CPE Writing

[paveltashkinov]

Teenagers as consumers


It is virtually impossible to escape the influence of the media these days, and particularly if you are a teenager with access not just to television and radio, but also the internet at all times of the day and night. Advertisers look upon teenagers as a blank canvas whose tastes and needs are there to be moulded by them through their advertisements. Advertisers and marketing people have become adept at reading the teenage mind, making your people believe that they need to own certain items in order to be accepted by their peer group, or simply to look cool.


Teenagers: a driving force


Advertising responds to young people’s delight in what is new by developing sophisticated and innovative, often humorous advertisements which can be seen on television and cinema screens on billboards around our towns and cities. The tastes of this generation of young people have had an impact on advertisers worldwide. However, it is the energy of the youth, above all, that has influenced the world of marketing and has kept it on its toes, pushing the creative boundaries to become almost an art form. That is the power of young people.



The over-arching theme of the two texts is the relationship between teenagers and the advertising industry.
Au fait with the Internet since their childhood, teenagers are often said to be championing the shift for digital. As they venture forth online, they often subject themselves to an unceasing barrage of advertisements and, consequently, get influenced by them. Advertisers adroitly exploit young people’s vulnerabilities, their sheer lack of practicality, and their desire to keep up with the Joneses.
Be that as it may, it would be inherently wrong to claim that advertising simply lure young people into buying certain goods. The advertising industry also taps into young people’s exuberance and their ability to think outside the box to shift the boundaries of marketing and give impetus to the industry.
Indisputably, teenagers as a target audience have become a force to be reckoned with. However, does the advertising industry simply coax young people into purchasing certain items? In my view, such straightforward strategy does not work anymore. Gone are the days when teenagers could easily influence the purchases of the whole household through their sheer nagging power. Moreover, having grown up under a flood of advertisements, teenagers seem to have eventually become more discernible and judicious customers, whose opinions are quite difficult to sway. Consequently, teenagers have come to be perceived as a driving force of the advertising industry, whose unleashed potential, creative thinking and ability to cast any conventions aside gave the industry a new lease of life and propelled it forward by leaps and bounds.

[paveltashkinov]

Claim: In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should step down after five years.
Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

Is alternation of power a prerequisite for success, be it on the governmental level or in the realm of business? Does the idea of bringing fresh blood in a properly functioning and well-run entity withstand the test of reality?
One side of the argument claims that alternation of power may interrupt well-established practices and thus undermine the hitherto achieved success. Any interference in the properly working mechanism may bring about a vast array of ramifications that may ultimately put paid to the heretofore feasible enterprise. Furthermore, if a system has been properly functioning thus far, why should there arise a need to change its management? From this viewpoint, letting amateurs to tweak and dabble with power is tantamount to dooming the enterprise to failure.
Be that as it may, being hermetically sealed and immune to any change does not seem to be a salubrious strategy and may ultimately mean a road to nowhere. Although more conservative minds vociferously claim that power should invariably belong to the few chosen ones, this way of thinking is counterproductive. Being in a position of power for a protracted period of time inevitably blunts leaders’ perspicacity and affects their vision of the situation. Moreover, such is the nature of power that it may create fertile ground for corruption and embezzlement. Had it been otherwise, the media would not have been full of sensational accounts of another politician or CEO being accused of abuse of power and wielding it to achieve their own personal objectives. Therefore, it is important that power change hands over time.
However reasonable the claim that each new generation of leaders lack acumen and sagacity may seem to be, I nonetheless tend to take it with a pinch of salt. In my view, this ostensible lack of experience young leaders are often criticized for is a mere teething problem that invariably springs up whenever neophytes ascend to power and assume their new roles. Once the new generation of leaders have learnt the ropes, they let their talent and ability to think outside the box shine through, thereby breathing life into the organization that could have otherwise been stagnating.

