When people succeed. It is because of HARD WORK. Luck has nothing to do with success. Do you AGREE or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position.

I agree that success is earned by a lifetime of hard work and has little or nothing at all to do with luck. Luck is for gamblers and ne’er-do-wells who pin their hopes on the roll of dice or a Lotto ticket stub. While I will grant that there are people who will win that pot, people who are “lucky,” most will eventually lose their winnings. They will end up right back where they started. They are the ones who believe in “luck.”

Luck is a tool the cunning use on the foolish. In our country gambling is abetted by the government, the Catholic church, and media. The government’s pin money comes from the winnings the Philippine Games and Amusements Corporation (PAGCOR) rakes in from gamble operations throughout the country. The Catholic church keeps quiet and lives richly on the dole out of the government. Sweepstakes ticket vendors have for so long been selling tickets around churches that the act of buying a ticket is now seen as an act of charity.

The brainwashing is also done through lunchtime variety shows on television. These shows play to an audience mostly comprised by the impoverished masses of the Philippines. The shows play on the unreasoning desire of stumbling on unearned windfalls. A variety of foolish games of chance and cleverly designed contests keeps the audience riveted to their screens and forever dreaming of that wondrous day when they each come to their own.

I believe that success is earned through hard work, the serious dedication to purposeful toil, the application of generous amounts of elbow grease, that frees up the mind to see opportunities for breakthroughs. It is hard work and the opportunities it creates that lead to success.

When people succeed. It is because of hard work. LUCK has nothing to do with success. Do you agree or DISAGREE with the quotation above? Use specific reasons and examples to explain your position.

I disagree that success is purely a result of hard work. Perhaps because of association with the idea of gambling, the word “luck” has taken on the meaning of unearned and irresponsible recklessness in one’s lifestyle. However, the luck I’m talking about is of a different sort, the one that comes out as a result of hard work.

Invariably, hard work and luck simply have to come together for success to result. You see, I believe that there are many people in this world who work hard, very hard in fact. Ditch diggers, jeepney drivers, domestic helpers, nurses, teachers and such. Hard work is their lot. Yet time and again, few of them will ever make it beyond a difficult working life.

The problem does not stem from a lack for effort, but the lack of that sensitivity to opportunity otherwise called “luck.” Many a hard worker hunches down to do his work without ever stopping to think about what opportunities are created or opened by that work. As such, the person never sees nor grabs opportunity. He or she never has any “luck.”

On the other hand, there is that uncommon worker who has vision, an inquisitive mind, and the gumption to take risks. That person realizes that beyond the work is the constant opportunity for improvement. There are, so to speak, many ways to skin a cat. This worker is the kind who, given “luck” will one day make the leap from merely slogging away at the work to eventually becoming resoundingly successful in his career.

Some people prefer to live in a BIG CITY. Others prefer to live in a small town. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

I would prefer the big city. While I appreciate the thought of H.D. Thoreau, I demand much of myself and the small town, I’m sad to say, will not support that pursuit.

I want to excel. I want the finest education and the top schools of the Philippines are invariably in the city or in its outskirts. I want to eat well and live well, where I and when I want. The best restaurants and cultural centers are central to the city. I want to social service: the hospitals, the clinics, the police, the utility men, the transportations systems are again in the city.

No, I do not kid myself. I know that I pay a price for wanting these things conveniently. I have to suffer an unhealthy population density in the city because many want the same things I do. I have to pay for the things I expect and as a result, I have to work harder. I want the best so must be no slouch in what I offer back to the system.

Yet I am happy. As I have lived in the city for so long, I know how to keep myself relatively safe in the city. I am not subject to marauding bands of rebels nor need I worry about paying arbitrary ‘revoluntionary taxes’ for what I have toiled for. I am entertained by the latest movies, plays, and the most cutting-edge electronic devices our day has to offer.
Finally, I will have far reaching impact. It is likely I will move from the city to the rest of the world, as will my children, and their children’s children. I am a city person through and through.

Some people prefer to live in a SMALL TOWN. Others prefer to live in a big city. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

I would prefer to live in a small town for the very reasons small towns are disliked by others: the towns are small, their lifestyles are uncomplicated, the people are easily satisfied.

