Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe7)
    Very nice essay! Just got a couple of extra ideas from reading yours, but of course it would be completely unrealistic to fit all this stuff in given the time constraint.

    - Before stating that the total population would increase, I'd state that this is based on the assumption that fertility rates are held constant. In many societies, such as Germany and Japan, an ageing population has coincided with a fall in fertility rates which has meant large population growth has not occurred.

    - Just a structural point for the first paragraph, but I'd make it clear that actual growth would likely increase from an increasing elderly population because of the effect on aggregate demand, but the rate of potential growth may not increase if the labour supply does not increase. Then you can evaluate that by bringing in retirement age, immigration etc.

    - Paragraph 2; do the elderly really have a stronger present-bias than other age groups? Yes, the long term is less likely to affect them, but many have children and grandchildren...

    - Nice point of scarcity and pressure on resources. Could maybe evaluate by bringing in the rate of technological change - for example, growing population hasn't put massive pressure on food prices because of large gains in agricultural productivity over the past century.

    - I think the point on inequality you mentioned at the end of the resources paragraph could become a completely separate point in itself. With an elderly population whose only source of income will be from state transfer payments and returns on capital ownership, will capital become more important? Could link to growing capital/income ratios, and maybe Piketty's 'Capital'.

    - Conclusion is interesting on leisure time; would there be less emphasis on output per capita if there was a large increase in the labour supply? We've seen an solid increase in the supply of labour over the past generation, however working hours have been rising nonetheless which has reversed the historical trend of falling working hours. Is this going to change?
    All really useful points, pretty tricky to fit stuff in in the time limit

    Thanks for the feedback, useful stuff
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samthemiller)
    All really useful points, pretty tricky to fit stuff in in the time limit

    Thanks for the feedback, useful stuff
    Definitely, you could write a 5,000 word essay on that question!

    Good luck for Wednesday!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can somebody please explain Q48 from 2009?
    http://www.admissionstestingservice....ion_1_2009.pdf
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe7)
    Definitely, you could write a 5,000 word essay on that question!

    Good luck for Wednesday!
    you too! I'm hoping there's a lot of questions I can talk about
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sjulia730)
    Is anyone on here willing to offer some constructive criticism on my essay? It's one of my first, so I'm not quite sure if what I'm doing is along the right lines or not! Any pointers on grammar/writing style/structure would also be appreciated

    "Could a robot ever think like a human?" - TSA 2012

    One could argue that the irrationality which riddles the human thought process is a characteristic unique to human thought. However, there have been attempts at modelling this human irrationality within computer programmes, in order to advance developments in behavioural game theory. The large extent to which the computers emulate this irrationality accurately could be used to argue that robots too can think irrationally, just like humans. There is a flaw in this argument. The modelling of this irrationality in computer programmes is entirely dependant on correction factors: numbers that indicate how often the computer should deviate from the rational 'rules' which have been laid out for it. These correction factors do not convincingly create irrationality; even though they may emulate results similar to those obtained from irrational human thought, the fact that these factors themselves set up rules for how the computer is meant to think entirely contradicts the concept of irrationality.

    Furthermore, the human thought process is often influenced by emotions. Therefore, to question whether a robot could ever think like a human is to question whether a robot could ever experience emotion. Following substantial research within psychology into emotion, it has been concluded that emotion is a result of a combination of social constructs and biological changes. Since a robot could never experience either of these, one could conclude that a robot can never experience emotion and consequently never think like a human.

    However, some may argue that it is in fact impossible to pinpoint a specific way in which all human beings think. Therefore, the more useful questions to ask when considering whether a robot could every think like a human are those which discuss whether a robot could ever emulate the power of the human brain. Computers have already been developed to emulate the brain power of several brain cells, and due to the large technological advances we are sure to make in the future, it could be extrapolated that one day we will be able to create a computer that is as powerful as a human brain. Therefore, one day robots will be able to think 'like a human' as they will possess control over similar levels of 'brain power' which they can use in any way they choose to create thought, just like a human being does presently.

    Thus it could be possible for a robot to think like a human, depending on how we approach the definition of human thought. If our definition relies wholly on the brain power that generates thought, then it is possible that one day a robot will possess the same intellectual capacity as a human and so have access to just as many different possible methods of thought as a human. However, if we define human thought through factors that influence it, such as irrationality and emotion, then we quickly come to the conclusion that robots will never be able to think as humans do, as they cannot be influenced by the same defining factors.
    This is not a topic which I'd feel particularly comfortable writing on but great essay, the structure/grammar seems fine to me. Here's a couple of thoughts:

    - Love the first paragraph! I like how you introduced computer programs which model irrationality, but then evaluated that by saying that these rationalities are based on the entirely rational implementation of programmed rules - rational irrationality.

