small rung to the ladder, but together we can climb to the moon.” This illustrates the point that our societies level of knowledge and technology is at a stage in which there simply must be specialists in order for our society to take advantage of the information available to us. Simply put, without specialists, our society would ﬁnd itself bogged down in the Sargasso sea of information overload. While it was ﬁ ne for early physicists to learn and understand the few laws and ideas that existed during their times, now, no one individual can possibly digest and assimilate all of the knowledge in any given area. On the other hand, Over specialization means narrow foci in which people can lose the larger picture. No one can hope to understand the human body by only inspecting one’s own toe-nails. What we learn from a narrow focus may be internally logically coherent but may be irrelevant or fallacious within the framework of a broader perspective. Further, if we inspect only our toe-nails, we may conclude that the whole body is hard and white. Useful conclusions and thus perhaps useful inventions must come by sharing among specialists. Simply throwing out various discovieries means we have a pile of useless discoveries, it is only when one can make with them a mosaic that we can see that they may form a picture. Not only may over-specialization be dangerous in terms of the truth, purity and cohesion of knowledge, but it can also serve to drown moral or universal issues. Generalists and only generalists can see a broad enough picture to realize and introduce to the world the problems of the environment. With specialization, each person focuses on their research and their goals. Thus, industrialization, expansion, and new technologies are driven ahead. Meanwhile no individual can see the who lisitc view of our global existence in which true advancement may mean stiﬂing individual specialists for the greater good of all. Finally, over-specialization in a people’s daily lives and jobs has meant personal and psychological compartmentalization. People are forced into pigeon holes early in life (at least by university) and must conciously attempt to consume external forms of stimuli and information in order not to be lost in their small and isolated universe. Not only does this make for narrowly focused and generally properly educated individuals, but it guarantees a sense of loss of community, often followed by a feeling of psychological displacement and personal dissatisfaction. Without generalists, society becomes inward looking and eventually inefﬁcient. Without a society that recongnizes the impotance of braod-mindedness and fora for sharing generalities, individuals become isolated. Thus, while our form of society necessitates specialists, generalists are equally important. Specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting ﬁeld and know what the stakes are.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
This is an outstanding analysis of the issue—insightful, well reasoned, and highly effective in its use of language. The introductory paragraph announces the writer’s position on the issue and provides the context within which the writer will develop that position: “In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to increasing life complexity and psychological displacement . . . .” The argument itself has two parts. The ﬁrst part presents a compelling case for specialization, primarily in the ﬁeld of edicine. The second part presents an equally compelling, well-organized case against overspecialization based on three main reasons:
• logical (narrowly trained specialists often fail to understand the whole)
• moral (usually generalists understand what is needed for “the greater good”)
• personal (specializing/pigeonholing too early can be psychologically damaging)
The argument’s careful line of reasoning is further strengthened by the skillful use of expert testimony
(quotation from a prominent medical researcher) and vivid metaphor (to inspect only one’s toenails is to
ignore the whole body). It is not only the reasoning that distinguishes this response. The language is precise and often ﬁgurative (“bogged down in a Sargasso sea of information overload,” “a pile of useless discoveries,” and “specialists drive us forward in a series of thrusts, while generalists make sure we are still on the jousting ﬁeld”). The reader is constantly guided through the argument by transitional phrases and ideas that help organize the ideas and move the argument forward.
This is an exceptionally ﬁne response to the topic.