To start with, small towns have better environments. They will only occupy as much room as needed to accommodate their population and their industries, which are often agricultural. Yet because they are small and surrounded by undeveloped vastnesses, the air quality is better than in cities, the weather is more refreshing, and the environment is rich with trees and fields. The way to Baguio from Manila is lined with such small towns and they are eloquent testimony to the advantages of which I have spoken.

Then there's the lifestyle: small town lifestyles encourage moderation. Townsfolk are not likely to be harried because whatever needs and services they require will already be in that town. Those who know how to appreciate 3 square home-cooked meals a day have nothing else to seek beyond the limits of their town. Many people with long and unstressed lives can be found happily nestled in small towns while their sophisticated counterparts live short and harried lives in Manila.

Finally, town people are contented. a reassuring rhythm in life arises from modest ambition and an agrarian lifestyle. Planting crops and fishing are livelihoods that require you to be in synchronization with their seasons. The sun goes up and the sun comes down in predictable cycles and they cannot be hurried along by frenetic humans. Work had its place in the country, but it has not grown into the pervasive and often toxic religion it has in the city.

Oh yes, I would prefer to live in the countryside.

Do you agree or DISAGREE with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

TV destroys communication? Certainly not! The television is very font of graphic stimuli for conversation! Were this bottomless cornucopia of near-gratuitous entertainment to dry up, people would not know what to do with themselves. Like so many frantic ants of a disturbed anthill, they would dash mindlessly about the house, busying themselves in such uncommunicative pursuits as pruning the garden bushes, washing the car, or doing laundry.

Time and again, this fact is evidenced when typhoons hit the city of Manila. When the power lines are down and the television sets are rendered silent. In desperation people rush to unearth the lowly transistor radio in fervent hope that the noise of the radio announcers will beat back the deafening silence. A collective sigh of relief radiates throughout the city when TV stations come back on air and “real” communication returns.

Television in every home is the electronic dendrite, the nerve endings picking up sights and sounds radiating from the television. People cannot help but react, discuss, and marvel at TV’s wealth of conversational stimulus. People both family members and friends are drawn into lively discussions about the latest shows and the most tantalizing controversies.

Television companies present to the viewing public not merely what is entertaining or curious, but what is novel. The latest news, the latest shows, the latest fads, and – as if often the case – the latest scandals are aired on television. With stimulus like this, only a pile of rocks would not end up communicating with each other.

Do you AGREE or disagree with the following statement? Television has destroyed communication among friends and family. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

TV has destroyed communication among friends and family, but perhaps more with the family. And it continues to do so.

These days, TV offers a panoply of programs, many inane, a few quite intelligent. Because watching TV is so much more convenient than conversing, people default to it. TV compounds the problem that family members aren’t getting enough time to really talk anymore. TV adds to electronic play stations, computers, home cable in keeping people focused outwards, through electronic channels, and not inwards to each other in intimate conversation
I imagine the art of conversation was much better developed in the past. I was told by my parents of times in their lives where they were expected to be home for dinner at a certain time. In the case of my mother, it had to be before the leaves of the acacia tree had folded, and I think that is at about 5 in the afternoon. My father tells me that in his case, it was when the bells of the Angelus struck at 6.

Some might swear that conversations among friends and family are actually stimulated by TV. I agree there’s conversation, but is it really the sort of communication that is therapeutic to the building of relationships? The way I see it, TV shifts the minds of people towards a form of Never-never Land, to borrow a term from Peter Pan, where people think that they really live. The here and the now are not actually real so only a minimum of attention and therefore conversation is accorded to it.

In the end, it might be said that there are a number of factors, not TV alone, that are eroding communication between friends and family. Yet, the contribution of TV to that erosion is quite significant.

Some students prefer to study alone while others like study groups. Discuss both and give your preference.

With the objective of learning the most, the question arises as to which method - studying alone or in a group - produces the best results. Those who like studying alone point out how it cuts down on chatter and distractions, thereby allowing for better focus. Not having need for dressing up and travel, more time can be devoted to study. Third, the approach to study is completely at the discretion of the student. Knowing himself best, the student can adapt the method of study to what works best: this can apply to the pace of study, the depth, the mnemonic method employed.

