G R E A W A M O D E L ESSAYSTopics in the following list may appear in your actual test. Youshould become familiar with this list before you take the GRE-AWAtest. Remember that when you take the test you will not have achoice of topics. You must write only on the topic that is assigned toyou.The Pool of Issue TopicsPresent your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examplesto support your views.Issue 1We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whoseviews contradict our own.; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning.Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whoseideas contradict ours? The speaker daims so, for the reason that disagreement can causestress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, inmy view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose thanfrom people whose ideas are in accord with our own.Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductiveto learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On todaystypical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaninglessrhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own messageheard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging themerits of the opponents viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewerslearn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions andbiases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamentalassumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student ofpaleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study bydebating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolutionto begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of alaissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centrv2ized power shouldcontrol all economic activity.Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speakersclaim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing todebate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it isprimarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal,community, or global level.At the personal level, by listening to their parents rationale for their seemingly oppressiverules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certainundesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers concerns aboutautonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effectiveparenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionatedialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concernsof those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, thelatter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuringjob growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposingpolitical or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving tounderstand the others legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, thestability of its economy and currency, and so forth.In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and bythe same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoneddiscourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation uponwhich human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentallycorrect.Issue 2No field of study can advance significantly unless outsiders bring their knowledge andexperience to that field of study.I strongly agree with the assertion that significant advances in knowledge require expertisefrom various fields. The world around us presents a seamless web of physical andanthropogenic forces, which interact in ways that can be understood only in the context of avariety of disciplines. Two examples that aptly illustrate this point involve the fields of culturalanthropology and astronomy.Consider how a cultural anthropologists knowledge about an ancient civilization isenhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologist-who unearths the evidence-butultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. Byanalyzing the hair, nai