do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
taking a low-paying secure job is better than having a high-paying job witch is easy to lose.
This is an actual iBT-Toefl topic. I took the test this afternoon. The following passage is what I can recall now. I konw I didn't do a great job on this topic, but I still want to see your comments. If it's too bad, I'll register for another test...I was nervous during the test and I just ran out of ideas when I was writing:(
Thanks for reading.
Stability and salary are people's main concerns when they try to choose a job. The way I see it, there is no way that a low-paying-secure job is better than a high-paying job that is easy to lose. My reasons to support my opinion are given below.
Firstly, it is excellence that one achieves in the job that secures the position. A low-paying job does not always guarantee the stability. If an individual works in a high-paying-unsecure job and works extra hard, he/she will more likely to accomplish perfect performance in the job. Thus, his/her performance will eventually lead this job to a more secure situation. This way the person end up with a stable job that pays a lot.
Besides, some people may actually enjoy the challenges and risks of losing their job. These are the people who welcome changes in their lives. On the other hand, stable jobs may kill our gifts of human imagination and creativity.
Admittedly, some people have to take stability into consideration when they choose a job. Because they need the stable incomes to pay bills and support their families. A secure job, although it does not pay much, can make sure that an individual is able to make ends meet at the end of the month. However, money is not the only criteria of happiness. If someone is really interested in an area he/she should definitely find a job in that field even though that means he/she risks the chances of losing that job. For example my uncle works in the stock market. His job is highly unstable, especially nowadays during the economic crisis. But my uncle loves this job and nobody or nothing can persuade him to quit. He is willing to take the risks of being unemployed as long as he is doing something he loves right now.
In conclusion, as far as I'm concerned, having a low-paying secure job is no better than to have a high-paying unstable job.
Your thesis changes at the end. You start out saying that high-paying, high-risk job is better than a low-paying, low-risk job. You end by saying that the two are about equal, or that one is "no better" than the other. Your grammar is also a bit rough. Beyond that, though, you have a clear preference and solid reasons to back it up, which is good.
Thanks Sean. This is pretty much the best I can do in 30 minutes.
You end by saying that the two are about equal, or that one is "no better" than the other.
I wanted to say "not better", but I don't know why I just wrote "no better". I guess I was too nervous because the clock was ticking its last minutes.
I have to work on my writing in the future. Toefl is not the end. It's just a beginning. After I go to university there's still a lot of writing for me:)
No, "no better" was the correct grammatical construction. It's just a different thesis than the one you were arguing originally.
Yes,I actually konw that. That's a coincidence:)
Your essay is riddled with reasoning errors. The stability of the lower paying job has been established by the prompt so challenging it is a no go. On top of that, you make contradictory arguments all throughout to suggest you are really confused. Anyway, I'm not sure what standard applies for the TOEFL test so you'll probably pass for all I know.
The title of the thread stuck out to me because I face(d) the same dilemma.
Obviously the chief incentive to work is salary, balanced with job security.
So you have all manner of physicians with the highest salaries. The disincentive rests with the burden of loans you have to take on, your lost youth, and the insane effort required. Engineers make quite a bit in a short time frame but their salary levels off over time and the field requires too much effort with all the maths (Vector Calc., Linear Algebra, Topology, etc.). Lawyers do well, but graduating from a top school is usually a must; you also have to sacrifice your youth to get established in law. This blows because what could be better than Law for someone who enjoys arguing? Well, those top paying professions are disqualified for one reason or another. Besides arguing (law), business is always interesting. Therein you have accounting and finance. Finance is lucrative, pays more than accounting, and poses no time constraints; the only problem with it is that jobs ebb and flow. Alas, accounting is the best option; a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) makes $60,000 or so right off the bat and garners hefty increases to this figure with each year of experience. S(he) enjoys unparalleled
job security, went to school for only 4-5 years, and reserves the option of going longer for other 3 letter acronyms to supplement his or her pristine CPA credentials. Oh yes, I forgot to mention: accounting however tedious, is not that hard with the exception of the CPA exam, so you can cruise along while drawing ever closer to the big, continually increasing, and relatively secure payday!
The TOEFL is a test of English proficiency. A clear thesis, with two or three reasons to back it up, express in English that is relatively free of grammatical errors, is all that is required to do well. We normally don't hold the quality of the arguments to a very high standard, as a result, when critiquing TOEFL essays. Also, bear in mind that these things have to be written in less than thirty minutes.
i am afraid that it is too long for toefl or ielts, then you take these exams, you often have about 30 minutes,
