Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
teach or advise students. So, the universities and the students are not
benefiting from these appearances.
Last but not least, the lecturer mentions that, contrary to the belief of the
passage, not even the public is benefiting. TV stations are solely interested
in the professor's academic title. The information that he ends up being
broadcast is not in-depth information and doesn't differ much from the kind
of information that a reporter (who has done the homework) would give.
Second, the contradiction found in the fact the woman's face is illuminated
by the dark full collar she is wearing is solved if we take into account the
finding that, originally, the woman was wearing a white collar that
illuminated her face. So, in Rembrant, the use of light and shadow was
realistic; it was the changes in the painting that introduced the "error".
Finally, the glued wood panel was actually added to enlarge the painting and
make it more valuable. Also, analyses of the original pieces of wood show
that they belong to the same tree from which another panel for a Rembrant
painting was made.
According to the reading passage, there are two main types of tests used in
secondary education: one type is the objective test (multiple choice, fill in
the blanks, true-or-false, etc.), and the other is the subjetive test, in which
students are required to write essays about a certain topic.
The author of the reading takes a stand in favor of the latter type of
assessment for three reasons. First, in the passage, essays are said to test
the capacity of analysis and therefore a higher level of understanding,
whereas objetive tests merely assess the students capacity to memorize
information. Subjective tests are, consequently, more aligned with the type
of tasks students will confront themselves in real life. Second, essays also
stimulate the development of writing skills, which is important for all
subjects, at all levels. Finally, the passage says that essay tests take less
time to be prepared than objetive ones and this is of course beneficial for
busy teachers.
In the lecture, the professor starts by claiming that he has nothing against
essay writing, but then presents two drawbacks of subjective tests and
some benefits of objective ones, challeging the conception presented in the
reading passage. According the him, that is nothing wrong with memorizing
things actually, we do need to memorize basic facts and information. Also,
assessing someone through his writing could me misleading since good
writers might end up having good grades even though they have poor
knowledge on the subject they are writing about. The lecturer acknowledges
that objetive tests are easier to construct, but points out that essays, on the
other hand, are much more difficult to grade. Besides being more time
consuming, the grading of subjective tests, to be fair, requires the teacher
to go through them at the same time, which is not always convinient.
Objetive tests are a lot easier to grade - it take less time and could even be
done by a machine.
The professor concludes his explanation by saying that, for some situations,
a combination of both methods of assessments is more effective than the
use of one of them alone. Both types have their places in secondary schools.
The reading passage takes a strong stand in favor of vivisection, i.e. the use
of animals in medical research. The author acknowledges that it is natural to
be concerned about how animals are treated in such experiments, but says
that it is the reduction of human suffering that should worry us more.
According to the passage, animal suffering could be kept to a minimum,
using anesthesia and maintaining animals healthy, in a clean and
comfortable space. But at the heart of the authors argument is the claim
that there is no good replacement for vivisection. The other available
techniques are not as effective and, besides, it is immoral to risk human
lives in an experiment that could be carried out with non-humans.
In the lecture, the professor strongly opposes vivisection and conveys
arguments to support her opinion that contradict the claims of the reading
passage. According to her, the discovery of new drugs is possible without
animal testing, as proves the example of findings of aspirin and also of a
drug used to treating malaria. Also, sometimes new drugs would never have
been used if they were limited to animal testing. The morphine, for example,
reduces pain in humans, but stimulates it in cats. The professor disagrees
with the idea that there are not good substitutes by saying that medicines
could be tested directly in human tissues cultivated in labs. There are also
computer simulations and other alternatives.
Finally, the professor says that animals are not treated in as humanly as
possible in medical experiments. She has already been to many labs and
witnessed animals being abused and facing terrible diseases, in
environments with toxic chemicals.