Introduction-To-The-GRE-Argument-Process-For-Take-a-look-at-Takers

From Human's Love
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction To The GRE Argument Task (For Check Takers)



The sample essays that comply with had been written in response to the immediate that seems beneath. The rater commentary that follows each pattern essay explains how the response meets the criteria for that rating. For a more full understanding of the factors for every rating level, see the "Analyze an Argument" Scoring Information. In surveys Mason Metropolis residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) amongst their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the town is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and town park division devotes little of its funds to sustaining riverside recreational amenities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's odor. In response, the state has lately introduced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore certain to increase. Town government ought to for that purpose dedicate extra money on this year's funds to riverside recreational amenities.



Write a response through which you look at the acknowledged and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be certain to elucidate how the argument is determined by the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions show unwarranted. Notice: All responses are reproduced precisely as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if any. Whereas it could also be true that the Mason Metropolis government must devote more money to riverside recreational services, this writer's argument doesn't make a cogent case for increased assets based on river use. It is simple to know why metropolis residents would need a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not robust enough to lead to elevated funding. Citing surveys of metropolis residents, the writer stories city resident's love of water sports activities. It's not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey might have asked residents if they like utilizing the river for water sports or want to see a hydroelectric dam constructed, which can have swayed residents towards river sports activities.



The sample could not have been representative of city residents, asking solely those residents who live upon the river. The survey might have been 10 pages lengthy, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is absolutely representative, legitimate, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively again the creator's argument. Moreover, the author implies that residents don't use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed curiosity, as a result of the water is polluted and smelly. Whereas a polluted, smelly river would probably cut down on river sports activities, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's present state shouldn't be effectively made. Although there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been quite a few complaints from a wide range of individuals, or perhaps from one or two people who made quite a few complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the writer would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a variety of residents why they don't at present use the river.



Building upon the implication that residents don't use the river because of the standard of the river's water and the odor, the creator suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river utilization. If http://kofoedkofoed1.nation2.com/argumentative-essay-on-cell-telephones and scent end result from issues which can be cleaned, this could also be true. For instance, if the decreased water high quality and aroma is brought on by pollution by factories alongside the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But when the standard and aroma outcomes from the pure mineral deposits within the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some our bodies of water which emit a robust odor of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clear up could have no influence upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's high quality is able to be improved or not, the creator does not effectively present a connection between water high quality and river utilization.



A clean, stunning, secure river often provides to a city's property values, results in increased tourism and income from those that come to make the most of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For http://b3.zcubes.com/v.aspx?mid=477527 , city authorities might determine to put money into bettering riverside recreational amenities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate elevated funding. This insightful response identifies essential assumptions and completely examines their implications. By displaying that each assumption is extremely suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of your entire argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey won't have used a representative sample, might need supplied restricted decisions, and might have contained only a few questions on water sports. Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for recreation. Complaints about water high quality and odor may be coming from just a few people and, even when such complaints are quite a few, different utterly totally different elements may be way more important in lowering river usage. Finally, paragraph four explains that certain geologic options may prevent efficient river clear-up.