To contribute to the academic discussion response, you need to present your own ideas. This chapter is on how to come up with ideas.
5.1 Ask W questions
For some questions, you might have some good ideas, but for some other questions you might not have any ideas at all. So how should you start to generate ideas when you are at a loss? If this is the ase, you can start by asking the W-question. That is, ask yourself What, Why, Who, When, Where and How about the topic. Especially important questions are What and why. Even if you think you know what the thing or concept in the question is, try to define it in your own words, as this helps ideas move. While you are answering these questions, you will have multiple ideas. Let's see how this can be done with an example. Consider this question:
What is the value of museums in cities?
To answer this broad, abstract question, you should begin with what a museum means to you, What is a museum? It’s a building that exhibits things that are viewed as important in some ways, like historical, scientific, artistic, or culturally important things.
Next, ask where or which museums you have visited. These are some of the museums that I’ve heard of or I’ve visited: Paris’ the Louvre, Dublin’s Guinness Storehouse, New York City’ The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Chocago’s Field Museum, Silicon Valley’s The Computer History Museum, and San Diego’s Air & Space Museum and USS Midway Museum. Some of these museums can be used to further generate ideas.
Another question to ask is why you liked the museums you visited. When you have answers to these questions, you can generalize your experience to the general public. These are my reasons.
Because I can see unusual things that are important in human history → get education
Because I can experience and understand what life would have been like → open a new perspective
Because I can relax and enjoy the quiet self-reflecting time as I look at the exhibits → improve mental health
Because I can learn about the cities. For example, the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry showcases its industrial might, The Computer Museum of Silicon Valley demonstrates its focus on innovative technology, and the USS Midway in San Diego illustrates the Navy presence in the city → exemplifies the characteristics of the city.
With these ideas, we can answer the question, Why are museums in cities valuable? These are three possible summary responses:
Museums preserve historically valuable things, including human history, and educate people about it in an engaging way through the display of interesting objects and artifacts → lifelong learning experience about history, art, science and technology, and culture → opens a new possibility and perspective
Museums provide their citizens places to escape from the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and learn something educational (unlike parks or entertainment places) → promote people’s mental health
Different cities have different types of museums that showcase their cities → provides a sense of identity of the city and a source of pride for the people living in the city
This is another example question:
When some free land is available in a city, should the city government use the land for green spaces or for some other important purposes?
Let’s say that your position is to use the land for green spaces. Then, ask yourself what green spaces are. A green space is an area of grass, trees, and other vegetation with some water features like a pond, in the city. This visualization will help you answer the next question, Why do I want cities to have green spaces?
Because I would visit there to relax like reading a novel under a tree or strolling around the pond watching birds.
Because green spaces will make the air cleaner since trees can absorb carbons and other pollutants from cars
Because green spaces can mitigate the urban heat island problem, allowing the city not to get so hot in the summer
Because green spaces can provide habitat for birds and wild animals..
By answering these questions, as you can see, what seemed like a narrow topic to write on suddenly has multiple possibilities. Since the question asks for an alternative (some other important purposes) to green spaces, you should end your response by saying something like “I believe that these benefits of green spaces far outweigh other possible benefits from using the land other than for green spaces.”
5.2 Perspectives to consider
Some TOEFL discussion questions are more difficult than others. For instance, if they are about something that you are already familiar with such as modern societies or culture, you might have some ideas. These are example questions:
Do you prefer to spend your free time with your friends or to spend your free time alone?
Do you think people's social skills have declined as their use of technology has increased?
For these types, you might have some relevant examples to support your thesis. However, some questions can be challenging as they are conceptual and abstract. These are some of these challenging questions:
Should grades be solely based on academic performance or should effort also be counted?
Should fitness testing at school be mandatory?
For these types of questions, an anecdotal example that relates to the topic is not persuasive since the questions ask not about your situation, but about a universal situation. So to be persuasive, you need to appeal to some general concept that resonates with your reader.
For example, mandatory fitness testing is introduced to emphasize the importance of a healthy body, which is an important goal. So most people will agree with the mandatory testing idea for that reason. If you want to argue against it, you need to have a better reason.
This is one way to dig deeper. Since the argument for the fitness test is about the possible benefits of the test, you should consider the possible harms of the test. Especially, since the test is about the physical benefits, you can focus on psychological harms. For instance, students who do not pass the test would feel embarrassed and humiliated. They might become very conscious of their body, developing an unhealthy body image. By invoking this sort of mental health problem, which is a very important concern, you now have ground to stand on for a disagreement. Then you can add that, if schools aim to improve students’ health, they should consider introducing measures such as healthy school lunches and education on healthy diet and proper exercise.
