PLEASE HELP!!! (cont.)

Practicing English for TOEFL test

Will you please correct my essay?


4.
Q. The countryside is a better place to raise children than a large city. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Use specific reasons and exapmles to support your position.



While some people insist that the countryside is a better place to raise children than a large city, without a doubt, I think that rasing children in a big city is better than in a countryside. There are two reasons; one reason is that the children can have a lot of chances and the other reason is that children can
move easily.
The first reason why raising children in a large city is better than in a countryside is that children who live in a big city can have a lot of opportunities
to do a various things. At first, if they want to play sports, study harder and play the piano, they can join a soccer team, enter a high-level school and take a lecture of good piano teacher easier simply because there are more people in
a big city than a small countryside. A resent report shows that ,for example, 80 percent high-level private schools is located in Tokyo therefore if children who don't live in Tokyo find hard to go on to such schools.
Second reason why I think that you should raise children in a large city rather than a countryside is that children can go to vaious place easily. To begin with children can go on to shool in little time. When I used to live in small city, I have to go on to the high school in 2 hours and I always feel it waste of time. Moreover this advantage means that children can go to everywhere they want to and they can see, feel or enjoy a various place. When
I was a child, my uncle took me a zoo and I decided to become a reseacher of zoology. Therefore these various experience let children have a dream.
For these two reasons, I'd defenetly disagree with the opinion that the countryside is a better place to raise children than a lrge city.



5.
Q. Scholarships should be offered primarily on the basisi of financial need, rather than on academic achievement. Agree or disagree with this statement and give concrete examples to support your answer.



While some people state that scholorship should be offered based on academic achievement, I think it should be offered primarily basis on financial need. There are two reasons : equality of opportuunity and essence of scholorship.
First of all, shcolorship should be used for giving people who can't study because of financial problem the chance to study. For example, my friend Hide was pretty clever but he was not be able to study because he have to do part time job to help his mother. If he got a sholorship, he is clever enough to go to PhD course; however he have to give up the way to become a reserch. I think that it is inequality and sholorships should be used for those who is too poor to study hard.
Secondly sholorships exists for solving financial problem so when I consider about it, I think that academic fund should be used for not encourageing but helping. According to the academic reserch, the richer people can achive the higher grade of the shool. This shows that if sholorships are used for those people, the sholorship is no meaning because those people don't need more money. Therefore sholorships essencialy should be used for helping students.
For these two reasons, I support the idea that sholorships should be offered based on financial need rather than on academic achivement.



6.
Q. Some people believe that competition is the best way for people to attain their full potential. Other people say that cooperation with others is more important in a person's eventual success. Which opinion do you agree with? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.



While some people believe that competetiton is harmful and corperation is the best way to succeed, without a doubt, I insist that competition is the best way to attain potential. There are two reasons for this: motivation and opportunity to use their own gift.
The first reason why I agree with the idea that competition is better than
cooporation is that people are motivated by competing with others. First of all, when you compete with others you want to win and as a result, you and even others can attain their own ability. According to recent university report, for example, children competing with other children in a class got higher score than children not competitng. This shows that competition helps children to get
high score and understand fully. Moreover most of them enjoy compete with their friends as if they play games. Therefore the competition is far from harmful for children. For these reasons, you are usually motivated not by cooporation but by competition.
The second reason why I claim that the competition is great way to succeed is that even if you lose, there are a lot of benefits for you. First, for example, if you fail entrance exam of university, you can attain a lot of the knowledge, the way to think about and so on. This means that the process of competing with others gives you many good things. In addition, if you lose a certain competition, you can easily give up. By contrast, if you don't compete with anybody you can't know which way to use your ability as a result, you will
be unhappy.
In conclusion, for these two reasons, I believe that the competition is more important in a person's eventual success than the cooperation.