    - I like the second paragraph and I'm certainly not an expert on the topic by any means but couldn't computers at some point in the future begin to alter their 'biology' and respond to their surroundings? Computers already to some extent modify their own programming to respond to certain situations, and I see no reason why in the future there couldn't be large progress in this area. http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-...y-its-own-code

    - Third paragraph; brilliant again. Maybe you could've used the example of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov to show that in some respects computers can already outstrip human intelligence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximator)
    Can somebody please explain Q48 from 2009?
    http://www.admissionstestingservice....ion_1_2009.pdf
    I have shown this question to two of my friends who are also doing the TSA, and two teachers, one of whom went to Cambridge. None of them had any idea whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe7)
    This is not a topic which I'd feel particularly comfortable writing on but great essay, the structure/grammar seems fine to me. Here's a couple of thoughts:

    - Love the first paragraph! I like how you introduced computer programs which model irrationality, but then evaluated that by saying that these rationalities are based on the entirely rational implementation of programmed rules - rational irrationality.

    - I like the second paragraph and I'm certainly not an expert on the topic by any means but couldn't computers at some point in the future begin to alter their 'biology' and respond to their surroundings? Computers already to some extent modify their own programming to respond to certain situations, and I see no reason why in the future there couldn't be large progress in this area. http://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-...y-its-own-code

    - Third paragraph; brilliant again. Maybe you could've used the example of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov to show that in some respects computers can already outstrip human intelligence.
    I'm glad to hear the grammar/structure is fine, English isn't my first language and sometimes I'm worried it shows! I didn't know that computers can modify their own programming so that point certainly sparks up some very interesting ideas for further thought. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through my essay and comment on it, it's been very helpful! Good luck on Wednesday
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    2012 q44 anyone got an explanation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oluwabob)
    Are the harder questions nearer the end actually worth more marks? And for practice papers, do you use the score conversion to work out your score as a percentage?
    All questions are worth 1 point regardless of difficulty. And the score conversion thing isn't percentage, it's a thing called a Rasch scale so they can compare scores year to year where tests have varied in overall difficulty
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulKrugman)
    2012 q44 anyone got an explanation?
    There is no proper method really, you've got to visualise the shapes and look for similarities.

    B and E are definitely the same as E is just B flipped downwards. D and C are not the same, because if you rotate C 180 degrees it doesn't look the same as D. Therefore, if you compare both with A it can be seen that if you flip D over and rotate a bit you get A. Hence, C is the odd one out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maximator)
    Can somebody please explain Q48 from 2009?
    http://www.admissionstestingservice....ion_1_2009.pdf
    This one is really tricky but I'll try and explain it here:
    You basically have to draw out what each route looks like, then follow the path and see if it's the shortest or not. The paths I got were:
    C B X A
    B C X A
    B C A X
    C X B A
    X A B C

    If you follow the route provided, you will see the shortest way around a, b, d, and e is the route shown (it might help if you draw arrows above the letters and follow the route). With C, however, the route goes right, then left, then further left then right again. This is not the shortest route, therefore the answer is C.

    Hopefully this made sense, although I don't think I explained it very well! Let me know if you need further clarification

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joe7)
    There is no proper method really, you've got to visualise the shapes and look for similarities.

    B and E are definitely the same as E is just B flipped downwards. D and C are not the same, because if you rotate C 180 degrees it doesn't look the same as D. Therefore, if you compare both with A it can be seen that if you flip D over and rotate a bit you get A. Hence, C is the odd one out.
    Magnificent *******.

    What are you getting atm in the TSA?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PaulKrugman)
    Magnificent *******.

    What are you getting atm in the TSA?
    Thanks Paul.

    High 60s to low 70s, yourself?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've finished all the MC papers with score conversion so now I'm doing an essay or two. Did it in 32 minutes(including planning) but I'm not too bothered about that, just keen to make sure I'm doing right. Found giving counter arguments, whilst having a definite stance difficult to do well in the time allowed. Think it will be alright enough.

    Can someone read it and say what they think please.

    Does immigration benefit a country?

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Immigration is the process of people from a foreign country moving to another country to live. The benefits of immigration are there for everyone to see but it does have its drawbacks, meaning the subject is hotly debated, splitting opinions worldwide.

    There are many economic benefits of immigration. Importing workers from elsewhere can plug any skill gaps that open up within an economy. A skills gap is a problem that arises when there isn’t a large enough supply of workers for a particular role, leaving a country with excess demand for that role. To solve this problem, the country could train other workers to do this role but this is difficult if an economy doesn’t have a large enough surplus of willing workers and is thus close to full employment. This was the issue that faced Germany during their economic boom period during the 1960s. The only other way they could solve the problem in the short-run was to import workers from elsewhere so they set up a trade of labour agreement with Turkey which saw some Turkish workers move to Germany to fill voids in the labour supply. Failure to do so would have been detrimental to the German economy halting the boom and leading to inflation spiralling out of control with.