[paveltashkinov]

In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Are the chances of contributing to any given field of endeavour always contingent upon having a rock-solid foundation of the already available knowledge pertaining to that field? If so, how can we account for the fact that some people who can be described as dabblers and amateurs often succeed, lack of their background notwithstanding, and revolutionise the hitherto prevalent and seemingly irrefutable truths and notions about any given subject?
It is difficult to resist the temptation to claim that there exists a direct correlation between one’s likelihood of making a stellar achievement in some realm of knowledge and one’s in-depth understanding of that field. As Isaac Newton aptly put it, ‘standing on the shoulders of the giants’, i.e. relying upon and tapping into the hitherto ascertained facts, may definitely increase one’s chances of making a significant contribution. Coupled with one’s perseverance and perspicacity, the insight thus gained is bound to bear fruits.
Be that as it may, this straightforward way of reasoning, alluring and plausible as it may sound, is not devoid of its lacunae. Thus, it fails to account for the fact that dabblers, i.e. people having rather limited knowledge of a subject, sometimes break the mould and come up with outstanding ideas that, against all odds, withstand the test of reality. How has it come about that these amateurs often seem to be likelier to succeed than their more versed counterparts? Ostensibly, novices, unencumbered by any conventions, exhibit an entirely different way of reasoning, unmarred by the established concepts and axioms. Defying all the dogmas and casting all the doubts aside, they may eventually stand the traditional explanations on their head.
However, very seldom does a novice make a breakthrough. We call geniuses those very few of them who have succeeded in doing so, while myriads of other tinkers and dabblers slip into oblivion. Besides, a lion’s share of people who have reached eminence in their fields has done so through their assiduity and ability to analyse and untangle the Gordian knot of the information gathered by their predecessors. In my view, a genius with his ability to think outside the box is a rara avis; a contributor and his strong analytical thinking is way more common.

[paveltashkinov]

Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

What qualities are essential for a political leader? Should politicians seek compromise and a middle ground whenever possible or should they unwaveringly commit themselves to their word?
Some urgencies may demand immediate action and call for harsh and therefore unpopular measures. In such scenario, political leaders have no alternative but to adhere to their principles, despite the public opinion that seldom favour such Draconian measures. A good case in point is that of Egor Gaidar, the father of Russia’s economic reforms of the 1990s. When the Soviet planned economy spectacularly collapsed like a house of cards, and the population of the newly established Russian Federation was suffering from catastrophic shortages of everything from food to matches, then-Prime Minister Gaidar liberalised all prices on New Year’s Day 1992. The repercussions of this aptly called ‘shock therapy’ were seismic: in the years that followed, life expectancy plunged further and reached the nadir, public services frayed, the country was on the brink of demographic catastrophe. However, much of that was the grim legacy of Soviet misrule. Although Gaidar is still loathed by many Russians, in hindsight, he seems to have chosen the only right course of actions.
An opposite viewpoint claims that political leaders should sway their opinions according to the public demand. This begs a question: weren’t political leaders elected because they were appreciated for their resoluteness and the unassailability of their political stance? Far from being a feat of populism or a sign of political myopia, adherence to one’s word is a must for a politician, if his/her reputation is to remain untainted. Having said that, it is also important that politicians be adaptable to the shifting sands of the contemporary political reality and able to seek compromise if need be. The art of politics resembles walking on thin ice. If the fragile equilibrium is to be preserved and the politician is to reach the shore of the next elections unscathed, some compromises inevitably have to be hammered out along the way. Should the external circumstances and exigencies demand a change, the politician may strategically back down and reappraise his chosen course of actions, unless it would mean a U-turn that cannot be justified by any means.
To recapitulate, an effective leader is one who is committed to his particular principles, but also considers the public opinion and the reasons that shape the opinions of the public. If public opinion is incongruous with the leader’s principles, it should be seen whether the effects of deterring from their principles have a positive effect.

[Irina]

paveltashkinov, как ваши дела? Если правильно помню, то вы уже на финишной прямой и совсем скоро сдавать будете?

[paveltashkinov]

Irina, сдаю завтра!

[Irina]

paveltashkinov, ни пуха, ни пера Вам! Волнуетесь?

[September]

Irina, сдаю завтра!

Are you ready for CPE? - Wrong! The question is: Is CPE ready for me? (c)

Удачи!!!

[Linkrusta]

Павел, удачи! Ждем ваших отличных результатов !

[Роман Молти]

Спасибо вам за ветку. Желаю отличной сдачи экзамена!