Essay Response – Score 5
Specialists are not overrated today. More generalists may be needed, but not to overshadow the specialists. Generalists can provide a great deal of information on many topics of interest with a broad range of ideas. People who look at the overall view of things can help with some of the large problems our society faces today. But specialists are necessary to gain a better understanding of more in depth methods to solve problems or ﬁxing things. One good example of why specialists are not overrated is in the medical ﬁeld. Doctors are necessary for people to live healthy lives. When a person is sick, he may go to a general practitioner to ﬁnd out the cause of his problems. Usually, this kind of “generalized” doctor can help most ailments with simple and effective treatments. Sometimes, though, a sickness may go beyond a family doctor’s knowledge or the prescribed treatments don’t work the way they should. When a sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed as a disease that requires more care than a family doctor can provide, he may be referred to a specialist. For instance, a person with constant breathing problems that require hospitalization may be suggested to visit an asthma specialist. Since a family doctor has a great deal of knowledge of medicine, he can decide when his methods are not effective and the patient needs to see someone who knows more about the speciﬁc problem; someone who knows how it begins, progresses, and speciﬁed treatments. This is an excellent example of how a generalied person may not be equipped enough to handle something as well as a specialized one can. Another example of a specialist who is needed instead of a generalist involves teaching. In grammar school, children learn all the basic principles of reading, writing, and arithematic. But as children get older and progress in school, they gain a better understanding of the language and mathematical processes. As the years in school increase, they need to learn more and more speciﬁcs and details about various subjects. They start out by learning basic math concepts such as addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. A few years later, they are ready to begin algebraic concepts, geometry, and calculus. They are also ready to learn more advanced vocabulary, the principles of how all life is composed and how it functions. One teacher or professor can not provide as much in depth discussion on all of these topics as well as one who has learned the speciﬁcs and studied mainly to know everything that is currently known about one of these subjects. Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects and ﬁnding out new facts on the old ones.These are only two examples of why specialists are not highly overrated and more generalists are not necessary to the point of overshadowing them. Generalists are needed to give the public a broad understanding of some things. But , specialists are important to help maintain the status, health, and safety of our society. Specialists are very necessary.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 5
This writer presents a well-developed analysis of the complexities of the issue by discussing the need for both the generalist and the specialist. The argument is rooted in two extended examples, both well chosen. The ﬁrst (paragraph 2) begins with a discussion of the necessity for medical generalists (the general practitioner) as well as specialists and moves into an example within the example (breathing problems and the need for an asthma specialist). This extension from the general to the speciﬁc haracterizes the example in the next paragraph as well. There, the discussion centers on education from elementary to high school, from basic arithmetic to calculus. The smooth development is aided by the use of appropriate transitions: “but,” “usually,” and “for instance,” among others. The essay ends by revisiting the writer’s thesis. While the writer handles language and syntax well, several lapses in clarity keep this otherwise well argued response out of the 6 category. The problems vary from the lack of a pronoun referent (“Whena sickness progresses or becomes diagnosed, . . . he may be referred to a specialist”) to an error in parallel structure (“how it begins, progresses and speciﬁ ed treatments”), to loose syntax and imprecise language (“Generalized teachers are required to begin molding students at a very early age so they can get ready for the future ahead of them in gaining more facts about the basic subjects.”)
Essay Response – Score 4
Specialists are just what their name says: people who specialize in one part of a very general scheme of things. A person can’t know everything there is to know about everything. This is why specialists are helpful. You can take one general concept and divide it up three ways and have three fully developed different concepts instead of one general concept that no one really knows about. Isn’t it better to really know something well, than to know everything half-way. Take a specialed teacher compared to a generaled teacher. The generaled teacher knows how to deal with most students. She knows how to teach a subject to a student that is on a normal level. But what would happen to the child in the back of the room with dyslexia? She would be so lost in that generaled classroom that she would not only not learn, but be frustrated and quite possibly, have low self-esteem and hate school. If there is a specialed teacher there who specializes in children with learning disabilities, she