TOEFL practice. Prompt: Agree or not? A universal language should replace all languages. The idea of one universal language replacing all others, isn't new. In the past, more than a few attempts have been made, namely Esperanto and Indo-European (the latter not replacing all languages). The fact that many people have never even heard of these languages, proves that they are not successful. Consequently, I don't believe that a universal language could ever succeed as a replacement for all others. Firstly, creating such a global concept would be nearly impossible as people from various parts of the world have a differing way of pronouncing. Therefore, we must invent words that are easy to pronounce for every single person on this planet and exactly because of those differences in pronounciation, this is impossible. In addition, even if it were possible to create, how are we going to make sure everyone knows about this new universal language? Many of us don't have access to the internet, a phone, television or any other kind of media. Chiefly, all the cultural beauty that hides in the seemingly endless amount of languages our world possesses, will go to waste. In my opinion, being unique is beautiful and while human beings are already too much alike in modern society, every cultural or personal characteristic should be kept intact. Another agrument we have to concider is that learning a new language is not something everyone will be open to, either because they don't want to or because they simply can't. To master something completely new requires time, motivation and resources; all three aren't available to the masses. Finally, the idea isn't bad and it would be convenient if we were to be able to put it into affect. However, many obstacles keep us from this achievement. Also, it would be a pitty to lose the little bit of diversity this planet has left and alongside it, we will lose history. For all these reasons, I believe that a universal language should not be forced upon us, not now nor in the future.

Which is better, city living or country living? [TOEFL practice] Personally, I find living in the city much more appealing than living on the countryside. I am able to say this with much conviction because I expierence both ways of living every week as my parents are seperated and one of them lives in the city while the other lives in a more rural area. Most importantly, citylife is easier because you don’t have to drive hours to get to the supermarket, school, a gasstation and so on. In other words, everything is closeby, which surely isn’t the case when living on the countryside. Secondly, it doesn’t get as lonely in the city, this being a big problem for me when I’m spending time on the countryside. Friends live far away and often don’t feel like making the trip or you have to spend more time traveling to and returning from an event than the event itself actually takes. A lot of the time people will decide to just stay home, missing out on fun opportunities. Another agrument in favor of the city is that it has everything the country has and more. Some people will argue that there is no green in the city, but this is not correct, every city has at least some parks or even a city forest. And lastly, city’s are full of life and give you energy and inspiration to live your own life. In the city, you will run into people on the streets that have the same dreams you do, you will discover new places every day and you can get so much more done in one single day than you would in a rural area. In conclusion, the city is the place to be! It isn’t boring and lonely like the countryside, however, it is extremely exciting and that is why I believe the city beats the country every time!

Formal E-mail to a US university does this contain any mistakes? Dear Mr. name surname I was browsing the Iowa State University website and found a scholarship called 'Scholarship for Excellence'. From the eligibility requirements I could not make up if international students are considered for this scholarship as well. Could you provide me with that information? Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Virginie Wylleman

HELP, sat writing practice, can I get some feedback? Is a teacher who has a great knowledge of the subjet matter the best kind of teacher? To me, the answer is no, what's of chief importance is not how much a teacher knows about what he is teaching but the way that this knowledge is transported to the students. Having been taught by many different kinds of teachers in school myself, I can safely say that it was those who tried to connect with their students by using examples from our living environment and joking around, that I learned the most from. What is so effective about this teaching method is the eagerness to teach and the will to connect with students, because people will listen better if they feel understood and respected by the person trying to talk to them. Knowing your subject is -needingless to say- a necessity, however, knowing every little detail by heart is not. This could lead to teachers just blurting out everything they know in a somewhat boring way, resulting in uninterested students. Moreover, they will probably drift off into a daydream as the lecture goes on because they are not actively involved in the lesson, which is a key to gaining the attention of the students. Finally, a teacher that makes a mistake from time to time, gives students someone to relate to; it shows them that it's ok to be wrong and that it happens to everyone. As a conclusion I believe that the best kind of teacher is one that actively involves students in the lesson, teaches in a way that relates to the students and doesn't just hold one long monologue packed with information for the students to process. To achieve this, it is not necessary to be the most knowledgeable person about the subjet in the world.