[paveltashkinov]

Ну что, господа и дамы, экзамен позади.
По ощущениям - R&UoE были на уровне CAE. Просто plain sailing. Аудирование вроде трудностей не представило, думал, будет на порядок хуже, вообще боялся завалить эту часть. Но вроде ок.
Райтинг - эссе вроде нормально, по ощущениям, во второй части выбрал репорт по лекции. Писал, будто посетил лекцию Ханны Арендт.
В спикинге вроде норм. Сдавал вдвоем, с девушкой, с которой готовились, поэтому проблем особо не было. Мог бы и лучше выступить, думаю, но усталость уже сказывалась. Помню, что использовал какие-то сложные слова, инверсию и сабжанктив, больше ничего не помню. Вышел с экзамена, все забыл, что было, пошел есть.)

Спасибо большое всем, кто следил за моей веткой. Продолжение, безусловно, будет, каким - покажет время.

[Белая Мишка]

Какой вы счастливый, все позади)
Пусть итоги не разочаруют!

[Mary May]

Х.А.! Любопытный выбор... Неожиданно.

[paveltashkinov]

Советы следующие.
Ридинг и юз оф инглиш лучше начинать с последних заданий и идти к началу. Аудирование - тут чисто удача, но мне показалось все достаточно просто. Подруга два года назад сдавала и завалила всю часть эту, хотя остальные были ок.
Слушал при подготовке в основном BBC Radio 4, Stuff You Should Know и смотрел кучу подкастов по интересующим меня темам. Химия, инженерные штуки, история, оружие. Куча документалок.

Писал много, все мои попытки можно просмотреть на этом и на старом форуме.
Проглотил кучу книг, прорешал все паст пейперс. Играл на vocabulary.com, выучил кучу слов прикольных. Не знаю, зачем.)

Прогресс по сравнению с уровнем английского, который я имел даже после сдачи CAE три года назад - по собственным ощущениям, большой. Тем не менее, пробелов много, свое несовершенство ощущаю все острее и острее. Буду работать над языком дальше. Английский дал мне много возможностей, и многое ещё впереди, чувствую.

[paveltashkinov]

Mary May,
за пару месяцев до экзамена прочитал The Origins of Totalitarianism, после чего посмотрел пару документалок и написал подробное ревью по книге. Ничего лучшего на экзамене я не придумал. Посмотрим, прокатит ли.)

[paveltashkinov]

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Does progress ultimately lead to simplification and clarification, or does it render hitherto simple phenomena and concepts more abstruse?
Indisputably, as mankind was acquiring more knowledge throughout the course of centuries, some previously nebulous concepts were shed light on and elaborated. Such is the way of progress. As people were gradually building up a pool of data pertaining to one or another field of knowledge, they eventually succeeded in finding the keys to some of the most baffling conundrums of Nature. A good case in point is the discovery of the Periodic Law and the Periodic Table. Although chemists had spotted some trends in chemical elements’ properties well before the 18th century, they all nonetheless seemed to fail to unravel the direct correlation between the number of electrons those elements have on their outer electron layer and the chemical properties of those elements. Not until a Russian chemist D.I. Mendeleev came up with his stellar idea of arranging all elements according to the properties of their outer electron shell in 1869 were these lacunae in chemistry filled.
Be that as it may, it would be a hasty generalization to claim that progress was equal to a sheer simplification. As our understanding of the mysteries of Nature becomes deeper, we inevitably have to introduce some concepts to describe some hitherto unknown phenomena that have been unraveled during our quest for knowledge. For instance, the concept of atom seems to have undergone tremendous changes since its introduction in the Ancient times to our days. Having been introduced in the Ancient Greece by Democritus, the term ‘atom’ initially encompassed a rather crude and primitive understanding of molecular structure and functioning. However, as scientific evidence was building up throughout the course of centuries that followed, our understanding of the atom was also expanding by leaps and bounds. Gone are the days when our curious nature would be satisfied with the explanation furnished by the planetary model of the atom; nowadays, the convergence of astrophysics, chemistry and nuclear physics has rendered those conceptions obsolete, having introduced a vast array of elemental particles and forces that were hitherto beyond the ken of many a scientist. Rather than simplifying the matter, such developments seem to be only further enshrouding the subject of research in mystery.
In my view, our innate desire to expand the boundaries of our knowledge and get to the kernel of any conundrum is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, our incredulity makes us human and ultimately propels our civilization forward. Is there any limit to our insatiable thirst for knowledge? Although we may encounter what seem to be insurmountable and inexplicable obstacles on our way, couldn’t it simply mean that at this particular juncture our means of cognition were simply inadequate? Does this temporary limitation ultimately put paid to the feasibility of some of our scientific concepts, hypotheses, projects, and ideas? Hardly. That said, as we delve deeper and deeper into such unfathomable subjects, we may eventually find ourselves completely baffled and embark upon a wrong track. However, such is the way of progress. Should we adhere to a wrong theory, it will inevitably be refuted sooner or later, as our scientific means and concepts will be able to accommodate new developments in this field.

