안녕하세요
토플 독학한지 2주됐는데
롸이팅 쓴거 봐주시고 이정도면 괜찮은지 봐주세요
시간안에 썻고 글씨숫자도 어느정도 맞아떨어지는데
토플 학원ㄷ ㅏ녀본적도없고 해서...
저는 초등학교 4학년떄 미국으로 가서 현재 존스 홉킨스 대학원 입학예정입니다..
지금 쓴정도 실력으로 쓰면 점수 잘나올가요???
Summarize the points
made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on the specific
theories mentioned in the reading passage.
The teacher in the lecture said that the three theories
proposed in the reading are implausible. He gives out several reasons on the
lack of support for the theories. He argued that the rooms lacked enough
fireplaces, the remaining of maizes were unidentified, and that other items
were found in the ceremonial mounds.
The teacher said that the houses look like apartments but
not inside. He argued that there is a doubt on whether people, in fact, lived
there. He said that there were only enough fireplaces for ten families while
the apartment could hold hundred families.
He also argued that the existence of the house to store
maize is unsupportive even though it sounds plausible. There simply is no
traces of maize or maize containers. Thus, he concludes that this theory lacks
evidence.
The teacher also says that the mounds in Pueblo Alto had
other items other than pottery. An
example of an other item is sand. He said that these could have simply been
trashes, and that the potteries were containers used by construction workers to
eat and to be thrown away.
The teacher does not provide what the houses were used for
but instead strongly negates the three theories proposed in the passage. He
concludes that the three theories lack enough evidence to be verified to hold
enough validity.
People today spend
too much time on personal enjoyment – doing things they like to do – rather than
doing things they should do.
I agree with the prompt for several reasons. Although
President Obama emphasized the importance of delayed gratification in his book, the Audacity of Hope, many people, especially Americans, enjoy the instant rewards. Amy Chua,
Professor at the Yale Law School, said that statistically speaking, second
generation US-born Americans tend to enjoy wine and luxurious cars compared to
the first generation immigrant Americans who usually invest their money in
stocks and real estates. Furthermore, coming from my personal experience, many
of my peers spend their salary in buying nice cars and leisure activity items.
in Amy Chua's book, the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, she
argues that second generation Americans tend to live on instant gratification
because they did not face as much hardship as their first immigrant generation parents.
She argues that although they tend to be more successful than the first
generation, they do not accrue as much money. She also argues that they are
more indulgent but because their parents invested so much in them, that is the
reason why they are so ahead. Ironically, she argues that the third generation
Americans do not get ahead and instead live with America's median salary. Thus,
she argues that as generations pass by, Americans tend to get more lazy and
simply live on the instant gratification, buying items to spend time on what they want to do instead of
saving.
As a 1.5 generation immigrant, I tend to compare and
contrast a lot of 1.5 generation immigrant friends to second generation
American friends. I also see that many of American friends buy nice cars while
1.5 generation friends invest aggressively in stocks, funds, and real estates.
Although my personal experience isn't the absolute metric in generalizing what
people tend to do, I feel as my American friends spend their time in doing what
they like to do instead of what they are obligated to do which can be preparing
to start a family by saving money for his or her kids' future college tuition or to buy a house.
I believe that there is no obligation to what you should do.
However, I am a strong supporter that Americans, compared to immigrants, spend
too much time in their enjoyment through instant gratification. That is why I
agree with the prompt.