Groupies point out certain disadvantages. One is the tediousness of self-study which often leads to nodding off or laziness. On the side of advantages, being in a group creates mutual encouragement. A natural pace sets upon the group once dynamics are worked out. Then also, a serious study group gives the members an idea of what study matters are commonly held to be important. Often enough, the individual members are apprised of what they might have looked over or focused too much upon. Distribution of labor is another advantageous aspect of group study. The whole of study material is divided among the members of the group, with the assigned member expected to lecture and be the resident expert for the apportioned subject area. This creates a pool of ‘experts’ in the group and cuts down on study time.

Despite what appears to be the overwhelming argument for group study, I still prefer to study alone. In my experience, the pressure and pacing of group study does not agree with me. In the end, since passing or failing remains my onus, I would still go with individual study.

If you could change one important thing about your hometown, what would you change? Use reasons and specific examples to support your answer

If there were one thing I could change about my hometown it would be the shift from lackadaisical attitudes about zoning laws to strict adherence. I was convinced of this the day I looked up from my lawn and noticed a Gilbey’s Gin billboard, awash in the klieg lights, staring down at me.

Zoning laws exist. They were created because the idea that the purposeful and logical segregation of different sorts of establishments and residences could only lead to a better quality of life. The rationale, and therefore the adherence, is lost on city officials.

I have seen the intrusion of girlie bars, noisome and noisy factories, gasoline stations, and entire refineries smack into the heart of residential areas. Down in Pandacan, Manila, there are huge petroleum depots that squat cheek by jowl in some of the most densely populated areas of the city. Across the corner from my house in Taguig, a gym blares noise passed off as music over an otherwise quiet community. At the residential neighborhood where my sister’s house is located, the next street has a girlie bar where prostitutes ply their trade in the evenings.

It is clearly unfair that two sets of laws exist in my country. One set of firm and sensible ordinances for the posh, gated communities, and another set of highly flexible and indifferent ordinances for the rest of Manila. It appears that money, power, and influence are further requirements to enjoy quality of life, and those without have no claim to a decent life.

Films can tell us a lot about the country in which they were made. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give specific examples and details to support your response.

Hollywood and Bollywood, the names alone readily evoke antipodean images, the former of western glitz and glam, the latter, of a burgeoning, frenetic eastern entertainment industry. Although many kinds of movies come from the America’s Hollywood, the viewer can easily piece together certain concepts about what the United States is like.

For example, indoor scenes will often show apartments that are huge compared to, say, apartments in the Philippines. Sometimes, a movie purporting to show the poverty of people living in the ghettos has the Filipino viewer wondering what the point is, considering the relatively luxurious environs depicted in the movie. In outdoor scenes, the streets will be wide, the spaces vast, and the vehicles in traffic spaced far apart. Scenes like these tell the viewer that the United States is a spacious country where the people have very high expectations with regard to what they are entitled to.

Bollywood movies on the other hand have a lot of en masse dance scenes with the actors and actresses bursting out into song at every other turn. From this we get the idea that in India, the communal connectedness of people is highly prized. Why else does the entire community have to join in the dancing of a courting couple? And be welcomed?

The sheer number of people involved in the dance scenes also tells us that warm bodies abound. Indeed, India is either the first or the second most populous nation on earth. Through such inescapable clues in the movies we can learn much about the countries in which they were made.

Some students prefer to study alone while others like study groups. Discuss both and give your preference.

With the objective of learning the most, the question arises as to which method - studying alone or in a group - produces the best results. Those who like studying alone point out how it cuts down on chatter and distractions, thereby allowing for better focus. Not having need for dressing up and travel, more time can be devoted to study. Third, the approach to study is completely at the discretion of the student. Knowing himself best, the student can adapt the method of study to what works best: this can apply to the pace of study, the depth, the mnemonic method employed.

Groupies point out certain disadvantages. One is the tediousness of self-study which often leads to nodding off or laziness. On the side of advantages, being in a group creates mutual encouragement. A natural pace sets upon the group once dynamics are worked out. Then also, a serious study group gives the members an idea of what study matters are commonly held to be important. Often enough, the individual members are apprised of what they might have looked over or focused too much upon. Distribution of labor is another advantageous aspect of group study. The whole of study material is divided among the members of the group, with the assigned member expected to lecture and be the resident expert for the apportioned subject area. This creates a pool of ‘experts’ in the group and cuts down on study time.