[paveltashkinov]

My journey to Level C2 is finished.
It was with a sense of trepidation that I was expecting the results of the CPE exam session I took part in in the beginning of June. Although I was pretty much sure that I would sail through it, at no time did I expect that I would get 'A'. Passing a C2 exam with flying colours is a veritable achievement. Be that as it may, there is no ground for complacency. Perhaps, I will re-sit the exam within a couple of years just to keep my English alive and kicking.)

[Viverra]

Congratulations!

[mustang]

My journey to Level C2 is finished.

Поздравляю, Павел, результат суперский! Особенно круто смотрятся друг за другом идущие 230 ки.

[paveltashkinov]

No sooner had I got my Statement of Results than I decided to move further and embark upon preparation for BEC Higher. Not that I really need this exam; rather, I am driven by pure interest and my desire to flex my linguistic muscles, lest their growth stagnate. Besides, since I am working for a multinational enterprise, this objective might as well be worth aiming at.

[Thesaurus tpz]

Поздравления от соседей (Екб).

No sooner had I got my Statement of Results than I decided to move further and embark upon preparation for BEC Higher.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to start learning a second foreign language?

[paveltashkinov]

Wouldn't it be more interesting to start learning a second foreign language?

Frankly, the whole idea sounds like a pie in the sky. I have already admitted having dabbled with German for quite a while, to no avail. I might change my mind, but for the time being I don't feel like brushing up my rusty German.
I would sooner hone my English skills, since there are still some lacunae that should be filled. Unless there arises a prospect of my relocation to a German-speaking country, I would rather let my false-beginner German lie dormant.

[mustang]

paveltashkinov,

Павел, то, что результат у вас отменный получился, думаю, и так всем без исключения понятно.

Однако ваши посты порой звучат крайне неестественно, натужно, словно вы продолжаете сдавать экзаемн, пытаясь продемонстрировать все знакомые речевые обороты (например, даже вот эти последние сообщения) - при все уважении к вам и экзаменаторам, оценившим ваши письменные навыки довольно высоко. Ну не пишут так нейтивы и все тут, поэтому я на вашем месте бы не успокаивался, "чинить и ладить" вам ,действительно, есть что и куда расти тоже, что, впрочем, справедливо практически для всех неносителей языка.

[paveltashkinov]

mustang,
ну вот и я об этом же.)

[paveltashkinov]

Review: Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton

I am glad to have chanced upon that book. I swallowed it in four days, so engrossing was it.
As I was reading it, I was duly startled by the surgical precision of the author's description of what we now call 'gaslighting':

Her thoughts ‘resembled those of a fish – something seen floating in a tank, brooding, self-absorbed, frigid, moving… Netta Longdon thought of everything in a curiously dull, brutish way… She was completely, indeed sinisterly, devoid of all those qualities which her face and body externally proclaimed her to have – pensiveness, grace, warmth, agility, beauty.

Rings a bell, doesn't it? I could hear the crescendo of thousand bells going off in my head.
There's another dimension to the story, which is set against the backdrop of the impending war. Netta, that female predator, always full on Machiavellian, got the likes and exultation of the mosleyite Peter, rather than piteous Poor George Bone (what a surprise):

‘He had been in jail on one occasion for assaulting and wounding a man at a political meeting, and on another for killing a pedestrian with his car while drunk, and this she liked, this stimulated her. She liked the whole atmosphere: she liked the deeds themselves, and she liked the jail. Both provided something bloody, brutal, and unusual which gave him a halo of originality.

It is a bizarrely brilliant depiction of a man on the edge, veraciously reflecting all those sudden changes in mood and mindset of a desolate soul, writhing in agony, driven to madness by the vacuous and frigid woman, devoid of any feelings (unless she might gain something from their careful deployment) that he loves so dearly. I should have read this book two years ago; perhaps, I would have avoided falling into the crucible of the relationships that bear so striking a resemblance to those of nettled Poor George and Netta. Highly recommended.