Tag: GRE Writing

Knowledge Obtaining: Solitude or Interaction?

Nowadays we are facing the difficulties of mastering the knowledge that is either required by our daily job or living. We need the knowledge the conduct the way that we work, we need that to fix the errors that we make, and we need that to help explain the problems that we meet. Some scholars argue that people should make full efforts to master knowledge as much as possible that they can acquire, and some others do not agree with that. But is it that necessary for us to master all the knowledge that we can acquire? The answer is obviously no. In fact, we can obtain the knowledge we want through the interaction with others as well.

We are living in an era that there are far more knowledge than that we can master. In fact, it is the development on both the science and arts in modern times that deep specialization on knowledge that produces great amount of points of knowledge, which is impossible to be mastered individually. Taking the knowledge of accounting for example, it is no doubt for a professional staff to master the principles of accounting, while if you are working for a large group, you are to find various styles of transaction and bills that you are to take into the practice of accounting. It is quite a large number of these styles that induces different positions and fields in the field of this profession, which includes risk management, accounting payables and receivables, etc. It is all these positions in accounting that forms the entire system of that, which can hardly be accomplished by one person or two.

And knowledge can be obtained by the interaction with others, not only through solitude. With the same reason as discussed above as over specification on knowledge, different people have their own interest and advantage, and different knowledge’s can thus been obtained through the interactions between them. This is just the reason why the team-working form is becoming that popular in large companies. Taking the team for a software engineering at the medium level for example, different positions are included in this team, such as external package, database designing and structure engineering. The knowledge that is required in this team can thus be obtained through the interaction within the team, and more importantly, it is unwise and unnecessary for the members in the team to master all the knowledge through solitude, which can be a difficult task.

But we have to admit that some knowledge can only be solitude, and they are to be essential for the interaction that I discussed above. This knowledge mainly refers to the fundamental course, such as math, language, principles of economics etc. They form the fundamentals and boot the probability of the interaction. Just reconsider the example on the team of software engineering, if one of the members within the team that is not that familiar with the basics of the relevant knowledge, such as the basics of programming, the database management, how can he interact with his colleagues? Such interaction can only be successful and the knowledge be obtained when the relevant parties are qualified to the fundamentals and their professional competences are identical.

In sum we find the knowledge can be obtained both through the solitude and the interaction with the others. But they are of two layers; the fundamentals should be obtained through the solitude and the professional ones from the interaction instead. It is impossible for any individual to master all the knowledge that can be acquired totally. Knowledge comes from both the solitude and the interaction with others boosts our working efficiency.

Exercise for GRE Analytical Writing: Quick action or A Reconsideration?

This is an exercise for my coming GRE Analytical Writing section, if you are interested, please provide me some suggestions on how to improve the writing skills. The reason why I upload them here is because I find the titles from the analytical writings, especially that for issues, are really good topics that can evoke our thinking in depth.

Thanks for your comments and they are always welcome

Following is the original article that i wrote:

Nowadays people are becoming so eager to succeed that they are becoming quicker to take action but rather than taking a good consideration before that. In fact, with a fast speed of working and higher efficiency of action sometimes do provide us greater production. However, such quick reactions can hardly always work.

An adequate thorough thinking for some actions that are to be taken is beneficial, especially for some important decisions. A common experience that can convince us is that we can make a decision in seconds, but we can never finish an intricate task in seconds. Putting a pre-determined decision into practice involves many steps that we can hardly reach wholly in a flash, and a thorough thinking brings us the new opportunity on such thinking. A good example for this is making a plan for a chemical experiment. It is the truth that an initial plan can be made in quite a quick action, while, more importantly, we should examine and reconsider the very steps during this procedure, on the medicine we use, the controlling group we set, and the equipment that we may ask for. Without such intense thinking on realms of this experiment, various problems can occur during the coming procedure, and, some fatal errors that we failed to realize prior to their occurrence can sometimes directly turn this experiment into failure.

And such thinking can take something that we miss at a first glance into consideration, such as the consequence of some actions that can bring us great influence. Suppose that a local government is thinking about a project of the establishment of an industry that can produce high pollution to the environment, but its establishment can boost the economic growth as well. Taking the viewpoint of short-seeing, a kind of thinking method that only covers the influence or that consequence of a specified event in a short period, the local government would pass the decision of the establishment on the consideration of the economic growth. But once the staffs take reconsideration on such plan in depth, more or less, he or she would think about the pollution matters. And a professional evaluation can then be taken, which involves professors and experts on environmental science, to suggest the magnitude of its pollution on local environment. Once the cost on environment is higher than the economical profit, we suggest it as the result of evaluation, this project would be denied rather than the acceptance.

But a fast reaction can make as being competitive to the other opponents, which is of great significance contemporarily. This frequently occurs in business world. An investing analyst working for an investing firm would require taking intermediate action when they find an investing opportunity rather than a time costly reconsideration; otherwise the opportunity would never be back. The other example exists in the industry of manufacturing, a competitive industry nowadays. The key determinants of the profitability of a firm are depending on whether they can turn a good design into productivity with adequate high efficiency. Only when being with high productivity that the firm can get the dominant role in industry and be profitable. Any delay on this procedure can be consequential.

In sum, taking good consideration before the action can help people be more aware of the possible difficulties and problems that they can probably meet, and such thinking also offers people an intense understanding on the steps that would involved in their actions. What’s more, such consideration can prevent people from making some errors taking quick action but missed the awful consequence it can induce. But admittedly, under some occasions, quick actions are required; a delay on action can lose the opportunity sometimes.

Junjun's Home