can teach the generaled teacher how to cope with this student as well as modify the curriculum so that the student can learn along with the others. The specialed teacher can also take that child for a few hours each day and work with her on her reading difﬁculty one-on-one, which a generaled teacher never would have time to do. A generaled eacher can’t know what a specialed teacher knows and a specialed teacher can’t know what a generaled teacher knows. But the two of them working together and specializing in their own things can really get a lot more accomplished. The specialed teacher is also trained to work on the child’s self-esteem, which has a big part in how successful this child will be. Every child in the United States of America has the right to an equal education. How can a child with a learning disability receive the same equal education as a generaled student if there was no specialist there to help both teacher and child? Another thing to consider is how a committee is supposed to work together. Each person has a special task to accomplish and when these people all come together, with their tasks ﬁnished, every aspect of the community’s work is completely covered. Nothing is left undone. In this case there are many different specialists to meet the general goal of the committee. When you take into account that a specialist contributes only a small part of the generalist aspect, it seems ridiculous to say that specialists are overrated. The generalists looks to the specialists any time they need help or clariﬁcation on their broad aspect. Specialists and generalists are part of the same system, so if a specialist is overrated, then so is a generalist.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4
This is an adequate analysis of the issue. After a somewhat confusing attempt to deﬁne “specialists” in the introductory paragraph, the writer presents a pertinent example (the special education teacher) to illustrate the importance of specialists. The example dominates the response and contributes positively to the overall score of 4. The second example, how a committee works, is less persuasive. However, it does seem to help clarify the writer’s deﬁnition of “general” as an umbrella term meaning the total collection of what specialists know about a topic. Although the writer’s views about the relationship between “generalist” and “specialist” are unusual, they do become clear in the conclusion of the essay. Yet, these ideas are not developed in sufﬁcient depth or with enough logical control to earn a score higher than 4.The writing is generally error free. There are few problems in sentence structure, grammar, and usage, although the phrasing is at times imprecise and wordy. Overall, this response displays clearly adequate control of the elements of written English.
Essay Response – Score 3
To quote the saying, “Jack of all trades, master of none,” would be my position on the statement. I feel specialists in all areas of knowledge lead to a higher standard of living for everyone. Specializing in different areas allows us to use each others talents to the highest level and maximize potential. As an example, if a person required brain surgery, would they rather have a brain surgeon or a general practitioner doing the work? Clearly a specialist would do the better job and give the patient a chance at a better life. A university education starts by laying the groundwork for general knowledge but then narrows down to a speciﬁc ﬁeld. General knowledge and a broad prospective are important, but if there was no focus on speciﬁc areas, our overall knowledge as a population would be seriously lessened. Another example of specialists not being overrated would be international trade. Not every nation can provide for themselves. They need to get products and ideas from other parts of the world because they are better at providing them. This allows for a growing economy if two different nations can provide each other with two different products. If one country can produce oranges better than another, t should trade the oranges for the ﬁsh that it can not produce. If generalizing was the normal thing to do and both countries tried to produce all kinds of products, the countries would probably survive, but not have the standard of living they presently have.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
The writer’s position is clear: specialists are important and necessary. However, the position is not dequately supported with reasons or logical examples. Paragraph 1 presents an appropriate example of the brain surgeon versus the general practitioner. However, the example of an increasingly narrow university education in paragraph 2, contains only two sentences and is seriously undeveloped. It does little to advance the writer’s position. Paragraph 3 offers yet another example, the most developed of all. Unfortunately, this example is not clearly logical. The writer tries to argue that the “specialist” country (one that is a better producer of oranges) is superior to the “generalist” country (presumably one that produces oranges as well as other products). This generalist country, the writer tells us, would be inferior to the other. This conclusion does not emerge logically from the writer’s argument, and it seems to be at odds with everyday reality. Although language is used with some imprecision throughout the essay, the writer’s meaning is not obscured. The main reasons for the score of 3 are the lack of sufﬁcient development and inappropriate use of examples.
Essay Response – Score 2
In the situation of health I feel that specialists are very important. For example if a person has heart problems, choose a heart specialist over a general medicine Dr. However if a person is having a wide range of syptoms, perhaps choose a Dr. with a wide range of experience might be more helpful.It also depends on the type of problem you are having. For example I would not suggest taking a troubled child to a theorpist who specializes in marriage problems. In some cases have a specialists helps to insure that you are getting the best possibly treatment. On the other hand dealing with a person who has a wide range of experience may be able to ﬁnd different ways of dealing with a particular problem. Since the quotation did not state exactely what type of specialist we are dealing with it is also hard to determine the importance of having a specialist is. For example the could be health or problems with a car, or basically anything else. I feel that this information should not have been left out. I guess the bottom line is that I feel sometimes a specialist is very important.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
This is a seriously ﬂ awed analysis of the issue. The response argues in favor of specialists, but neither the reasons nor the examples are persuasive. The example of not taking “a troubled child to see a therapist who specializes in marriage problems” is both simplistic and off the mark since it differentiates between two specialists, not between a generalist and a specialist. The sentences are so poorly formed and phrased that the argument is at times hard to follow. Nevertheless, this is not a 1 essay: the writer presents a position on the issue, develops that position with some very weak analysis, and communicates some ideas clearly.
Essay Response – Score 1
I disagree with the statement about specialists, we need specialists who take individual areas and specialize. A generalists can pinpoint a problem. He or she cannot determine the magnitude of the problem. A specialist can ﬁnd the root of the problem. When he or she has years working in that speciﬁc ﬁeld. For example, when i got sick i went to a doctor. He did blood work, x-ray, talk to me, ect. He prescribed me a medicine. I got worst. So i decided to go another doctor. Now, i am doing great. A specialist knows the facts right away. Otherwise, it will take longer or not at all.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 1
This response presents a fundamentally deﬁcient discussion of the issue. The ﬁrst sentence states the riter’s position in support of specialists, but that position is not followed by a coherent argument. Some of the ideas seem contradictory (e.g., “generalists can pinpoint a problem”) and the example is onfusing. If the essay explained that the ﬁrst (unsuccessful) doctor was a generalist and the second (successful) doctor was a specialist, the example would be useful. However, as written, the example is unclear and even misleading. The concluding statement only adds to the confusion. Since most of the sentences are short and choppy, the ideas they try to communicate are also choppy. The writer needs to provide transitional phrases and ideas to bring logical cohesion to this response. Also, basic errors in usage and grammar are pervasive, but it is primarily the lack of a coherent argument that makes this response a 1.
Analyze an Argument Task
Discuss how well reasoned you ﬁnd this argument.
“Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reﬂecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reﬂective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.”
Strategies for this Topic
This argument cites a particular hospital statistic to support the general conclusion that “investing in high-quality protective gear and reﬂective equipment” will reduce the risk of being severely injured in a roller skating accident. In developing your analysis, you should ask yourself whether the hospital statistic actually supports the conclusion. You might want to ask yourself such questions as:
• What percentage of all roller skaters goes to the emergency room after roller skating accidents?
• Are the people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents representative of roller skaters in general?
• Are there people who are injured in roller skating accidents who do not go to the emergency room?
• Were the roller skaters who went to the emergency room severely injured?
• Were the 25 percent of roller skaters who were wearing protective gear injured just as severely as the 75 percent who were not wearing the gear?
• Are streets and parking lots inherently more dangerous for roller skating than other places?
• Would mid-quality gear and equipment be just as effective as high-quality gear and equipment in reducing the risk of severe injury while roller skating?
• Are there factors other than gear and equipment—e.g., weather conditions, visibility, skill of the skaters—that might be more closely correlated with the risk of roller skating injuries?
Considering possible answers to questions such as these will help you identify assumptions, alternative explanations, and weaknesses that you can develop in your critique of the argument.
Essay Response* – Score 6
The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at ﬁrst glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all, it is the intent of these products to either provent accidents from occurring in the ﬁrst place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur. However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more signiﬁcant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest ﬁ nancially and psychologically in protective gear. First of all, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear—preventative gear (such as light reﬂ ecting material) and protective gear (such as helmets). Preventative gear is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the “other” is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneﬁcial. The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. If is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and repsonsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the ﬁrst place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards. The statistic also goes not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and week-ends (when doctors’ ofﬁces are closed), skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneﬁcial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative beneﬁt as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the beneﬁt provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful. The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the beneﬁts are needed. After all, a false conﬁdence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
This outstanding response demonstrates the writer’s insightful analytical skills. The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic’s fallacious reasoning could “. . . inspire people to over invest ﬁnancially and psychologically in protective gear,” is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument’s root ﬂaws. Speciﬁcally, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:
• that preventive and protective gear are not the same
• that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious
• that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the injuries
• that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneﬁcial
The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed. In addition, the writing is succinct, economical, and generally error-free. Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise. In sum, this response exempliﬁes the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide. If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the paper could still have received a 6.
