Instant food has improved our quality of life by making it quicker and easier to prepare meals.
The technological advances of the past decades have affected many aspects of human life. Indeed, not even the most mundane of tasks have been left untouched by technical innovation. Food preparation is a good case in point. Nowadays we do not need to spend so much time in our kitchens preparing meals. In my view, this time savings, without a doubt, has made our life better so that we can take full advantage of it.
In fact, it is difficult to imagine how much work was involved in preparing meals a hundred years ago. There were no supermarkets offering different kinds of preprocessed food. People had to buy many basic ingredients such as meat, vegetables, and cereals in the market and then cut, chop, boil, and stew all that stuff to make it edible. It was a tedious and lengthy process. The fate of many women of those times revolved around housework, and cooking was a major reason why they had no opportunity to liberate themselves from their daily chores.
In this day and age, however, modern life is more merciful to a woman. Thanks to the many time-saving solutions that the food industry now offers, a woman does not need to be tied up in the kitchen all the time. A typical everyday meal can be easily prepared from precooked/ready-made food products. Both men and women now can spend more time on more important activities such as building a career, playing with their children, or doing sports.
In addition, simplified food preparation has had an impact on our recreational activities too. People no longer have to take a lot of things with them to prepare their meals when on a long trip. They can rely on canned food and thus have more time to enjoy their holiday/vacation.
To sum up, instant food has changed our life in many ways. It allows us to devote our precious time to more significant business or to the things we like the most. People may now spend more time with their families, concentrate on career development, or have a great time traveling.
Friday, September 4, 2009
TOEFL essay
The government should spend less money on space exploration.
The twentieth century witnessed tremendous breakthroughs in space exploration. Never before has humankind been able to explore our planet and other planets of the solar system with such ability. The progress has been made possible by the only institution that can afford to allocate so many billions of dollars: the government. However, nowadays some people question whether we should continue to throw away that much money on space exploration. They point out that the results are far less tangible than those of investments in other areas, and thus argue that spending on space exploration should be reduced. In my view, curtailing our space programs would be both counterproductive and short-sighted; indeed, I believe we should not only continue funding these programs, but also find ways to expand them.
First, space exploration not only satisfies scientific curiosity, but also changes our perception of life. In the middle ages, people believed that the world was flat. They had a very simple understanding of what our universe looked like. This seriously influenced many aspects of their life, such as religious beliefs, scientific inquiry, and daily activities. They could not comprehend that the structure of the universe is much more complex than their conception of it. We humans could still live in such obscurantism if there was no government funding of space exploration.
Secondly, our expensive space programs have given a lot of benefits to ordinary people. There are plenty of inventions that we are used to using on a regular basis and don’t even realize that they were made possible because of space exploration. Satellite dishes, new composite materials widely used in cars and planes, and life-saving medical devices were all either direct or indirect results of space programs. If the government had not subsidized space exploration, we might not have all the conveniences of life we enjoy today.
In conclusion, the belief that the government should limit the funding of space exploration is shortsighted. Space exploration has enriched our understanding of the world we live in and has made life easier as well. The government should not cut its spending on space exploration even though some people do not understand the benefits it brings.
The twentieth century witnessed tremendous breakthroughs in space exploration. Never before has humankind been able to explore our planet and other planets of the solar system with such ability. The progress has been made possible by the only institution that can afford to allocate so many billions of dollars: the government. However, nowadays some people question whether we should continue to throw away that much money on space exploration. They point out that the results are far less tangible than those of investments in other areas, and thus argue that spending on space exploration should be reduced. In my view, curtailing our space programs would be both counterproductive and short-sighted; indeed, I believe we should not only continue funding these programs, but also find ways to expand them.
First, space exploration not only satisfies scientific curiosity, but also changes our perception of life. In the middle ages, people believed that the world was flat. They had a very simple understanding of what our universe looked like. This seriously influenced many aspects of their life, such as religious beliefs, scientific inquiry, and daily activities. They could not comprehend that the structure of the universe is much more complex than their conception of it. We humans could still live in such obscurantism if there was no government funding of space exploration.
Secondly, our expensive space programs have given a lot of benefits to ordinary people. There are plenty of inventions that we are used to using on a regular basis and don’t even realize that they were made possible because of space exploration. Satellite dishes, new composite materials widely used in cars and planes, and life-saving medical devices were all either direct or indirect results of space programs. If the government had not subsidized space exploration, we might not have all the conveniences of life we enjoy today.