    Similarly, the NHS in the UK has big recruitment drives in parts of Europe and Asia, encouraging skilled workers like nurse to migrate to the UK to work. This has to be done as the UK is unable to produce enough workers for the health service and without these migrant workers, the NHS couldn’t provide the same level of care and service free at the point of use for everyone in the country.

    Migrants tend to be young and healthy people who are looking to improve their quality of life so become active members of a country’s workforce. European immigrants make a positive contribution to the UK’s fiscal budget, paying 34% more in taxes than they take out in benefits. This is of huge benefit to places like the UK and Italy where there is an aging population that needs to be paid for. In the absence of these workers, the UK would be unable to fill vacancies left by retirement as well as struggling to finance pensions and care for the elderly leading to a mushrooming budget deficit and fiscal catastrophe.

    Milton Friedman believed it was not possible to have successful open border immigration whilst a country operated a welfare state. This was because migrants would enter a country not to work, but instead to claim benefits from the welfare state, as there is little incentive to work. Many people interpret this as an anti immigration stance from Friedman so use it as an argument against. In reality, it is a criticism of government intervention and the welfare state. Friedman goes on to say that illegal immigration is good because migrants move to find work as they are unable to claim benefits. Immigration can only be truly beneficial with sound government policies which put the needs of the country first and prevent misuse of the system.

    Many people will argue that immigration can have a negative social impact of a nation. Certainly it is true that an influx of new cultures can cause friction in some areas. For example, migrants with the same religion, ethnicity or beliefs tend to congregate together and set up their own communities, leaving natives feeling alienated, disillusioned and eventually driving them away. Leicester is a city that has managed to embrace multiculturalism with cohesion between all cultures. Leicester now holds the biggest Diwali festival outside of India which is enjoyed by residents from all backgrounds without any trouble. It has now become a tourist attraction for the city, evidently boosting the economy of the city as well as putting it on the map.

    The educational benefits of immigration shouldn’t be overlooked either. People moving to a country from all over the world is a good way to improve understanding of different cultures, countries and religions. Being able to engage with migrants helps the education process and in the age of globalisation, this is vital. This greater understanding of different cultures may help with business decisions and trade links, further boosting the economy of a country. It can also help in terms of government foreign policy as the understanding of different ideologies makes compromise easier and prevents rash decisions.

    Immigration is always going to have some benefit to a country, no matter what, be it economic, social or political. However it is important that these benefits outweigh any negatives that come from immigration. It is up to government to ensure that migrants are economically active and socially sound so that any negatives are minimised to allow the benefits of immigration to shine through. If done properly then immigration can significantly aid economic growth, help a government satisfy their macroeconomic objectives and enrich the lives of natives. The results of immigration can never be perfect but it can certainly add a lot to a country
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Askaud)
    I've finished all the MC papers with score conversion so now I'm doing an essay or two. Did it in 32 minutes(including planning) but I'm not too bothered about that, just keen to make sure I'm doing right. Found giving counter arguments, whilst having a definite stance difficult to do well in the time allowed. Think it will be alright enough.

    Can someone read it and say what they think please.

    Does immigration benefit a country?

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Immigration is the process of people from a foreign country moving to another country to live. The benefits of immigration are there for everyone to see but it does have its drawbacks, meaning the subject is hotly debated, splitting opinions worldwide.

    There are many economic benefits of immigration. Importing workers from elsewhere can plug any skill gaps that open up within an economy. A skills gap is a problem that arises when there isn’t a large enough supply of workers for a particular role, leaving a country with excess demand for that role. To solve this problem, the country could train other workers to do this role but this is difficult if an economy doesn’t have a large enough surplus of willing workers and is thus close to full employment. This was the issue that faced Germany during their economic boom period during the 1960s. The only other way they could solve the problem in the short-run was to import workers from elsewhere so they set up a trade of labour agreement with Turkey which saw some Turkish workers move to Germany to fill voids in the labour supply. Failure to do so would have been detrimental to the German economy halting the boom and leading to inflation spiralling out of control with.

    Similarly, the NHS in the UK has big recruitment drives in parts of Europe and Asia, encouraging skilled workers like nurse to migrate to the UK to work. This has to be done as the UK is unable to produce enough workers for the health service and without these migrant workers, the NHS couldn’t provide the same level of care and service free at the point of use for everyone in the country.

    Migrants tend to be young and healthy people who are looking to improve their quality of life so become active members of a country’s workforce. European immigrants make a positive contribution to the UK’s fiscal budget, paying 34% more in taxes than they take out in benefits. This is of huge benefit to places like the UK and Italy where there is an aging population that needs to be paid for. In the absence of these workers, the UK would be unable to fill vacancies left by retirement as well as struggling to finance pensions and care for the elderly leading to a mushrooming budget deficit and fiscal catastrophe.