Despite what appears to be the overwhelming argument for group study, I still prefer to study alone. In my experience, the pressure and pacing of group study does not agree with me. In the end, had I a choice, I would still go with individual study.

A company has announced that it wishes to build a large factory near your community. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new influence on your community. Do you support or oppose the factory? Explain your position.

The impending appearance of a large factory at a presumably quiet and undisturbed community would indeed be big news and that news, on the whole, would be positively received.

For one, it would generate employment among the residents. Another benefit would be a healthy injection of new income for the town coffers. The municipal taxes and permit fees for a large business concern would be a welcome infusion of money. A third, intangible but still a significant benefit, would be a feeling of development and having arrived. Strange as it may sound, many small communities suffer from a sense of isolation and backwardness. No longer would the residents feel their community is nondescript.

There would however be disadvantages. Usually, a site is chosen on the basis of the availability of inputs for the intended product from the community and its environs. For example, a fish cannery would drain fish from the local community. A refinery would process locally mined ores. There is therefore the danger of the depletion of whatever local resource is used. Then there is the question of proper waste disposal. Few undeveloped communities are in any position to control the use of community resources and are usually at the mercy of the factory.

I would be opposed to allowing a factory into my community for money is not the final measure of quality of life. However, most people would disagree. I can just see how in the name of progress all disadvantages would be swept under the rug.

Some say that experience is the best teacher. Others insist that experience without theory is critically inadequate. Discuss both views and give your opinion. Use examples from personal experience or knowledge when possible.

When some declare that experience is the best teacher, one must ask what the assumptions are.

If it means to the exclusion of theoretical knowledge, then it does not take into account fatalities and injuries resulting from attempting tasks where the knowledge of underlying theory is necessary. In our outlying islands, many have died or suffered the painful and permanent physical debilitation resulting from diving under the sea with artificial breathing equipment but without training. In the cities, at our high schools, children are only allowed to use laboratory chemicals under close supervision and with prior class lectures. This prevents the students from having accidents ranging from burns or toxic gas inhalation or the absorption of toxins through the skin or through ingestion.

On the other hand, when people say that experience is the best teacher after learning the theory, they are probably correct. This does not mean that experience alone is superior to book learning, but that experience - after theory - caps the learning. Experience sets learning into memory in a way that pure theory has difficulty doing. It is human nature that when we learn the theory, we want to put it into practice. Through repeated practice we perfect the skill and achieve mastery. If we do not gain experience, the theory often slips away and is eventually forgotten.

Theory alone is inadequate. Experience alone is wanting. Together, first with a foundation of theory then followed by practice and exercise, experience completes the learning process. Often enough, experience leads to the development of more advanced theories that apply to the subject and the process of learning continues.

It has been said, “Not everything that is learned is contained in books.” Compare and contrast knowledge gained from experience with knowledge gained from books. In you’re your opinion, which source is more important? Why? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

It is true that not every learned is contained in books, for books are only a medium aimed at transmitting knowledge gained (it is hoped) from experience. Book knowledge has often been put down as inferior to knowledge gained from experience, the “School of Hard Knocks” so to speak. But it is an unfair comparison, much like having someone choose between his right and left arm.

Let us consider the two. Book knowledge has the advantage of temporal permanence, ease of transmission, purposeful scope and depth, and availability. If your bookstore hasn’t got it, Amazon.com will. On the downside, books are boring, time-consuming, requiring of considerable reading skills, and often hampered by how ideas are imperfectly captured by words. I have yet to find a travel book as good as actually being there.

Learning through experience, on the other hand, has stark clarity, personal significance, and is often buttressed with repetitive practice. That is, of course, assuming you do not do too much harm to yourself in the process of learning. The drawback of learning through experience is it can show you how or what, but not necessarily why something happened. Such is the reason why car mechanics might be very good at fixing up your car, but it’s the school trained engineer who’ll probably end up running the car shop. The former knows how, the latter, how AND why.