In conclusion, the belief that the government should limit the funding of space exploration is shortsighted. Space exploration has enriched our understanding of the world we live in and has made life easier as well. The government should not cut its spending on space exploration even though some people do not understand the benefits it brings.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
TOEFL essay
Extroverts are better leaders than introverts
There is a widely held opinion that an outgoing personality is an indispensable characteristic that every good leader must possess. Many people believe that introverts are not able to take a leadership position in society. Their disposition is simply not suitable for this. I think this is an incorrect assumption and being a successful leader does not necessarily mean you have to be an extrovert.
First of all, there is a misconception that leaders are only those who are capable of assembling people in a group and leading them to a certain goal which not all members of the group are able to understand because they lack the characteristics of a visionary leader. Of course, a person who is talkative and is energized by other people seems to be the right candidate for this task. And this is why extroverts are thriving. They seem to be created for this role. However, I do not think we should limit the notion of leadership to the ability of managing a group of people. We should not overlook the fact that introverts can also lead the people in their own way. Artists, writers and scientists whose work involves creative thinking and requires a great deal of concentration can also establish new trends and pathways for others. These people may act out of their passion and dedication to the work they are doing. They may display signs of aloofness, but people still like them and the values they bring to the table. These inward-looking people may even change the world we live in. This is what makes the notion/idea that extroverts are inherently better leaders so shallow.
In addition, extroverts, without a doubt, outnumber introverts. They are dominant among politicians, CEO, and entertainers. We live in a world run by extroverts. It is likely the very fact that there are so many successful extroverts around has convinced people to consider them better leaders. It is hard for a person who easily gets tired of talking with people to demonstrate his or her talent for leadership. But that does not necessarily mean that this talent is somehow inferior to an extrovert’s.
In conclusion, extroverts outnumber introverts, but introverts may be good leaders too. Their leadership skills may manifest itself in a different way. But this difference should not downplay introverts’ ability to be good leaders.
There is a widely held opinion that an outgoing personality is an indispensable characteristic that every good leader must possess. Many people believe that introverts are not able to take a leadership position in society. Their disposition is simply not suitable for this. I think this is an incorrect assumption and being a successful leader does not necessarily mean you have to be an extrovert.
First of all, there is a misconception that leaders are only those who are capable of assembling people in a group and leading them to a certain goal which not all members of the group are able to understand because they lack the characteristics of a visionary leader. Of course, a person who is talkative and is energized by other people seems to be the right candidate for this task. And this is why extroverts are thriving. They seem to be created for this role. However, I do not think we should limit the notion of leadership to the ability of managing a group of people. We should not overlook the fact that introverts can also lead the people in their own way. Artists, writers and scientists whose work involves creative thinking and requires a great deal of concentration can also establish new trends and pathways for others. These people may act out of their passion and dedication to the work they are doing. They may display signs of aloofness, but people still like them and the values they bring to the table. These inward-looking people may even change the world we live in. This is what makes the notion/idea that extroverts are inherently better leaders so shallow.
In addition, extroverts, without a doubt, outnumber introverts. They are dominant among politicians, CEO, and entertainers. We live in a world run by extroverts. It is likely the very fact that there are so many successful extroverts around has convinced people to consider them better leaders. It is hard for a person who easily gets tired of talking with people to demonstrate his or her talent for leadership. But that does not necessarily mean that this talent is somehow inferior to an extrovert’s.
In conclusion, extroverts outnumber introverts, but introverts may be good leaders too. Their leadership skills may manifest itself in a different way. But this difference should not downplay introverts’ ability to be good leaders.
Monday, August 31, 2009
TOEFL essay
Medical care should be free for everybody.
Many countries have debated issues related to medical care, and in some countries, such as the US, this debate is ongoing. The question is this: should medical care be free or should people have to pay for it?” I think that free medical care is a much better option for several reasons.
First of all, when people have to pay for the medical care it leaves many of them without any medical treatment at all simply because not all of the people can afford it. It goes without saying that rich people have access to any kind of treatment regardless of cost. But people who have much lower incomes suffer greatly and are unable to pay their medical bills. They sometimes have no other choice than to die. There are plenty of examples of people who are denied treatment because they do not have insurance that would cover the cost of the treatment.
Second of all, free medical care is a much more effective way of providing people with treatment. This medical care is actually not entirely free. Such universal medical care is subsidized by taxes. Citizens pay small, affordable sums of money allowing medical care to be free for everybody. In my view, it is quite a fair and efficient system that brings more sense of security to the people and makes the whole nation healthier. Many countries, such as France, England, and Canada, have chosen this type of system, which has made it possible to increase the life expectancy to higher than in the US, where medical care is not free.