    Milton Friedman believed it was not possible to have successful open border immigration whilst a country operated a welfare state. This was because migrants would enter a country not to work, but instead to claim benefits from the welfare state, as there is little incentive to work. Many people interpret this as an anti immigration stance from Friedman so use it as an argument against. In reality, it is a criticism of government intervention and the welfare state. Friedman goes on to say that illegal immigration is good because migrants move to find work as they are unable to claim benefits. Immigration can only be truly beneficial with sound government policies which put the needs of the country first and prevent misuse of the system.

    Many people will argue that immigration can have a negative social impact of a nation. Certainly it is true that an influx of new cultures can cause friction in some areas. For example, migrants with the same religion, ethnicity or beliefs tend to congregate together and set up their own communities, leaving natives feeling alienated, disillusioned and eventually driving them away. Leicester is a city that has managed to embrace multiculturalism with cohesion between all cultures. Leicester now holds the biggest Diwali festival outside of India which is enjoyed by residents from all backgrounds without any trouble. It has now become a tourist attraction for the city, evidently boosting the economy of the city as well as putting it on the map.

    The educational benefits of immigration shouldn’t be overlooked either. People moving to a country from all over the world is a good way to improve understanding of different cultures, countries and religions. Being able to engage with migrants helps the education process and in the age of globalisation, this is vital. This greater understanding of different cultures may help with business decisions and trade links, further boosting the economy of a country. It can also help in terms of government foreign policy as the understanding of different ideologies makes compromise easier and prevents rash decisions.

    Immigration is always going to have some benefit to a country, no matter what, be it economic, social or political. However it is important that these benefits outweigh any negatives that come from immigration. It is up to government to ensure that migrants are economically active and socially sound so that any negatives are minimised to allow the benefits of immigration to shine through. If done properly then immigration can significantly aid economic growth, help a government satisfy their macroeconomic objectives and enrich the lives of natives. The results of immigration can never be perfect but it can certainly add a lot to a country

    You wrote this in 32 minutes by hand?
    It's really long and you probably won't be able to do an essay like this wednessday
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Could someone please explain to me question 44 and 48 on the 2010 paper?

    Thanks in advance
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agap)
    You wrote this in 32 minutes by hand?
    It's really long and you probably won't be able to do an essay like this wednessday
    Well no I typed it which yeah I guess I can do quicker than writing by hand. I'm going to do another one tomorrow by hand to see the difference cos as you say I wouldn't be able to do that much in half an hour
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Askaud)
    Well no I typed it which yeah I guess I can do quicker than writing by hand. I'm going to do another one tomorrow by hand to see the difference cos as you say I wouldn't be able to do that much in half an hour

    That's probably better for practise. There is usually a lot to say and your whole text should be focused on getting the arguments in without having lots of time to think about or explain them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When a football team plays at their home ground, they are more likely to win. The usualexplanations include the home team being used to the pitch or that travelling unsettles theopposing team. The real reason why, in football, home teams always have an advantage is thatreferees are influenced by the noise from the big home crowd to make decisions in favour of thehome team. In an experiment, referees were asked to make judgements from video recordings ofmatches. One group was played using recordings without sound, the other with. The first groupwas much less likely than the second to give decisions in favour of the home team. The secondgroup's decisions were close to those given by the referee in the match.
    Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?



    1. A Very weak football teams are rarely successful when playing away from home.
    2. B The most successful football clubs normally have disputed decisions made in their favour.
    3. C Clubs which have very few supporters perform better at home than away.
    4. D All football referees have to be trained in understanding the rules of the game.
    5. E In some sports, such as golf, players on their home ground have no advantage.





    Needed some help in this question. What do you guys think is the answer?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harshil1)
    When a football team plays at their home ground, they are more likely to win. The usualexplanations include the home team being used to the pitch or that travelling unsettles theopposing team. The real reason why, in football, home teams always have an advantage is thatreferees are influenced by the noise from the big home crowd to make decisions in favour of thehome team. In an experiment, referees were asked to make judgements from video recordings ofmatches. One group was played using recordings without sound, the other with. The first groupwas much less likely than the second to give decisions in favour of the home team. The secondgroup's decisions were close to those given by the referee in the match.
    Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?



    1. A Very weak football teams are rarely successful when playing away from home.
    2. B The most successful football clubs normally have disputed decisions made in their favour.
    3. C Clubs which have very few supporters perform better at home than away.
    4. D All football referees have to be trained in understanding the rules of the game.
    5. E In some sports, such as golf, players on their home ground have no advantage.





    Needed some help in this question. What do you guys think is the answer?
    C?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.