GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Study major city to understand society - score please
[#permalink]
04 May 2016, 01:32
04 May 2016, 01:32
Hi, I would be delighted to receive a score out of 6 as well as feedback!
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad, for the Persian Empire and Athens for Greece. Often, they earn their importance and reputation on account of being the most progressive, prosperous and knowledgeable centres of a society. Their reputation attracts migrants from the cities that are not as well of, leading to a demographic that is, in the statistical sense, an excellent randomized sample. A major city is a true amalgamation of a society’s culture, characteristics and practices, and offers good insight into how these variables function independently as well as in coordination with each other.
A society’s characteristics are defined by the attributes and customs of its people. If they are wealthy, a society is rich. If they are broad-minded, the society is tolerant. Therefore, can we label the experiences and traits of a small group of people, who arguably are in the best position the society can offer, as that of the rest as well? Would it be logical to assume that the characteristics of India’s metropolitan – Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata – are an accurate representation of the rest of the country and therefore, if someone was set out to study Indian society, these cities are all they should look in to? Absolutely not, because these cities do not speak for the majority of the population. The success, achievements and stature of the top 2% does not hold true for the remaining 98% in society.
The characteristics of a society are best represented by a consideration of all its components, not just the best ones. Therefore, to understand the characteristics of a society, a one-dimensional approach is counterproductive. The study of a society’s history, culture and customs, its languages and people is what will contribute to give perspective on its characteristics. After all, people define the characteristics of a society, not its cities.
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad, for the Persian Empire and Athens for Greece. Often, they earn their importance and reputation on account of being the most progressive, prosperous and knowledgeable centres of a society. Their reputation attracts migrants from the cities that are not as well of, leading to a demographic that is, in the statistical sense, an excellent randomized sample. A major city is a true amalgamation of a society’s culture, characteristics and practices, and offers good insight into how these variables function independently as well as in coordination with each other.
A society’s characteristics are defined by the attributes and customs of its people. If they are wealthy, a society is rich. If they are broad-minded, the society is tolerant. Therefore, can we label the experiences and traits of a small group of people, who arguably are in the best position the society can offer, as that of the rest as well? Would it be logical to assume that the characteristics of India’s metropolitan – Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata – are an accurate representation of the rest of the country and therefore, if someone was set out to study Indian society, these cities are all they should look in to? Absolutely not, because these cities do not speak for the majority of the population. The success, achievements and stature of the top 2% does not hold true for the remaining 98% in society.
The characteristics of a society are best represented by a consideration of all its components, not just the best ones. Therefore, to understand the characteristics of a society, a one-dimensional approach is counterproductive. The study of a society’s history, culture and customs, its languages and people is what will contribute to give perspective on its characteristics. After all, people define the characteristics of a society, not its cities.
Re: Study major city to understand society - score please
[#permalink]
05 May 2016, 00:55
05 May 2016, 00:55
Expert Reply
Hi,
Thanks for posting your questions here at greprepclub. Please, help us following the rules for posting on the board. Adding key elements such as tags to your question.
Back to us
I would suggest to you to revise your english skills. I do not wanna look down but just looking at your first sentence of your AWA I have already spotted two critical errors
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad,
They is ambiguos: this pronoun could refer to cities OR societies, it is unclear. Moreover, like Baghdad is wrong: to make an example of something you should use such as NOT like.
Hope this helps. Do not esitate to ask if something remain unclear to you
Regards
Thanks for posting your questions here at greprepclub. Please, help us following the rules for posting on the board. Adding key elements such as tags to your question.
Back to us
I would suggest to you to revise your english skills. I do not wanna look down but just looking at your first sentence of your AWA I have already spotted two critical errors
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad,
They is ambiguos: this pronoun could refer to cities OR societies, it is unclear. Moreover, like Baghdad is wrong: to make an example of something you should use such as NOT like.
Hope this helps. Do not esitate to ask if something remain unclear to you
Regards
Director
Joined: 16 May 2014
Posts: 592
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q165 V161
Re: Study major city to understand society - score please
[#permalink]
05 May 2016, 22:49
05 May 2016, 22:49
Expert Reply
raeesi wrote:
Hi, I would be delighted to receive a score out of 6 as well as feedback!
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad, for the Persian Empire and Athens for Greece. Often, they earn their importance and reputation on account of being the most progressive, prosperous and knowledgeable centres of a society. Their reputation attracts migrants from the cities that are not as well of, leading to a demographic that is, in the statistical sense, an excellent randomized sample. A major city is a true amalgamation of a society’s culture, characteristics and practices, and offers good insight into how these variables function independently as well as in coordination with each other.
A society’s characteristics are defined by the attributes and customs of its people. If they are wealthy, a society is rich. If they are broad-minded, the society is tolerant. Therefore, can we label the experiences and traits of a small group of people, who arguably are in the best position the society can offer, as that of the rest as well? Would it be logical to assume that the characteristics of India’s metropolitan – Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata – are an accurate representation of the rest of the country and therefore, if someone was set out to study Indian society, these cities are all they should look in to? Absolutely not, because these cities do not speak for the majority of the population. The success, achievements and stature of the top 2% does not hold true for the remaining 98% in society.
The characteristics of a society are best represented by a consideration of all its components, not just the best ones. Therefore, to understand the characteristics of a society, a one-dimensional approach is counterproductive. The study of a society’s history, culture and customs, its languages and people is what will contribute to give perspective on its characteristics. After all, people define the characteristics of a society, not its cities.
Major cities are often synonymous for the societies they are a part of; like Baghdad, for the Persian Empire and Athens for Greece. Often, they earn their importance and reputation on account of being the most progressive, prosperous and knowledgeable centres of a society. Their reputation attracts migrants from the cities that are not as well of, leading to a demographic that is, in the statistical sense, an excellent randomized sample. A major city is a true amalgamation of a society’s culture, characteristics and practices, and offers good insight into how these variables function independently as well as in coordination with each other.
A society’s characteristics are defined by the attributes and customs of its people. If they are wealthy, a society is rich. If they are broad-minded, the society is tolerant. Therefore, can we label the experiences and traits of a small group of people, who arguably are in the best position the society can offer, as that of the rest as well? Would it be logical to assume that the characteristics of India’s metropolitan – Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata – are an accurate representation of the rest of the country and therefore, if someone was set out to study Indian society, these cities are all they should look in to? Absolutely not, because these cities do not speak for the majority of the population. The success, achievements and stature of the top 2% does not hold true for the remaining 98% in society.
The characteristics of a society are best represented by a consideration of all its components, not just the best ones. Therefore, to understand the characteristics of a society, a one-dimensional approach is counterproductive. The study of a society’s history, culture and customs, its languages and people is what will contribute to give perspective on its characteristics. After all, people define the characteristics of a society, not its cities.
I would give it a 4.5 out of 6. Beautifully crafted passages and interesting writing style with almost not many grammatical mistakes. But, I do have an issue with the arguments you put forward. In the first paragraph, you said that a major city ''is a true amalgamation of a society’s culture, ... in coordination with each other''. Since it is a perfectly random sample of people migrating from all parts of the country, it does represent the culture of the society. However, you conclude for Indian cities like Mumbai, Kolkata it doesn't hold. Your reasoning being the cities not representing the majority of the population. This argument is weak since you just said earlier that people from all parts of the country come here. And then you bring the top 2% argument which comes in out of the blue without any build up since you have never discussed economic factors. So I understand what you were trying to say but your argument could have been more hard-hitting. Otherwise, it's a 5/6.