You can generate ideas for a difficult topic question when you look at the topic from various perspectives or factors such as technical, economical, environmental, social and ethical. The technical perspective considers how to achieve a goal or how to implement the goal. It can also ask whether a process is easy, practical, or safe. The economic perspective asks about the economic consequences, costs or benefits of a certain action. It can also ask about the impact of an event or policy on the economic environment such as economic growth, job growth and unemployment. The environmental perspective asks about the impact on the environment of an action or policy. Considering matters from this environmental perspective has become important as the environment is a shared resource that is increasingly in danger. The social perspective considers what impact doing something has on the society, institutions, family or individual. And, the ethical perspective asks you to look at the topic from a moral consideration. It can ask whether an act or policy is fair, provides equal opportunities, and protects the rights of relevant parties.
Most discussion questions can be analyzed from all these perspectives. For instance, if the topic is about saving the environment, the technical factors would consider ways to solve the problem such as renewable energy methods or carbon capture and storage methods. The economic factors would consider the costs and benefits of saving the environment. The social factors would consider the impact of environmental degradation, such as how it can lead to conflict, displacement, and social unrest. An ethical factor would consider whether we have a duty to save the environment or whether the environment has the right to be protected from human exploitation. Which perspective to choose depends on your background knowledge. If your major is science or engineering, you might want to analyze a topic from a technical perspective, and if your major is humanities, you might want to analyze a topic from moral or socio-political angles. Consider how this can be done with a question:
Should the government promote tourism to remote places where tourists normally do not visit?
This question can easily be subjected to an economic analysis since you can ask about its economic consequences, its costs and benefits, and its impact on job growth and unemployment. Consider these two responses based on economic analysis.
Response 1
I think that promoting tourism in far away places that are not normally visited by tourists is a good idea. While it is possible that some people living in the remote places do not want tourists visiting there for fear that that tourism will disrupt their unique way of life , most of the residents would welcome tourists since they can see that tourism brings abundant economic benefits to the areas. Obviously, tourism can create many types of businesses such as hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, and even amusement parks. In addition, there will be specialty shops and stores that cater grownups, children, or families. The creation of these businesses implies the creation of jobs for local residents. Tourism can also generate income for the local community through increased tax revenues and collection of various fees from tourists. This income can be used to improve not only transportation infrastructure, but other much needed ones such as water, energy, information and even health and education infrastructure. Consider the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming and Yosemite National Park in California, both located in remote places. When the government promoted tourism to these parks, massive tourism took place bringing in millions of dollars each year. This has improved the standard of living for people in these areas.
Response 2
Many people tend to think that tourism stimulates the local economy and that this is a sufficient reason to promote tourism in remote places. I beg to differ. If tourism is good for the local economy, it must be a source of sizable income for the local residents. However, tourism does not necessarily improve the local economy since most of the money tourists spend is spent somewhere else, such as airlines and gas, not in the remote, local places. This is especially the case with mass tourism and high-end, all-inclusive luxury tourism since the ones that make the lions’ share of profits are hotel chains and tour related conglomerates in the cities. By contrast, local people are paid peanuts since their jobs are usually hotel custodial staff or tour operators. When the remote places are somewhere in developing nations, the problem is even worse since tourism in these places are dominated by tourism related multinational corporations such as Hiltons and Marriots. For example, the Hilton Hotel chain buys a private beach on an island in the Caribbean, developing it into a luxurious, all-inclusive resort. Tourists visiting the island would spend all their money at the resort, contributing $0 for the local economy. The Hilton resort there will take all its profits back to the US. The claim that tourism promotes the local economy is untenable, so the government should not promote tourism to remote places
The following essay employs a technical analysis as it focuses on how to solve a problem.
While there are some problems with promoting tourism in far away places, I believe that these problems can be overcome, and thus tourism should be promoted. One of the biggest problems is that tourism does not necessarily improve the local economy. According to a UN study, of each $100 spent by a foreign tourist, only around $5 actually stays in the local economy of a developing country destination. This is lamentable since, when we travel, we hope that we leave positive impacts on the places we visit.
I believe that the practical solution to help improve the local economy is to actively seek out local cultures and experience them. For instance, tourists should dine at local restaurants instead of eating at a multinational chain restaurant, and stay in local accommodations, instead of spending their time in large resorts created by global companies. Tourists should also spend money on local products instead of demanding products from back home. For example, if foreign tourists demand Minute Maid orange juice, instead of consuming locally produced orange juice, the local merchants have to import the goods from another country, lowering their profits. When tourists consciously try to help the local economy, both the tourists and local people will benefit from the promotion of tourism.
The following response is based on a social analysis
I suggest the government not promote tourism to remote places for the reason of the negative impact of tourism on the local society. When people are on holiday they tend to leave their moral compass at home. They want to have a good time outside of their usual environment. This mentality is clearly summarized in a TV ad that promotes tourism in Las Vegas, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” This attitude of tourists can lead to major clashes between tourists and locals, leaving the locals wishing that the tourists have never come to their town. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, tourists can offend locals with culturally unacceptable behaviors and make them feel uncomfortable by dressing inappropriately. Some tourists might even engage in public display of drugs and alcohol use. Exposing the locals to these unsavory behaviors can lead to the deterioration of their local culture. This cultural deterioration can further lead to the mushrooming of seedy businesses like bars, nightclubs, and prostitution. I believe that this social-cultural cost to the local community is so immense that tourism in remote places should not be promoted by the government.
The following response is based on an environmental analysis of the topic.
Thinking of an ideal vacation place would conjure up a beachfront villa in a remote place. While it might look like paradise, I don’t think many of us have thought about the environmental impacts of building one right on the coast. Building hotels and resorts right along the coastline can have major impacts on the ocean, surrounding reefs, and marine ecosystems due to erosion and sand runoff. Indeed, promoting tourism in remote places almost always would lead to environmental degradation since these remote places are often some of the most pristine, yet fragile natural areas in the world. Hiking in the rainforest, snorkeling in coral reefs and climbing alpine mountains are just some of the many activities that can physically impact and damage the natural environment. More importantly, to promote tourism in remote places, natural areas needed to be cleared to make way for the construction of hotels, roads, and utility infrastructures. These human activities will displace animals and destroy forests or wetlands. From the rubbish that tourists will leave behind in remote places to air pollution from transportation and water pollution, tourism erodes the environment, and this is why I would strongly dissuade the government from promoting tourism to remote places.
5.3 Ethical perspective
A proposal to a solution of a problem can be analyzed from an ethical perspective or from a moral consideration. Concepts such as best outcomes, fairness, rights and duties are all related to moral consideration. Broadly speaking, philosophers use two measures to evaluate whether an act is morally good or bad, or morally permissible or impermissible. One measure is to consider the consequences of the action, and the other measure is to test whether the action obeys certain moral principles. The former view is called consequentialism or utilitarianism, and the latter view is called deontology or duty ethics. We examine how to use these two measures to analyze a topic.
According to consequentialism, if an act produces the best outcomes compared with other available alternative acts, the act is morally the right thing to do. Consequentialists only consider the possible outcomes of an act or a policy. The possible outcomes include short-term and long-term effects, as well as intended and unintended effects.
Considering a topic from an economic perspective can often be similar to a consequentialist approach as it considers a topic in terms of benefits and costs. Regarding the earlier topic, whether tourism to remote places should be promoted, the economic perspective led to two opposite analyses, as shown in response 1 and response 2. In response 1, it benefits almost everyone involved, so consequentialists will conclude that it is morally right to promote tourism to remote places. On the other hand, the analysis of response 2 is that such tourism does not produce good consequences for the remote places, so consequentialists will conclude that it is morally wrong to promote tourism to remote places.
Consider this question:
To promote academic success, your university is considering a new policy that would limit the number of hours per week that students can spend working at university jobs. Do you think it is a good idea?
This is a sample response that considers this topic from a consequentialist perspective:
I do not think it is a good idea to implement the policy that would limit students’ work hours at university jobs. At first glance, it seems that limiting work hours at campus jobs can promote academic performance since students now would have more time to study. However, what is more likely to happen is that students would have even less time to study. This is why. Students take the campus jobs mainly because they need some money to pay for their tuition and fees or living expenses. The cost for these expense items is fixed. If the policy is implemented, students will make less money since they will have fewer hours to work at university jobs. Since the expenses are fixed, to make up the difference, students will have to find off-campus jobs. Obviously, off-campus jobs will be more demanding on students’ time since students have to travel to the job site to work and travel back to campus to take classes. All this travel time would eat up the study time. Since students will have less time to study, their academic performance will suffer.
This response argues against the proposed policy by explaining why the policy would not produce the intended, desired, outcome
Another measure is to appeal to some moral principle, called deontology or duty ethics. Some actions might produce good results but they violate certain moral principles. In this case, even if the action produces good results, it is not the right thing to do, according to duty ethics. For example, if we can save five patients who all need different organs, consequentialism seems to say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice one healthy person and harvest his organs to save the five patients. However, duty ethic theorists will argue that this action goes against the moral principle that one may not kill an innocent person, and, for this reason, it is morally wrong. According to duty ethics, an action is morally right only when it abides by moral principles. The moral principles that you can consider are fairness, equal opportunity, rights and duties. There are many types of rights and duties. For example, there are human rights, animal rights, rights of the unborn and so on. Human rights include life, liberty, security, education, privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and so on. Moral duties can include filial duty, parental duty, and so on.
Consider this question:
Should the government ban people from using cellphones on the street?
This is a sample response that is based on the duty ethics perspective.
Of course, using a cell phone while walking can increase the risk of accidents as it can be distracting. People who are distracted by their phones are more likely to trip, bump into others, or walk into traffic. So, banning cellphone use on the street could make the streets safer. Despite this foreseeable benefit, I disagree with the idea that the government should ban cell phone use on the street. My reason is that such a ban can infringe on personal freedom. My conviction is that as long as an action does not harm others or does not infringe upon another’s freedom, the action belongs to the realm of personal freedom and the government has no right to prevent the person from doing the action. I think using a cell phone on the street is a personal freedom as it doesn’t harm others. So the decision as to whether to use a cellphone in the street should be left to individuals. I believe that individuals will voluntarily choose not to use cellphones in a busy street with a lot of traffic.