Essay Response – Score 5
The argument presented is limited but useful. It indicates a possible relationship between a high percentage of accidents and a lack of protective equipment. The statistics cited compel a further investigation of the usefulness of protective gear in preventing or mitigating roller-skating related injuries. However, the conclusion that protective gear and reﬂective equipment would “greatly educe.Risk of being severely injured” is premature. Data is lacking with reference to the total population of skaters and the relative levels of experience, skill and physical coordination of that population. It is entirely possible that further research would indicate that most serious injury is averted by the skater’s ability to react quickly and skillfully in emergency situations. Another area of investigation necessary before conclusions can be reached is identiﬁcation of the types of injuries that occur and the various causes of those injuries. The article fails to identify the most prevalent types of roller-skating related injuries. It also fails to correlate the absence of protective gear and reﬂective equipment to those injuries. For example, if the majority of injuries are skin abrasions and closed-head injuries, then a case can be made for the usefulness of protective clothing mentioned. Likewise, if injuries are caused by collision with vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars) or pedestrians, then light-reﬂective equipment might mitigate the occurences. However, if the primary types of injuries are soft-tissue injuries such as torn ligaments and muscles, back injuries and the like, then a greater case could be made for training and experience as preventative measures.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 5
This strong response gets right to the work of critiquing the argument, observing that it “indicates a possible relationship” but that its conclusion “is premature.” It raises three central questions that, if answered, might undermine the soundness of the argument:
• What are the characteristics of the total population of skaters?
• What is the usefulness of protective or reﬂ ective gear in preventing or mitigating roller skating-related injuries?
• What are the types of injuries sustained and their causes?
The writer develops each of these questions by considering possible answers that would either strengthen or weaken the argument. The paper does not analyze the argument as insightfully or develop the critique as fully as required for a 6 paper, but the clear organization, strong control of language, and substantial degree of development warrant more than a score of 4.
Essay Response – Score 4
Although the argument stated above discusses the importance of safety equipment as signiﬁcant part of avoiding injury, the statistics quoted are vague and inconclusive. Simply because 75 percent of the people involved in roller-skating accidents are not wearing the stated equipment does not automatically implicate the lack of equipment as the cause of injury. The term “accidents” may imply a great variety of injuries. The types of injuries one could incur by not wearing the types of equipment stated above are minor head injuries; skin abrasions or possibly bone fracture of a select few areas such as knees, elbows, hands, etc. (which are in fact most vulnerable to this sport); and/or injuries due to practising the sport during low light times of the day. During any physically demanding activity or sport people are subjected to a wide variety of injuries which cannot be avoided with protective clothing or light reﬂective aterials. These injuries include inner trauma (e.g., heart-attack); exhaustion; strained muscles, ligaments, or tendons; etc. Perhaps the numbers and percentages of people injured during roller-skating, even without protective equipment, would decrease greatly if people participating in the sport had proper training, good physical health, warm-up properly before beginning (stretching), as well as take other measures to prevent possible injury, such as common-sense, by refraining from performing the activity after proper lighting has ceased and knowing your personal limitations as an individual and athlete. The statistics used in the above reasoning are lacking in proper direction considering their assertions and therefore must be further examined and modiﬁed so that proper conclusions can be reached.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4
This adequate response targets the argument’s vague and inconclusive “statistics.” The essay identiﬁes and critiques the illogical reasoning that results from the misguided use of the argument’s statistics:
• that non-use of equipment may be “automatically” assumed to be the cause of injury
• that “accidents” may refer to minor injuries
• that injuries may result from other causes —skating in the dark, failure to train or warm-up properly, failure to recognize one’s physical limitations
The writer competently grasps the weaknesses of the argument. The ideas are clear and connected, but the response lacks transitional phrases. Development, too, is only adequate. Control of language is better than adequate. The writer achieves both control and clarity and ably conforms to the conventions of written English. Overall, though, this 4 response lacks the more thorough development that would warrant a score of 5.
Essay Response – Score 3
The arguement is well presented and supported, but not completely well reasoned. It is clear and concisely written. The content is logically and smoothly presented. Statistics cited are used to develop support for the recommendation, that roller skaters who invest in protective gear and reﬂective equipment can reduce their risk of severe, accidental injuries. Examples of the types of protective equipment are described for the reader. Unfortunately, the author of the argement fails to note that merely by purchasing gear and reﬂective equipment that the skater will be protected. This is, of course, falacious if the skater fails to use the equipment, or uses it incorrectly or inappropriately. It is also an unnecessary assumption that a skater need purchase high-quality gear for the same degree of effectiveness to be achieved. The argument could be improved by taking these issues into consideration, and making recommendations for education and safety awareness to skaters.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
The ﬁrst half of this generally well-written but limited response merely describes the argument. The second half of the paper identiﬁes two assumptions of the argument:
• that people who purchase protective gear will use the gear
• that high-quality gear is more effective than other gear
These points are sufﬁ cient to constitute some analysis and thus warrant a score of 3. However, neither of these analytic points is developed sufﬁciently to merit a score of 4.
Essay Response – Score 2
To reduce the accidents from roller skating we should consider about it causes and effects concurrently to ﬁnd the best solution. Basically the roller-skating players are children, they had less experiences to protect themselves from any kind of dangerous. Therefore, it should be a responsible of adult to take care them. Adult should recommend their child to wear any protective clothing, set the rules and look after them while they are playing. In the past roller-skating is limited in the skate yard but when it became popular people normally play it on the street way) Therefore the number of accidents from roller-skating is increased. The skate manufacturer should have a responsibility in producing a protective clothing. They should promote and sell them together with skates. The government or state should set the regulation of playing skate on the street way like they did with the bicycle. To prevent this kind of accident is the best solution but it needs a coorperation among us to have a concious mind to beware and realize its dangerous.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
This seriously ﬂawed response, rather than critiquing the argument, suggests ways for adults and skate manufacturers to ensure that children wear protective clothing. In essence, the writer is uncritically accepting the argument.The response exhibits serious and frequent problems in sentence structure and language use. Errors—word choice, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, punctuation—are numerous and sometimes interfere with meaning, e.g., “. . . it needs a cooperation among us to have a concious mind to beware and realize its dangerous.”
This essay earns a 2 because it demonstrates both serious linguistic weaknesses and failure to construct a critique based on logical analysis.
Essay Response – Score 1
the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reﬂecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the treatment. the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reﬂecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective equipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the treatment. the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident since there are 75% Of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protectivel clothing. Such as hemlets, kenn pads, etc. or any light-reﬂecting materials such as clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads ets. if they do have protective eqipment that only a quarter accident may happen, also that can greatly reduce their risk ofbeing severyly injuryed in an accident, that can save some lives and a lot of energy and money for the treatment.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 1
This fundamentally deﬁ cient response uncritically accepts the reasoning of the topic: “the protective equipment do help to reduce the risk of being severyly injuryed in an accident.” There is no evidence, though, that the writer is able to understand or analyze the argument; what follows, except for a few additional words, merely copies the topic. This two-sentence response is repeated—verbatim—two more times.Language and usage are equally problematic. The few words that have been added, in combination with the words of the topic, result in incoherence. In sum, this essay ﬁ ts all of the scoring guide descriptors for a 1.
Все примеры экзаменов приведены в том виде в котором они были написаны тестируемыми, включая грамматические и стилистические ошибки.