Now we come to chosing, something I am reluctant to do but am required to. I choose book learning for the very qualities of a book I mentioned earlier. I know that when opportunity presents itself and I have learned my book well, I should have less trouble learning. The reverse, experience before book learning, is likier to bring me to grief.

The fact that food is easier to prepare has improved the way people live. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

On the whole, I agree that the easier preparation of food has improved the way people live. The modern consumer can buy a variety of instant foods that save valuable time. In turn, this translates to more ambitious and more delicious food for people or more productivity in other aspects of living.

For example, instead of having to buy a coconut, having it split, drained, scraped, and then rendered of its milk, we can just buy a packet of dried instant coconut milk. Instead of waiting for the tamarind season, harvesting the fruit, washing them, then boiling the pods and crushing them for their souring essence, there are several brands of instant tamarind-based souring ingredients available.

But I have to say generally because the consumption of instant foods comes with a price. For one, they can cost us more. Retail instant food is in many cases more expensive than home-cooking. Another disadvantage is they create dependency. People forget how to make things from scratch. Many default to living off canned foods and instant meals from the store. Finally, instant food can change eating habits to the detriment of health. They can greatly increase the intake of food elements like chemicals, fats, and sugars to dangerous levels. Often, not enough studies have been made on the long-term health effects of many of these instant foods.

However, because it is difficult to objectively assess the bigger picture, I nevertheless have to agree that because food preparation has become easier, the way people live has improved.

Some Say That Parents are the Best Teachers. Do you agree or disagree?

I generally disagree that parents are the best teachers. They can’t be. If parents were the best teachers, then we should expect all parents to have vast knowledge matched with a specialist’s finely-honed grasp of the intricacies of each field of study. Nobody would need to go anywhere else but home for an education. We would be launching spaceships and splitting atoms from our backyards.

The proposition that parents are the best teachers is an aphorism, a wisdom saying, such as “haste makes waste” or “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” In this sense, parents ARE the best teachers. The best learned lessons for living are those learned at home, on the knees of our parents so to speak. You never forget lessons like those.

But parents are not the best teachers in all things and at all times. Humans are finite and each one has strengths and weaknesses. Parents can sometimes expect too much from their children yet be totally unaware of the fine art of teaching. They can become terrible taskmasters who end up traumatizing and getting in the way of the child’s developing desire to learn. On the other extreme, parents could be lackadaisical and be unsupportive of a child’s efforts to learn. When it comes to the education of children - that realm of study done at schools - then people other than parents could better as educators.

This is not to say that home-schooling parents are doomed to fail. They are exceptions who have consciously undertaken the formal education of their children. Furthermore, these parent/teachers progress is guided by standardized education modules from the Department of Education and the learning monitored through competency examinations taken by their children. As such, these parents are little different from the teachers found in regular school.

Nevertheless, on the whole, parents are not the best teachers.

In your opinion, why do people attend college or university?

[Note: In the Philippines, college and university are interchangeably used and will be in the same manner here.]

The pursuit of higher education in college and university has a multitude of motivations which can include such trivial things as getting away from stifling parental restrictions. However, there are more common reasons like the prospect of better-paying jobs, family and social expectations, and the genuine pursuit of personal development.

Especially now in this day and age of technical and techonological specialization, the acquisition of a college education has become a prerequisite for landing a high-paying job. Usually, the first hurdle that young people have is whether or not they can claim to have a college education. A mute but eloquent testimony to this is the blank space in the personnel's application form allocated for the name of the university attended. Granted it is possible to achieve technical competence through the trade school route, the college degree holder will nevertheless have the competitive edge when it comes to promotion.

Another common motivation (albeit an extrinsic one) for gaining a college or university education is family and social expectations. In developing countries like the Philippines, society places a premium on a person’s formal education. It is presumed that the child will attend university, whether or not the child wants to pursue a college education.

A third motivation is personal development. Children grow up believing that the completion of their training and education as a person is having a college education. How this might have gotten into their consciousness is not important. What is important is the person consciously seeks to enter college because it is there he or she expects that culmination of intellectual training will occur.

There are a number of reasons for people wanting to gain higher education, but the ones above are the most common.