In conclusion, I believe that free medical care ensures that people receive medical care in times of need and this is the preferable option. Free medical care saves a lot of people's lives and creates a more humane society.
Many countries have debated issues related to medical care, and in some countries, such as the US, this debate is ongoing. The question is this: should medical care be free or should people have to pay for it?” I think that free medical care is a much better option for several reasons.
First of all, when people have to pay for the medical care it leaves many of them without any medical treatment at all simply because not all of the people can afford it. It goes without saying that rich people have access to any kind of treatment regardless of cost. But people who have much lower incomes suffer greatly and are unable to pay their medical bills. They sometimes have no other choice than to die. There are plenty of examples of people who are denied treatment because they do not have insurance that would cover the cost of the treatment.
Second of all, free medical care is a much more effective way of providing people with treatment. This medical care is actually not entirely free. Such universal medical care is subsidized by taxes. Citizens pay small, affordable sums of money allowing medical care to be free for everybody. In my view, it is quite a fair and efficient system that brings more sense of security to the people and makes the whole nation healthier. Many countries, such as France, England, and Canada, have chosen this type of system, which has made it possible to increase the life expectancy to higher than in the US, where medical care is not free.
In conclusion, I believe that free medical care ensures that people receive medical care in times of need and this is the preferable option. Free medical care saves a lot of people's lives and creates a more humane society.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Developing good English
This is a text from the TOEFL official materials. I find this text extremely helpful in developing one’s ability to express the thoughts in written English. This is an example of how good written language should look like.
In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine,” to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.
In many organizations, perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team. Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages. First of all, a group of people has a wider range of knowledge, expertise, and skills than any single individual is likely to possess. Also, because of the numbers of people involved and the greater resources they possess, a group can work more quickly in response to the task assigned to it and can come up with highly creative solutions to problems and issues. Sometimes these creative solutions come about because a group is more likely to make risky decisions that an individual might not undertake. This is because the group spreads responsibility for a decision to all the members and thus no single individual can be held accountable if the decision turns out to be wrong.
Taking part in a group process can be very rewarding for members of the team. Team members who have a voice in making a decision will no doubt feel better about carrying out the work that is entailed by that decision than they might doing work that is imposed on them by others. Also, the individual team member has a much better chance to “shine,” to get his or her contributions and ideas not only recognized but recognized as highly significant, because a team’s overall results can be more far-reaching and have greater impact than what might have otherwise been possible for the person to accomplish or contribute working alone.
New online learning resources
Some of the best online resources for English learners I have ever seen:
- http://www.englishdaily626.com
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/
However, the second website is solely devoted to the British English language and contains a lot of idiomatic expressions that may not be intelligible to the native speakers of Northern American English. So, it’s necessary to be aware of that fact when learning and using idioms from that websites.
- http://www.englishdaily626.com
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/
However, the second website is solely devoted to the British English language and contains a lot of idiomatic expressions that may not be intelligible to the native speakers of Northern American English. So, it’s necessary to be aware of that fact when learning and using idioms from that websites.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Parable
Ages ago God was bestowing the life to living creatures and every animal had been gifted with fifty years of living on the Earth. Enough. But the man was the last to come. God had only twenty five years left.
The Man resented, - Why so little?
God answered, - It’s enough.
No, the man said, - I need more.
God replied, - Go and ask somebody. Maybe someone has an excess of life and will give you some.
The man left and met a horse on his way. Well, he said,
- I have so short life. Please, give me a bit of yours.
- Ok, take twenty five years.
The man goes farther and meets a dog.
-Dog, give me some of your life.
-Ok, - the dog said, - take twenty five years.
The man goes father and meets a monkey and asks her for another twenty five years.
Then he goes back to God and God tells him.
- So, be it. The first twenty five years you will live like a man. The next twenty five you will work like a horse. The third twenty five you will be barking like a dog. And during the last remaining part everyone will be laughing at you as if you were a monkey.
The Man resented, - Why so little?
God answered, - It’s enough.
No, the man said, - I need more.
God replied, - Go and ask somebody. Maybe someone has an excess of life and will give you some.
The man left and met a horse on his way. Well, he said,
- I have so short life. Please, give me a bit of yours.
- Ok, take twenty five years.
The man goes farther and meets a dog.
-Dog, give me some of your life.
-Ok, - the dog said, - take twenty five years.
The man goes father and meets a monkey and asks her for another twenty five years.
Then he goes back to God and God tells him.
- So, be it. The first twenty five years you will live like a man. The next twenty five you will work like a horse. The third twenty five you will be barking like a dog. And during the last remaining part everyone will be laughing at you as if you were a monkey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)