Dear Editor: While a new school term is about to begin, perhaps we should reconsider the matter of examinations. In July, two writers(letters to the editor) praised the cancellation of exams because they believe "Tests don't tell the whole story". As a teacher who has worked in four countries, I have had the experience that a student who earns good marks is generally a good student, and a student's final mark in a subject is usually a grade average of the year's work. Of course there are expectations, but they do not have the frequency that would give an unfair picture of a student's ability. The simple fact is that proper class work; diligent exam studies and good marks are almost certain indicators   of a student's future performance. The opposite is, almost certainly, incompetence.  There is no acceptable substitute for competition of quality. How can teachers and future officials determine what a student has learned and remembered? Should we simply take the student's mark for it? Any institution that "liberates" students from fair and formal exams is misguided, if not ignorant   and surely the "graduates " of such institutions will lack trustworthiness , not to mention being rejected by foreign universities for graduate or other studies. When all is said and done, I sense that a fear of failure and a fear of unpleasant comparison with others are at the bottom of most ban-exam talks. Excellence and quality fear nothing. On the contrary, they seek competition and desire the satisfaction of being the best. Which of the following will be the author of this passage probably agree with?
Tests are an effective measure of the students' abilities. Tests are not effective in measuring the students' abilities. Tests can only measure some of the students' abilities. Tests may not be useful for measuring students' abilities
Question: Dear Editor: While a new school term is about to begin, perhaps we should reconsider the matter of examinations. In July, two writers(letters to the editor) praised the cancellation of exams because they believe "Tests don't tell the whole story". As a teacher who has worked in four countries, I have had the experience that a student who earns good marks is generally a good student, and a student's final mark in a subject is usually a grade average of the year's work. Of course there are expectations, but they do not have the frequency that would give an unfair picture of a student's ability. The simple fact is that proper class work; diligent exam studies and good marks are almost certain indicators   of a student's future performance. The opposite is, almost certainly, incompetence.  There is no acceptable substitute for competition of quality. How can teachers and future officials determine what a student has learned and remembered? Should we simply take the student's mark for it? Any institution that "liberates" students from fair and formal exams is misguided, if not ignorant   and surely the "graduates " of such institutions will lack trustworthiness , not to mention being rejected by foreign universities for graduate or other studies. When all is said and done, I sense that a fear of failure and a fear of unpleasant comparison with others are at the bottom of most ban-exam talks. Excellence and quality fear nothing. On the contrary, they seek competition and desire the satisfaction of being the best. Which of the following will be the author of this passage probably agree with?
A. Tests are an effective measure of the students' abilities.
B. Tests are not effective in measuring the students' abilities.
C. Tests can only measure some of the students' abilities.
D. Tests may not be useful for measuring students' abilities
Answer: